User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 31

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes images
Removed issue about some film images, I'll post to Coren's page instead. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Migraines
I am so very sorry for your migraines. I hope you feels better soon. I sure know how the drugs can affect you (Oh you already know that about me!) You have my total empathy. My edits are going well, not going to bother you with minor stuff. Just feel better and we will communicate soon. God Bless and Happy Holidays! Namaste...14:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch, just noticed this, my sympathy. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. :) I am (knock wood) out of this episode and very grateful that I don't have them as often as I used to! Someday maybe I'll be smart enough to get off the computer at onset, but I tend to cling to the hope that it'll be minor until it's obvious...and too late. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

User:RedKnight 1 committing copyvio
User:RedKnight 1 deleted a massive amount of text on Seymour Expedition and replaced it with a section he copied entirely, word by word, from another wikipedia article, Boxer Rebellion, the specific section is Boxer_rebellion.

Not only that, he failed to mention how exactly the original material was POV, and when i restored the original, referenced material, he reverted back to copyvio again

His only explanation for his removal was to be extremely rude, calling me an idiot and for me to be banned, refusing to explain why he deleted the referenced material and replacing it with copyvio. (note, i have never met this user before, and have no idea why he is being hostile and not assuming good faith, given that hes been around for a year)

I presented him with evidence that my material was correct and faithful to the references, and demanded an explanation as to why it was removed, and how exactly it was POV.

He claimed he would explain why in a day, but one day passed and he hasn't showed up. Its rather convinient that since his copyvio version is still showing, that he feels no need to explain himself.Дунгане (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've addressed the copyright problem; since Wikipedia does allow reuse of its content, all that was needed was proper attribution. I've left a templated notice for the contributor about it. I see that another admin has spoken to him about the civility issues. In terms of the text, if I were in your position, I would put a note on the talk page of the article Seymour Expedition explaining why you feel that the earlier content is more appropriate for the article and leave him a "talkback" note pointing to that message. If he did not engage in discussion within a reasonable time (say by tomorrow), I'd revert. If he comes back to engage in discussion, great. If he does not, the matter is de facto resolved. If he comes back and reverts, then it's time to deal with his lack of engagement in the consensus process through WP:DR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Islam Article.
Hi, Hope you doing well. Please keep an eye on article Islam as I need it requires page protection in order to avoid distortion. Also please keep an eye on User AllahLovesYou. User has been deliberately distorting article in bad faith against all other sects. user breached the 3RR rule here with more than 8 edits a day on the same article.- Humaliwalay (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you think the page needs protection, please list it at WP:RPP. I put most of my energies into copyright issues, and I'm afraid I'm not the best admin to watch the article for verifiability. In terms of User AllahLovesYou, unless there are special sanctions on the article Islam, I don't see any issues of 3rr in recent history. It is not against the rules to edit an article more than three times in a day, but only to reverse the actions of editors. Consecutive actions, without interventing edits by others, do not count as multiple reverts. As Wikipedia generally counts things, everything done in this series of actions is one edit (in terms of the 3RR rule), and everything here is a second. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. No issues I understood and when needed shall be doing as suggested. - Humaliwalay (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't suppose you could help...?
Hey MRG, I tagged 2010 Asian Para Games with cv-unsure on the talk page a while ago, but I was kind or wondering what the next step is. The way the article is written, almost promotional in tone (cf. "As the inaugural Asian Para Games for Asia, this event is expected to become the benchmark for all future Asian Para Games."), seems to suggest it might've been taken from some sort of page or booklet describing the new event... I'm also unsure as yet how to fully utilise tools like WikiBlamer to help find who could've added any of the questionable material. So I was wondering if you could help on either front? This is an ongoing sporting event so it would seem to suggest that there must be a few hundred people reading the article daily at this time and this is a big copyright violation for all to see... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * here is the source . (it's given as a reference to the introduction). As the violation seems foundational I will take it to wp:CP. Yoenit (talk) 12:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC) actually that is not the source, but I am looking into it. Yoenit (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oke, this is a weird one. The suspected copyvio is foundational, from May 2009. I can find it on the web in several locations, but they are all more recent. An updated version is even on the official site, where it is dated 11 December 2010 and sourced to China Daily. In the absence of a source we can't confirm this as a copyvio, but I suggest the section is rewritten as it is currently borderline spam and inappropriate on those grounds. Yoenit (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yoenit. :) I've removed an overly extensive quotation and also some content that was pasted from . Rewriting what's left is probably the best idea. With Wikiblame, I just put in a few key words and it'll usually cough up the answer. If it does not do it in binary, I switch to linear. It takes longer, but will pinpoint the precise entry. Always make sure, though, that the edit it identifies is not somebody reverting vandalism! More than once, I've found the point of entry was actually some restoring content that had been blanked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

refs
From Dromeaz: These were just some news stories about Robert Garside that I thought may be of use:

http://g1.globo.com/Noticias/PlanetaBizarro/0,,MUL15762-6091,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6509977.stm http://www.sportshollywood.com/shnews2000.html http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/33321_running_man_rob_steps_out_in_us http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/41081_roberts_gump_into_record_books

good luck. 87.82.115.8 (talk) 14:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Is there anything in particular that you feel they'd be useful with? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Well gee, I don't know. Since I have been unfairly barred, it's up to you. I do note however CanadianLinuxUser's suspicious editing of the dispute section. How is it fair that you let direct enemies of mine edit my name? How can this be fair? Why don't you just take off EVERYTHING and just have one section called DISPUTE and let put whatever they want to there? That will suit them fine too won't it? Why are a handful of detractors/direct enemies being allowed to customise the Robert Garside page to suit their twisted ideas? What next?


 * I left you a note at your talk page explaining how you can deal with problematic content, here. If you do not note specific concerns, you cannot expect them to be addressed. You have not proven that CanadianLinuxUser is a direct enemy of yours; he indicates he is not. It is quite possible that he is simply a running enthusiast who has read the sources and perceives them differently than you do. As Biographies of living persons/Help notes, "You cannot expect that everyone will agree with your views on yourself." He has not been permitted to "put whatever [he wants] to there", as the talk page document, and has been open to conversation about his proposed changes. Personally, I do not see any problem with the content as it stands now. It is not twisted or inaccurate, so far as I can see. If you feel differently, you need to specifically explain what you think should be changed and why when you provide sources to support those changes. I've explained at your user talk page how to use help me to draw attention of other editors when you do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tripsichord Music Box
Hello, again. Could you take a look at this article that I came across. I removed a whole section from the article, as it was a straight lift from Allmusic (see Talk:Tripsichord Music Box). Upon reflection, the next section in the piece is copyright dubious as well. I thought rather than this bumbling amateur dabbling in the matter, I had better consult the oracle. Hope you are well, by the way; if not, perhaps that little piece of flattery will lift your spirits ! Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Flattery is always welcome. :D As are you. Thanks so much for finding that issue; you're right that we can't keep that content. I've removed it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Why was the Jordan Schaul Page deleted? We just put up a new biography for him?
It is brand new information. What do we have to do to get the page put back up or get someone else to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butaflycco (talk • contribs) 20:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks re. Pawnee Indian Museum State Historic Site
Thanks for dealing with the copyright issues concerning Pawnee Indian Museum State Historic Site. As a relatively new editor, I was uneasy about deleting a large slug of content; I was afraid I'd get one of those snappish messages about don't-delete-it-improve-it. I appreciate your work on copyright matters, which is probably a lot less fun than writing articles, and probably gets you a lot of not-so-civil comments. You're helping to make WP a better place. Thanks-- Ammodramus (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. :) Some people are a bit disgruntled, yes, but I'm happy to say that a good many people appreciate the importance of the work...which, of course, often wouldn't get done without people like you taking the time to notice and alert others to what you find! So, thank you, in return. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ultrasonic Impact Treatment: Copyleft added to resolve suggestBot's issues
re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_impact_treatment

Copyleft notice added to footer of page here: http://appliedultrasonics.com/solutions.html (this page has most of the technical info) Full text of Copyleft statement here: http://appliedultrasonics.com/copyleft.html

Is it possible to restore the old Wikipedia entry and simply delete the THEORY section, which was what suggestBot didn't like? Or do I need to rebuild the entire entry?

Thanks Moonriddengirl Crockett Dunn (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Looking at it more closely, the "Benefits" section is also unusably close to the book, unless we get verified license for it. Other than those two sections, I don't see any content from that book. I've restored the entry without them. The copyleft is great; are you planning to incorporate any content from the website on the page? If so, we'll want to be sure to fully acknowledge the source as is required by our license. I also need to know what you want done with Talk:Ultrasonic impact treatment/Temp. Do you still need that content? If not, I can delete it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hola. Thanks for restoring! The Temp page is just a replacement for the Theory section, without the copyright issues. If you can paste it in there, great. If not, I'll have it redone.

The benefits section is all information which is included in the "Video" section of the Copylefted page of the website. Does that take care of that issue?

Thanks for all of your help.

Almost forgot: Is there anyway to email subscribe to watch page changes? Feedburner the RSS, maybe? Or does Wikipedia have anything more direct?

Crockett Dunn (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've merged the temporary content in, thanks. The only way that the "benefits" section could be cleared by the website is if we can prove that the website had the content before the book. I'm by far not the most technologically inclined admin on Wikipedia, but I don't believe it's possible to be e-mailed changes to the article. You might want to ask at Help desk if there's a more direct way to do it; that's where I go when I run up against Wikipedia-related problems. :) It's manned by volunteers, and you can usually expect a good answer to your question within a few hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the Theory section. I'll see about the date of the "benefits" video, or just re-write it. Ah ha! Feedmyinbox.com works for emailing daily updates of an RSS feed, in this case, the watchlist feed. Thank you for all of your help! --Crockett Dunn (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

from the dear departed deleted...
hi there!

