User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 27

Request for redaction
I see you doing your typical "Copyright removal" work today! Anyway, may I request you to rev-delete some edits on the Beaver Creek Camp page please? The content that was added by User:NAKANA were copyright infringements. I reverted most of their edits and gave NAKANA a warning. Minima c  ( talk ) 18:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Sure. I am currently on the job, and will come take a look in just a minute! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rev-deletion makes my job so much easier. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

One Tree Hill characters
He's back! On one of his old IP's. He used an edit summary this time, but I disagree. I've put it up for discussion as you know, so unless he makes the effort to get involved. Can he be blocked again or page be protected? I don't want to revert until action has been taken. Thanks for your help as always :). Jayy008 (talk) 18:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! Edit summary is progress. :) Why don't you try to invite some other editors to achieve consensus? You might revert (not as vandalism) with a note that you are reverting per WP:BRD pending consensus and a pointer to the talk page (I'd put this in edit summary and at the latest IP talk page) and then ask for feedback at Talk:One Tree Hill (TV series) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. Make your question neutral, something like, "Conversation about formatting and inclusion of characters blahblah." :) If he's going to make an effort to talk, we should encourage more of it. If other editors weigh in (knock wood) and clear consensus emerges, he might learn to work within Wikipedia's consensus model. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * That's a good plan! By the way, it is vandalism because the format he uses ruins other pages. When you don't use the equals sign in headling characters it prevents direct linking to the page. Like for expample one of the characters of One Tree Hill has had their page redirected, it can't re-direct to the exact character in the current format because the name is only bolded and not equals sign. Hope I'm clear. Jayy008 (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm understanding you correctly, that may be wrong, but not necessarily vandalism. Vandalism happens when a contributor is deliberately trying to mess things up. We sometimes have to block people who mess things up accidentally (and won't stop), but that's a different problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Jayy, this isn't exactly what I had in mind. :) It reads a bit confrontational. Maybe you could change it a bit so it sounds more like, "Hi, thanks for explaining what you're going for! I'm afraid, though, that it may not really work for us because....(explanation) Please come by the article's talk page to talk about it more." We want to be friendly, even if he's been a bit difficult to deal with in the past. :D Who knows? He could wind up being a great contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, I'll change it, I just get wound up at this stage. Sorry for the slow reply! Jayy008 (talk) 23:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And let me add...
...as an aside that I appreciate the tone of your conversation and your willingness to consider the matter more fully. Essential qualities in a Wikipedian. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and no worries.
 * I will say that more tha once I've felt the slight irony that in the cci discussion, I was (at least for a bit) being seen as the "hardliner". (Though in the case of CV, I believe we pretty much have to be cold as ice about it, compared to FU which is pretty subjective at times.)
 * Anyway, thanks again. - jc37 00:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the whole FU thing baffles me. Why can we have pictures of living actors in articles about characters they've played, but not in the articles about the actors? And how is an album cover in an infobox not decorative? I just throw up my hands over the whole thing and leave that to others to work out. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you ever have an issue, I've found user:J Greb very helpful. He's usually who I go to regarding the various infoboxes and images thereof, when I have questions : )
 * And speaking of going to other people, jut out of transparency, in case you didn't see it, see user talk:xeno. I thought a 3PO might be a good idea (and I think he's capable of neutrality even when he has a personal opinion - at least just to give me advice : ) - and I feel he helped. - jc37 01:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

text copyright question
Hi I saw you did some work on the copyright project-page regarding text. Is this a copyvio?
 * "After the 1970–71 season the Inter Cities Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently."
 * a copyright violation of this:


 * "After the 1970-71 season the organisation of the Fairs Cup was taken over by UEFA. The competition was renamed the UEFA Cup with a new trophy being introduced. A match was played between the first ever Fairs Cup winners, FC Barcelona, and the last winners, Leeds United, to decide who would get to keep the old Fairs Cup trophy permanently. These two teams also had the best overall playing record in the competition since it's inception in 1955. "
 * Warmly Sandman888 (talk) 07:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the sense that it is a problem under our copyright policy. :) We require that content either be (a) reproduced precisely (in limited quantity) in quotation format with attribution or (b) rewritten completely. Stuff like that should be more fully rewritten. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

a doubt
I am checking into P. Niyogi's contributions and have a doubt. Niyogi has created content sourced to many offline books published locally and not available in gbooks. What to do in such cases where there is no way of checking the text?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you so much for looking into this! I'm extremely sorry to say that we usually presume they are a copyright violation and remove or rewrite them. In this case, it may be valuable to get a better sense of where he has violated copyright. Sometimes we can begin to recognize a pattern in a contributor's work so we can recognize his own language patterns and see where his language differs. If you can point out a specific source that seems to be heavily used in any given article, I might be able to find somebody who can dig it up for comparison and that could help us. If we identify a major problem in one specific text, it makes it more likely that there are major problems in other inaccessible texts. If the content is copyright clear, we may be able to act less aggressively. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of a Wikipedia article about me
I was wondering why the Wikipedia article on myself, Michael Korolenko, was deleted. There was nothing false in the article and nothing copyrighted in the article. I myself did not write the original article (it was pretty much taken word for word from my biography in one of my online classes). It has been on Wikipedia for a while and I edited it a year or so ago if I remember correctly to simply update it. I see no reason why it should have been deleted. If you could reinstate the article I would appreciate it.

Michael Korolenko korrys.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.81.187 (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * @MRG: See 2010091610009837 VernoWhitney (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Verno. Mr. Korolenko, it wasn't deleted because anything it was false, but because it was copied from your website, which bears a clear copyright reservation notice. Even if it did not bear that notice, it would be copyrighted under U.S. law (as copyright is automatically bestowed). It would need to bear an explicit release for us to retain it. I see from my colleague's note that you have already written to the Wikimedia Foundation. Once you have responded to their note with a licensing statement that we are able to use, the article can be restored. Alternatively, if you decide to verify permission on the website, please just drop be a note here telling me that you have done so, and I can restore the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note also that WP biographies have to be written from published sources that are independent of the subject. Citing a fact or two to the subject's website is one thing, but if most of it is copied from there (even with permission) there may be neutrality problems. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's simply text from the person's CV, then it shouldn't be a problem. CVs are almost always self-published and it's hard to find the info from anywhere else. In such cases, we can WP:AGF I think. Offliner (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, for obvious reasons. Only if the world independent of the subject has documented that subject in depth does a subject warrant an article here. Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All I meant was that using a self-published CV as a source should be OK. Naturally, the subject would still need coverage in reliable third-party sources to be notable. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio second opinion
Hi MRG! Could I get you to help me at T:TDYK with this nomination? As I stated in my review of it: "Reading Town Hall appears to be copied in wording, style and tone from the first reference, and not re-written from scratch as required by WP:COPYVIO. Am concerned about putting a potential copyright violation (not saying it necessarily is one, but it's subjective) on the main page."

I saw you were online, and since you work in an area dealing with copyright issues, could you offer a second opinion? Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. Coming right over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that my actions at the article speak for themselves. :/ I've left examples at the article's talk page. Thanks so much for keeping an eye out for this! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, it's what a DYK reviewer does. ;) Thanks for your help. Have a great day! Strange Passerby (talk • c • I am ) 17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

help working up an SPI?
I'm trying to gather evidence for an SPI and was wondering if you would be so kind as to look up the previously deleted copies of Mrigendra Kumar Singh and Madhurendra Kumar Singh and tell me if either User:Ramnareshyadav1982 or User:Mrigendra Ranjan edited them? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither edited Mrigendra Kumar Singh (other than IP, that was mostly User:Abhishekpratap3). Both of them a number of edits on Madhurendra Kumar Singh (and also various images used in that article, it seems). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Off to SPI I go. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response
Once I hear from the powers that be at Wikipedia, I will give them permission to use the article. And thank you again for the quick response. Michael Korolenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.81.187 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A response was sent on the 16th, if you have not already received it you may want to check your spam folder. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

About Bina Nusantara University article
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks to clean the Bina Nusantara University article. I'm really appreciate it, but it appears that someone with IP 202.58.180.58 is doing major addition to the article. Could you help again to recheck the article for possible copyright violation? If the additional text is not an infringement, I will proofread and clean-up the Wiki markup in that article. Thanks before. Oh yeah after resolving that IP address, it actually an IP from Bina Nusantara University (but, university's IP can be used by anyone inside the university, so further checking to the article is very needed) Ivan Akira (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention! :) Some of the content they've added seems okay, but a good bit of it was pasted direclty from the university's facebook account. I've reverted that part. I'm not sure that all of the other material they added is usable, but I'll leave it for regular contributors of the article to determine what should be retained. I've left them the standard copyright notice, which does include a link to Requesting copyright permission. If they're able to verify permission, they can follow up and the content can be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm personally don't think that person who just copy-paste will really concern about the notice in their discussion page, but it is the best thing that we can do in Wikipedia, I think. Okay then, now I think it safe for me to wikify the rest of the text. Thank you very much for your hard work! Ivan Akira (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Repeat infringer
is apparently still having some issues with closely paraphrasing copyrighted sources even after their previous block and I'm not sure whether another block is in order or what. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw your note on his talk page, and I am in the process of investigating that very thing. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have given him a final warning. If he continues, we will have no choice but to block. I think he means well; I note he is requesting permission for the last article you blanked, but his piecemeal copying continues. We've barely scratched the surface of his already opened CCI, and now it looks like we need to expand it. If you should see further problems, please let me know in case I don't notice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't even remember there was a CCI, apparently there're too many to keep track of. Maybe more people will help out with them given the recent hoopla and upcoming mass-blanking. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.
Thanks for blocking the user. I was really hoping he/she was going to change when I saw the edit summary. But the user just put the same edit summary for the edit again. I don't think there's any hope. May I revert the edits? Or was there a reason you left them? Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I left them because I am uninvolved. :) It's up to you and any other contributors to the article to revert them if they are inappropriate. (Have you gotten any response to your request for input from others? It would be helpful to have other eyes here.) If they are returned while the contributor is blocked, I will revert them as block evasion. If the contributor is not blocked, it's a content dispute unless there's obvious vandalism. I blocked him for continued disruption, as he is continuing to edit war and not making any effort to follow the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Got ya :). Right, no I haven't, as of yet. When the user first made the edits I had a feeling he wasn't going to give up so I kept an eye on the page. At the time, 2 other users reverted his/her edits as well, but it's just been me ever since. I've really tried explaning myself, the discussion is still open as well. I'm really happy to discuss it but there are certain things that can't be done as I've explained it ruins re-directs to the page. Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Saul Hertz
I'm trying to track down the possible copyright violation for the Saul Hertz page from August 2010. I'd like to re-post the article, but with the appropriate changes. Jabrody24 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I see that you were not given the requisite notice. I'm sorry about; the contributor who tagged the article should have copied it to your talk page, and I should have noticed that he or she did not. The problem with the article is that from its inception it followed too closely on . For one brief example, the article as you created it said:


 * That website says:


 * Other content, too, followed too closely.


 * While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that our articles do not constitute derivative works (which require permission from the copyright holders), we must write them completely in our own language, except that we may use brief quotations if they are clearly marked and used in accordance with non-free content guidelines. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".


 * Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.


 * Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment on you and Re: your comment
I reverted the edits you referred to in your last comment on my talk page (User:Maharshi Balmiki). It's definitely an old sock who edits articles on the Hungry generation and has created pages on many marginally notable poets related to that movement. Most of his recent edits seem to be copy pasted from somewhere, perhaps a wiki mirror or some old version of the page.

BTW, you might be interested in this, where yet another new incarnation of a banned editor commented on you (and a few other admins) who deleted his own or his favorite NN poet autobiographies. (his last incarnation I assume was, banned after a large scale vandalism spree). --Ragib (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the update. I didn't know what he was up to exactly, but it raised some red flags. :) As to User:Aqute31 and his note that "I already have seen some users such as Ragib, Moonriddengirl and kubigula...who I believe are trying to establish their own fabrication about Bengali Literature", I just have to laugh. People will see conspiracy theories anywhere. Yes, clearly, I am working very hard to establish my own fabrication about Bengali Literature and sneakily going about it by never writing in that area. :D Is there no point where the logic centers trip over to say, "Hmm. If three people have opposed something I am trying to do, maybe the problem is in what I'm trying to do....."


 * Your guess about his identity seems spot on. I did indeed delete Hassanal Abdullah as a copyvio, though I had long forgotten. The current version seems to be copyvio free, although I noted (and changed) a reference to Amazon.com review--not exactly a RS. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Devil (film)
Oops, sorry for readding that template. That'll teach me to edit while still wiping the sleep from my eyes! Thank you for the quick response and handling of the copyright issue! keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You did the right thing. :) Aside from the note at the talk, you'd have had no way of knowing I'd resolved it because there was nothing left for me to do at the article. Their reverting the template didn't restore the content, so I just left it be. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

An OTRS question
On the commons I nominated this stamp for deletion because Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years per Public domain stamp templates because I disputed the validity of the attached OTRS ticket. Túrelio declined the nomination and left this comment on my talk page saying that the OTRS permission obviously came from Australia Post but when I questioned him he cannot confirm the ticket as he is not an OTRS volunteer. Would you kindly have a look at it for me as I have never heard of a postal administration giving a free licence for any of its stamps other than press and media use, which is essentially fair-use? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm off to take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Communication is from the Australian Post, but I'm not entirely sure about the license. In his first letter (not to us; he is speaking with an intermediary), the copyright holder says, "There's no fee for educational use." His correspondent is very good at seeking to clarify that, noting among other points that the content may be reused by "commercial entities", and his correspondent responds (among other things), "All fine." This seems like he's quite comfortable with commercial reuse, but I'd like to write directly to the licensor to ask him to explicitly confirm the terms of release. I'll get back with you on it, and if I should forget (oh, that never happens), please nudge me. :D Seriously, if I write a letter and he doesn't respond, I may well forget to follow up. There are always ten billion things going on, it seems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, and for my future convenience it's at 2010010510018657. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Brilliant and quick too. That all sounds a bit odd to me. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, this one is resolved. The Australia Post does not permit modification and restricts reuse to "educational purposes", so the stamp has been deleted. As an aside, people who work for the Australia Post are very friendly. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for checking this out. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Verification
Hi there Moonriddengirl, as a member of the OTRS team, I was wondering, could you verify that File:LAgha Star.jpg was released under a free license? Thank you. — ξ xplicit  06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good morning. :) That's a weird one. At 2006060910001353, our correspondent released that and several other images for "redistribution under the GFDL or into the public domain - a similar license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses)". In other words, he obviously copied the text from somewhere, and at its most liberal reading, it's not GFDL, but public domain. However, even though there's a ticket number on the image, the e-mail chain says, "solved on-wiki"; there's no indication what that means. :) The agent who tagged it doesn't seem to be active here, on Meta or Commons (where he is an admin) anymore. It's been about a year since he's popped up anywhere, so I can't ask what he meant. And nobody ever wrote the contributor back to thank him or request clarification. Maybe they were talking about it with him somewhere on Wikipedia at the same time? Either way, there's absolutely no doubt that the person who wrote us is Lubna Agha. The e-mail connects to the website. Even if he didn't exactly nail down the terms under which he was releasing it, there's also no doubt he did intend to release it, and GFDL is certainly among the possibities. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that is complicated. I don't think I'll be moving that to Commons as I planned... —  ξ xplicit  18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Leprous page
Hi. Could you please have a look at the edits made on the temp page for the article on Leprous and let me know if it's ok to remove the warnings? Thanks Lakeoftearz (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I will be happy to take a look at that just as soon as I've finished addressing the copyright problems that are due for admin closure today. Thank you for reworking it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick action. I added references for album reviews. Cheers! Lakeoftearz (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Fun for you
... at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. Alphascript Publishing is pretty shameless. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing blacklisted references
When removing &lt;ref&gt;s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind&#32;(e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks! I'll keep an eye out for that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kilambi Ramanujachari
Dear Moonriddengirl, I am sorry to trouble you. If you do not want me to edit or create new articles in Wikipedia, I will stop doing any edits immediately. Is that what you want. Please give your view, whether I am unfit to write articles in Wikipedia, the so called free encyclopedia.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that you continue contributing but without copying content, otherwise I would have blocked you already. As to your fitness to contribute, I can't opine without understanding why you keep copying content onto Wikipedia from other sources after having been told that this is against our policy and our website's Terms of Use. I explained to you in January 2010 that "you cannot copy text or even closely follow text from another website unless the external website is licensed compatibly". I explained to you in October 2009 that "Text should be written completely in your own words, unless you are briefly quoting material for the reasons and in the way described at the non-free content policy and guideline." You have been blocked in the past, and your contributions are still listed at Contributor Copyright Investigation. Yet here, almost a year later, you are still violating our copyright policy. Why is this? Are you having trouble composing text in your own words? Do you not accept the necessity of doing so? Understanding why may help me better answer your question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Eligibility to help at CCI
You're better placed to answer, I think. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Psst!