I was just sitting here procrastinating and I decided to read my wife's wiki page (after I successfully wasted the whole morning looking at everyone else's too...) and I discovered that her page has been deleted. suzanne bocanegra. I followed your links to the best of my ability and discovered that you had made this decision based on inclusion in her page of somematerial posted by a serial copyright infringer - I have no idea what that was or who that is. but I am curious if you can give me any advice on how to get the page back? I don't remember anything other than public record material on her page - awards, education, shows, etc. - and neither she nor I nor anyone we know ever posted any of the information there to begin with. but we definitely miss it! can you tell us what to do? thanks! you can write us back at 74.66.20.84 (talk) 19:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm afraid that the contributor who placed the material is evidently rather more interested in generating content quickly than ensuring that the content he creates is not copied and pasted; he keeps copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies. The best option here is probably to create a new article at Suzanne Bocanegra; I'll be happy to get something up and going as soon as I finish up with today's "copyright problem" batch. I don't anticipate this taking much longer, though sometimes issues prove unexpectedly complex. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * thanks! I really appreciate it!  xo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.20.84 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Literally, my pleasure. I have created at least the start of an article. By the way, if your wife (or you, for that matter!) are willing to release a portrait under one of the free licenses we use (see Declaration of consent for all enquiries), we'd love to have one! And it will save you getting caught with some snapshot somebody gets on the subway someday. :) Just let me know; I'd be happy to tell you more about how to donate an image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * much obliged to you! I will check with her about whether she wants to be made visible.  and thanks so much for helping out.  be well!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.20.84 (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

YOTAM HABER
Hi, a few months ago, I got a Google alert that a Wiki page had been created about me. Obviously, it was a nice feeling. Today, I discovered that it was taken down. I have no clue who made the page to begin with (how does one figure that out?) but could you please explain why you took it down? Sorry, I don't really understand how Wiki editorial decisions are made. Thank you,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl&action=edit&section=new# —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.98.83 (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm very sorry to say the person who created the article has a history of copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies and some months back was blocked from the site, which meant that he was not welcome to create any articles at the time that he created the one about you. In addition to the fact that he should not have been creating articles at all prior to his negotiating an unblock, we cannot be sure that the content he placed was not copied or closely paraphrased from some web or print source. Ordinarily, I would suggest that you might write a new article, but since we discourage articles written by their subjects, I would be happy to start a new article on you, if you'd like. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflict escalation
Your actions are inflammatory. You do not understand the situation, so you pour gasoline on it? That does not speak well of your ability to remain an admin in my opinion.Wjhonson (talk) 00:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not see my actions as inflammatory. We were having a discussion a month ago. You are the one who left in the middle of it; for you to ignore that and restore the links with a note that says "do not revert without discussion" seems extraordinary, to say the least. Nevertheless, as you know, I have sought feedback. We'll see what comes of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your actions as inflammatory. I explained very clearly why Genealogics is not a mirror nor a fork. You completely ignored my explanation and removed the link. That inflames the situation. That is not part of conflict resolution, that is part of conflict escalation. Address directly, exactly what I stated. And don't merely repeat that they copy, when I've pointed out several times, that they do not.Wjhonson (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A potential text copyvio at Commons
Hi MRG, I know how busy you are but I was hoping you could take a look at a deletion discussion involving a photograph of a sign on Commons. Commons users aren't as familiar as you with copyvio standards for text. It's located at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lendal Tower, York (21st October 2010) 001.jpg. Thanks! Dcoetzee 01:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

One left at SCV for today
Hi there, Mind chiming in at Suspected copyright violations/2010-12-07 (top entry in the list, how convenient)? I think this one is borderline. MLauba (Talk) 12:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't mind at all. :) I'll be right there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sultan Tarlacı
You and the copyright wallahs who lurk here might like to review a copyright problem for JohnCD at the aforelinked talk page. I've given my opinion. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User talk:DGG
 * User talk:DGG


 * Hi. I've blanked the article and explained the issue both at the talk page and at the contributor's talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As this one had been deleted as copyvio twice before, I have deleted it again, replaced it with a redirect to the article about the journal he founded and edits, and told the author (who has a glaring COI) to rewrite or arrange a release, and then submit to AFC. I copied to his talk page the note you left on the article talk page. I will keep an eye. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. :) Thanks for the update! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd copyvio problem
Not sure where to ask this as it seems a little complex for the suspected copyvio board. On the article Supply chain management an editor recently made what looked like a "refspam" run. I was able to find a copy of the book referenced on google books, only to note that it seems to be a exact duplicate of many sections of the article (specifically that "problems in SCM" section). Since the wiki content seems to not only pre-date the publication of the book, but it also appears to have grown organically, I reverted the refs to that book. Questions: (1) can you (or one of the other copyvio pros) verify my conclusions, and (2) do we normally follow up on misuse of our content like this (the book does not appear to credit wiki)? Thanks for anything you can clear up! (link to book, link to revert. Kuru   (talk)  01:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Thanks for your careful work here! I will do (1) first thing in the morning. I should not forget, but if I do, I hope one of my talk page stalkers or you will nudge me. As to (2), we only really follow up by noting it here. Contributors may choose to follow up with the publisher, and sometimes they have success, but only contributors who have added substantial content have the right legally to complain (see Mirrors and forks). :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've verified your conclusions--which is to say, I share them. :) I've left a note with detail at the article's talk page. Thanks for catching this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect; the process around the conclusions was what I was looking for. Thank you for your help!  Kuru   (talk)  19:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey
That dispute will still be there later. May I recommend that you slow down and give the regulars a chance? I'm absolutely convinced that you have much more productive and less soul-destroying things to do right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good advice; I'll take it, and thank you very much. I'm off to watch The A-Team (maybe equally soul detroying, but at least it's family time. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

why was Isabella Wall deleted?
you deleted Isabella Wall from the list of Dominicans. May I know why? - Thank you

EV69.111.14.224 (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello. The article Isabella Wall was tagged by one of our contributors as a copyright problem and listed for evaluation by administrators at Copyright problems/2010 October 30. From the article's creation, I'm afraid, it took content from a previously published source (specifically this one) in a manner inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies on copyright, including both close paraphrasing and literatal duplication. A few examples: "Isabella began her career modeling and acting at the tender age of 12", "Isabella is passioned about her birth land", "The exquisite merchandise is personally hand picked by Isabella from around the world, all the while collecting valuable information and ideas to share with her online database of mothers and daughters, who are planning this special once in a lifetime family affair."


 * For one week, the article was blanked after the creator was notified here to give the creator an opportunity to rewrite it or to get permission for the text. Since the article was not rewritten by the creator or any other contributors, it was deleted. We will need somebody to write a new article on this woman that does comply with our policies if we are to publish it, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion query
Hello! Question regarding the deletion of Solar Photovoltaic Academic Research Consortium, it was flagged for copyright issues and I posted a note on the talk page that I was the orignator and copyright holder of the information on the page in question, can you please undelete and mark this as ok, or is a significant rewrite required?

Thanks. Swansearpl (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. It must either be rewritten from scratch or permission supplied, as per the directions left at your talk page. As indicated there, I'm afraid that we must verify licensing when content copies or closely follows previously published materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada–Tonga relations
Hi again. I have a question about Canada–Tonga relations. This edit by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) appears to restore a few short sentences (some copied, some close-paraphrased). I don't want to risk an edit war by stubbing again, and a WP:Copyright problems listing would be processed after WP:Articles for deletion/Canada–Tonga relations is closed.

Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. There's no edit warring involved if the content is a copyright problem. "Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy" is exempt. I haven't looked at the source yet; I may wake up a bit more first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking into this. I would have simply reverted/stubbed it, which might have caused friction. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

query
Hi, could you give an opinion on this? A street sign outside Liu's wife's apartment, in Chinese (to do with the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize fiasco), was rendered in rather ambiguous English by the South China Morning Post (English-language newspaper), and "quoted" in WP directly from the newspaper's quoted translation: "The road is under construction, please understand".[ref] It's unclear how bossy the sign really was, and it does affect the context. One editor suggests inserting square brackets after seeing the original Chinese text of the sign: "The road is under construction, please [be] understand[ing]". Does this run into a problem in implying that the SCMP itself inserted the square-bracket disambiguation? Tony  (talk)  10:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's an interesting question. Quoting a quote. :) I would not think so, if I encountered that quote, because theirs is a translation. Why would they need to use bracket disambiguation if they are not actually quoting the source themselves? That said, I would think that handling depends on how it affects the context. If the difference between "please understand" and "please be understanding" is significant in the story, then I imagine that it would be important for accuracy to include the original so those readers who do understand Chinese can judge for themselves, maybe like "The sign read [insert original characters here], which the South China Morning Post translated as 'translation'." I don't guess there are other sources that render the translation more like our contributors does. We routinely translate foreign language material ourselves, but, again, I would guess that would be undesirable in this circumstance; if the intention of the sign is important and ambiguous, we need to avoid any unintentional biases affecting our rendering. At least in citing a print publication, we give those who know the source an opportunity to judge potential bias themselves. (My reaction to a political bit on Fox News varies from my reaction to a political bit in the New York Times.)


 * To get back to your actual question, no, I don't think that the brackets necessarily suggest emendation by The South China Morning Post. If it's really important, I recommend quoting the original and attributing. If it's not that important, we could simply eliminate the question in footnote...either by explaining the brackets there or eliminating them and adding the Chinese original.


 * Hope this makes sense. I am still low on morning caffeine. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I queried it myself as copy-editor, wanting to know the tone of the sign (bossy or polite ... could be either). OK. Tony   (talk)  13:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Communities That Care and copyright issues
Hello, Moonriddengirl, I see that the Communities That Care article is once again available for viewing. Thank you! Preventionbetterthancure (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick question about copy and paste move
- long story short, one editor copied the content from 2010 Atlantic hurricane season and pasted it into List of storms in the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season. As it was a complete redundancy, I just redirected it back to the main article, but I was wondering if there were any GFDL problems associated with that. --Hurricanehink ( talk ) 02:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Yes, there are attribution issues. I've G6ed the unattributed fork, since it had already been turned into a redirect. I've explained the situation to the contributor and have also asked him to attribute another split he recently made as well as any others that may remain unattributed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They were a CCI subject, so most of their older splits should have attribution. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Open Government License text attribution template
So in light of the ongoing mass rollout of the Open Government License to cover Crown Copyright material (see e.g. Note at the bottom Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-06/GLAM-WIKI London), after doing some research I created OGL and the corresponding commons:Template:OGL for images. I've now created OGL-text and was hoping you and/or your stalkers could take a look at it (and my research notes) and see if I've messed anything up. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. :) And isn't that so exciting? Frankly, I was astonished when I heard about it. Very cool, UK Government! Very cool. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS tagging
Could you take a look at User talk:VernoWhitney and the related 2010121610031485 and weigh in? I was thinking a note similar to what User:Leningradartist has on their userpage would be sufficient, but I thought you might have a better idea. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Sorry for my absence! Something unexpected dropped on me today and ate pretty much the bulk of the day. :P I'll be right there! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Investigation
Hi! I appreciate your attention to this issue. -- Mibelz 10:18, 18 Dec 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Do pay attention to the EDITING HISTORY of "CanadianLinuxUser". No doubt he is a detractor of "Robert Garside", whose identity is well-known. "CanadianLinuxUser" also edits the JESPER OLSEN (runner) page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CanadianLinuxUser 87.194.42.37 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz


 * This is almost a personal attack and quite frankly becoming tiresome. He put the same message on my talk page. FYI Mr Garside, as I have stated to Moonriddengirl before... I began by editing the Jesper Olsen page and going through the history was what led me to the Garside page. So your editing of the Olsen page is what got me interested in the Garside page to begin with. I also have other contributions contrary to the single purpose account of this individual.  CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interest alone is not proof of identity. It is reasonable that a running enthusiast would have an interest in contributing to the Garside article as well as to those of other runners. As a public person, Garside will draw attention of others, who may even find the arguments of his detractors persuasive. This is one of the challenges, I'm afraid, of being a public person. People with a conflict are encouraged to acknowledge it; CanadianLinuxUser has denied having one. Ultimately, however, what really matters is his behavior related to the article. As long as he is willing to work within consensus to achieve a neutral article, there are no issues with his contributing to it. At this point, he has been very willing to do that.