List of One tree Hill characters
Hello... Don't judge by the title, I'm not here to tell you about the user being back lol. Can you tell me which template to use for expansion of character descriptions on the page please? I don't want to just put "expand" as the articles long enough and may give people the wrong idea. Jayy008 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! If you want to request expansion of a specific section, you put Expand section on the part that needs more. Hope that helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, is it that simple? How can I get it to say "this section needs expansion with a more detailed bio" or something. I've seen it done, but I don't know how to do specifics. Jayy008 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I did it! I thought that's where the date went, but now I need to know where the date goes. LOL, sorrry! Can you view my edit on the page and let me know please. Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Done it all. All I had to do was click the thing you posted here above, my bad lol. Thank you as always! Jayy008 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey!
What is your problem? Why did you delete Civil war in Chad (1998-2002)? That was a real war. Are you crazy? B-Machine (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will respond to all good faith, civil messages. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, why did you delete Civil war in Chad (1998-2002)? It's a real war. B-Machine (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The reality of the war was not in question. Civil war in Chad (1998–2002) wasn't deleted as a hoax. The article was posted in violation of our copyright policy, I'm afraid, and while it was listed for a full week to allow interested contributors time to rewrite it, nobody chose to do so. It's unfortunate when contributors violate our Terms of Use, but, when they do, we must delete their content; as it says at the bottom of every edit screen, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Any contributor who would like, though, is welcome to submit a new article on the subject which does meet our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup
If I've done things correctly, everything on User:Moonriddengirl/checked should now have been tagged. I'm going to pause for a little while to let the dust settle, again. I've just looked at the all-in-one list's related changes; several editors are already unblanking. Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your advice
I seem to have an issue with another user, specifically User:Pectore. I do not know if i'm going to make any headway in discussion with him, but I don't feel like the situation is (yet) something that should be taken to ANI. So, i'm coming to ask your advice on what I should do to help the situation. Here's what's going on:

A CfD was recently conducted about the Saffron terror category, which only had the Saffron terror article in it. Considering that the category was far too specific, it was decided in the discussion here that the category should instead be renamed to Hindu terrorism. The consensus of the users in the discussion was for rename, all except for User Pectore. Thus, the category was renamed here, which I was the one to go about remaking it. Then, I went and started adding articles to the category that had once been on there. These included 2006 Malegaon blasts, 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, Mecca Masjid bombing and also Terrorism in India because of the sections relating to the previous articles. I was systematically reverted by User Pectore (,, , and ).

I then had a discussion with User Pectore about these reversions on his talk page here. I eventually conceded the point and decided to go look for more specific, obvious, and non-ambiguous examples of Hindu terrorism. What I found was the Bajrang Dal. They appeared to be a militant organization that used fear and other tactics against non-Hindus, the definition of terrorism. So, I added them. I was then reverted and a comment was left on the talk page here.

As can be seen from the comment in parentheses, "(if it serves any purpose at all)", User Pectore appears to be on a drive to remove any articles from the category and to get the category removed altogether once it is empty.

This can be highlighted by the fact that User Pectore has been involving himself heavily in the talk page on Saffron Terror for the past few months, trying to put in information that more and more tries to show Saffron terror and Hindu terrorism to be made up and not real. He and User:Wasifwasif have butted heads about the article for quite some time. I personally believe they are both biased in their own way, as is everyone, with one against and one for the idea of Hindu terrorism. And because it is terrorism, it's clearly going to be a contentious subject.

So...i'm coming to you, you being the most capable and cool-headed administrator that I know of, to ask for advice on what my next step should be to deal with this issue, in terms of the Hindu terrorism category and my attempts to put articles into it, and with User Pectore in general. I will take this to ANI if I have to, but I really don't like having to do that. Silver seren C 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry you're having this frustration. :/ I think if I were in your position, I would start with a discussion at Category talk:Hindu terrorism. I see, actually, that there's one already going. You might possibly request additional feedback at WikiProject Terrorism and WikiProject Hinduism. I'd be ever so careful in phrasing that request, as this could be quite a heated discussion! Once consensus emerges, it is easier to see if a conflict is preventing somebody from recognizing and working within that consensus. If so, the WP:NPOVN might be able to help, even though it's not exactly their neighborhood. Otherwise, ANI may be the only choice, but I would want to be sure there is a clear consensus first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as you can see from the talk page of the category, I haven't gotten any response after I put a comment there. And I did already ask for some help from Wikiproject Terrorism yesterday, with no response as of yet. I guess i'll go give Wikiproject Hinduism a try, but...you're right, that will be tricky. I can presume that the people responding will likely be offended at even the thought of terrorism related to their religion, so...eh. I'll give it a whirl. I just don't want to start a fire with this. Silver  seren C 00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm not sure if my humor fell flat there though. :/ Silver  seren C 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clap clap. Well done. I'm not sure about the joke, under the circumstances, but the note at large is really deftly handled. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Help! T_T Silver  seren C 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Simon Harris page
Hello,

I am Simon Harris, author of the majority of the text on my own wikipedia page which I have been contributing to for several years under my wikipedia username: megalaser

Today I have checked my page and it has been dramatically shortened, much of the text deleted, most information removed and now it is very short and has inaccuracies as well. I gather this is because a wikipedia editor thought that the page contained copyright violations because the text matched that on my own website: www.harrismix.com

Well, there is no copyright violation - I wrote it all, the website is mine and I am the subject of the wikipedia article.

This wikipedia page is very important to me, I put a lot of work into keeping my public information true and accurate. I understand from the history that it was you who looked at the page, considered it a copyright violation and removed most of the content, this would be a couple of weeks ago?

Please can you undo this edit and return the page to how it was before? I would very much appreciate this. If you would like proof that I am Simon Harris I am happy to provide whatever you need, I am the copyright holder of the text and I hereby state that everything in the article was true and accurate.

I am not an expert on wikipedia and how it works, if you need me to provide any proof please just let me know what I need to do but i would sincerely appreciate it if you could please re-instate my page to how it was before this happened.

My email address is: simon@harrismix.com

Many Thanks

Simon Harris Megalaser (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

DJ/Producer/founder of record label 'Music of Life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I will reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Copy vios in general
I just read about the massive deletion of 10,000 articles due to copyright violations. You have helped me with copyright violations with a number of articles while I edit as an IP. I think that your editing wikipedia is one of the best things about this encyclopedia: volunteers who see the potential for excellence. Thanks for your contributions to making wikipedia useful.

--JaRoad (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That is very kind of you, and I appreciate it. :) Very few of those 10,000 articles will wind up deleted, though, I'm happy to say. Most of them will simply be restored after review as they do not contain copyright problems. We just need to check them to be sure! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sean Duffy


The article Sean Duffy has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable person who does not meet the notability guidelines. Fails WP:POLITICIAN by a country mile.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Lincolnite (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually create this one, but I've copied this over for the person who did. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna
i have provided 68 references for the article rajesh khanna in the wikipedia. i need ur help to make it semi protected so that unregistered users do noit edit it at first place. also to my knowledge all sources are mostly from newspapers,magazines,big box office dotcoms, movie websites,interviews by stars. but some registered users are indulging in vandalism...simply editing the artcile. if at all by mistake some blog reference is there i request that these registered users be made to understand that they are facts and if at all references need to be added freshly in place of that(blog reference ) then that reference be given and not that the para /sentence e be deletedShrik88music (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Articles are only semiprotected if there is good reason for them to be semiprotected, such as if they have already experienced considerable vandalism. We don't do it proactively. You may wish to review Protection policy and then, if you think the article qualifies, to request protection at Requests for page protection, where an uninvolved administrator will review your request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Active_Banana

at present u will be able to see that this user is sabotaging ....indulging in vandalism and unecssary editsShrik88music (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see that. What I see is a "content dispute" where you are adding content and sources with which another contributor disagrees. If you think a source is good and that contributor does not, you might want to ask for feedback from other contributors at the reliable sources noticeboard. But please be careful about referring to the edits of others as "vandalism", as this is not proper under our "Assume Good Faith" and "Civility" policies. Most contributors do mean well by the project, and we should try to resolve our differences collegially. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

but the refernces provided by me are genuine and not bolgs. thats why iam asking for your help as if senior people go through the references, all of u would be satisfied and approve my references. moreoverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Active_Banana also very clearly says he doesnt want to contribute v=by adding references but wants to remove whats written and what he isnt ready to accept ..

how can he send me a message If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice when he is the person who is doing this childishly. please give him a warning he deserves it.

can u give me the link where i can speak to other seniors .. my references are all genuine and not blogs but magazines,newspapers, etc... Shrik88music (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The link is Reliable sources noticeboard. But you do not have to appeal to "seniors" here. When it comes to content development, all contributors have an equal voice. Administrators are sometimes necessary to sanction contributors who break policies or take other actions, but they have no more authority to determine if a source is reliable than any other contributor who has read and understood the policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

thats waht iam saying that all the 68 references i provided in the article are all RELIABLE AND if there are any you can remove it or instead put a relaible source as the facts have only been written Shrik88music (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You think they're reliable; the other user does not. This is why we have dispute resolution. You should calmly ask for feedback from uninvolved contributors at the reliable sources noticeboard (these are not "seniors", but just volunteers who answer these kinds of questions). It will be helpful if you link to the references in question, or at least to the version of the article that uses them. There's very little on Wikipedia that we can't resolve through friendly conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube as an RS
I saw this just now. We don't do that, do we?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Depends entirely on who is hosting it and who made it. :) Was it made by a reliable source? Is it hosted by somebody who has legally licensed the content? (Some reliable sources have their own YouTube channels). It can be hard to tell sometimes. I'd first look at the host's profile and, if in doubt, run it by the good folks at WP:ELN. If the answer to either of those questions is "no," then, no, we don't do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Steamroll!
Yeah I realised you were doing that so skipped ahead of the competition articles to focus on checking a bunch of biographies instead! I didn't realise just how deep into obscurity Darius was delving. One problem with the bot approach is that I very much doubt anyone is watching something like this, such articles will have to be reviewed in a more piecemeal manner rather than in the hope that someone watching or reading the article will address the problem! SFB 12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone appears to be watching it... VernoWhitney (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * An opportunist! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've observed several editors who have taken this opportunity to alter things. One set of articles has been entirely redirected, and another editor checked Darius Dhlomo's statistics and found them to be about nine years (if I remember correctly) out of date. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass blanking
Hi,

I noticed that you have restored articles that was under suspicion of copyright infringements. More articles, mass blanked by Uncle G's bot, have shown up on my watchlist. If I find no copyrighted material on those articles, am I right to revert the bot's actions? I tried to read some of the information, but it was so much and intricate, that I gave up! Therefore I hoped you could help me? =) Like in this case, should I simply revert the bot's edit, and insert a or a  along with my signature here? If so, does  mean "OK, no copyright", or does  mean "NO copyright"? At last, could I check articles that haven't been tagged yet? Or will they get tagged sooner or later anyway? Thanks, in advance... lil2mas (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, and you are heartily welcome to help out. :D y means "yes, copyright problem was found" and n means "no, no copyright problem was found." (Generally, we have to presume copyright infringement if the text looks at all creative. I'm afraid this contributor copied all but the most basic content.) The articles that are not yet tagged will eventually be tagged, so it's probably better to start off with the ones that are tagged already. What I'm doing at the moment is cleaning up where articles were investigated before the bot. The bot should be finished pretty soon, I understand. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles I have found consists mostly of an infobox, a short wikified introduction, a result table, an external link, and a navbox. So there seems to be little or no copyright infringements there. Must be if he has written some prose, that copyright issues occurs. But I will notify you if I find anything interesting! =) Thanks, happy hunting... lil2mas (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'bot is now on what I hope will be its final batch of articles. This should take, by my calculations, at least a further 29 hours to run.  So yes, there will be plenty of articles that you'll find that the 'bot has yet to process.  It's still the majority of the list (of article creations), at this point.  The templates for checking off the CCI entries are a common question, I've noticed.  I'll see what I can do about making Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo more explicit on this point. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems I can expect a full watchlist by tomorrow then! I will notify my fellow project members at WP:CYC, he has edited on alot of our articles... But thanks for making the instructions more clear and concise! lil2mas (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

For you

 * Oh, thank you. I have to note that Wikipedia has more editors like that. In all the times I've pestered you for help, you have never once complained or turned me down. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewriting
Xeno did a rewrite of Aaron Feltham. I double-checked with Bing and the Wayback Machine and couldn't find anything. But the 2007 RIO Canadian Olypmpic Team Handbook is no longer available on the WWW as far as I can see, and past experience leads me to believe that that's where the running prose came from. Please review the rewrite, just to be sure that it's enough. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia
see iam not here for disputes. but iam very surprised that some user who happens to be plain anti khanna is just editing out valid 68 references. i know all are valid but how come no administartor is blocking him or warning that he must not engage in edit war.

i thought of directly talking to seniors ... but i have also mesaaged in the link u have given me.

i am not here for disputes but only to contribute facts and remove misconceptions prevailing.Shrik88music (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a social environment; working with others is part of it, and sometimes those others will not agree with us. Sometimes we will be right, and sometimes they will be, but we have to try to resolve our differences. No administrator has blocked him or warned him that he must not engage in an edit war because nobody has filed a valid complaint at a relevant noticeboard against him proving that he has done anything wrong.


 * If you aren't getting along with somebody, you have to try first to converse with them politely and then to bring in other contributors in the ways described at Dispute resolution. If somebody refuses to work within the community, then administrators generally block. We do not generally block unless people are clearly working in bad faith.


 * I really wish you would consider a formal mentorship situation. I believe you would find it valuable to have one person who is in position to help you when you run into these issues. It isn't me, because I've got too much copyright work to do and because I am already mentoring somebody. But I'm sure that someody would be able to give you guidance with the problems you encounter. While I may not have the time to mentor you, I would really rather not see you wind up blocked because you are misunderstanding the way Wikipedia works. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

are the following websites unrelaible??? 1 http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/Do-you-want-a-partner-/2592 , 2 ^ http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/Era-of-superstars-is-over/5999, 3 http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/%E2%80%98I-had-an-affair-with-Gary-Sobers-on-rebound-/2905 , 4 http://www.rediff.com/%0Amovies/2002/sep/13dinesh.htm, 5 http://www.apunkachoice.com/scoop/bollywood/20041021-0.html, 7 http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/Era-of-superstars-is-over/5999, 8 http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/mumtaz/memories.html, 9 http://www.bollywood501.com/classic_m/rajesh_khanna/index.html, 10 http://www.indian-times.com.au/entertainment_housewives.html 11 http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020623/herworld.htm 12 http://www.liveindia.com/sai/Rajesh_Khanna.html 13 http://www.leenacom.com/MOVIE.htm

let me know then i will find replacements ...if ny amomg them is unrelaibleShrik88music (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI: AJona1992
Thank you for making the proposed copyvio amendment! I'm in full agreement, but am trying to stay out of making any of the accelerated sanctions (for obvious reasons, mentor and all). So... thanks again to you xeno and Strange Passerby (who I've thanked separately). Best, Robert R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 17:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem; I'm all for giving him chances to learn to work within the community behavioral guidelines, but copyright work is what I do. :D Good luck. Mentorship can be a challenge, and I hope that the two of you succeed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I run the Star Trek Phase 2 site (and others), and I for one hope to never have to send another DMCA notice ever again ("he says as he sadly knows he's got two more to file later today"). So, I too feel very strongly about this. And thanks for the wishes! Hope things work out too. R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions
If you don't mind acting in such capacity, could you revise the list of admins willing to impose the accelerated sanctions (if the need arises)? Thanks, Robert R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 18:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would consider myself uninvolved, but I can't say that others would, as many of the personal attacks mentioned by Soundvisions were actually against me. :) (I'm "the girl" he was complaining about.) If you'd like, I'll add myself to impose sanctions on copyright issues, but I think I should leave civility concerns to others. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely willing to follow your lead in this. Though I've followed various ANIs and commented on a few, I've got little experience in dealing with one that has went this far, so I trust your judgment in this. Thanks, Rob R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. I'll sign on for copyright concerns only. If there are text issues, these may not necessarily need to lead to an indef block. Sometimes contributor create copyright violations from not knowing how extensively they need to rewrite. We cut a little slack there to see if the contributor can learn. His previous text copyright issues were more blatant--just pasting. If you see close paraphrasing problems, please let me know, and I'll try to help you teach him how to avoid those. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Much thanks for the offer to help! He's only my second adoptee (and my first "problem child"), so the help is appreciated. -R R OBERT M FROM LI  TALK/CNTRB 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) I appreciate your willingness to take him on. It's hard work, but if it helps him become a constructive member of the community, it's a great service to Wikipedia! We need all of those we can get. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna
User:Active Banana - this user is continuing his same old story of sites not being relaible and that blogs have been used etc..... yesterday Hebrides (talk) even helped me in converting them to citation format, including the title, publisher, date, etc. even she agrees that the 68 were genuine. now i added up more sources which are yes relaible upto 75 to convince all detractors.. now what needs to be done to ensure that the article contributed by me at present which contains solely and solely facts supported by valid references is being made open to public for reading and not deleted? please help seriously i need ur helpShrik88music (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

following are the references i provided from reputed magazines,newspapers,websites of tv channels,news channels,articles on filmstars etc,..... i know all my 75 references are valid but do not understand y no action can be taken to make such biased editors away from such articles.

Shrik88music (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's something to start with. Read the things listed at Editor's index to Wikipedia and Editor's index to Wikipedia and for each of the sources that you are using, or thinking of using, ask yourself these questions. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Correction – although I used Reflinks on the references, I did not vouch for their being “genuine” (as stated above). — Hebrides (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Shrik88music, I don't see any sign that you followed the advice I already gave you, so I kind of feel like I'd be wasting my time to give you more. You might follow User:Uncle G's suggestions. And, as I said above, consider seeking feedback at WP:ELN or following other steps in the dispute resolution process. I continue to maintain that your best bet is to seek a mentor. Good luck. (You cconverted 68 references,Hebrides? Very nice. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On second look, it does seem that you are attempting to find dispute resolution, but unfortunately you don't seem to have read the page. Asking your question at the talk page is pointless; you have to follow the steps recommended. I bet a mentor could help you find the best approach. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You really are awesome!
I've just trawled through Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games looking to see who made this edit so that I could warn them. When I found it, I also found that you'd already blocked the editor responsible. By bizarre coincidence, I've only just commented on your awesomeness ... OK, sycophancy over, please continue to be awesome! TFOWR 11:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Thank you, but I'm not that awesome. I typically watchlist people I've blocked for copyright problems for a while, so when I saw the warning on his page I knew we had problems. :D After that, a contributor popped by my talk page anyway to ask about it, so.... And in terms of cleanup, you got there first, which is more comment on your awesomeness than mine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're awesome. Syrthiss (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Eep. You guys are making me blush. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Star!

 * Thank you! That's very kind of you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Are my instructions correct?
I am trying to get members of WP:POLAND to help with the recent mess, does that sound right? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks great, Piotrus! Thank you so much! :D The one change I would suggest: given this contributors history, we have to presume that any creative text he has added was copied from somewhere. Basic information, like "Soandso was an athlete who did this" is probably okay, but I have yet to find a full paragraph that this guy added that did not infringe. (Many of his articles don't have full paragraphs. He did a lot of stubs with tables.) If you could ask them to "if in doubt, take it out" or rewrite it, that would be fabulous. And I very much appreciate your pitching in. :) We can use all the help we can get. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could add a comment there yourself with your advice? Seeing involvement of others may spur more people to act, to - the snowball effect, and so on :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Move request
Could you move the temp page rewrite of Chord Overstreet over the blanked article? It looks to be clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is clean; I wrote it. :) Thank you so much! Yvesnimmo (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for rewriting it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem! :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Got another one if you've got a minute: The rewrite for Richie Fitzgerald is all stubby and clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅. :) By the way, I've got a lingering day at CP because I had some trouble seeing the problem. If you get a minute, could you take a look and point out the honking big issue I'm surely missing? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look right now. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any copied material left on Guy R. Rankin from the listed source or any other that I can find which predates the article here. It sure seems spammy since it's being posted elsewhere, but I've got nothing as far as copyvio goes. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take care of it, then. I wasn't sure if it was just me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

University of Stellenbosch Business School
Will probably come across your radar at some time, thought you might like a heads up on it..... Codf1977 (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodness! Thanks. I'll watchlist it in the meantime, as experience tells me tags are likely to be removed on that type of article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi MRG. The article's creator also had a copy of the article on their user sub-page User:Florianheinrich/USB. I've removed all the copyright text from it and left an explanatory note on their talk page. There's also something strange about the three images s/he uploaded to commons: File:Stellenbosch Business School aerial shot 2007.jpg and File:Gebou20.jpg have a PD-ineligible license on them and File:USBlogo.jpg has a PD-textlogo license. Voceditenore (talk) 18:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! Those Commons admins can be fast. :D I was just popping in to mention that I've tagged them, and, wham, two of them are gone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow! You're fast too! I'd barely told you and you'd already nipped 'round to Commons. I'd award you the Speedy Gonzalez Barnstar, but alas, he's copyright. ;-) Also, alas, our friend had uploaded another logo version File:USBlogo1.jpg. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Need an admins help
Thought I was going to let a week slip by without bothering you? Nope. Ok - could you possible protect File:Aleksandarstanojevic.jpg as the uploader keeps removing the di-no permission tag. After they removed the tag the first time and I reverted and replaced the notice on their page (Which they have removed both times) I had a look at all of their uploads and most all of them appear to be possible copyvios and mis-licensed. I have addressed the tag removal issue and the full image issues with a message on their talk page stating I will give them one week to address the rest of their images as well. Anything you can do to re-enforce why permission, either via OTRS or on the source website, is needed would be helpful. Thanks. (EDIT - I am seeing they are going through their uploads and changing license's however they are still not provided proof of permission, example difs: "cc-by-sa-3.0" to "GFDL-self-en" and "FAL" / "PD-self" to "GFDL-self-en") Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Rather that protect, I've watchlisted it. I'll take action is action is needed. I have tagged most of this person's other uploads. I know you said you'd do so after a week, but his changing the tags to claim he is the copyright owner makes me feel that we need to move forward on this one. They still get the week that you promised them, but if they aren't verified by the end of that week, we can go ahead and remove the content. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean for you to do all the extra work in tagging - I could have done it. But thanks! And FYI File:FKPartizanstadium2010.jpg is what File:PartizanStadium-mainview.JPG came from. So you may want to revert your own revert and that one. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I know you didn't ask me to, but I figured since I was looking at it. :) I have reverted my revert and added a note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Are you me? We are doing the same things at the same times. I added a warning the same time you blocked. I reverted three images the same time you did - so I am just gonna let me...er you...do it. :) Soundvisions1 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I had most them watchlisted. :) This wasn't entirely unexpected for either of us, I'm sure. At this point, I think I've rolled them all back. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

re: CCI
Thanks for that. I'd do that bit too, but those pages seem to take an age to load, and they're not listed A-Z either.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want an alphabetized list, I can make one for you. The next bot action should take this into account too. 69.111.194.124 (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish Poor Laws
Thanks for efforts at above article. Following house move, most of my books are still in storage but will re-visit this page as a priority when 'normal service resumes'. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :) I appreciate your willingness to help it recover from its unfortunate brush with copyvio. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
I would like to say that I am so thankful that you have come to the AN/I and decided to keep me around. I won't let any of you guys down, I want to keep reaching my goals which is to transform stub articles into GA and FA's which I have almost successfully have done. Thank you, your such a kind person who I am so happy to have meet in my life. Thank you. AJona1992 (talk) 01:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that's very thoughtful of you. I'm glad to see that things are going well with your mentor, and I have seen for myself that you can do quality work in articles. I don't doubt you can achieve your goal! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

potential copyright issue
Have a look at some rather dubious images uploaded by User talk:Keyan20.think he doesn't get our copyright policy.many images uploaded by him have been deleted before.some which he has uploaded are under fair use.but they are for BLP's.give a look. Linguistic ''' Geek 12:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm looking. :) "Non-free images" are not my neighborhood, but some of these are clear cut. Some of the ones claimed as self-taken are pretty dubious: File:Vijay-spotted.jpg, File:Devar-and-kamal.jpg looks like a screen cap. I'll look a bit more and then come back by. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, at this point I have nominated every image he's uploaded except (I think) one for deletion as "disputed fair use" or "possibly unfree file". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

sorry my net connection is kind of funny today.i login and then the page doesn't load.great work by you.cheers. Linguistic ''' Geek 15:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Frustrating! Hope you get that worked out. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Arecibo Telescope Photo
Please provide some guidance. I believe I recognize File:Arecibo naic big.gif because of its similarity to a photo that has been hanging in my office (without a copyright notice). The photo was taken in order to document the 1974 upgrade of the telescope to an aluminum dish. I can tell by the antenna that the photo certainly predates 1998 (the date claimed by the uploader). The person uploading the photo claimed it was the work of NASA because he found it on a NASA website. I then put a puf tag on the photo page and on the Possibly unfree files/2010 September 17 page. However, a robot correctly noted the image in on Commons and not on Wikipedia.

The uploader claims that this is a NASA image. However it comes from APOD which in turn states, "Specific rights apply." The subpage states, "All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location." In this case, Cornell University. The NAIC website gallary says, "Note to the media.... You are welcome to download these images for non-profit / non-commercial use. For permissions and credit policies see our "media services and support" page. Please credit all photos with: "courtesy of the NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, a facility of the NSF"

I could not find a puf page on Commons, so I changed the attribution to PD-US-no notice even though I cannot prove that this is the 1974 photo. Could you please resolve this or forward it to someone who can resolve it. The photo is currently available under a "no commercial use" license. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Good sleuthing! Since I'm not an admin on Commons (or that heavily involved with images), I'll dig one up who might have time to help work this one out. There are a couple I turn to routinely. I appreciate your following through with your concerns! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AnomieBOT did point you to the correct place to go on Commons for non-free images and why. Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Uncle G: I am not advocating the deletion of the file, I just want the problem solved in whatever way is appropriate and I don't want to be the judge of what is required. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to update: I've asked User:Dcoetzee to weigh in on this. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it certainly seems that you should be. Commons doesn't take images with such licences, and you are certainly making a case that it has that licence.  So deletion from Commons is one step to be taken, here.  A normal, non-speedy, deletion nomination is where to put that case, and have it discussed by multiple people.  It's not as if Commons is a stranger to this issue.  It's come up many times over the years.  They do have some familiarity with addressing it,  You simply need to go there and start the ball rolling.  Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi all. As Uncle G suggests, the correct procedure here is to nominate the image for deletion on Commons. Even if you don't personally believe it's non-free, if we're uncertain of its status then it's generally our policy to delete. You may request that it be transferred to En wiki for use under the Non-free content policy, but then you would bear the burden of adding a non-free content rationale, since it's unlikely the original uploader is around to do so. If you want to do this, please just request it in your deletion request. Dcoetzee 07:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the 1974 date of the photo, which means that it is public domain because it was published without a copyright note under the old Copyright Act. Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The people at WP:MCQ might be able to help clarify that before any drastic steps are necessary. I've nominated a few images on suspicion of copyvio, and I always feel like I've wasted people's time if it turns out that they are PD or compatibly licensed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're uncertain I'd suggest just nominating it anyway and expressing your doubts in the nomination. An alternative is to ask at commons:Commons talk:Licensing. Dcoetzee 21:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Sunni Islam
At the AfD for the above page and on the articles talk page Unflavoured has raised concerns of CopyVio with http://www.answering-ansar.org. I am not so sure, however since a possiable outcome of the AfD is merge, would you mind having a look and see what you think.

Thanks

Codf1977 (talk) 08:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) This one looks potentially complicated. I'll be happy to take a look at it once properly fortified with a bit more caffeine. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hows the caffeine level :) Codf1977 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! Low enough this morning that I failed to form a lasting memory of this note. :D As soon as I read the note below, I'm on it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a problem ..... :) Codf1977 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this one is tricky. (I actually did glance at it first thing, but onnot seeing an obvious answer pushed it off for later...and forgetting. :) There is some cause for concern in the article. For instance, it says

The source says, @ #60:

This has been present since the article was created.

Also problematic, from the article's creation:

The source says, @ #52:

These both remain too closely paraphrased for us to use them as they are in the present version of the article. They need to be rewritten.

The opening section uses a quote from, but it's not excessive by itself. I'm inclined to think that the article as it was founded was excessive in its use of quotations, unless the quotes were from non-free sources, and the section "Enmity towards Muhammad and his Family and support for their enemies" is still very heavy in quotations. These should be reduced, unless the sources from which they are quoting are public domain.

Finally, the last paragraph under "Revere heretics" says: . This site says:

That site clearly predates us, March 5 2003.

Unless it can be shown that these sources are PD, I agree that there are copyright problems with this article in these closely paraphrased sections. Has anybody claimed that they are PD? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * not that I am aware of and give the copyright statement at the bottom of the main page, don't think the website is. Codf1977 (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then I believe that either (a) the problematic material should be removed, or (b) the article should be blanked with the copyvio and note made at the article's talk page to give the contributors an opportunity to demonstrate that the content is PD in spite of the copyright label or to rewrite it. Typically, we don't blank articles at AfD, but I do it with copyvios all the time. Reviewers can still see the content in history. The danger to just removing the content is that some of the sources are not English. We don't know if those sources have been directly translated or properly rewritten. :/ This is a real concern as this contributor has violated our copyright policies in the past, with articles Alimaan Charitable Trust and September 2010 Baghdad Bombings (now deleted). There may be a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright policy here.


 * Would you like to take action on this, or do you want me to? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, probably best if you do, I have had some recent run ins with the editor and feel that he may be more receptive to your approach rather than mine. Codf1977 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have blanked and notified. This kind of thing is seldom welcome regardless who brings it up. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again for your help. Codf1977 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have obtained the copyright from www.answering-ansar.org and have forwarded the permission copy via mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Codf1977 you are welcome to fix any mistakes done by me, past clashes should not be deterrent for this. Yeah, I unintentionally created 2 articles earlier which were copyright violations, hence this time I obtained permission in writing. But still I admit my mistakes and if there is any punishment I will take since the mistake was committed and I admit that. After having a brief discussion with TFOWR I realized that, however I still do not justify the Block by TFOWR to me - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I forwarded the Copyright permission few days ago at the given Id, what is the next course of action, why are you not removing the Copyright tag now???- Humaliwalay (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason why articles are listed for a week before deletion is that processing permissions can take several days. However, I've checked the status of this one, and it seems there is a ticket, but it is not yet usable. I've updated the talk page of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

CCI stalk report
If you like User:Moonriddengirl/CCI stalk report 1000, I can arrange to do the whole ten thousand. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great and, yes, please. :) Is there any way to get it to exclude me and Sillyfolkboy? If not, that's okay, but I know those two users don't need review. :D I can use the list to spot-check particularly where the contributor is not familiar or the edit summary is suspect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exclusions are tricky. I have some tweaks to make, such as making the table sortable and dividing up the article list, and then I'll do the whole lot.  It will span about 11 pages if I do it in thousands, since I've included the renamed articles too.  Where do you want it?  Your user space?  Somewhere under Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo? Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My userspace would be great. If exclusions aren't doable, that's fine. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sub-pages of User:Moonriddengirl/CCI 'bot stalk report are being built as I write. It seems to take half an hour per thousand.  Try sorting by the second column of the tables.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll take a look through them over this weekend to make sure that content hasn't been improperly restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Images under fair-use claim.
Hi,

I recently uploaded. File:MANI RATNAM.jpg, File:Jayakandhan-padma bhushan.jpg, File:Ar-rahman-accepts-the-oscars.jpg, File:Ilaiyaraaja-PadmaBhushan.jpg, File:Illayaraaja-synthesizing-music model.jpg, File:Ilayaraja-in-early-days.jpg, File:MGR-at-Pulic-Meeting.jpg, File:Kamal-in-salangai oli.jpg, File:Sivaji-with-Marlon Brando.jpg, and File:Rajni-with-Kalignar.JPG -these files..