 * CanadianLinuxUser, I realize that this is frustrating, but I would ask you please to be patient and overlook the accusations. This individual has encountered strong POV pushing in the past; perhaps this is why he tends to be suspicious of it now. We need to be sensitive to his legitimate concerns even as we remain true to Wikipedia's mission. Honoring WP:BLP requires a careful balancing act. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Once again... thanks for "reigning" me in :-D I do not want to start a fight on your talk page... or mine LOL. My personal opinion is "he doth protest too much..." and he is full of tribble droppings. That being said, do not hesitate to keep me keep me in the straight and narrow. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

IF - and you probably won't - look back at the HISTORY of the editing of Robert Garside and IF - and you probably won't - look at my contributions, you will see that all I have ever done is defend the name "Robert Garside" and I have been more than fair, despite unjust personal attacks. I have not contravened policy, just argued my case well. Since you have forgotten, Robert Garside has appeared in a derrogatory light on the following pages over several years: Guinness World Records, Royal Holloway University, Franz Lidz..... "Robert Garside" has also appeared on numerous other pages, therefore there is due cause to be diligent. There have been personal attacks against Robert Garside and as a consequence of defending or undoing unfair edits, we have been blocked. That is ridiculous. Fact is that we will continue to monitor the page and correct errors, unbalanced edits or bias edits. Of course, you allow the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page to be based on references purely from his own web blog... but if I edit something into the "Robert Garside" page it is removed, even though I reference it to a news story. Double standards exist and as previously stated, the discearning of Wikipedia's readers already know it. 87.194.42.37 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz.
 * You have also attempted on multiple occasions to be the "detractor" as you put it on the Jesper Olsen article. Like I said that is what brought me to the Garside page. I have consulted the history of both articles before editing as well as consulted the references, which led me to my personal opinion mentioned previously. I will not take up Moonriddengirl's time with any more pointless arguing. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

FROM DROMEAZ: 1. You write, "...which led me to my personal opinion". Wikipedia is not about personal opinions and I am not a detractor of anyone. You got that the wrong way around. 2. If you search for "Jesper Olsen", you will find a page about a footballer. "Jesper Olsen (runner)" is different. How did you find that page in the first place when it is obscure? And given that there is no mention of me on there, how did you find the "Robert Garside" page after that? 3. It's funny, is it not, that all of your edits on "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page are POSITIVE, even though it is his web blogs that forms the references AND all of your edits about "Robert Garside" are NEGATIVE. Strange. 4. You may hide behind being a Wikipedia administrator, which you no doubt promoted yourself into being, but your true identity does not fool me. THIS IS A SMOKE SCREEN. I know who you are and it is a shame that Moonriddengirl does not. Your style of editing, the history of your editing gives you away. 88.97.15.109 (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC) DROMEAZ


 * (SIGHS) Do I really have to?? Very well then....
 * 1. Hence why I never put my personal opinion about you in the article.
 * 2. To find Jesper Olsen I went to the upper right hand corner of the Wikipedia and started typing Jesper Olsen.... It filled automatically Jesper Olsen (runner) for me.... like Google... If you would have read what I have repeated three times now... I read the editing history (Contributions) of Olsen's page and found YOUR edits of Olsen's page... following YOUR contributions led me to Garside's page.
 * 3. I did not put positive or negative edits on Olsen's page... I reported what I read on the World Run Website...
 * 4. I am not a Wikipedia Administrator... I am a Wikipedia editor. I live in Montreal, Quebec, Canada... I am not Phil Essam, nor am I David Blaikie. My first name is Jacques. I am a runner. I have a few marathons under my belt and hope one day to complete an Ultra or two.
 * Are we done now? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, you don't have to answer these questions. Just so long as your behavior at the article and its talk page are within policies and guidelines, there should be no issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I know I don't "have" to... but he can't attack my edits (or so you told him) so he feels the need to attack me... once again... apologies for filling up your talk page. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to my talk page; you can explain yourself to him if you like. I just don't want you to feel compelled. These are unusual circumstances. If he were a regular contributor, there would likely be followup with his failures to WP:AGF, but he's already indefinitely blocked. Blocking his IP addresses would risk collateral damage, since they change, and might also hinder him in his legitimate endeavors to keep the content neutral. I would really recommend just focusing on substantial issues he may raise and not concerning yourself with his conclusions as to your identity. Again, past encounters may have led him to a greater degree of suspicion.
 * I see what you mean about IP addresses. 4 IPs in 2 days... Mr Garside changes IP addresses more often than I change my socks. :-D  PS: Thanks for your patience, instead of a Barnstar, I do hear by grant you a stress free week without migraines. :-D CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dromeaz, please do not continue posting on this user's talk page. I understand your concerns as well, but ultimately it doesn't really matter who he is so long as the article remains within our policies. Focusing on content will be much more productive. If you begin to be seen as harassing him, there may be additional steps taken that result in your only being able to voice your concerns via e-mail, and I think that would be unfair to you. Contributors may not always agree with you that specific content constitutes a problem, but I think it's important that you continue to have a voice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl: I actually think you think you are trying to be neutral, but believe me, I have had this for the last 12 years. I am pretty much an expert on these people and you cannot take them at face value.

CanadianLinuxUser writes "I read the editing history (Contributions) of Olsen's page and found YOUR edits of Olsen's page... following YOUR contributions led me to Garside's page." Moonriddengirl....I have made NO edits under "Dromeaz" on the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page, so what he writes is not true. Don't you get it? And yes, it does matter *who* he is. If he is a known detractor, then his intentions are not pure, so it does matter... and.... "discussion" pages are for exactly that......discussing. Stop falsely accusing me of not following policy and of vandalism. This is false. Finally, for as long as you are using the name "Robert Garside" so liberally I will be there, so I truly hope you will be fair and balanced and not go on and on about a dispute that was only in the minds of a few jealous rivals! And, Moonriddengirl, lose this CanadianLinuxUser guy. I don't buy his identity unless he can *really* prove who he is. 81.179.252.175 (talk) 19:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz
 * (SIGHS) You have been blocked as being a sockpuppet of Special:Contributions/TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate. That user edited the Jesper Olsen page... and that user directed me to the Garside page. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the notices the Administrators put concerning sockpuppets like you did here CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Then please do not make false and baseless allegations. I do not do "sockpuppetry" 81.179.252.175 (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz


 * With reference to my last, please stop making false allegations. TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate is an old user account. It is not a "sockpuppet". This account has not been active since 2009. 81.179.252.175 (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz


 * I'm afraid that under policy, it is considered "sock puppeting" to create a new account in order to edit when one account is blocked. See item #3, third down, at WP:ILLEGIT. User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate was indefinitely blocked in 2009. However, the tag has it backwards; per policy, User:Dromeaz would be the "sock puppet" account.


 * I've temporarily protected the talk page of CanadianLinuxUser. I've asked you to stop posting on this user's talk page, and I need to caution you again that if you begin to be seen as harassing him, there may be additional steps taken that result in your only being able to voice your concerns via e-mail. If you wish to be able to voice your concerns about the Robert Garside article on Wikipedia, you really must restrict your focus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You can warn all you like for as long as you invoke the name "Robert Garside" and make baseless accusations, I will be there to defend my name. I have already complained to Wikipedia about this and I intend to pursue it. I am sick and tired of dealing with an infrastructure of anonymous editors who block anyone who disagrees with them. Discussion pages are for discussions. You cannot present your case that is why you choose to threaten me instead, even though I have done nothing more than disagree with you. In 2009, an old user account was unfairly blocked because I used it to defend the name "Robert Garside" from personal attacks. Nothing more. Check the history and you will see that. That account does not exist and has not existed for over a year. I do not use that account. Understand? I use the account "Dromeaz" and if you are able to specifically point out where I have done wrong, giving and example, then okay. But you cannot. I am not doing sockpuppetry, you need to be using more than one account at one time to be doing that. I am not. I simply stopped using the old account in 2009 in favour of a new account in 2010. That is all. I therefore refute your allegations. 109.153.106.188 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz


 * I'm not threatening you; I'm cautioning you. See User talk:Dromeaz for more information. But you're mistaken about sockpuppetry; creating a new account to escape sanctions under one is explicitly included in that policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Moonriddengirl, the old account "TheLongestRoadoIndiaGate" was closed FIRST in 2009 because I didn't need to use that account any longer as I was liaising directly with Wikipedia to resolve an aggressive personal attack against me on Wikipedia. That got resolved so I closed the account. Later, a year later in 2010, the attack started again so I started "Dromeaz". Why do you assume I was trying to avoid "sanctions". Stop assuming that. You are wrong. If things get out of hand I already know what steps I can take to remedy the situation of PERSONAL ATTACKS AGAINST ME. 109.153.106.188 (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC) DROMEAZ
 * Dromeaz, the account was not "closed", but blocked. There are clear records of this. Your last edit with it was here, at 14:15, 22 July 2009. It was indefinitely blocked two minutes later at 14:17, 22 July 2009 . I am not assuming anything; I have reviewed the records. This is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. This indefinite block constitutes "sanctions" as defined by Wikipedia, and your creation of another account to edit constitutes sock puppetry and block evasion, again as defined by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a private website, and they are quite entitled to define their own terms. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I am surprised that you are turning a blind eye to what one of my enemies/detractors is doing. He has took the time and trouble to become an established user and has camoflaged his real identity with the username "CanadianLinuxUser". Can you not see that he is CHIPPING AWAY at the "Robert Garside" page, reducing it in volume, trimming it down, stripping it away. At the same time he is bolstering the "Jesper Olsen" page. 94.194.61.128 (talk) 14:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * His recent edit to the article was done under the argument that some of the content was redundant; he was right, it was. Later today, I'll look at it to make sure that the changes have not again brought criticism to undue prominence. However, with respect to the edit you placed on my talk page which was removed, you know that we do not lock articles into preferred versions. This article will evolve, just as all articles on Wikipedia do. This particular article has been given an additional level of protection that only autoconfirmed users may edit it and edits by anyone who has not reached "reviewer" status must be reviewed and approved by somebody who has. The changes that "CanadianLinuxUser" made were reviewed and approved by another contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I have already told you that CanadianLinuxUser is a detractor of Robert Garside. By taking away the ratifications section he suggests that there still is a dispute. There is no dispute. Guinness ratified the world record. He took that whole section away to de-value the record as a validated record.... what's worse is that he is a known sdetractor of ours and he is bolstering the Jesper Olsen (runner) page. It is clear that he is trying to control; both the articles. 94.194.61.128 (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