As a true wiki user I am bold and confident that you will accept me here. You said me on my talk page. "I believe that they are unusable for other reasons". Look there is a bottle filled with half water. I am seeing the remaining to be filled on upper part. You are seeing that it already is half filled in the lower part. So the matter - one but views - two.

since you accepted saying "There is no doubt that these are fine images that would add substantially to the presentation of the articles in which they are included". You should be knowing in what regard it is added there. Merely to improve the article and illustrate it.

If keep on looking that everything is added based on decorativeness, sorry that we will not be making a good article. I am making my more hardest time in explaining to you now. Please dont mistake me. As we all here to improve the articles.

If I really made a mistake I am ready to accept it. But certainly on most cases I used all fair use images to support the articles with all possible proof I can provide and I did that. I respect all wiki rules.

Lastly please consider each image on its own terms and conditions and do not delete it all as a pack of cards. And give me appropriate images that has still copyrighted violations, so that In future I will be careful and be alert before adding it in wiki.

I beleive this is a very serious issue. Please consider every article and its image seperately and analyse whether it is really supporting the article or not and then delete it, if at all needed so.

Many thanks,

Ungal Vettu Pillai 15:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keyan20 (talk • contribs)
 * Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Another request for redaction
Here's another blatant copyright violation I've just found! This selection of copyrighted text was added by 122.172.226.73. I removed the copyrighted text and gave the IP a warning. Please could you rev-delete it to my latest revision? Minima c  ( talk ) 17:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hang on. I found some more copyvios. (See history I found two more.) Rev-delete those if you can as well. Minima  c  ( talk ) 17:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Let me know if I need to go back further. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

clarification i need
http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/Era-of-superstars-is-over/5999

is the zoom tv a prestigious channel in india run by times news network not a relaible source? just confirm. iam tired as active banana is the only user to claim n call it as unrelaible!!! angelfire is also a famous website which is relaible but are these both unrelaible?Shrik88music (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You may wish to visit the reliable sources noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar
dang.... I guess this means you're hot shit. Congrats! --*Kat* (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Philippe (and *Kat*). I'm happy to help where I can. I like working with people, and it's especially pleasant where there's a happy ending. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question
Hello Moonriddengirl, when you have a minute, could you please give your opinion here on what constitutes a copyvio? Thanks :), Airplaneman   ✈  02:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Permissions second opinion
I got a question on my talk page about the permission used to create Ansley J. Coale. The source states: "Permission is given to adapt, reprint or excerpt material from the Bulletin for use in other media" which I thought may be broad enough to be usable, but I figured I'd run it by you since you've been doing this longer. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'd be way more comfortable with that if it were explicit. :/ Generally, I like to see a license named. If a license is not named, I prefer very clear terms, to include specific reference to commercial reuse. That one is close enough that I'd stare at it uneasily going, "Maaaybe..." and then write to them to ask them if they are willing to put a label on it. I've got to run for now, so it may be a few hours before I'm back to discuss this further. Let me know if you'd like me to write them...if we can figure out which "them" to write to. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to write to them for clarification (and let me know the ticket number so I can learn from your example for next time) that would be great. My research tells me that this is the home page for the source, and it lists the Managing Editor, which I imagine is probably a good place to start. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! I've written. See 2010092510008731. Cross your fingers. :) I suspect it's okay, but nailing that down would be good. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Bujutsu Kodosokukai
Hi Moonriddengirl

How are you doing? Thanks for the advice concerning our article "Bujutsu Kodosokukai". We have worked with all your highly valuable inputs during the summer. So far our conclusion is to split up the article into three separate articles in order to maintain focus and then link to the other articles where appropriate. The three articles are ready as drafts but our approach would be to get them "approved" one by one at the COIN. We would appreciate your help once more and ask you for a review of the articles before they are send to COIN and also your thoughts about our new approach.

BR Shindenkan Wiki-team Freezydk (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm well, thanks. :) Hope you are. I'll be happy to take a look at this, but it may be tomorrow before I get the chance. I have had very limited time on Wikipedia today and need to get caught up in the short time I have on the daily copyright problems list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. No hurries. We will upload the first article on the 1st of October on the userpage of Freezydk. Thanks

Freezydk (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Close paraphrase
The aforelinked requires review from the Close Paraphrasing Squad. If only that editor had spotted the pattern back then! Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * edit
 * Amen. :/ It needs to be completely overhauled. While it's a good effort, it doesn't quite make it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Tiyoringo
I noticed that this editor was reviewing the CCI blanked articles at the rate of one article every 20 seconds or so. So I started going through xyr edit history. Unfortunately, xe has made at least two, possibly (see ) three, errors that I've found so far, and I haven't even looked at all of xyr edits yet. Uncle G (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:Tiyoringo
 * Well, that was incredibly unconstructive. I've reverted with a strong note. During one stretch, he got up to every 10 seconds. And even though I was reverting him, I saw several more copyvios--including one that was cleaned by another contributor (yay!) and one that was so egregious I was tempted to block him on the spot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tiyoringo was probably too eager and quick with his reverts, anyways most of his reverts were correct. He just restored dozens of Darius Dhlomo's stubby articles, which were far from copyright violation. - Darwinek (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem there is in the words "most of", I'm afraid. :/ The point of the blanking to begin with was to make sure that a standard of care was applied in investigating them, and that's not been accomplished when a contribitor seems willy-nilly to have restored over 500 articles (maybe around 750? I didn't count :)), including at least six with infringements. There are very likely more; I didn't look to see what he failed to clear. Those just jumped out at me as I was rolling him back. Had he taken his time and followed procedure, he'd have probably gotten a barnstar. But, alas, what he did was not helpful. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will check out some of the articles and restore the non-problematic ones, like Valentina Ivanova. - Darwinek (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

User with repeated close-paraphrasing issues
Hi MRG, could I get you to review Leonard Case Jr.? It's the latest article by User:HenryXVII, who I've warned in the past about close paraphrasing and has had three prior articles tagged copyvios for close-paraphrasing. I suspect his latest effort is also copyvio but I really don't want to come across as biting or stalking (he's only just added the article link to his userpage, which I'm watching because of my previous warning to him). I think it's time an admin spoke to him. Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 04:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, that's a problem. :/ I've seen him at the copyright problems board several times already. I've left him a note, and hopefully I can help him overcome this issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible
Hi - could you take a look at this discussion and comment if you think it worthwhile? It's been pretty messy including an apparently unjustified block. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You should also see the ANI discussion on the block, at WP:ANI. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added a few bits to the ANI thread. I've been down this road before, though I can't quite remember specifics. I've got a migraine this morning, I'm afraid, so I'm particularly fuzzy. :/ If I'm remembering correctly, the last time I discussed this was related to the use of Bible quotes in infoboxes. It is my opinion (at this point; and I believe it was then :D) that the free version should be the default, but that providing the non-free version for critical comparison is valid fair use, so long as content is not extensive and it is properly attributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that I'm a little less fuzzy, I found the conversation: Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Archive 12. I'll see what i can add to the primary conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ms. Copyright expert
An editor I blocked a few months ago, wrote me a thoughtful email stating that s/he feels she is being hounded by. It appears that Novaseminary has tagged a slew of images that the poet has uploaded as problematic fair use issues. If you have a few moments, could you take a look as to the validity of the tags. Fair use boundaries are well beyond my depth of knowledge. I think the poet's talk page has most if not all of them listed. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I think it's very likely that File:Arius portrait image for article.jpg is public domain. I've converted the tag and listed it at PuF. I agree with the tagging of File:Push-button phone1948.jpg. "cannot find this specific image anywhere else and it is a necessary and well-appreciated image of this very early push-button phone" is not a valid rationale, since anybody with a camera and access to the model could create a free image. It is replaceable. I suspect that File:Luther g presley.jpg will not be deleted under that tag. While non-free images of living people are widely frowned upon (except in certain situations, such as to illustrate characters they have played--see Edward Cullen, for instance--non-free images of dead people are sometimes allowed. I stay out of that realm, because I've seen it go both ways at IfD, and I have no idea why they are sometimes accepted and sometimes not. The reviewing admin will presumably be more in touch with the will of the community on those than I and will either decline or delete based on current zeitgeist. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Gracias. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

question
hey i finally fixed my internet problem.btwn i see the images by keyan are still in a limbo.nevertheless i had a query.i came across this rather excellent website called http://www.kamat.com/ and it has a collection of images which can used on wikipedia.the chap who holds the copyright is a rather nice fellow and permits it's usage on wikipedia see here .question is what licence applies while uploading them. Linguistic ''' Geek 06:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid we can't use them with that statement. :/ He specifically forbids modification: "Our contents are free. It doesn't mean you can abuse them, modify them, or steal them and claim as your own." Even without that statement, I suspect that his release would not be specific enough, though. If you see images that you like and have a chance, you might contact him to ask him if he would be willing to release the content specifically under CC-By-SA, which does permit modification and liberal reuse, including commercially, so long as the author is attributed and nobody tries to restrict further reuse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

got it.thanks. Linguistic ''' Geek 13:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyrights
is a persistent copyright violator who continues to upload obvious copyvios, even after a block back in September. Perhaps you could make the point to this user a little bit clearer?--GrapedApe (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's sad, but it had to be done. I looked for a reason to believe that the user could be reformed, but found none.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, his only hope at this point is to recognize the seriousness of the issue and credibly pledge to stop. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jarrod Marrs
I was wondering why the blanking had been undone. To be honest, I was a little concerned in the beginning about some kind of mass reversion happening; hopefully this will be the only time and articles like this can be checked properly. Oh, and thanks for your praise. :-)  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 15:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/Sherenk
Hello,


 * I see you left a message on User_talk:Sherenk, where I have also just left a message to the same effect. However, I do not know procedure to purge copyrighted material in articles. Should it be purged from the history? You have to be an admin to do that, no? Help...

Thank you Hrcolyer (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: The page in question is Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games, material seems to have been originally from the BBC
 * Hi. He's on my watchlist, so I was just looking into that. :) I'll get back with you in just a minute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've addressed the user. Now to the content: we are actually in the process of refining the copyright policy to take into account "revision deletion". Generally, I do purge copyvios from history if they are extensive or likely to be resurrected. I would be inclined not to purge that one immediately, unless it comes back, because I think it's unlikely that it will come back accidentally. I'll watchlist the article for a few days and see if it keeps out. If it doesn't not, I'll purge it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Hrcolyer (talk) 10:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken Zaretzky (article in my userspace)
Hi Moonriddengirl, Nuclearwarfare had suggested to yeasimhuman (the author of the original article on Ken Zaretzky) that we contact you for advice. The original article was deleted in early august (notability was the issue) after discussing it with Nuclearwarfare it was suggested (on nuclearwarfares talk page) that it actually looked like Ken Zaretzky actually did meet the notability guidlines and suggested that yesimhiman appeal the decision. The administrators upheld the decision because the procedure had been followed correctly but suggested that another article on Ken Zaretzky showcasing the proof of his notability could (should?) be written. Yesimhuman asked me to write the article because he didn't feel confident with his ability as a writer. I have done so in my userspace (yesimhuman did help me with some facts and details). Could you please look the article over and give me your opinion and any suggestions you have on it before I try to post it as a regular article? I would appreceate the assistance very much. Oh, Please not that the catagories at the bottom are not formatted correctly. i did that on purpose so that it wouldn't show up in any catagories until it was ready for prime time :). Thank you for your help. Youngshakespeara (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure! I'll go take a look. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've made some changes to it and made notes as I went, so you can see in the history what I did and why. Some of the sources used were not useful as sources, I'm afraid. For instance, linking to his paper does not verify that he based his talk on the paper; linking to  does not verify his credentials. (I searched their website for his name to see if I could find a source, but I didn't.) Some of the Public speaking subsection appears to constitute "original research". Who says he is known as the "Couples Guy"? When I do a Google search of that, I only come up with one match. (Specifically, a Wikipedia mirror.) Where can we read that he was featured numerous times on Ann Babiarz's radio show or that "he based these talks on his paper, “Coaching Couples with ADHD,” presented at CHADD in 2004"? Generally, there's more referencing to be done. I've tagged the entire section on public speaking as much of this lacks reliable sourcing; elsewhere, I've tagged specific claims that need reliable sourcing, including the category that says he is from Wheeling. :)


 * Please let me know if you have any questions about any of this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for your help! a few questions. Do I have to get someone to scan his drivers license to prove he lives in Wheeling? His address is on his website, could that be an adequate

citation? or should i just delete Wheeling? The speaking citations, most are links to websites of some organizations that announce that he is speaking there. Is there something else I could (or should use) use? I suppose I could change the words "couples guy" to "he is a pioneer in coaching couples with ADHD based on the magasine articles, his paper and that he has spoken on it a number of times. Would that work? His MCC credential? That is refered to everywhere. do I need to try to get a scan of his MCC certificate? Last, The public domain issue, the bottom of both of those programs say they can be used or copied freely as long as the notice remains on them and the name isn't changed. Is that not enough or is there another way to demonstrate that? You have been a lot of help. Sorry about all the Questions. Thanks again! Youngshakespeara (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to ask questions, and I'm happy if I can help. If it's on his website, you can his residence and his MCC credentials to that. You just can't use self-published sources to verify extraordinary claims or to confirm his notability. Who says he is a pioneer? We would need a citation for something like that. (Even if it's true! Verification isn't about disbelieving you; it's because we are a tertiary source--that is, we exist to summarize material previously published in reliable, independent sources) Alternatively, you can say, "He coaches couples..."


 * If he requires the notice to remain and the name to remain unchanged, the programs aren't public domain. :) Public domain carries no restrictions whatsoever. (For example, somebody could take it apart and build on it to create their own program.) Evidently he is still claiming copyright, but merely liberally licensing them for reuse. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, he has been referred to as a pioneer on some other people's and organizations websites. Can I site them? re: the public domain. Should I say he allows them to be used freely by the public with minimal restrictions"?

Once again, thank you for all your help. i just want to make this a great article! Youngshakespeara (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Used freely with minimal restrictions should work. As to his being a pioneer, you can use it if those organizations are not (a) connected to him or (b) promoting him for their own causes. For example, if he is speaking for them, then they are presumed to have reason to want to generate interest in him. To meet our neutrality policy, we want to be sure that anything that could be perceived as "promotional" is legitimately sourced to people who have no reason to care. :) If independent sources don't say it, it's best to avoid that kind of thing altogether and just flatly state verifiable facts. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you again. How can I verify his birthday and that he was born in Chicago?

Youngshakespeara (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that wouldn't be controversial. If he has it on his official website, you can include it. But if he doesn't, it may be best just to leave it out. We frequently omit the birthdates of living people when these are not widely publicized anyway, unless the subject has themselves published that information somewhere. This we do in courtesy to them to help reduce identity theft. (See WP:DOB.) His birthplace is a nice detail, but not essential if it can't be sourced. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made some changes. Except for the born in chicago and his birthday issue and ann babiarz show which I am still trying to find references for I think it may be prety good. Would you mind taking a look again?

Thank you! Youngshakespeara (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done some cleanup on references (just bringing them more in line with our manual of style), but ran out of time midway through. I have another job to take care of. :) You might want to do a bit more of that. For web material, we use Cite web. (Follow that link for full details on the template.) You don't have to copy over every parameter--just the important ones. The section about his public speaking still needs additional references. My own philosophy in creating articles is to nail everything down that I can to a reliable source to prevent its being challenged or removed. I personally take a "stitch in time saves nine" philosophy here, so I would strongly suggest getting that in line before moving the article into article space. I believe that Zaretzky probably is notable, but the more reliable independent sources you have to verify that, the better. When an article has already been deleted once via AfD debate, a second debate that results in deletion will make it extremely difficult to establish an article in the future. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've been working on making more of those citations conform. I think I'll have them all done today. I am still trying to reach Ann Babiarz to find out where her show archives are on the web (I know she has them) but I haven't gotten a reply from her yet. I think I'll just change his birthday to the year. I'm sure that's verifiable somewhere. Also two Questions: (1) I saw that you made the same reference be listed twice in the article (in two different places). How did you do that? (2) What are citations do you think would be needed or useful in the "Public Speaking" section or do you think there are enough now? Thanks again for all your help. I appreceate it so much! I want to make this a great article that won't be deleted and you have been so helpful!