"CanadianLinuxUser" has edited the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page 21 times this month, all positive and that add volume to the page. "CanadianLinuxUser" has conflict of interest (COI). Add onto that, that he has edited the "Robert Garside" page 18 times this month, all negative and that subtract volume from the page. That is a fact. Add onto that, that he is known to us as a detractor of "Robert Garside" and tried to prevent "Dromeaz" from editing, so he can get his own way and try to re-write history. As previously stated, we will NEVER stop in protecting the name "Robert Garside" against those who persist in trying to compromise it. 94.194.61.128 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you have told me that; you also reverted User:UnicornTapestry as a "vandal" and indicated that he must have become an editor in 2007 because of the record (cf. ). User:UnicornTapestry clearly has no conflict. I have no doubt that you feel strongly that this individual has an axe to grind against Garside, but you have demonstrated a history of being mistaken in this, there, and in your earlier behavior when you accused administrators and long-established editors of Wikipedia of creating multiple accounts to defame Garside: . You have legitimate reason to watch for misuse of this article, but you seem inclined to view any critical edits as necessarily coming from a conspiracy. Even though it is not appropriate for me to engage you in conversation under the circumstances (you are evading sanctions even now), I am still trying to talk you into voicing your concerns about the article in a manner appropriate. If you think the content is unbalanced, you need to explain why and what needs changing. Going on tirades against the contributors is not helpful; unless you are able to prove your assertions (and you certainly weren't with User:UnicornTapestry), it amounts of harassment...not of Garside, but of the users about whom you are complaining. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have done some major changes to the article. I have explained my edits and my reasons at Talk:Robert_Garside. I hope that putting the dispute into proper chronological order with the authentication may help alleviate some of your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Another copy-and-paste question
I closed a requested move Talk:30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) (well within the bound of a non-admin closure) as move. There had in the past been two article, one at 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode) and one at 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) which were merged. As these have very overlapping edit histories the redirect at 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) can't be deleted to do the move so I did it by copy and paste, leaving appropriate comment in the edit history and clearly stating what had been done on both talk pages. As we need to keep both pages this seemed like the easiest, and best, way forward. Another non-admin has now reversed it saying they don't think cut and past is appropriate (see the requested move for more detailed reasoning). Could you please advise? Dpmuk (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Haven't forgotten about a CCI bot - Christmas has got in the way meaning progress has slowed down a lot. Dpmuk (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * From an attribution standpoint, a fully attributed cut and paste move would have been fine, if the histories of the articles should not be merged. It does run the risk of being undone and further complicating attribution, though, which is why in these cases the one being merged is usually archived in talk space. Anthony seems to have mopped up, though he archived it in namespace--maybe because it had a talk page? We don't archive in namespace to avoid "random page" finding archives, but since this is a redirect at an unlikely pagename, I suspect there's little risk of problem. :)


 * In terms of CCI bots, I don't sweat the stuff that is slow in appearing; I just rejoice over the stuff that shows up. If you manage to come up with something, great, but please don't feel like I'm staring at my watch impatiently. :D I have so much on my "to-do" list that I completely understand that it can take a while to get to something! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I can understand the concern about it being undone I also think the current situation is far from perfect. We now have in the edit history for 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent) "merge from 30 (Law & Order: Criminal Intent)" which has got to be complicating attribution a lot as it appears to have been merged from itself.  I realise appropriate comments on talk pages (which I note still need to be added so will do shortly) go some way to solving this but aren't we unnecessary complicating matters for anyone looking for attribution history.  At least with a copy and paste move the histories stay in the same place meaning, in my opinion, the edit histories are much easier to follow.  It seems to me that the basic idea that "copy+paste = bad" is being taken too far and actually sometimes hindering rather than helping attribution.


 * As for the bot I commented because I've been working on other stuff and so it could seem like I'd forgotten it - however things like closing / commenting on RMs and checking speedy tags is quick so I can do it when I've got a few spare minutes whereas I'd probably want to find at least an hour to work on a bot. Dpmuk (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If I have to move a page A to B, and there is already unwanted text at B, then merely deleting B and moving A to B would result in the visible edits (old A, new B) sitting over a deleted parallel history that was at B before. That is liable to accidents if the new B must later be temporarily deleted. For that reason I moved the old B to another pagename. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at (possibly because, being a non-admin, I can't see the delete / undelete interface) but I'm suggesting copy+paste is the best way which involves no deletions. I also think your comment about accidents is a red herring - ultimately doing it this was has made it harder for everyone (including readers) to correctly determine attribution.  Ultimately things should be done for the benefit of users not to make things easier for admins. Dpmuk (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving a comment in edit summary noting the location of the history for attribution should eliminate any confusion that might exist. Alternatively (or additionally), we could do what I used to do with copyright problems before revdeletion: create a talk subpage with the attribution history and either transclude it at the talk or link to it. That way, viewers can easily see the list. Those who need more detail can still dig it up at the new location. (Making things easier for admins should not be the primary goal of any procedure, to be sure, but making it less likely that an administrator will unintentionally create a huge mess is a good idea, although I believe that Anthony may be thinking that in this case you were suggesting deleting the article...he may not have realized that there is attribution history that needs to be maintained, eliminating that as an option.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If page B has an edit history, and there is a deleted parallel history in B also, then, if B must be temporarily deleted (for history-split, or history-merge, or to delete some edits), then deleting the visible edits of B would interleave the two parallel histories in one mixed list, causing confusion. See Parallel histories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When edits are deleted, they do not cease to exist: they are marked as "deleted", and admins (which includes me) can see the deleted edits as a second list of edits for that page name. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anthony. It's quite true that we can see them, but I'm not sure the relevance here. :) In case you're referring to my note above, deleted edits are of no use for copyright attribution, of course, as they are not visible to our readers. That's what I'm talking about above. The content in these articles has already been intermingled, evidently, in the past, so we need to maintain attribution for both. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

omg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Football_in_Indonesia - you have to be strong to go in there, and even more so to come out intact (i saw your activity at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persisam_Putra_Samarinda -) if you dont mind my saying youre a brave person - its a jungle in there - i bellyache regularly to myself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia - about the soccer tragics - its like they have no idea when or what - but then it seems to keep happening - as if they want a complete mirror of http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Liga_Indonesia with bells and whistles and not a w:rs in sight - i think in the end bagpipe band articles with no sources have more hope than the soccer chaos - cheers SatuSuro 13:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * My mop is generally ready for copyright work. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * :) oh well when I spot it on the horizon - will alert for slop :) SatuSuro 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Bonsort2
You blocked User:Bonsort in November for Copyvio. His alter-ego has re-surfaced as User:Bonsort2 - thought you might like to be aware and keep watch. Regards.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Handled. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you could
Take a gander at File:A Different View.png. It was upped as Fair Use, but with an OTRS number attached. The question right now is there is no FUR attached. If the the OTRS is valid and the Non-free logo is also correct I think we need to add the Non-free with permission tag. On the other hand if the OTRS contains a different license it should be updated. Thanks. (EDIT: Also of note the "source" and "author" both link to the Wikipedia article International Association for Political Science Students, so I am not sure that qualifies as a legit "source" if the OTRS is not from there.)(EDIT TO THE EDIT: See also File:Politikon.png and File:IAPSS Logo.png. File:IAPSS Logo.png was upped in 2008 by another user. The OTRS tag was added by the same user who upped the other two with the same tag and number.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The permission reads in part as follows:


 * It's legit, but otherwise useless for us. The procedures recommended by the Italian OTRS agent may be valid on It Wiki, but not En Wiki. You're right on with the useless Non-free with permission tag and with the need for a FUR. I've let the uploader of the latter two know (s/he is an OTRS agent and evidently a regular contributor on It Wiki) that we do things differently here. I'd add the FUR as a courtesy, but as you know images are not really my focus. I don't know if we'd generally permit File:A Different View.png and File:Politikon.png to be used on a page for which neither is the primary logo. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Joel Brinkley - So why did you delete his history - he won the Pulitzer !
Reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.30.111 (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Joel Brinkley is certainly notable enough and should have an article on wikipedia. However, if you copied the article from another website that is plagiarism at least, and it is usually also a copyright violation. Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material. If you wish to create an article on Joel Brinkley, then you must write the article in your own words rather than copying someone else's.


 * Moonriddengirl mostly removed copyright violations from the history of articles. This is required. --Kleopatra (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kleopatra. :) His notability was not in question. In this case, the person who created the article has a history of copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies and some months back was blocked from the site, which means that he was not welcome to create any articles at the time that he created this one. Our policy in the cases of contributors who pretend to be somebody else, as this one did, so that they can continue using Wikipedia after they have been blocked for violating our policies is to delete their contributions. In addition to the fact that he should not have been creating articles at all without negotiating an unblock, we cannot be sure that any content he placed was not copied or closely paraphrased from some web or print source. We would certainly welcome an article on this individual, but it needs to be provided by somebody who is willing to work within our policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Non free logos
Dear MRG, thanks a lot for your help! I'm not that used to en.wiki policies for logos. ;) I (think I) fixed the descriptions, may you take a look at them and tell me if everything's ok? Sorry for disturb. ;) -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot anyway. Tell him/her also to contact me for any explanation or whatever, if needed. ;) -- Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 13:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A little help, please.
HI MRG, how are you? Could you please point me to where the "wiki break" templates are? Thank you Jayy008 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Under the suprising original name Wikibreak. Yoenit (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Yoenit. :) Enjoy your holiday, Jayy! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you Yoenit. Back at ya, MRG. You too, Yoenit. Jayy008 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Question for Moondriddengirl
Hello Moonriddengirl-

My name is Craig Walker - (Craig F. Walker.) I feel kind of weird approaching you with this question. But here goes- A few months ago I noticed someone had created a profile for me on Wikipedia. I thought it was kind of nice that some took the time- but the actual profile wasn't very well done. Now i see you have deleted it.

I guess I am struggling - trying to decide which is worse... a bad profile - or no profile.

Since I am not familiar with the procedure at Wikipedia - i am hoping you can share your thoughts with me via email at  I do look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely Cfwalker (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC) craig

Be well- Craig F. Walker Staff Photographer The Denver Post 101 West Colfax Ave. Denver, CO 80202


 * Hi Craig. While I can't speak for Moonriddengirl, I will say that she is known on wikipedia for her work deleting copyright violations. The article was probably plagiarized from a source without proper attribution, and it was probably a violation of the copyright to post the article on wikipedia. Wikipedia must delete these articles as soon as possible. Moonriddengirl does a lot of this work.
 * Sadly, most plagiarized articles on wikipedia tend to be badly written, also.
 * I suspect you are notable enough to merit a wikipedia article, and I think that having a good wikipedia article on you would be an asset to the encyclopedia. I don't have time to write one right now, but I will be glad to edit one should it appear or to add one about you in a few weeks. If one is created, feel free to post on my talk page, and I will make sure it is a well-written and well-monitored article without copyright violations. Actually, Moonriddengirl will take care of the last point. --Kleopatra (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again, Kleopatra. :) This situation is the same as the one above. In this case, the person who created the article has a history of copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies and some months back was blocked from the site, which means that he was not welcome to create any articles at the time that he created this one. Our policy in the cases of contributors who pretend to be somebody else, as this one did, so that they can continue using Wikipedia after they have been blocked for violating our policies is to delete their contributions. In addition to the fact that he should not have been creating articles at all without negotiating an unblock, we cannot be sure that any content he placed was not copied or closely paraphrased from some web or print source. Our policy is that contributions by people who repeatedly violate our copyright policies may be deleted indiscriminately. Ordinarily I would suggest you write a new article, but since we discourage autobiographies, I'd be happy to put up a new "stub" (or brief article) on you. You're clearly notable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done. I've freshly researched and created a new article. Should you be willing to donate a photograph of yourself for it, please let me know, and I'll fill you in on the process. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl and Kleopatra - Thank you so much for the quick response and for creating the nice profile. I really do appreciate it. I would be happy to share a picture - and more info if you think it is needed. Just let me know what to do. As I said before- Wikipedia is new for me but I'm learning... and hoping I'm using this messaging system properly. Again thank you - and I'll look forward to hearing from you. All best, Cfwalker (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * My pleasure, and you are doing just fine. :) I would love to find more information, especially about your background (we like to include at least year of birth and birth state), but we run into the odd Wikipedia terrain that I must have a published source to draw it from. I cannot take it from you directly. :) (This, to meet two of our core content policies on verifiability and original research.) Can you by any chance provide me with a link to any published documents that might supply that information?