Youngshakespeara (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC) I can't guarantee that I can help you get it into a state that it won't be deleted. I can't guarantee that about my own articles. :) But I hope I can help. :)

(1) To get a reference to list twice, give it a name. For example,. The second time you use it, all you have to do is type. The software will do the rest. I usually try to come up with a refname that will make sense to me later, either referring to the place of publication or the last name of the author.

(2) You should source as much as you can. The first thing that jumps out to me: "He was also a guest on CoachTV (Manhattan) in 2007." The earlier speaking engagements--do you have references to verify the topic of those conversations on those dates? If not, you might want to change the sentence so that you can use some of the prior references, which did not mention the subject. (You want to be sure that your references support what you're actually saying.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you again!! I actually just found out that it is called Coach World TV and I am putting in a citation to thier website.

I know he's spoken a lot on how it's done 101 and I know a lot of the cities. But when I researched them on the web i found that those organizations didn't keep a record of old events in thier archives (Like San Francisco Coaches, East Bay Coaches, ICF Madison Area Chapter and Chicago coach federation. How can I use them if there is no record on thier websites?

Youngshakespeara (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You can use print sources, if you have them. If there are none, I'm afraid you can't use it per our core policy against original research. This is one of the reasons why we request that people not work on articles about subjects they know. They can be tempted to include unverifiable information, and this is not appropriate even if it's true. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to find more on the web then (there must be more somewhere).

Oh, I understand the policy about articles on subjects they know. It makes total sense. I actually have never met him. I do know a couple of people who know him but I'm sure I can be objective. Thanks for the heads up though.

It's a shame there isn't a repository somewhere for deleted and expired web pages. Because it appears that there are a lot of speaking engagements that he has done in the past that have been deleted or removed or whatever because they are old.

If I can get the Ann Babiarz stuff (If she ever replies to my e-mail) and can find proof of a couple more older speaking engagements do you think this article might me ready?

Oh, also, do you think I should get a picture of him (maybe one from his website) to put in the info box? I feel like I may be starting to get the hang of doing this, :)! Thank you again! Youngshakespeara (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Satellite News Channel
Hi, I came upon this article after CSD-tagging a recently created article from the same user as a copyvio. However, this one dates back to 2006. Consequently, even though the exact content is on other websites, I am not sure which have copied from Wikipedia. For example, it is on servinghistory.com, but examination of that site shows that it copies from Wikipedia. I'm not sure what to do in such cases, so I'm appreciate advice. (I'll check back here for replies). Best,  Chzz  ► 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My special secret trick: I look at the first edit to the article that introduces textual change. Then I search the web for the earlier version of the text. Cuts out a ton of Wiki mirrors! Let's see if this helps here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, the first substantial change took place on the day of creation, here. This looks good for our article. :) Anything we find that includes the later language ("In fact, CNN had started a second network, CNN2, on 1 January 1982 which had a similar format, as a preemptive strike against the ABC/Group W venture.") is going to be a copy of us, rather than the other way around. The next substantial change was here, and the only match I get for the earlier text is this known Wiki mirror. That doesn't mean that the content wasn't copied from somewhere, but if I encountered this one, I'd probably presume it was clean unless we got additional evidence. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've done that sort of thing. The problem I've experienced is, it is often very hard to tell the date of the copies on other websites. Some are dated, but many are not. But I suppose that's just one of those things. Makes it often impossible to tell who copied whom.  Chzz  ► 02:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Another mass reverter?
Whilst probably not as bad as the one above I think that someone may need to have a word with User:Mohsen1248 regarding mass reverts of the DD CCI blankings. They have several periods of reverting the bot changes within the space of a few minutes. Unfortunately I cannot find any definite copyvios that they have restored though Kazakhstan women's national volleyball team is rather suspicious (that text is rather old so the number of mirrors is large). Boissière (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately for us, he cited the source, so we know they predate us: . :/ Oh, dear. I'll have a word with him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your personal policies vs reality
We've already clashed on this issue. I do not understand on what grounds you are deleting content like this edit. It is all sports statistics, in this case, released to the world in 1984 by the International Olympic Committee, through their local organizing body the LAOOC. This is now public record information that was spread throughout the world over 25 years ago. Wikipedia, one of the dominant websites for information in the world, has had this public information copied to it, probably from some other site that obtained the information from its original source. If the original source does not enforce protecting this information, how can a subsequent source claim copyright. Obviously they don't, nobody has brought suit. This is your own individual policy. I have no fanatical interest in this this particular article. My concern is for thousands of articles just like it that you and Uncle G's robot are blanking and re-enforcing with edits like this, that are now not visible to the world through your actions. Don't just send me away to generic policy statements as you have done in the past. Don't get sidetracked from two edits out of thousands I have made here. This is about YOUR actions. Trackinfo (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am rolling back a contributor who reverted the blanking without due examination, as explained at the individual's talk page. He indicates there that his removal of the templates was based on a misunderstanding of the bot's actions. This may be why he re-exposed several copyright violations. The articles need to be reviewed by individuals who perform due care in evaluating the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

May I Revert Leonard Case, Jr. to A Former Version?
While I was writing Leonard Case, Jr., another user provided a new source about him, so I cited some information from it. Now.... May I revert it to a former version that contains less contents but may not be regarded as copyright infringement?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean this version, we can do that. Copyright problems entered the article in the next edit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is OK. It is just the version I mean, before I cited information from the newly provided source.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read the article about Close Paraphrasing but I am not quite sure whether I get it. English is not my first language, indeed.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your tips. I will try.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tracie Ruiz
What should I do about this article? I can't find where the source material might be, but I'm almost certain its a copyvio. It doesn't "sound" like anything that DD would have written on his own.--*Kat* (talk) 07:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also got a bit of mess right here: Revision history of Ron Tab]. Almost all the edits (including its second ever) pertain its copyvio status. --*Kat* (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Last question, I hope. Can WP:QUACK be applied to this assignment? I've come across a couple more articles like Ruiz's.--*Kat* (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll start with the first question and then go look at your mess. :) In ordinary copyright cleanup - where we don't know that we're dealing with an infringer - we'd tag the talk page of something like that Cv-unsure. However, when we know the history of a contributor makes copying likely, we instead follow the policy of presumptive removal or rewriting at Copyright violations. We can either stub it or blank it with the copyvio to invite other contributors to write a new article. If you do the latter, place   on the article's face and   on the article's talk page. Then list the article as instructed at the copyright problems board (but don't bother notifying Darius; he knows what is going on, so the notice is both unnecessary and probably a bit unkind.) I'll save this and go look at the other one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've selectively deleted all of the copyvio versions. I would guess that was one of the articles that initially led User:Sillyfolkboy to request this CCI. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help!--*Kat* (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cameleon Software is deleted !
Hi, I've just seen that my article about Cameleon Software has been deleted. I think it is because of copyright issues, but as I've explained, I an currently working for the company Cameleon Software and I am in charge to create the article about them on Wikipedia. For this I used their official description they used in different website (Linkedin, Appexchange,...), so the company gave me the right to use this official text on the Wikipedia article I created for them. What can I do to have the article back? How can I proove that I have the right to write this article without copyright issues? Can you explain to me because I could not find what I had to do to prevent deletion. Thank you for your help Best regards, Mdainelli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdainelli (talk • contribs) 09:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I will reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving back the Jesus Youth Article
Hi there, Thanks for clearing the copyright infringement tag. I assure to be more careful next before I initiate or edit an article.Jyrejoice (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) I appreciate your caution. If you run into questions about copyright, please feel free to stop by and I'll see if I can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

question (2)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I found an image on Google and I was wondering, how do I find out if it's copyright free or okay to use it on wikipedia? This is it:. I've seen it on holy cards, prayer cards, etc., but that's all I know about it.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of ways you could go about it. The self-help way:, reverse image search. I ran it through, and it takes me to this page, which identifies it as Luca Signorelli, L’Immaculée de la promesse et des prophéties, 1521-1523, huile sur bois, 217 cm x 210 cm, Museo Diocesano, Cortone (Italie). And says they got it from us. :) Sure enough, we already have it on Commons as File:Luca signorelli, immacolata concezione, cortona.jpg. If that way had not worked, I would have recommended asking at WP:MCQ or at Reference desk/Humanities, where somebody could probably have identified it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S., in case that's not clear, yes, we can use it. It's public domain in the U.S. Some other countries may permit the imposition of copyright on faithful reproductions of two-dimensional PD artworks, but we do not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks for the tutorial. I will use that link from now on.  This will make a nice addition to the article.  Thanks again.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia (2)
1 http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/Do-you-want-a-partner-/2592, 2 ^ http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/Era-of-superstars-is-over/5999, 3 http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/%E2%80%98I-had-an-affair-with-Gary-Sobers-on-rebound-/2905 7 http://www.zoomtv.in/stories/Era-of-superstars-is-over/5999, 8 http://www.angelfire.com/celeb/mumtaz/memories.html, 10 http://www.indian-times.com.au/entertainment_housewives.html  12 http://www.liveindia.com/sai/Rajesh_Khanna.html 13 http://www.leenacom.com/MOVIE.htm

please confirm .. zoom tv is a channel run by times of india group. angelfire is also a valid site where Cine Blitz magazines artciles are posted. just confirm so that the reference can be given of themShrik88music (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I have a full plate today. Have you considered finding a mentor? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

you may give me a mentor. but my point is when zoom tv is a reputed bollywood channel run by times news network and cineblitz a popular magazine of films .---both are relaible then how come iam hearing that sources are unrelaible??? Shrik88music (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajesh_Khanna&oldid=387538673 I hope the above version is free of any of the violations of wikipedia! Shrik88music (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

re: re-establishing Saul Hertz
I have heavily edited the Saul Hertz entry and re-posted it with copyright permissions from the owner of the Saul Hertz archive collection and website. A note on the wiki page said that I should consult you since it was a previously deleted article. Can you please comment and help me improve the article and give it sticking power? Thanks. Jabrody24 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 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) 21:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

question (3)
There is a redirect for Padre Pio, but the redirect says "Padre pio." Pio is his name and therefore a proper noun and should be capitalized. How do I fix that?Malke 2010 (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you'd want to. :) There's already a redirect from "Padre Pio". The miscapitalization was probably the point, although I don't think it's necessary, since I think the wiki software would send it where it needs to go anyway. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion?
Hello. My name is Trevor Wayne. I am an actor/model/artist in LA. I had a page for a while, created for me. It has been deleted and I'm not sure why. I have read the above and I'm still unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.58.225 (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. The primary reason that the article Trevor Wayne was deleted was that it violated our copyright policy. It was duplicated from this press release. I'm afraid that the contributor who placed it here did not respond within time to warning about this, here. As a note, it seems that she is a paid editor. This is problematic under our conflict of interest guidelines.


 * You may still be able to grant permission for this text, but I'm afraid that beyond the copyright concerns it is otherwise inappropriate for Wikipedia. Content such as "Trevor Wayne has inspired the minds of directors, photographers, and painters alike. Not your traditional actor/model/artist, Wayne is a walking piece of art. " is fully appropriate for a subject promoting him or herself (the natural object of press releases), but is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles, which are supposed to be fact-based, neutral and backed by independent reliable sources. If permission is supplied for the text (see Donating copyrighted materials for the process), it will be tagged for review for such concerns and probably greatly changed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

PD reuse
Hi,

I recently gave some informal advice via OTRS for a query with regard to re-use of a image tagged as PD as it was a photograph of a painting where the artist died in 1869. My advice was slightly cagey in that: Consequently my advice was the the image would be considered PD in any country as de facto there is little chance of anyone having success coming forward to claim copyright more than 120 years after the death of the artist. I then advised them to consult their publisher to confirm the appropriateness of the use of such an image for their publications. I now feel my advice was a bit weak, is there a boiler-plate somewhere that unequivocally explains international re-use in these situations? Fæ (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They wanted to use it on a book cover, probably to be published in India, where local copyright law is rather opaque to me...
 * The current location of the original painting is unknown and so it is not possible to easily verify the PD claim or confirm current ownership.
 * The website the image came from is no longer available.


 * Hi. :) The only thing we have is "Permission for image". I usually personalize that one a bit, by telling them what the licensing seems to say, pointing out any issues I see with it and reiterating that they may wish to consult an attorney. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Imran Channa Visual Artist
Hi, My article about "Imran Channa Visual Artist " was deleted, Imran Channa is the well known contemporary Pakistani artist. i have given all the links and sources. I m also an artist and a new user of wikipedia, my task is to creates articles on art & artists of pakistan , because there is no material available on wikipedia on pakistani art & artist so that art historians and students from all over the world can get some sort of information, so plz could u help me out to add my 1st article of Imran Channa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've taken a look at it, and the first problem that I saw was that I'm afraid the article has used far too much copyrighted content. We are only allowed to use brief excerpts of previously published text, and we have to use these for good reason (see our non-free content policy and guideline). I've shortened the quotes to what seemed really essential to helping to establish his notability.


 * The article has not yet been deleted, but still exists for now at Imran Channa visual artist. It is nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Imran Channa visual artist. Your absolute best bet to keep it from getting deleted is to find good reliable sources to verify that your subject meets our notability guidelines. I'll look around for a few minutes and see if I can find any. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear, Thank u, for ur quick response, i m waiting for ur help to add my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you mean by that. It's already added. :) It's at Imran Channa visual artist. One of the best things you could do for it now would be to turn all those sources that aren't being used into content. I've done that already with one source, here. I'll try to do more later, but I'm afraid that I tend to be very busy, so I doubt I'll be able to put a lot of time into this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank u so much for editing the article. I will be needing ur help in future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Dear, could u plz edit my article a bit more, i have also edit it. i think it is now fine ,plz check it. but i m afraid that how can i remove the above tag " article for delection " ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Art wart1234 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:C tweaks after VPP discussion
Hi, Looks like the VPP discussion to amend our policy to match practice got archived, and we got the typical low participants consensus that marks any copyright issue. I expect it's enough to put the language in, but you're the expert in doing these changes. How do we proceed from here? MLauba (Talk) 15:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess we update it. :) I'll get on that and invite your feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, hey, can you update your template to make it all about revdeletion? If so, I can link it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, though I'll make a new one as copyvio-revdel I recon. MLauba (Talk) 15:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think I'll wait to update the directions until that link goes blue. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look and play around / tweak with User:MLauba/Copyvio-revdel if / when you can. It's more simple than it's predecessor-in-interest because the tool allows for much more fine-tuning but that means the request should be expanded upon on the talk page. :) MLauba (Talk) 16:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good as it is. :) We will need to make an effort to keep up with WT:CP better, though, if we go with it as is. Sometimes stuff gets overlooked on there. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I'm looking at making one of these nice little dashboards for CP stuff. MLauba (Talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

here it is. Like it? MLauba (Talk) 13:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done
With the task here. Please note that the results might not have been moved from the project page to the COI pages (as I cannot do so). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Piotr! I'll get that done today. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact I did not. :/ Sorry! I've got a doctor's appointment in a few minutes, and I'll try to prioritize it this afternoon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mentor
Hi there, thank you for your message, and thanks for all the obvious hard work you do around here (going out of your way to hook up adopters and adoptees is beyond the call of duty IMO). I'd be happy to help Shrik88music, and backstop the other user who has agreed to give him a hand. I'm not familiar with Indian topics or Indian sources really, but I can certainly help guide Shrik88music in the right direction as far as it regards being a good Wikipedian who contributes good content. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 17:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply from Trevor Wayne
Thank you so much! I understand now. Yes the person who wrote that release also copied it onto here. I can't believe he didn't respond to you guys. I will work on putting up a new page soon. Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.124.57.57 (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Mount Rainier
Do you mind scanning over all the photographs in this article to make sure that they comply with image policy? I have a tip from a user that some of them might be questionable. If some do not comply, please remove them so we can replace them with better rated photos...-- Novus Orator 07:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) They're all on Commons under claim of free license. Unless some of them were placed on Commons fraudulently or under misunderstanding of source, I can't say that I see any problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OTRS validity?
Hiyas Moonriddengirl. Is there any way you could check out the OTRS ticket validity on Talk:Giorgos_Xylouris? It was added by the editor who created the article, which I've never seen before...and you're the only OTRS personage I know. If you're too busy to check, maybe you could point out another OTRS person I can bug. Thanks :) Syrthiss (talk) 15:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Always willing to help out if I'm around. :) Give me a mo'. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's in Greek, which slowed me down a bit, but not fatally. :) It is clearance to use this Facebook page]. After reading it over, I suspect that the person would be in position to provide clearance for, since it was probably provided to the theatre by his management, but it's not usable as is. We can either do the copyvio and request clarification on that point or take the blanking at his/her word, I'd think. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way, I'll leave the person a note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Alrighty, thanks. Yeah, I'd kind of take the blanking as read I guess. Syrthiss (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the misundrestanding. The OTRS permission is only for the greek text. Now I saved a new version of my article and I hope that there is no problem. If there is any problem please let me know. Thank you.Kriti28 (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wealth Masters International
Hi, After having reviewed all  the sources, I've retagged Wealth Masters International for CSD A7 & G11. Feel free to  rv if you  feel  strongly  against  my  action.--Kudpung (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no disagreement from me. :) I sometimes prefer not to mix my copyright hat with other issues, but I think that's a wholly appropriate tag. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of edits? Why?
I've been maintaining the Tanarus (Video Game) wiki for the past year now, mostly as an unregistered user. Lately I decided to register though, because I wanted to send/receive messages on a certain issue.