 * As to a picture, that would be fabulous. If you're willing, we do need you to license it so that our downstream reusers can also publish it. Our licenses require permitting derivative works and also commercial reuse. Please see Declaration of consent for all enquiries for the form letter, and I'm happy to clarify any of it. :) As you are a photographer, I'm sure I don't need to explain to you that generally the copyright of photographs of you will belong to somebody else; we can only accept photographs you've taken of yourself or for which you acquired copyright, as with works for hire. We would, of course, also dearly love to be able to display an example of your work, but I know that our licensing requirements make this an unlikely request. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. I looked for a bio with my birthdate and place - but no luck. I was born 07/14/1966 in Shreveport, LA but I don't mention it often because i grew up in York, PA. That's where i consider home. But I'll do some more looking. I'll also try to find a self portrait - and talk with my boss about offering you a picture from the actual story. I'm sure Wikipedia would be fine - but you mentioned it could be published in other places as well? Talk soon - and thank you. Cfwalker (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC) cfw


 * Thanks. :) If I don't find a published source with your date of birth, though, I can't use it, even if you faxed me your birth certificate. If there's not a published source yet, we can leave it until you manage to slip it in to an interview somewhere. :) Yes, it could and almost certainly would be published in other places as well. Wikipedia is a project designed to accumulate information that can be disseminated widely, even commercially, so long as the content remains free and so long as attribution is provided. The license we recommend is creative commons attribution sharealike. I can well understand that your publisher (and probably even you) would object to releasing one of your Pulitzer series under that license, though we would (of course) happily accept a low res version. But if you feel inclined to donate any photograph, it could be from any part of your career. It would be used in the article as an example of your work, but might be used elsewhere for other reasons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Marc S. Wilson
Hi! Previously the page for Marc S. Wilson was deleted for copyright issues. I understand why you deleted it. However, I did and continue to have permission from Marc S. Wilson to use the bio straight from the website, www.ksc.ks.gov. If you need his permission personally, please let me know. If you do not agree to publish the previous article, what about the following for the Marc S. Wilson page?

Marc S. Wilson is the Kansas Securities Commissioner. He was appointed by Governor Mark Parkinson to serve as Kansas Securities Commissioner in May 2010. He previously practiced law at Kansas City-area firm Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, specializing in financial services, corporate and nonprofit clients on matters involving mergers and acquisitions, governance, capital structure, regulatory compliance and administrative law.

Wilson earned a J.D. and LL.M. (master of laws) in banking and financial law from Boston University School of Law and an M.B.A. from the Boston University Graduate School of Management. He earned B.A. degrees in Political Science and African and African-American Studies from the University of Kansas. He was born and raised in Hiawatha, Kansas.

Thank you. Meganbottenberg (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)Meganbottenberg


 * Hi. :) It's not me that it needs to be sent to, but the Wikimedia Foundation. Please send it to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org]. Please be sure to include the name of the article and the url of the website. Given that it's a holiday, it may be a little longer than usual (about a week) before you get a response, but if there are any questions about the license, you should hear from a volunteer soon what needs to be cleared up.


 * In terms of the proposed content, I'm afraid it may be a bit close to the source still for us to use. But if you've got permission, we shouldn't need to worry about it. If you send in your permission letter in the next day or two, let me know here and I'll try to follow up on it immediately. After Wednesday, I am traveling myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dimitri Hadzi Deletion
Please explain why the article was deleted considering the contents were factual.Baboulas (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. The accuracy of the article was not in question. In this case, the person who created the article has a history of copying content onto Wikipedia in violation of our policies and some months back was blocked from the site, which means that he was not welcome to create any articles at the time that he created this one. Our policy in the cases of contributors who pretend to be somebody else, as this one did, so that they can continue using Wikipedia after they have been blocked for violating our policies is to delete their contributions. In addition to the fact that he should not have been creating articles at all without negotiating an unblock, we cannot be sure that any content he placed was not copied or closely paraphrased from some web or print source. We would certainly welcome an article on this individual, but it needs to be provided by somebody who is willing to work within our policies. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Block Evasion
Sorry to bother you... may I trouble you for a block of Him for harassment and block evasion. He is persistant... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid you'll have to talk to somebody who is uninvolved. I am not in position to either accept or decline your request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm willing to block for evasion since its clear you and CLU (forgive the paraphrasing, please) consider 94.194 Dromeaz...tho I would be more inclined to just toss their edits down the memory hole considering the implication that he has a bunch of IPs at his disposal. Syrthiss (talk) 16:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why I didn't bother. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Speak of the devil... Special:Contributions/86.177.177.38  his harassment continues... CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for awhile. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Text based copyright Question on National Register Documents
Hello MRG,

My question is if I can add the information (text) on the National Register Nomination document here as found on their website. This would help articles such as Hacienda Santa Rita of which the linked document is the subject. Since this is a US Government form (NPS form 10-900, or OMB No. 1024-0018), can I disregard the institution that prepared the form and assume all text contained therein is PD? Or is this text on the form subject to intellectual rights? I find that the text in these documents are highly encyclopedic and would not be asking otherwise. Also, If the text is PD, what is the best way to add to the Articles? QuAz GaA  19:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish, but I'm afraid not, unless we can find some proof that they have required the preparers to yield their copyright. :/ The United States Government is not precluded from hosting documents that are governed by copyright, and their website here is a bit vague on whether or not text is one of the unmentioned "such as" elements that may be copyrightable. I myself personally wrote to one submitter to see if I could get copyright clearance or if they could clarify for me if they were required to relinquish their copyright, but I never heard back. Tell you what: they have an e-mail. I'll write them and ask. Maybe they'll be willing to clear it up. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interupt but Moonriddengirl's right. At least one of the participants of National Register of Historic Places NRHP personally emailed the register folks and they said much the same thing. They post the docs like the one you linked too on their site but by their own admittance they don't control the copyright status. My advice would be to go to whomever prepared the document and prepare an OTRS request allowing WP to use the document (and potentially others they might have prepared). Good luck though. --Kumioko (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the Info. Could you please check these OTRS PD tickets to see if they may apply to the Text? PD-PRGov-IPC PD-PRGov-PRSHP They are already in use for the images themselves.  Thanks.   QuAz  GaA  20:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, no, it is specifically for images. :/ FWIW, I've written to the National Register. I'm not expecting success, but you never know. :) Beyond that, Kumioko is right that you might write the preparer. We have a suggested form letter or two at Requesting copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've received a prompt reply, and as we suspected the copyright remains with the document preparers. The only option is to get permission from those people. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Geroge Sernack Article
Hello Moonriddengirl,

How are you I hope all is well. I am going to try again to create this article. I am sure you get hundreds of messages and so I am not expecting you will recall our conversation from a few months ago. Please let me know if I need to fill out any new forms to re submit this. I am going to try and make whatever changes are needed.

Thank you, R Rserpa (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding me; you've changed your name since we last spoke. :) I do have to caution you again that your connection to this subject may create problems, but if you are responsive to concerns, it may work out all right. In case you've lost your old identity, I found my last notes to you here. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

HI,

What was my name when we last spoke? I am not sure what to do at this point. I do not work in a marketing capacity for Mr. Sernack any more but I still train there and was really looking to do this to help him out. Similar to this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_Schulmann although I see this one has some issues as well but it looks like it is at least up as an article. I have been searching the internet for items that I might be able to use to satisfy the notablity criteria but am having a hard time. Here is one I found: http://gma.graciemag.com/2010/01/gma-newsflash/ Slim pickings to say the least.

Part of the problem I am having I am sure is a result of George being a relatively humble person and as such, does not look for or crave the lime light.

In any event, and based on your comments I am thinking that maybe trying to do this is not going to work out. I don't want to submit this inccorectly and make it harder to get approved at a later point. I may doing more harm to him then helping him at this point.

I assume your busy and I don't want to waste your time but can you confirm my assumptions?

Thank you,

R 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rserpa (talk • contribs)


 * User:Rserpa621. :) There is the change that if you submit it without verifying that he meets notability that the article will be deleted in a way that may make it more difficult to create an article for him later. If the community decides through a deletion debate that he does not meet notability guidelines for people, then subsequent articles about him may be held to a higher standard of proof. I don't want to discourage you unduly, but I have seen this happen. I am myself a bit conservative about what articles I create for that reason; I look for strong sources to verify notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Kui Dong article
I've sent an e-mail to permissions from my dartmouth.alum.org account. Hope this is enough proof of my authorship of the original student paper. Thanks so much for your quick reply! Happy Holidays :)

Kim Tran — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktrain85 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I am happy with your edit and your efforts on the Robert Garside page --- Dromeaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.115.8 (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your e-mail was forwarded to me, too; I am glad that you feel my edits help resolve your concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting
Hey Moonriddengirl, I found someone who cares more about copyright/free content than even you: http://archive.thepeninsulaqatar.com/component/content/article/348-indiaarchiverest/60874.html (last sentence) Hekerui (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy cow! Somebody needs to get a sense of perspective. :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Temporarily Reinstate Page
Moonriddengirl - I touched based with you a while back about the Automotive Fleet & Leasing Association (AFLA) page you deleted. I was able to get back into my account, and in my research on deleted pages, I saw that some admins can temporarly reinstate a page. I just want to see what was on the page so I can work to create a new page within Wiki's guidelines, but I can't recall all of what was included on the page.

Can you please help!? If it could be reinstated for just one week I can get everything I need, I do not have any issues with the page being deleted, I understand the concerns. I just wanted to see one last time what was included.

Thank you soo much! AFLA Wiki (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)AFLA Wiki


 * Hi. :) I can temporarily restore the page if you're planning to write a new version. I do have to suggest, though, that you should probably request a name change first, as names that reflect companies are forbidden. Yours is not so obvious that you would be blocked on sight, but there's a pretty good chance that a new article on AFLA created by your username could be a problem. Please see Changing username. I also have to request that you read Conflict of interest and FAQ/Organizations before you begin rewriting. It is not forbidden that you write an article about the organization, but you do need to be careful to stay well within those guidelines to avoid encountering other problems with the article. No reason going to all the trouble to rework the article only to have it challenged for other reasons. :)


 * Alternatively to temporarily restoring, I can e-mail a copy to you. We don't usually e-mail copyright problem articles, but these are not ordinary circumstances. That would spare you having to complete it by Christmas, which is when it will come due for deletion again if I restore it now. Just let me know which you would prefer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - if you could e-mail me the page that would be great. You can e-mail it to bobitautogroup@gmail.com. Thank you!!!! 12.23.116.114 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)AFLA_Wiki

Happy Holidays!



 * Thank you very much. :D I hope that you enjoy the same. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS query on William Gardner (English coin designer)
I have had an OTRS mail about the obituary material added to William Gardner (English coin designer). It turns out that this was added by the author of the obituary. There is a way of depositing consent, isn't there, for such use by the copyright holder? I don't find it that easy to find the relevant page when I need it, though. It is just a question of sending a mail of a certain type to a certain OTRS address, IIRC. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's tricky. :/


 * First, yes, he can deposit consent through sending in the form at Declaration of consent for all enquiries, but the question is this: does he have the right to license the content? I don't know which Times newspaper he means, but generally newspapers claim copyright in the content they publish under their own name. For instance, if he's talking New York Times, per at least this submission guideline, he doesn't have the right to release the text: "We buy all rights to articles...." That's true of many newspapers. This situation is touched on briefly at Donating copyrighted materials: "If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us."


 * We would need more details about the specific publication to make a determination of whether or not his release can be accepted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that gives me enough to go on for now. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Text - image question
I think you just had a similar discussion about a similar image. File:Bighorn basin historical marker.jpg is a photo of a historical marker with a "story" on it. It's in a right now but if this text is under copyright should it be speedied? From the text on the marker it is from 1970 at the earliest. Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that one's a problem in so many ways. :/ It's uploaded by Jeremy Kemp; sourced to a Durwood Brandon, and released as PD-author. Kemp has uploaded a number of images by Brandon that are reportedly so licensed, but I don't know if that's been verified. According to Jeremy Kemp's user page, his name is...Jeremy Kemp. :) Who is this Durwood Brandon? Is he a professional photographer, a coworker, a friend of Jeremy's?


 * As to that image, yes, I think it is speediable, since the text is the entirety of the image. There's no remote chance that it can be regarded as de minimis. I can barely make out the small print at the bottom of the plaque, but it seems to be "courtesy of" a private agency. If we had a "derivative" template option like Commons does, I would tag it accordingly; F9 always seems a bit unfair in such circumstances where the uploader probably has all reason to believe that it's free for release. :/ Since it's already at PuF, since it is not displayed in any articles, and since the uploader has announced an intention to "clarify its provenance", I'd probably let it run through. I will stop by and clarify that we will be needing permission from the owner of the copyright of the text on the sign, though, and not the photographer. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've clarified, and I've spoken to Mr. Kemp about verifying Mr. Brandon's release. I probably won't be able to follow up, though, until after Christmas. I'm traveling, and while I will have my laptop, I expect that my time on Wikipedia will be woefully limited. :/ I'll probably spend what time I do have catching up on emergencies and trying to keep WP:CP from spilling into red-zone backlog. Happy Holidays, by the way! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Doh! I am usually the first one to notice the author/source items. All I saw was this huge chunk of text and the 1970 date mentioned in it and though about it being a copyvio due to the text. Good points all around though. And I tagged it with derivative.


 * And on a totally unrelated issue - could you review Boltfish Recordings deletion history. The article was just recreated and I don't know if it is the same as it was. (Was deleted via A7)


 * Thanks and happy ho-hos to you too. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * All different text. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tack! God Jul! :) he he. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue right?
Hello, User:Shrik88music. With regards to your first question, I think this was covered here. I'm prepared to travel and do not have much time to look through this material. As to the material you had placed under "WANT TO INCORPORATE THIS IN WIKI", I'm afraid that you or the other user are going to have to rewrite it. You can't copy content from previously published sources. I have not looked at them all, but a glance shows me that "In Amar Prem, a disillusioned Rajesh Khanna sought solace in the prostitute played by Sharmila" is not original (cf. ). I haven't checked the sources for reliability.

Please don't paste sections of articles on my talk page, at least until after the 29th. I do not wish other users of my talk page to become confused by "reference lists" and such content while I'm away. Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigations/Justastud15
Hey. Was wondering if you could take a quick look at the image at the bottom, since I'm not sure whether to AGF or just delete it due to his other issues. I've handled everything else, so this one can finally be closed and archived :) (no rush since you're away for the week) Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 04:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding? Completing a CCI is highest priority for me. I'd head back home for that! (well, not quite. :D) I dream of a day when that list is empty. :)


 * I feel like I'm trying to connect to the internet through an etch-a-sketch, but I'm going to tag it for deletion on Commons (if I can ever get the page to load) and let it resolve there. In the specialized spirit of WP:AGFC, I think we really have to consider that it was probably no more his than the others. The others for which matches were found help verify this concern. And a bit whoot and Merry Christmas (or other winter holiday) to you!! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card
Awww, i wanted to be the first one, but i`ll just go on with the spirit and wish you a very happy Christmas and a very WIKI New Year. Zidane tribal (talk) 07:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the first on the actual day. :D Thank you very much to both of you! And Merry Christmas! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Roman Zacharij

 * ''Details at iridescent's talk page

It looks like the above user has been infringing copyright for a while. I've got a copy of one of the books Roman Zacharij has been using, Farmers' Oxford Dictionary of Saints, and so will be able to help out the clean up, but in the case of Henry of Coquet I don't have the other source used. While I'd be surprised if the rest of the material wasn't copied, but I can't be certain. How is best to proceed in this instance? My instinct would be to speedy it as a probable copyvio. Nev1 (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm sorry to hear this. :/ The handling depends, really, on the state of the contributor. I'm away from home and have limited tech available to me, so I'm not going to be poking through his history at the moment, but here's what I'd look at. Are we talking WP:CCI here? If there are substantial enough issues documented to warrant a CCI, then the article can and probably should be removed under Copyright violations, as he is the only substantial contributor and his content cannot be trusted. If there's not enough substantial issues documented to warrant the presumption that all of his content is problematic, I'd probably tag it with copyvio, noting the identified source and adding that the other source may be problematic as well. This gives other contributors an opportunity to verify whether the content is clean or not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At least five articles Roman's edited have been identified so far as having copyright violations. I'll be looking through a few more to see how widespread the problem is, but at the moment I think this will probably end up at CCI. I've left a note on his talk page, but as the issue goes back at least nine months and as he hasn't changed his habits he may not change now or perhaps doesn't see there is a problem. Nev1 (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, it looks like History of the Jews in Brody may be copied substantially from this source (Word document), written by Roman Zakharii. Assuming it's the same person as User:Roman Zacharij (and given the overlap in interests I probably is), how should this be handled? I would think that an OTRS ticket is needed to release the information into the public domain. Nev1 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we'd need him to confirm his license, if he is the original author of that document. I'd refer him to Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Article on Richard Esposito
Hello, a brief article describing me and my career (accurately) was taken down. May I ask why? And how can it be restored? I appreciate your answer. 74.73.166.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Hello, Mr. Esposito. I'm afraid that the problem is in the person who placed the article here.


 * Wikipedia is an open content project; we accept text contributions by just about anybody, but the site does have behavioral and content rules and contributors who refuse to abide by them may lose their privilege to contribute. The person who wrote this article is a serial violator of Wikipedia's copyright policies. He was advised that his right to contribute had been suspended months ago under our blocking policy, but he created a new account in order to secretly continue contributing content. He was very well aware that doing so was yet another violation of our policies. Accordingly, almost all of the articles that he has created have been removed. The only consideration in this removal was whether he created the article and whether it had been substantially edited by anybody else. Some of the articles were very brief, and they may have been fine from a content standpoint. Others were more substantial and may have continued his prior habits of pasting content from other publications. In either case, the ultimate cause of removal is the same: he is not welcome here. It is not at all intended to reflect on you.


 * The article that he created is unlikely to be restored, but certainly a new article on you would be welcome. Since we do ask people not to create autobiographies, I'd be happy to help produce something, but I would appreciate some assistance with sources. The article that we did have seems to have relied upon sources that were affiliated with you or your employer. Wikipedia articles need to be verified by reliable sources that are independent of their subjects. I'm sure that the information is correct, but since you are the subject figure you will probably know where I might be able to find independent accessible sources to verify the awards you received in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Given that, I should be able to fairly easily create a new article about you, since they suggest you quite easily clear our inclusion threshold. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Article on David Alan Walker (FRS Professor of Photosynthesis)
Dear Moonriddengirl,

I am writing on behalf of my father David Alan Walker. I was referring a friend to the article included on Wikipedia, when we noticed it had been deleted. My father isn't yet aware of this, though I think it may upset him considerably. He was rather pleased to find he had been included on Wikipedia in this way, since he uses this resource often in his own internet research. You might say he was tickled by this entry, at the very least. Unfortunately my father is very seriously ill at present, which is why I am writing myself to see if we can get this issue resolved between us. I would hate to think that he might take a look at these pages and see he has been 'deleted', in his current state of health, I think he would find this very distressing.

I'm sure you will have taken this action on the basis of a sound rationale regarding copyright. As an academic myself, I am very aware of the issues concerning plagiarism that arise in relation to internet publishing and it is very encouraging that people are actively working to raise the standard of referencing on this popular site in particular. However I would have thought that a qualifying statement about the accuracy of referencing, or the lack of it, would have been sufficient to resolve this problem. It is difficult to see what the problem may have been without looking at the article and checking its sources myself. Alternatively, I would be happy to write an article about my father, or even better, ask one of his colleagues to write one on his behalf. I have no idea how to go about this, but would be very grateful if you could advise me how to do this.

It sounds like you are tremendously busy and I understand you are away at present, however I would be most grateful if you could help me resolve this as soon as possible, as given my father's age and serious nature of his illness, this is a matter of some urgency.

Sending thanks in advance, for taking time to help with this matter,

yours sincerely

Richard Walker (son of David Alan Walker, FRS)

I can be reached at the following address:

81.106.125.226 (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Mr. Walker, I'm very sorry for any distress this may cause your father. Please explain to him that the problem is not with him or with the article about him, but with the person who placed the article here. Wikipedia is an open content project; we accept text contributions by just about anybody, but the site does have behavioral and content rules and contributors who refuse to abide by them may lose their privilege to contribute. The person who wrote this article is a serial violator of Wikipedia's copyright policies. He was advised that his right to contribute had been suspended months ago, but he created a new account in order to secretly continue contributing content. He was very well aware that doing so was yet another violation of our policies. Accordingly, almost all of the articles that he has created have been removed. The only consideration in this removal was whether he created the article and whether it had been substantially edited by anybody else. Some of the articles were very brief, and they may have been fine from a content standpoint. Others were more substantial and may have continued his prior habits of pasting content from other publications. In either case, the ultimate cause of removal is the same: he is not welcome here. It is not at all intended to reflect on your father.