On the Tanarus (video game) wiki page, I noticed that my edits keep getting removed. They are all factual, and meant to do nothing but inform. Recently the game has gone under and alot of players have felt some animosity toward the owning company, SOE. This is a well known fact, and I stated this in the wiki as gently as possible. I even made a custom GIF just for this wiki page, yet both my edits and gif keep getting removed, so I have a few questions:

- Is this a moderator doing this?

- If so, am I doing something wrong? I haven't been notified of breaking any rules. Perhaps I've missed any kind of messages sent to me somehow? I still am not exactly sure how a moderator would notify me of any wrongdoing.

- If this isn't a moderator, is there any way to prevent the individual from removing my edits? After all, they are removing factually correct information...

- If there is a problem with my edits for some reason, please let me know what it is. It seems the other edits I have made stay on the page, but this one (particularly with the gif) keeps getting removed.

Up until now I've just been re-updating the page every now and then when I see my edit has been removed again. If I'm doing something wrong, let me know and I'll stop. The only reason I'm even messaging you is because I saw you on the page's history. I'm not sure why I'm not receiving any messages, so could you please send a reply to my email instead? Thanks. {redacted} —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMonty1987 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Your edits had been removed because they were, in essence, a specific negative point of view not verified through independent, reliable coverage combined with an image that is both completely unsuitable for an encyclopedic article as well as an unauthorized derivative work of material copyrighted to a third party.
 * While I can understand that feelings may run high with fans of the game, Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, not a platform where disappointed users can air their grievances.
 * I have cleaned up the article to bring it in line with our policies. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia further, I would like to recommend that you start with reading this page which summarizes what kind of qualities we are looking for in our articles.
 * If you need any help, you can create a new section on your talk page and add helpme followed by your request below it, someone will be along shortly to assist you. Alternatively, you may also leave me a message on my talk page. Best regards, MLauba (Talk) 08:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, User:MLauba. :) You can also let me know, RobMonty1987, if you have any further questions. But just to be sure that we're clear, the people who have removed your edits in the past were not moderators. Any contributor may modify content. If you disagree with their modifications, you do have recourse to Dispute resolution. However, it would be good to read over the links MLauba has given you first, as I believe that some of the content you have added may not have been appropriate for Wikipedia, though I'm sure they'd be find for a more specialized wiki. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...dunno
Have a look at User:Alexcooper1 and their talk page. Should these be deleted or just blanked? Or are there any sort of privacy/copyright issues to be worried about? Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes to the last question; see Requests for arbitration/Durova. I've removed it in all three places (they also pasted it into an article!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Metalocalypse episodes
I ran into this article a while back and noticed that a large chunk of it was taken from a copyrighted website. I removed the copyrighted material and left the article for a few months. When I came back, I found that a lot of the text on the article is identical to that of a well known fan site called dethklok.org. I'm not completely sure what to do at this point. Every few days, new material is added that matches that of dethklok.org and it's not completely clear which came first. In my opinion, I'd rather just wipe all the descriptions in question and have editors rewrite them but there's been some resistance to my removal of material that I feel is copyrighted. You're my copyvio guru so I thought you might have a good idea as to what to do. Any advice or help you can supply would be greatly appreciated. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 04:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * TV episodes. :/ Not exactly the bane of my existence, but a real pain in the neck from a copyright cleanup standpoint! It can be very hard to tell when reverse infringement happens. In this case, we have an archived version of that page that dates to July 1,2008. That doesn't mean that's when it was created (it could have been created as many as several months before), but it does mean that any text we have in our article that replicates that source that was entered after July 1, 2008 copied from them. Looking at our version of the article from July 1, 2008, here, I do see duplication: "Following the attempt on their lives in the season one finale, Dethklok has withdrawn from the public eye. With the world reacting in chaos as a result, they plan a concert during which they will execute several death row inmates", for instance. It looks to me like we had that first. Look at this version. You can see some of the content is already on Wikipedia, but not all. That means it probably evolved naturally.


 * It seems likely that the early stuff started with us, and they may still be copying from us. We may also sometimes copy from them. What I would recommend at this point is to ask contributors to just keep an eye on new substantial plot summaries as they are added. That way, we'll know who had it first, and if somebody comes back later to claim we've copied from them, we'll be better able to defend our content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

GRANDC
Moonriddengirl: I am writing about the editing to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal 2 Problems: 1 The old bad links seem to be back in the article even though the history does not disclose any changes. How is that possible? 2. The new links http://web.archive.org/web/20091027035959/ca.geocities.com/grandcanal2005/index.htm no longer works. 88.101.247.62 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a glitch with the Internet Archives. :) See immediately below. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The GRAND Canal article / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal
Dear Moonriddengirl: I am writing to you about two problems with this article which you so kindly editted and linked to and achived web site. Firstly it appears that the old dead links are back. It appears that some robot reverted your changes. How can we make edits that won't be reverted?

Second the new links that you inserted no longer work. This could be just a server problem. I am re-directed to a page that says that the server connection has failed.

Mkierans (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) The robot didn't revert my changes, but just tweaked a few things . But since finding the archived websites, I've learned about the template Wayback, so I've gone in and implemented it instead. I think you're right that the Internet Archive is experiencing technical difficulties. This happens to them occasionally. :/ I was able to get into the history of two of the pages but could not get the pages themselves to load. Hopefully, the Wayback archive will sort itself out soon! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Regrets for any confusions I introduced
Also, have a good break. Thank you for your patience. I'll respond on the appropriate pp. (if I can). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Richie Fitzgerald
thanks for your help and apologies for the hassle and feel free to edit if you wish, thanks again, regards Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McPhillips (talk • contribs) 15:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Message from Zuull
Hello again. I did all what you told me to do with my permission request on images, My source and owner of the images sent an e-mail to your mail address (permissions-en@wikimedia.org), and I also putt proper tag on all images included in that permission confirm mail, but however, nothing has been changed. I just want to ask you how much time it takes until this will be considered? Greetings. --Zuull (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
Why did you edit the 18:18, 15 September 2010 version which was already accepted by Moderator JayJasper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.111.89 (talk)
 * Because we cannot accept content that is copied from other sources unless we can prove these are public domain. Since some of the content was copied from one site, it was not possible to be sure that the contributor had not copied other content from other sites. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl, Why did u delete my contribution in the article of sindhis notable personalities, you argued that "no source" but most of the personalities which i listed are even in wikipedia, why you people delete the contribution without any research. is this the criteria if u a an admin or old user o wiki that u can delete any thing as u want... thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artmartxxx (talk • contribs) 19:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was removed because it completely lacked sources and the individuals were not wikilinked, offering no way for other contributors to know if they are notable or even Sindhis. See here. I see that you are trying again with the information, though your edit summary is misleading and may led to some confusion in people considering accepting your changes. They're more likely to accept your edit if you indicate that you have added the missing content than if you suggest that you are reverting somebody else. (In this case, it won't matter; I've accepted your edit this time, but removed those names which are not sourced or linked.)


 * Any user of Wikipedia may challenge material that is not properly sourced, and this particular article is under special restrictions. Material that does not meet guidelines and policies is not accepted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoa!
Hey now, MLaura I appreciate the explanation here for the Tanarus (Video Game) wiki, but did you REALLY have to blank the entire thing? That is entirely unacceptable! Why would you remove all of that information? Granted that I did not realize that Wikipedia would go so out of its way to prevent even an inkling of expressed distaste (which would include my latest edit, I suppose) but the rest of what you deleted is practically 13 years of history for us gamers! That information was not just 'given'. It was found by playing over time. There is no place that information (stats/ranks/values) was written down ANYWHERE but here on Wikipedia. Deleting it is... well you made my jaw drop.

Now... Can you tell me if there is a way I can create my own Wikipage that will go unaffected and express its own views (without breaking rules)? Other than that, I'm not a moderator, but I am going to restore the page to its original state (without my edit). Could you PLEASE consider how important it is to us? I have a forum of over 200 people that play the game that refer to it at least a few times a month. I know this if this was a battle of wits, you would win hands down. I am just asking you to understand our point of view here.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobMonty1987 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a free webhost, I'm afraid. Even if the content exists nowhere else but here, it will be removed from here if it is inappropriate for our project. Our project has its own goals--to neutrally document what reliable, published sources have said about notable subjects--and all contributors to this project must be working towards those goals. If these goals conflict with yours, I'm afraid you have a conflict of interest. If you want a Wikipage that will go unaffected and express its own views, you may wish to consider creating your own at Wikia (see ). (Wikipedia is not affiliated with Wikia.) You can see some of the gaming Wikis they already have at ; there, you can develop it as you and the other fans of the game please. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur with the above. You will also want to consider that persisting in restoring inappropriate content after having been informed of its nature is considered disruptive and will eventually lead either to a locking of the article or a removal of your editing privileges. Please start a discussion of any future changes on the article's talk page. MLauba (Talk) 14:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Meh"
I'm sure you know what that means. I'm honestly surprised at how Wikipedia operates due to your last message. The thing is, we the players ARE the source providing the facts stated on the Tanarus Wiki page. We are the ones who uncovered, calculated, and posted the completely relevant and accurate information onto the wiki page over the years. Take a step back from your analytical methods just for the next few sentences. Use your common sense: Why would anyone in their right mind spend that much time and effort to document such specific data with any kind of goal in mind other than to accurately provide information? Really. What would someone have to gain by putting up the information that you/MLauba had deleted? No, seriously. Go look at the page that was removed, and tell me what their motive would be. That aside, the data was never disproven. As I said, we ARE the source. So if I made a Wikipedia page about myself, and told you that an orange is my favorite fruit, it would be removed and claimed to not have any proof to the statement? This is how I see the entire situation. Nobody is arguing our information, yet after a year of strong standing, the page was taken down, literally without a single good reason other than the weak claim of 'lack of proof'.

You have utter tons of Wikipedia pages that describe places/people/things without factual proof. My point is, what was there was all true. All fact. No1 disagreed. The players who would know better than anyone else, the same people that selflessly maintained the game for 13 years, these are the people you are telling to provide sources. It's ridiculous. Your argument holds no ground, but because you have a little moderator power, you win. Pathetic.

Oh, and as for MLauba threatening me with a lock, please tell him that I could easily have SMAC pro renewing my IP and MAC address every 10 minutes and a quick bot made to constantly keep editing the page back to how I think it should be. Your 'lock' or 'ban' would literally have 0 effect, and there would literally be no way to implement any form of punishment, legal or otherwise. That's what I could do, so please save the lock-talk for someone you could actually perform a lock on. Honestly though? No, I won't waste my time. Why? Because that would be helping WP, and I'm past that at this point. If WP wants to purposely lack information and settle for inferior, so be it. I figured the one supposedly unbiased dictionary on the internet would be troll-free, but I guess this isn't the case.

If you ever feel like accurately providing information on the Tanarus (Video Game) Wikipedia page, feel free to check it out on Wikia, with all the correct data provided from the source. You can spare yourselves an apologetic and explanatory response, because I won't be reading it. I hold some negative thoughts about your opinions, but moreso on your narrow-mindedness. Other than that, thank you for at least referring me to another Wiki. That much was definitely the best advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added byRobMonty1987 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi Moonriddengirl,

I have made a proposal to merge Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) with Mary (mother of Jesus). One of the editors has split the discussion over both talk pages. The noticed was posted on both articles and talk pages, but the discussion was primarily on this article talk page. but was then changed to this page where 'voting' was begun. Which talk page is most appropriate for the discussion? It seems that this could be confusing for other editors to have it split like this and it might be more convenient for other editors if the discussion remained on Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) so the editors could easily access the page that is the primary focus. Is there a policy for this?Malke 2010 (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, the discussions are not combined.  There are two separate discussions.  So that looking at one talk page you wouldn't know that there's also a discussion on another page.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm a little confused. :) It looks like you opened both sections. Did somebody move your comment from one page to another, or did you just expect that people would follow the "Discuss" link from the tag to the appropriate page? If the latter, I'm afraid that many will simply look at the talk and see conversation and pitch in there. I have when leaving courtesy notices on specifically asked people to comment on another page, only to have them comment on that one.