 * An article on your father would almost certainly be welcome if he meets the inclusion guidelines, which in the case of professors can be found here. Your father's field is out of my area, I'm afraid, so I don't automatically know. Generally, we "verify" that an article's subject meets the inclusion guidelines by utilizing reliable secondary sources, like newspaper or journal articles.


 * Since you are closely associated with the subject, our conflict of interest guideline would urge you to be careful in creating an article on him, particularly with neutrality and not adding information you know to be true but cannot verify (our key content policies are neutral point of view, verifiability and "no original research"). While we'd ask you not to promote your father, a neutral, verifiable article about him created by you or one of his colleagues would be great. I'd be very happy to help you, if you do wish to create the article. If you register an account (which has many benefits, including the ability to create articles), I can give you the non-creative formatting from the deleted article to which new biographical content could be added (again, though, it must reproduce published fact; as his son, you'll have to resist adding information that you of course know but cannot reference). Alternatively, you could start from scratch with the "Article wizard", which is designed to make creating new articles as painless as possible.


 * If you don't wish to create an account, you can still propose an article, posting it at Articles for creation, where other editors will review it to be sure it meets policies and, if so, create it for you.


 * Please just let me know how I may assist. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you effectively invented it, and have received it before, but ...

 * Wow! Thank you very much! I may have helped invent it, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Mohammad-Reza Rahimi.jpg
Could you please check if the OTRS ticket info given for this file in the file description (OTRS ticket #2010093010001906) is legit and if someone at OTRS has indeed verified the license status of the image? The image is being constantly re-aadded here at en-wiki by socks of Amir.Hossein.7055. The image's uploader at Commons has been indef blocked earlier this month (after a long series of blocks) for misusing the OTRS system and other copyright problems. Plus the same ticket number is listed by the uploader for several other images (including File:Seyyed Shamseddin Hosseini.JPG). So I am rather suspicious... Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. That ticket concerns the following images: File:Jalāl ad-Dīn Kazzāzi 4.jpg, File:Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar.JPG, File:Quds Dat-2010-Iran 1.jpg,File:Quds Day-2010-Iran2.jpg. The agent rejected the license, seeking clarification of ownership. The first two evidently turned out to be okay, as the agent subsequently marked them clear (that would be User:Eusebius. He might have more information on why. The last two were deleted as derivative works. This image is not mentioned in that ticket chain, and it should not be used to approve any but the first two. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks, I suspected that something was fishy here. I'll list the image for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio or reverse copyvio?
Hey there, I was hoping yourself or a talk page stalker could help me out. I recently removed some info from Kevin Kiley (sportscaster), as it appeared to be a copyvio of his ESPN bio. However, the info has been in the article from creation in 2007, while the website is dated as last updated on September 27, 2009 (but I don't know when it was originally published). So do you know how I can find out if it's a copyvio or a reverse copyvio? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. My first two tricks: check the Wayback Machine and check the history of the article for signs of natural evolution. I'll go do that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, Wayback is evidently down for the count. It won't give me that page. (It goes out far too often. :/) Evidence suggests to me that they copied from us, though the evidence is light. The content was altered here to change the words "National Football League" to NFL; the external site says "NFL." Wayback is coughing up this site, which was referenced at the article's creation. Although, as I say, evidence is light, I think it's plausible that the contributor (who has no documented history of text copyright issues) created the content from that source.


 * Coincidentally, it would not be the first time I've seen an ESPN source copy us. See Talk:Matt LaPorta. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the help. Jenks24 (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesper Olsen (runner)
Below are some excerpts from the Jesper Olsen (runner) page and I believe there is a COI issue as many of the assertions on this page are unfounded. References used are from his own web page. That is not a good source and this article is bias. "personal bests" are not supported with references. No proof at all! The lack of "References" and "External links" speak for themselves. Should this article even exist?

Here are some specific examples; -

1. ASSERTION: He ran around the world in 22 months, from January 1 2004 to the 23rd October 2005 The New York Times, 25 October 2005, [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05EED8103FF936A15753C1A9639C8B63 RUNNING; Run Around World Tries a Man's Soles]

MY ARGUMENT: Just because he got a small piece in the NYT does not mean he ran around the world. Where is the Guinness World Records verification reference?

2. ASSERTION: During the majority of the run he pushed a babyjogger carriage in which he kept food, beverages, a tent, and other equipment. While running through Russia and half of the US, he was aided by a support car transporting these supplies. From London to central Siberia he was accompanied by Alexander Korotkov of Russia who planned to run around the world with Jesper, but gave up in central Siberia.

MY ARGUMENT: Where is the proof? The references used are from his own web page. That is not a good source and this article is bias.

3. ASSERTION: Marathon-runner since the age of 15, European elite on 100km and 24-hours. National recordholder on 100km, 24-hours & 6-days (6:58, 224km, 549km); national elite on marathon (2:27).

MY ARGUMENT: Again, references used are from his own web page. That is not a good source and this article is bias.

4. ASSERTION: Personal bests
 * 10 km - 31:29 min
 * ½ marathon - 1:08:10 h
 * Marathon - 2:27:57 h
 * 100 km - 6:58:31 h
 * 100 miles - 15:26:09 h
 * 6-days - 780km
 * Longest run: 26,232 km /1 lap (Earth) - 662 days

MY ARGUMENT: Again, references used are from his own web page. That is not a good source and this article is bias. The above "personal bests" are not supported with references. No proof at all! The lack of "References" and "External links" speak for themselves.

Of course, if this was the "Robert Garside" page the above would not even be there. 81.159.213.234 (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz


 * I have no familiarity whatsoever with Jesper Olsen (runner); I am not particularly interested in running or World Records in general (I have never even read one of the books on the subject). As you probably know from my user talk page, I tend to be fairly busy with copyright concerns on Wikipedia. The only reason I am involved in Robert Garside is that I also try to pay attention to WP:BLP issues. As you are blocked, I really shouldn't talk to you about anything except your legitimate concerns with Robert Garside, but I will note that if you negotiate an unblock you will be able to voice your concerns about the article. However, you do have a conflict, and you will need to make sure that your proposals regarding that page both acknowledge your connection and remain well within behavioral standards. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I accept your point but what does one do when one identifies the following: CanadianLinuxUser's 2 most recent edits on the "Robert Garside" page and the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page; -

23:42, 30 December 2010 (diff | hist) Jesper Olsen (runner) ‎ (→Journey) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (diff | hist) Robert Garside ‎ (Strange.... I thought we changed that..) (top)

It shows *suspicious behaviour/COI*, in that he checks the "Robert Garside" page and then goes straight to the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page. My question is WHY is he checking one page and then the other? His edits show that he is clearly buffering the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page whilst trying to dampen down the "Robert Garside" page and his verified achievements.

I would love an answer to that, but yes, I appreciate you deal with copyright issues and are probably tired of this. Moonriddengirl, it is not me provoking this... please do imagine my frustration when I monitor Wikipedia and see the "Robert Garside" page edited down and down and stripped away and then note the same editor plumping out the "Jesper Olsen (runner)" page without references and records not even verified, just 8 minutes later.

And when I bring this to the public's attention, that same editor tries to silence me by getting me barred from Wikipedia. 87.82.115.8 (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz


 * (DELETED)... you may want to show ALL my edits... Special:Contributions/ I do not only edit your page and Jesper Olsen's page. I revert vandalism... I create pages on Marathons... and others... but of course... I am only doing that to cover my tracts according to you. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * CanadianLinuxUser, you are wrong about the name. No personal names on Wikipedia are permitted and I am only interested in the history of your edits on "Robert Garside" & "Jesper Olsen (runner)" and that is what we will continue to analyse and bring to the public's attention in 2011. 86.177.177.38 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Dromeaz

Dromeaz, the bottom line here is that until you negotiate an unblock, you really are not welcome to participate in article development. I support an exception when it comes to valid content concerns about Robert Garside, but at this point the content in that article seems fine. If there were an urgent BLP or copyright concern with Jesper Olsen (runner), then there would be reason for me to overlook the other concerns and involve myself, but poor sourcing, if such exists, is not in itself an emergency to override blocking policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * MRG... this user, 'who shall not be named' has stated that he will continue to 'analyse and bring to the public's attention my edits in 2011' This unfortunately has now turned to harassment. This user is supposed to be banned. He obviously has access to more IP addresses than I have socks & shoes. What is the procedure now that such a "threat" of such harassment for 2011 is out there? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If Dromeaz continues to focus on your edits, we will have to utilize a combination of page protection and revert, block, ignore. I remain optimistic that he will see reason and focus instead on valid content concerns for Robert Garside. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not as optimistic as you that "He who shall not be named" will change, but am glad that someone as calm and as motivated an editor as you is here to keep the peace. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Laura Foreman
I just deleted Laura Foreman. After deletion, and noticing that the editor had several other CSD notices, I saw the note at the top of the page. I routinely check the talk page of CSD nominated pages, and the talk page of the editor creating the page to ensure that notice has been given. However, I didn't see the notice at the top of the authors talk page.

I left a suggestion that the editor add a note to an article talk page, as this may help forestall future CSD notices. Do you think this advice is helpful?