 * In this case, I think you should probably be guided by the principle of least confusion. That is, if most of the conversation is at one page, keep it there. Put a notice on the other page, in the appropriate section, noting that the conversation has been inadvertently divided and requesting that the participants at the lesser-used thread carry their conversation over to the main page. I'd consider asking each participant if they would object to your archiving (using closed or similar the least used thread and redirecting new comments to the other page in hopes of avoiding ongoing fragmentation of the discussion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is confusing. And no, I didn't start two discussions.  I put a notice on the Mary (mother of Jesus) page so that others who edit there would be aware and go to the BVM RC talk page.  Marauder responded on the BVM RC page, then without notice, moved his "vote" to the MMoJ talk page.  I had no idea that History2007 and Marauder had started a vote over on MMoJ.  Marauder was continually posting to Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic).  Also, please help me locate how this article Blessed Virgin Mary came to be merged, seemingly without any notice or discussion, with Mary (mother of Jesus).  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I think others may not have understood that to be your intent. It doesn't point to the actual conversation; it rather looks like a discussion launcher. :/ The conversation about the other merger is located here. The proposed who brought up merger said it was the same as Virgin Mary, which is, of course, a redirect to Mary (mother of Jesus). You said, "I agree." Everyone seems to have agreed. Unless I'm missing something, it looks the proposal carried unanimous support. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said: Malke 2010 (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of possible copyvio by User:Gavin.collins at WP:AN
I don't know if you've seen this AN discussion yet, but if he is violating our copyright policy the way the discussion suggests, then something must be done, hopefully without a filibuster. On his talk page, he denies copyvio, referring in particular to a discussion at Talk:Enron scandal where he says " Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria states that "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author" and on the basis of that restores to the article the sentence "Enron’s use of distorted, "hyper-inflated" revenues was more important to it in creating the impression of innovation, high growth, and spectacular business performance than the masking of debt", which is verbatim from here. The sentence remains in Enron scandal - and is not attributed. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From the evidence provided at AN an investigation of all of his edits has been begun at Contributor copyright investigations/20101001. Much of the text is neither brief nor properly attributed (i.e., quoted), and so needs to be removed and/or rewritten. If you see problems such as the one you just pointed out, it would be greatly appreciated if you could pitch in and remove the offending text from the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Copyright cleanup can use all the help it can get. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Carrigaline
Hey MRG, I know absolutely nothing about copyright law, so can you look at Carrigaline for me? It has been copied directly from a book written in the 1800's (see the bottom of the section), and I don't know if it's in the public domain or not. Thanks -- Nole  lover  01:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in the public domain. The text can be found in this book which is a reprint of a book originally published in 1837. I'll add an attribution template to the text, just to make it explicit that the text is copied from a PD source. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the full text of Lewis' 1837 book Topographical Directory of Ireland is available from libraryireland.com and here is the Carrigaline entry. ww2censor (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both.:D And so as not to be completely superfluous here, I'll add that Public domain has some basic information on public domain status. For our intents and purposes, if it was published before 1923, we can use it. Thanks for following up on your concerns, User:Nolelover. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys!  Nole  lover  12:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010
Would you please comment on the discussion on Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic). I believe that using one of Richard's words the "combative" nature of Malke 2010 is turning the page into a battleground. Just a minor example is even mentioned on this page where she blaims me for an issue related to her merge request when the problem was actually related to how she set up the merge request in the first place. It has been requested several times that she state exactly what her cite and OR issues are. But I will let you read through the page to get your own opinion. I personally think she needs some more time off from the Marian articles. Marauder40 (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a tense conversation in general, having started that way in mid September and picking up again immediately last week. I see some snippiness. I would prefer that Malke had not said, "What possible basis do you have to assume such nonsense?" But I did not see anything in reading through it all that would require a topic ban for Malke here (or probably even be actionable at WP:WQA), and snippiness doesn't seem to be one-sided, with comments towards her such as "That is much better then just shooting a shotgun at the article and expecting someone else to fix it", "it is like talking to a wall", and "I had to comment on this dribble." I rather wonder if the conversation wouldn't benefit from some additional participation, perhaps via the relevant noticeboards or the Catholic wikiproject. If a few more people agree that the tags are inappropriate, there will be clear consensus and the tags will go away. If a few more people agree that there are issues, the discussion might generate solutions so the tags can go away. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. The shotgun approach comment was a typical response to people that put tags on articles and yet either don't explain the problem or explain the problem with nothing to back it up, as Malke is doing to SEVERAL articles. Its one thing to put up the tags and say I have problems with x, y, and z.  Its another to make general statements about the entire article, especially when it relates to misunderstanding on their part. As you well know, article tags for minor reasons usually just inflame the people that work on the page and don't help in the collabrative method.  If you notice, the wall and dribble comments only happened after DAYS of trying to talk to her and not seeming to get through to her in any way shape or form.  Thanks again for your comments. Marauder40 (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that the tension has grown in that conversation, and I do understand your point about being specific with concerns. When you reach the point where you feel that you can't really talk to somebody else, though, I think it's probably best to get more people involved. In my own Wikipedia experiences, anyway, I find that numbers can resolve a lot of problems. (Of course, sometimes they create more problems, especially when the conversation becomes hopelessly divided. :/) But that's what I would generally go for first, whether I was in your position or Malke's. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Moonriddengirl, thanks for your comments. Marauder is not correct about the examples.  If you look it over again, and focus on all the threads I've very well documented several problems and given specific examples.  I've also asked several questions of both Marauder and History2007 which both refuse to answer.  Also the tags are not for 'minor' things.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 14:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If Marauder does not see the pattern that concerns you, a few more examples may be helpful. But, again, this is why getting others involved at this point should be a good thing. If your concerns are not apparent to Marauder, they may be to others, or others may be able to help bridge the communication divide between you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * He appears to be ignoring the clear examples shown, and keeps repeating that there aren't any examples given, yet he then goes and "adjusts" citations mentioned in the examples, so obviously he sees them.


 * On the other note about support, yes, I agree which is why I posted tags in the first place. These articles seem to be edited by only one or two editors and when others make contribs they get reverted very quickly.  The tags are meant to get other editors to participate and fix the problems.  I don't know how else to draw in editors to look into this situation without giving the appearance of campaigning for votes.  I've already made mention on WikiProject Catholicism.  Part of the problem seems to be that the two main editors on these articles have been tendentious over any edits made they don't agree with and rather than argue, other editors just leave.


 * This is why I've mentioned a possible solution, see thread below. It could bring back editors who want to make contribs to the topic and eliminate the POV content fork at the same time.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * All I have been doing is cleaning up cites. How is that "adjusting" citations?  Most of the problems she has listed are not a problem but her understanding of Mariology. The problem here is that Malke 2010 doesn't understand a basic tenet of Mariology.  The meaning of venerate and honor are pretty basic and necessary to understanding Marian theology.  It seems that since the beginning of the discussion she has conceded that you can venerate Mary which she didn't even agree on at the beginning of the discussion.  I have provided cites from the current Pope that talk about veneration of images and yet she still claims Catholics do not venerate images.  There isn't much more that can be said.  She acts like I am claiming ownership yet before this discussion happened I have only done vandalism correction edits to this page.  Now I am just cleaning up the cites to have use a common method and to use templates instead of the numerous methods that were used before.  I haven't changed any of the cites. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Malke, please don't call people "tendentious". I'm afraid that kind of language only inflames situations, which is not what we should be doing. What is the basic dispute here, that this constitutes "original research" or that it is non-neutral? I'd be happy to request feedback myself from a relevant noticeboard, but I don't want to ask at multiple noticeboards. If I do ask, I will make sure to do so neutrally. The goal is to get enough uninvolved contributors to read consensus as to whether there is currently a problem with the article or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I honestly think that if you read through the main difficulty is with the word venerate. I think the only people that can really comment on this are people that have at least a basic grasp of Mariology as seen by the Catholic church and/or other "high order" churches (i.e. Orthodox, high order Anglican, etc.)  Just opening things up to the world isn't the best things, unless they just read through the provides sources.  Most of the other issues would probably fall into place when the venerate, worship, honor things fall into place.Marauder40 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's a problem. :/ Malke says she already asked at the Catholic wikiproject. If they are not responding, then there may not be any ready reviewers who can help establish consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I can clear up for you what the problem is with the understanding of the Catholic tradition of veneration of Mary and the saints: Council of Trent:
 * "Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the other saints, are to be had and retained particularly in temples, and that due honour and veneration are to be given them; not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in them, on account of which they are to be worshipped; or that anything is to be asked of them; or, that trust is to be reposed in images, as was of old done by the Gentiles who placed [Page 235] their hope in idols; but because the honour which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which those images represent; in such wise that by the images which we kiss, and before which we uncover the head, and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ; and we venerate the saints, whose similitude they bear: as, by the decrees of Councils, and especially of the second Synod of Nicaea, has been defined against the opponents of images.
 * What is happening here is that History2007 and Marauder are leaving off the part about the explicit understanding that veneration does not in any way convey divinity and that the image itself is not to be venerated, nor anything asked of the image, or any trust put in the image. This fact is completely missing from the article.  The sources that have been getting appended do not in any way illuminate this fact, but rather confuse the issue all the more.
 * The entire article is centered, fixated, on the veneration of images of Mary, and suggests that Mary is more than what she believed to be by Catholics, that somehow she is more like Christ, etc. This is completely false.  Catholics do not believe that.  And the article does not in any way convey an understanding of the Blessed Virgin Mary in any other way but through this veneration of images.  Notice also, the complete redundancy of other articles being used to keep the theme that this all veneration.  This is what is making the article nothing more than a POV content fork.


 * This is why I believe that the only solution then is to restore the Blessed Virgin Mary so that the Catholic view, which is really very simple, can be taken care of in one section, with the views of other faiths presented also. We can eliminate the POV content fork.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a more specific request on the project page. Maybe that will bring someone else into the discussion.  Could you please ask User:Richardshusr to give his opinion? I would but I don't want to be accused of canvasing.  Since no matter what I do I get accused of things. But I think he tends to have a level head in the Catholic pages and he is an admin.  He commented once on the page already so I don't think my asking him would be canvasing, but I will leave it up to you as her mentor. Marauder40 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. Malke, I appreciate the information, but it doesn't matter ot me whether you're right or Marauder is. I'm focused on behavioral and procedural matters only. I've never read the article, and unless it pops up with copyright problems I doubt I ever will. :) Marauder, Richard might be a good person to give his opinion (though he's not an admin at this point). I'll see if he can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have asked him. If he is not able or willing to respond, I will be happy to request the same at WP:ORN, but will note that familiarity with Catholicism would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Marauder40 (talk) 13:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl, you asked a specific question above and I responded with the information. Marauder is claiming that it's a lack of understanding of the word 'venerate.'  The Council of Trent makes it very plain what the Catholic understanding of that word is.  What is happening in the article is a misuse of the word venerate.


 * And I agree, this is a content dispute. I've not done anything wrong, except shown that the article is a content POV fork.  On the BVM talk page, Maraurder got mad when he kept moving my talk page posts and I moved them back, pointing out that he wasn't allowed to move my posts.  He got mad and came over here to complain about me.  He said, "It's time your mentor got involved."


 * I'd appreciate it if you would mention that a mentorship is not to be used to settle content disputes.


 * Also, Richard S has already commented earlier on Blessed Virgin Mary Roman Catholic.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Maraurder.


 * Perhaps I didn't communicate my specific question clearly. When I asked, "What is the basic dispute here, that this constitutes 'original research' or that it is non-neutral?" I really only wanted to know which of those two categories of dispute it was. The particulars do not matter. This was related to the noticeboards and which would be more appropriate. Mentorships are not to be used to settle content disputes, but so far as I can see this section was opened because Marauder felt that you were "turning the page into a battleground". This is very much in scope of our mentorship situation. I know that Richard S already commented on the page; I've read it, and Marauder mentioned as much in opening this conversation (where he referred to your "combative attitude"). His comment there seemed balanced. I presumed you had no objection to his being asked to further weigh in, since you did not object when you left your last note in this section, although the request was already in place, and since your note at his talk page suggests you are open to his input. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that Marauder came over here to get you to solve the dispute in his favor, or at the very least, to turn this into a discussion about me. That's obvious from the title he gave the thread. Richard S. has already responded here:. I don't believe he is neutral since he clearly states he supports History2007 and Maraurder.

And as you've often told me, there's no rush here. There's no emergency to remove the tags. The tags will eventually attract others. The current talk page discussion might be keeping others from participating so for now, so I'd say, let things settle and see who shows up on their own.

I don't think it's fair that our mentorship is being dragged into what is only a content dispute, but I understand that when editors can't get their way they will fall back on that. That's why we now have the notice on the mentor page so they don't post there. Unfortunately, they'll be coming here. You can see that I've not turned anything into a battle, I've not been uncivil, etc.

The article needs to be opened up to a lot more editors to come along and edit. That's why I put the tags there in the first place. They don't want the tags there, that's why they fall back on the mentorship and making it about Malke.

It will take awhile, but for now, I don't think trying to get lots of people today is going to help. They'll just be there to make a quick judgment and leave. The article needs other editors to take an interest and stay and edit. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have stated to your mentor the exact reason I wanted her in the discussion. At no point have I asked her to solve the content dispute. My involvement of Moonriddengirl is soley to act on the conduct issues I have mentioned. I have only stated that the issue over veneration is at the core of the dispute. All the numerous conspiracy theories against me go against AGF and Civil.  That is another thing I have mentioned in my comments. If this was just a content dispute I would have taken this to 3o or other venue.  The other things are what brought me to your mentor first.Marauder40 (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I follow you. I know Marauder came over to discuss you. As I said, that's the point of the mentorship and seems to be the thrust of the contact. He evidently felt that you were entrenching. If this is going to happen it all, it is naturally going to occur when you are in content disputes; why would you become combative with editors who agree with you?


 * In terms of your civility, the question is not without merit. "What possible basis do you have to assume such nonsense?" is far from civil, though not far enough from civil to constitute a personal attack. Other problematic content on that page from you includes this accusation of bad faith: "You seem to be deliberately 'missing' the point ... You're arguments are what Bill Clinton famously called, parsing." You've also told other editors "You seem to have been editing Wikipedia long enough to understand that you don't own this article..." and "Any further attempt to get answers from you is simply a waste of an editor's time." Does this really seem "respectful and considerate" to you?


 * If you did not believe that Richard was neutral, it would have been nice if you had said so earlier. I saw, but did not respond to the suggestion to ask him to comment until after your next comment in this section. That was to see if you disagreed. You may read Richard as purely supporting Marauder and History, but I see this: "This is not a court trial where you have to prove that the tags were or were not justified when you put them on. All that's needed here is to improve the article by fixing whatever problems there might be (e.g. lack of citations)." You have been saying all along that the tags do not need proof and that the article needs to be repaired. In what way do you disagree with him there? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to make this about me, when you quote me, please also include the comments I'm responding to. And then, please do it on the mentorship page, because if this is about the mentorship, then continuing comments by Maraurder are making the situation worse.  It's starting to read like a gang up here.  I did not come to you here.  I'm just trying to explain.  I won't be posting here anymore.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If I want to make this about you? If this weren't about you, it wouldn't be here. I presented your comments baldly, exactly in the same way as I presented the comments addressed to you above. I'm not here to make you look better or to make you look worse. But as I have explained to you a number of times, your comments will be judged on their own. You should not say anything that you feel can be used out of context against you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!
I hope it was a fun and interesting conference (or at least not agonizing and boring) and that you didn't have to take all of those notes by hand. ^_^

And now that the niceties are out of the way, while there isn't a backlog waiting for you, another possible issue of widespread copyvio did show up at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and I posted some more confirmed issues I found from a spot check (but haven't acted on yet) at User talk:Epson291. I haven't gone through enough of their contribs to see if a CCI might be needed yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks! :D And uh-oh. :/ I'm wrapping up the "stuff waiting for me", and will come by in just a few minutes to see if I can help. So glad to hear there's not a backlog! I hadn't gone by CP yet, but I was about to. Sounds like I'll be thanking some people for pitching in. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Just poking at this point, since I have some "real life" chores to do to make up for being away from real life (sigh), but there may be some serious attribution needed for unmarked copying within Wikipedia: see . Need to look into that more later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More notes for later: Wedding cake topper, from August 2009: Otherwise, the rewriting there seems adequate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Today, these decorative figurines are often part of the couple's decorative theme or wedding reception style"; "Decorative figurines...part of their decorative theme or wedding reception style."
 * "Traditional wedding cake toppers depict the couple in formal attire and are often the only part of the cake which can be kept over the years, apart from photographs of it"; "Traditional wedding cake toppers depict the couple in formal attire and are often the only part of the cake which can be kept over the years, apart from photographs of course."


 * Oh, this doesn't look good. :( I've just found an article that had to be blanked. I'll look a bit more later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for kind of dumping this investigation on you, I spent most of my available time yesterday tracking down sources for an unofficial mini-CCI of which was brought to light in the same ANI conversation. If you think there are enough issues to warrant a CCI for Epson291 I can go ahead and open it so that it's not all on you and it doesn't get forgotten in the usual rush of things. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems to be necessary. Check . This content has now been removed to LGBT-affirming denominations in Judaism. It's been blanked as a blatant copyright violation. There may be more copying, but that's more than enough to require rewriting. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Opened. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Groan. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of groaning, why is it that repeat copyright offenders tend to sockpuppet? Here I was hoping to close a CCI today and instead I need to run edits for three more accounts and tack them on... VernoWhitney (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but that's some good sleuthing there. :) I can kind of see why people who do not speak English well might doggedly persist, since they may not be able otherwise to contribute at all. Some strange combination of laziness and determination? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And meandering on to yet another topic, speaking of closing a CCI today: Contributor copyright investigations/Roland311 has only 12 images remaining:
 * 1 which is a derivative of another wiki-image and now appropriately tagged
 * 5 of which have metadata and I've confirmed are copied from a photbucket album which belongs to a "roland0311"
 * 6 others which all contain metadata matching those from the photobucket album.
 * At this point I figure either those 11 are all either presumed clean given the presence of metadata (which wasn't present in any other image confirmed copyvio) or presumed copyvio given the evidence of 81 copyvios. Feel like placing the deciding vote for this one? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he ever claim copyvio of images which were not his, or did he simply copy other people's stuff without permission? IOW, are we talking copyright fraud here? That can make a difference. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything was labeled PD-self, no matter the source; some of the sources were attributed in the "Other versions" sections, but not all of them. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Given that information and after popping in on a couple of the confirmed vios, I have presumptively deleted. I hate doing that. :( But when we've got clear evidence of copyright fraud, we don't really have any choice. Congrats on finishing a listing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finishing up the admin part of it then. At least that leaves us with only 38 open CCIs. Sometimes the absurdity of three or so regulars tackling that just makes me have to smile. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Vampire Diaries - For Moonriddengirl or any help watchers :)
I'd rather ask you, whether you're currently here or not as you're always helpful :). Can you move the entire TVD season 1 Incubator content to The Vampire Diaries (season 1) it will be a lot easier to work on it there, it was one user who moved it across, a user now permanently banned for sockpuppetry. The season 2 incubator just needs deletion. Can you do that too, please? With these articles, it's much easier to work on them from the mainspace as many editors won't know where the incubators are. There's more information on these pages than some other TV shows too. Reply/make the changes when you can. Thank you. Jayy008 (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Sorry I overlooked this! Let me take a look now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay; I've merged it. This was the last edit to the incubator version. I haven't compared the text, but it's there in case you want to mine any of the content for the current article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That link you just sent, can I just copy and past some information from it? PS. Can you also delete the season 2 incubator here: Article Incubator/The Vampire Diaries (season 2). No need for merging, just deleting. Thanks in advance. Jayy008 (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can. The information is in the article's history, so you can use it as you like. You might want to mention in your edit summary where it's coming from. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Will do, it's nice to have an admin that's so helpful lol :) Jayy008 (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary
Hello Moonriddengirl,

I think one possible solution with the question of the POV content forking in the Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic) article would be to restore this article Blessed Virgin Mary and merge BVM RC with it. In this way, all views that recognize this unique name for Mary could be presented the question of the POV content fork, which violates policy, could be eliminated. Is it possible to either pull back the original article from the merge with Mary (mother of Jesus), or to at least restore the use of the article name Blessed Virgin Mary? Thanks for your help.Malke 2010 (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Both are possible, but that's a matter for consensus. You might propose it if you think that others are likely to agree. I think I would be inclined to suggest that you (collectively) go for some kind of dispute resolution as you don't seem to be making much headway at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see we can at least recover the article. Where would I propose such a thing?  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * At the talk page of the article that still exists, I would imagine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with this solution is time hasn't been giving for the merge requests that she currently in progress to run its course. Also the merge before had unanimous support for a merge.  The current merge request only has one support other then the initiator. Marauder40 (talk) 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The initiator is allowed to be counted as obviously they support. And there are two other editors who also support this.  Bringing back the Blessed Virgin Mary will allow the article to present all views while at the same time removing the problem of the POV content fork which is exclusively focused on veneration and does not offer any Church doctrine on Mary's status as the BVM.  But these issues are best discussed on the relevant article talk pages as Moonriddengirl is not here to mediate content disputes.  Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

A doozy
Would you mind taking a look at and see what you think? --GrapedApe (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Eep. I usually turn to a Wikisource admin for borderline stuff, but I don't know if they can be helpful with borderline audio files since (like me) they're primarily text based. :/ I'm not entirely sure where to go with sound questions. I'm afraid I don't know myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sakhr
I actually wrote the article and got it checked by the owner of the company. She will be contacting the email, since all written material on the listed websites that I "copied from" are owned by them and have the same materials that I used on the article.

Are there any other issues with the articles that you want me to address?

Debolina Sengupta 21:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 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) 00:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Stonehouse Brick and Tile Co Ltd
Hi,

Can you just check that you agree with the on Stonehouse Brick and Tile Co Ltd for me. Codf1977 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, sure, and, yes, I do agree. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Part II of your article for the Bugle
Hi :) Just a reminder that it's that time again! I'm not sure if you had any further tweaks to make to the second part of your article, though it looks great to me. I've posted it up here - please feel free to make any amendments necessary. On past form it'll be a week or so before we get the newsletter out. Best, EyeSerene talk 10:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I tried to make a flowchart, but I'm afraid I am abyssmal with such things and everything I came up with looked stupid. :/ I'll go read it over again. I'll have fresh eyes now that a good enough period of time has passed, so I'll be able to see if where I'm being obtuse and fix it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If you have a rough design for the flowchart I may be able to help out. EyeSerene talk 08:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The only ones I still have were hand drawn, and they're just as stupid looking as the drafts I abandoned. :/ (Well, that's not entirely true; I still have one of my Microsoft Word versions (incomplete), in which I used a template that is incompatibly licensed...and so can't publish. But it was just as bad, because the template wouldn't allow me to point multiple boxes at the same answer.) The flowchart was probably going to be pretty huge anyway if I had managed to pull it together, because I can't write short. I was looking at MLauba's concise CV101 (User:MLauba/Cv101), and it's still pretty hefty. :) I've just moved the blue box down; it adds some visual punch. If I could think of an image to toss in, I would, but there aren't exactly tons of images at Commons to illustrate the concept of OCILLA or Due Diligence. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind then, though Inkscape or OpenOffice.org Draw (both open source) might be worth your looking at in the future. Thanks again for all your fantastic work on t'articles :) EyeSerene talk 12:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did download the second one and give it a go, but I couldn't make it produce anything usable. :/ It is important to remember here, though, that I am challenged by programming my remote control. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Howdy
Hi Off2riorob suggested i give the WikiProject Copyright Cleanup a helping hand :) for some strange reason he thinks i may one day be a quality contributor :), were should one start on this and what is the recommended reading before starting? Thanks mark nutley (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! You would be most welcome to join us. :) I've spent a bit of time reading through WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements to make sure that the directions are up to date. They are, although we're currently in transition with revision deletion and they may need to be updated to address that soon. But it goes over various ways to help out with text and image copyright concerns, depending on what interests you. Most contributors who are interested in addressing text start out at WP:SCV. Directions for helping there are at the top of the page. Two special things to watch out for there are duplication of uncopyrightable content and unusable rewrites. The former happens when content is copied from PD sources or when what's copied lacks creativity (track lists for albums, for instance). The latter all too frequently happens when contributors try to write content in their own words but fall short.


 * One thing I would caution you about: since you have had issues with copyright yourself in the past, I would recommend that you proceed carefully before clearing any content of copyright concern. Restoring copyrighted content may be seen as contributory copyright infringement (can you believe that's just a redirect? must fix that!), both legally and by others in the Wikipedia community. I'd agree with Rob that you can be a quality contributor, and I wouldn't want you to wind up in hot water inadvertently. :) If you are in any doubt whether something is copyrightable or if it has been completely rewritten, I would recommend leaving that for somebody else to handle. There are plenty enough obvious cases for you to find work to do while getting the hang of things. :) Because you are yourself the subject of a CCI (one of these days, somebody will finish Contributor copyright investigations/20100506! Stupid backlog), you should most definitely stay out of CCI work. We have had some subjects of CCIs who I feel quite confident could help there, but it's a good general policy that they not. If Wikipedia's diligence is ever challenged with respect to cleaning up after repeat infringers, it will not help us to show that other repeat infringers were doing the evaluation. While CCI is where we have the most need, there is (sadly) plenty enough to do in other areas as well.


 * Please let me know if I can provide further information, and if you need feedback with copyright work, you are always welcome to come by. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So i have come by already :) Just a question, does the CSBot often get url`s wrong? I ask as it flagged this article as having content from chawz.com but the actual copyvio was from chawzmovie.com your page is on my watchlist now btw mark nutley (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird! I don't work SCV that often (I'm usually hanging out at CP), but I haven't seen it do that before. Any talk page stalkers know? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It will get odd false positives like that when either the article or the webpage is really short - since in either case it's easy for a high-percentage match when you only have a few words. It usually hits a few of each of those types of false positive a week unless an editor is on a stub-creating spree in which case there're more. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok cool, it was easy enough to find the right url this time round, hoping it will always be thus :) thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, another question. I just went to an article Ana M. Briongos which has Official biography from her website under creative commons license (by NC-ND) What does one do about this? The website has noting about the content being free so i have subst:copyvio|url=source used this tag to blank the page. I asked on the article talk page as well about this. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the right thing to do when a free license is claimed but not verified. :) Please be sure, though, that you give the proper notice to the uploader (the template generates the notice). In this case, I'd add a personal note beneath the template explaining the issue further. Even if the NC-ND license was mentioned on the page, the article would need to be blanked, though, because that's not compatible with our license. See a limited table at the copyright FAQ. We can only accept content that can be used commercially and modified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i left a welcome tag on their talk and linked to the FAQ you posted. Thanks again mark nutley (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good, but one thing that the template does that your note does not is tell them how to fix it. :) Maybe you should add a note telling them that the article has been blanked and they can see the face of the article for the steps necessary to verify permission? Of course, it the article is A7ed, it won't matter.:/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

On that respect, WP:CCPS can also be of use (we should update that one more regularly anyway) MLauba (Talk) 16:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! I forgot that page existed. :) By the way, nice to see CP all clean and tidy this morning! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I sure picked a low activity day to resume the laundry :D MLauba (Talk) 16:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
Here. Also, I guess you have an email backlog again? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, and always. :) If you've sent me something I haven't responded to or if I said I'd do something and I've forgotten, please remind me there. :) Between the conference last weekend and the usual on Wikipedia, last week was pretty crazy. (If you've sent me something since the weekend, I haven't gotten it; may have been lost in delivery?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Undelete?
Asking here since the deleting admin is infrequently active. Assuming Image Institute of technology & management was copied from iitmctc.org could you undelete it? I got OTRS permission for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Resurrected, OTRS pending. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Now tagged. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Have you seen the discussion at ANI about copyvio? It's almost at the bottom of the page. Dougweller (talk) 12:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I'll go take a look! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Seems to have been resolved, but it's useful to have those discussions once in a while. Just off the top of your head, is anything in the essay also in our policy? Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not specifically. WP:C says this: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, so long as you do not follow the source too closely. (See our Copyright FAQ for more on how much reformulation may be necessary as well as the distinction between summary and abridgment.)" Our copyright FAQ says a little more, but not much. It could probably use reformulation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just that at times people are very dismissive of essays (and at times rightly so), which made me ask the question. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the WP:C reference is a good start. Probably it's the FAQ we need to expand a bit more. Although the essay can be more expansive, we should include more information in it. I may draft something and propose it. (Not that anybody will ever notice it; there's a proposal to slightly overhaul the FAQ at its talk page already, but I think hardly anybody watches that page but me. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably, but its presence is important. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the exceptionally quick turnaround time on that! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Serendipitous timing of your note and my checking my watchlist. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Serendipity is good. :-) MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of thanks, I note that two other folks now want to be you. Hope that's more flattering than it is creepy. ;) Cheers, Amalthea  14:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My evil plot succeeds.... :D (Lately, I wouldn't wish being me on anybody. Things are calming down, but last week's copyright chaos and the chaos of getting ready for a conference had me wandering around half confused constantly. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

question
Hi Moonriddengirl, I've left a question for you on our page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Images copyright
The user had copied text from other websites in articles which he states he has removed after being told by user VernoWhitney who had blanked some of the article can you please verify this.Further he has uploaded over around 50 images and all of them appear with a licence created this work entirely by myself. and this  while I Wp:AGF with the licence I would like you check the images.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to MRG: I've already placed a CCI request, so you can open that if you feel it's warranted. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Opened. :/ Verno, can you run an image list to check? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Oh, by the way; I see there's one lingering at CCI. Before I look at it, are there problems with it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Yes, I can run an image list although it'll have to wait for a few hours until I'm at my home computer to do it. Eventually I'll try to get it stable enough to put online like the contribution surveyor so anyone can run it. As to the older request, I just haven't spent a lot of time on it, but in a quick spot-check I didn't run into more copyvios, so I was reluctant to open it. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I'll look into it more later myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirect issues
Hi there. Would you have time to please assist me in sorting out this redirect? I created a redirect page here, and for some strange reason the title of the page appeared with quotation marks. Then I moved that page to the same title name without the quotation marks. The redirect page with the quotation marks however is still around. Could you maybe delete these redirect so that I can recreate a fresh redirect page without the quotation marks? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've deleted the one with quotation marks. :) Is that good? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's good. Thank you for your swift assistance :) Amsaim (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I need an uninvolved eye
To look at the text copied from Burker's peerage to my talk page and to Talk:Anwyl of Tywyn Family in good faith by an editor (who thinks I'm victimising him - see my comments on the bottom of that page for background, thus the need for someone else to look at this and remove if necessary). I appreciate why he's done this, but is it copyvio? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the bit starting with this Doug? See A to Z of Heraldic Terms If so then i`d say that is a copyviolation. Is`nt there a way to hide such on a talk page? I recall Cla doing it for me when he was digging out sources for an article. I hatted it for now but it probably needs to be removed. mark nutley (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mark. I have revision deleted the content from your talk page, since it seems to be taken from a 1999 publication. We should do the same to the article's talk page, but permit the contributor an opportunity first to verify that it is PD or compatibly licensed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Moonriddengirl. On the article Catholic Church, I think the 'Barry' citation is the same one I'm familiar with, Colman J. Barry, Readings in Church History, and several other titles by him, but I couldn't find the actual book being used on that article, just his last name and page numbers.  It might be that the article has been redone so many times something has been dropped.  And, I was really impressed you found that error in my cites.  Whoa.Malke 2010 (talk) 13:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyleft, copyright

 * Hello MRG, need your help deleting this image file → File:LeeHsienLoong.jpg ←, appears to be lifted off by a problematic uploader from Singapore government website without reuse permission granted on WP, it has been tagged since March of 2010 before I spotted it and retagged it. Thoughts? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it had been deleted and then reuploaded with the same problems. :/ Given that, I've deleted immediately. Presumably if he could have addressed the problems, he would have done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So right and if he uploads that image file again, You'll be the first to know and dare I say this, BLOCK the bugga! =P -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Admin attention
Hi, given that you are familiar with the situation, I think we need some "Admin attention" on Mary (mother of Jesus) and Catholic views on Mary‎ in view of merge proposal that is generating secondary effects. I am not sure where the best place for posting is, but if you cannot handle it yourself, could you arrange for some attention to the issues, to avoid reverts, etc. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I may not be quite as familiar with the situation as you think. :/ I know the basics of the dispute, but have not really read either article which goes into nuances that are well beyond me. I see that Catholic views on Mary is currently up for AfD, and I know from your note at Malke's page that you believe the creation of the new article was disruptive. (As a non-Catholic, I will admit that there seem to me to be quite a lot of articles on the same subject, and I'm totally confused as to the proliferation of articles on different perspectives of one person, but I don't know if there is sufficient material to warrant them.) Mary (mother of Jesus) has seen a lot of activity today, but if there is something specifically disruptive about it, please point it out. Especially as the day goes on, I have less time to dig, and it would be very helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, sorry to take up your time. I guess this whole thing is one big nightmare from a distance. In any case that new page is an Afd now, since someone else also thought it was "making a point", so that will set the course for it. I did not do the Afd to see if anyone else thought it was a "pointy" page, but that has now happened, so we can just let it progress. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't object to giving you my time. :) It's just that you're up close and in personal with this, and hence you're in a good position to point out specific things that disturb you. I'd like to see these issues resolved politely and in good Wiki spirit. They're just very much outside my scope. If you can show me the problems, I might be able to help resolve them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, let us let the Afd take its course, then it may all resolve that way. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Doyle Grisham
Can you sandbox Doyle Grisham for me please? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I can't. It was a copyvio. :( I can resurrect the non-creative elements for you, but copied content was there from its foundation; there were only two sentences that are not duplicated here. For what it's worth, if you look at the last two paragraphs of that archive, you're looking at our article aside from a lead sentence and an unsourced note about where he lives now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was unsure whether the whole thing was a copyvio or not. Lazy jerkasses. Are you sure that it was all copyvio from the get go? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like it, except for those couple of words. But I see that an IP added some content in March 2008 that had already been removed before I got there as promotional. I can dig that up for you, if you'd like along with the links and whatnot that have been used. It might make a base for new expansion. Do you want it? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, sandbox it in my userspace please. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All right. :) Such as it is, it's at User:TenPoundHammer/Doyle Grisham. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bleah. Perhaps I should've checked the very, very low number of Ghits for the guy. Clearly seems to fail WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)