I'm not an OTRS agent, so I cannot read the permission, but the notice implies that it is blanket permission, not just permission for selected articles. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume it is blanket permission, and go ahead and restore the article.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. It is blanket permission, but he's supposed to be putting the notice on the talk pages of the articles. :/ On his userpage, he's instructed to "Place the following line, tildes and all, on article talk pages..." I'll remind him! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Stephanie Kaplan
I've been recently led to believe by a couple of editors that having copyright violations in the history of an article is not such a bad thing, specifically, that once you edit them out of the live view, the article is good to go without any more interference. Is this correct, that we can just copy and paste text and leave it in the edit histories of articles, then remove the copyvio tag and go on as if nothing happened? I want to scream at the petty plagiarism all over these related articles. Then, we're getting an autobiography of a living person as a replacement. --Kleopatra (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) This is a matter of some debate and probably a practice in flux. Historically, yes, we have permitted copyvios to remain in history unless the copyright holder complains. However, now that we have "revision deletion", it has been more common lately to delete those edits to guard against inadvertent restoration of the content. We do have a template to request revision-deletion: Copyvio-revdel. Whether an admin follows up on it will probably depend on the admin. I've seen some admins who will delete any copyvio in history. I myself am more likely to do so if it is extensive and if reversion seems likely. Some admins seem to feel that the old methods were sufficient. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We're just going to wind up getting sued, eventually. Do you ever wonder why so much of the plagiarized material, particularly biographies, is so badly written? Thanks for the information. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bus Timetable help
Hello Moonriddengirl, I'm new to Wikipedia...and there is something i really need assistance with. I am currently editing a shopping centre page called Westfield Southland and I would like to add in a bus timetable, simmilar to the bus time table used in another article, Westfield Doncaster. The bus timetable is located on the shopping centre's site, but I dont know if I am allowed to copy the bus timetable from it, to Wikipedia. I don't want there to be copyright problems. Can you please help me or give me suggestions on what to do? Thankyou, MelbourneStar1 (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! :) There should be no copyright issues with a bus timetable, and thank you very much for considering that. As long as there is no creativity in the information of a table or in its method of display, there should be no problem. A bus schedule is factual. That said, I'm very much afraid that bus timetables are really outside of the scope of Wikipedia, and rather than adding one to Westfield Southland we should really be removing the one from Westfield Doncaster. :/ We have a kind of basic overview policy at What Wikipedia is not. This seems to me to correlate to the section here: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, #4: "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." If articles on radio stations cannot include schedules of their programs, which are far more directly relevant, a bus schedule for a mall is even less likely to be encyclopedic. Westfield Southland seems to be shaping up nicely. Westfield Doncaster, on the other hand, doesn't look like a very good model to follow. The text is pretty unencyclopedic in multiple places: "Prices are fixed, but are quite high." Who says so? "And you can get delivery." We don't use second person pronouns. It reads rather like the mall's website, except perhaps the bit critical about pricing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright question
yup i myself provided u those sources right? i thouht the same scentence would be modified by you. why is it needed that i myself modif? why you removed all the information i added fully..instaed you could have modified them.

anyways do reply to above questions...and iam right away changing them.Quicklight (talk) 14:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because our "terms of use" require that you not copy content. It says at the bottom of every edit screen, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." It is not up to others to modify them. If you cannot place them here correctly, you cannot place them here at all. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna
hope now the artilce looks perfect...no issues hope so. please check now and let me know. if any changes is to be made, then even u can do. even i will do but do not remove the facts point blankQuicklight (talk) 15:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

hello u didnt tell me... there is no prob with the article now right?Quicklight (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see any problems in the current content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

but see genaic who is blackmailing me....again she is saying i would be blocked and i am giving personal analysis. sources are provided and i ensured there are no copyright issues either still i am forced to hear such things..Quicklight (talk) 12:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC) need your help therefore ...save the article from being devoid of certain facts provided by me with valid referencesQuicklight (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * If an administrator is warning you that you are in danger of being blocked for violating policy, I'd give good attention to that. Copyright is the policy with which I primarily work, but it isn't the only one. If you don't understand why an edit of yours is being perceived in a certain way, ask the person about it. Talk about it at the talk page. Pursue Dispute resolution if necessary. As I have explained to you at your talk page in the past, I need to remain uninvolved in the content of this article. In order to retain the ability to act upon it as an administrator, I cannot act upon it as an editor, and I cannot mediate in disputes for one side or the other. Dispute resolution tells you how to invite neutral feedback in article development. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bus timetables (routes)
Hi Moonriddengirl :) I will remove bus routes and directions from Westfield Doncaster as well as Westfield Southland

but may I please keep the part of that section where it states that busses serve as public transport for the shopping centres?

And also keep the part where it says that both these centres have a proposal for a railway station -- Which for Doncaster is important, because it is a whole new line with the main station being at Doncaster....for southland, it was initially going to be built in 1991 with the large scale Southland expansion...and only recently the train station has been approved and promised by the State Government.

^ If I just keep those two, I am not really given out directions, I am just saying that the centre has public transport. Wikipedia is not a directory...I read the Wikipedia is Not, article, but many people interested in shopping centres like I am, want to read about these proposals, public transport, majors, history..etc. ---If we delete the whole section, we might as well delete all railway stations articles and bus station articles etc.

Again Thankyou so much! we are all so very close to an agreement.

MelbourneStar1 (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm glad you're close to an agreement. Discussion is where it all happens on Wikipedia. You may already have read Consensus; I'm not sure quite how new you are. :) So far as I know, there should be no problem with acknowledging the proposal for a railway station or the acknowledgment that buses stop at the shopping centers. If there is not a policy or guideline based reason for removing something that has reliable sources, then it all comes down to what information editors feel is important for an article. If a small group of editors need wider opinions, there is Dispute resolution, but it's much better when people can come to terms on their own. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou Moonriddengirl! The problem has been resolved :)) MelbourneStar1 (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rajesh khanna
Sharmila Tagore and Rajesh Khanna both of them as a pair were looked upon with affection by the audiences and easily were accepted as a romantic couple in the different musical hits they did together. Rajesh Khanna played the role of an lonely unhappy married man who befriends a prostitude played by Sharmila in Amar Prem. Khanna played the role of husband of Sharmila who gets arrested in murder case and subsequently on the way to prison, the police van meets with an accident and later circumstances forces him to  marry another girl to give that girl’s  illegitimate child his name. Then Aavishkaar saw them as a married couple who try their best to save their marriage. Tyaag saw Khanna plays a boyfriend who convinces his girlfriend that since her father does not approve of the relationship, they should not marry eachother. Public liked Khanna’s pairing with Mumtaz and Sharmila ,the most as a result there was a big rivalry between the two heroines.

this is the info i want to add. hope now there is no copyright issue.Shrik88music (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

does the incomplete sentence make any sense ? He formed on screen pairs with many actresses but his pairing especially with actresses like Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon.......what? it needs to be mentioned that these were the most popular as they delivered big hits as a pairShrik88music (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. No, the incomplete sentence makes no sense. I do not see any copyright concerns in the content above, but there may be other issues. For instance, Rajesh Khanna is not mentioned at all in the first source, so it is hard to see how this source supportss the content. The final source seems to support the content listed for the second source. From a copyright standpoint, there does not seem to be any issue with the current text, but, again, I can't advise as to other matters. That's one to discuss with other editors of the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

that is the reason iam insisting that there is no POV thing applicable in that sentence....its necessary that the sentence appear either as He formed on screen pairs with many actresses but his pairing especially with actresses like Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon were the most popular or He formed popular on screen hit pairs with actresses like Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon. just convey the same to genaic who is missing the point. Shrik88music (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that you need to convey that to Geniac, not me. I am not an editor in that article, and I have no opinion as to whether the fact that certain of his pairings were more popular than others is necessary in the text. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia provides an overview of notable aspects of our subjects. It is for a generalist, not a specialist audience. We are not, of course, going to be as thorough in our detail as a website dedicate to him would be or as a book about him would be. Not every fact that is true is going to merit inclusion, and it is up to editors who are interested in the article to determine which facts belong, as governed by What Wikipedia is not, by our core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR), our legal policies (WP:BLP, WP:C) and the many different guidelines that reflect community consensus on the kinds of things we should include. There is a lot of room for individual development of articles under those policies and guidelines, and you must necessarily seek consensus in developing the article under them. Dispute resolution explains what to do when contributors do not agree.


 * Please do not explain to me why you think this information is necessary to include. I am not among the editors of this article and cannot help make this decision. My involvement with the article needs to remain as an uninvolved administrator, as I have found it necessary to monitor it for copyright problems. I am not permitted by the policy that governs administrators to mix the roles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

May I have your baby in 2011?
Happy New Year! Drmies (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Happy New Year to you, too. As to your request, I suppose so, so long as I get to be a deadbeat dad. And so long as you promise to raise it with a proper understanding of copyright. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, long intro for a short quote--it requires context. A long, long time ago, Dutch TV showed a documentary on John Hiatt, who delivered a memorable statement on songwriting. Whaddayaknow, it's actually cited on the internet (so it must be true!), though the rest of the account is in Dutch. Look for it here. I've used that quote in class often enough, so maybe I won't be the best mother for your copyrighted child... Drmies (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, alas, yes. :( We would only confuse the poor tyke. Better to remain offspringless. (FWIW, however, mixed relationships can work. For instance, though I loathe sports and he can't abide almost anything else that comes on TV, my husband and I have managed to make our relationship work. Our secret: it helps to have two TVs. And a collection of BluRays. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

 * WhooT! Thank you very much. And a very Happy New Year to you as well. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CUP notice
Hi, and Happy New Year. Responding to your request for help, I've just checked and deleted an article that was listed on the CP problems page. I see from the response template that I am supposed to leave a "CUP notice" somewhere, but I am not sure what this is. Maybe I am blind but I can't see any further explanation on that page or the admin page. Clarification welcomed! --Slp1 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

LoL
I loved your "Admins Wanted" pix you put at WP:AN I have added it to WP:ADMIN. Cheers The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I'm glad you liked it! If I had figured anybody else would, I'd have put it on Commons, but I rather imagined it would languish unused. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

deletion of page Ricky Adam 80.6.156.96 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,

I was wondering why the page Ricky Adam was deleted? A few people contacted me about this and I thought I would get in touch.

Thanks - Ricky 80.6.156.96 (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. A contributor noticed that the page was a substantial copy of other publications and listed it for administrator review. The person who imported the content indicated that he had permission, but although he was advised that permission must be verified, no verification was provided. Since the Wikimedia Foundation does not authorize identity on account creation and since copyright is a legal matter, we do require that verification if we are to retain content. A week after notification, the article was deleted. Parts of the article were found at the official website, and other parts were found at http://www.redbullillume.com/people/finalists-2007/playground/ricky-adam/biography.html. Please see Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure for verifying permission.


 * Although this did not factor into the removal, I do have to note that much of the content was also out of keeping with Wikipedia's approach. While perfectly in line with an official website or a promotional blurb, content such as "The photos are captured in Adam's unique style using available light & dramatic composition to bring a dark and brooding atmosphere to the finished work" and "Adam's photos gave new life to the streets of lackluster council estates, skeletons of buildings past and the naive youthful faces which perceived theses surroundings as adaptable urban treasures" do not meet our neutral point of view policy. We are a tertiary source, and our goal is to collect information that has been previously published in newspapers, magazines, books, etc. about notable subjects. It would be appropriate to report what critics have said about your photography, but we cannot seem to judge it ourselves. The tone is also a bit out of keeping with our styleguide. If you are willing to donate the content, it will be very useful in forming a new article on you, but the content will be modified to conform more to Wikipedia's needs.


 * If you need assistance with the verification process, please let me know. I'll be happy to explain further. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Translation attributions
Hi Moonriddengirl. Thanks for the tip. When I'm translating an article my edit summary normally states "expansion from German Wikipedia" or "final expansion from German Wikipedia". Is that okay? I must admit I don't normally state anything on initial creation of an article as I always assumed the automatic message "Created page with..." was good enough along with the talk page tag. Should I put something like "Created page based on German Wikipedia article" in the edit summary? --Bermicourt (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend including a full link to the specific revision you based your work on (i.e. using permanent link/Permanenter Link in the sidebar). This should be sufficient as long as the source page is not deleted (if it is later deleted you'll want to request the full history for attribution purposes - if you want to play it safe you can make a copy of it on the talk page in addition to the edit summary). Dcoetzee 05:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to compound the stalking: as an example, I've updated the translated page template on Talk:Kreuzjoch (Kitzbühel Alps) with the  and   parameters corresponding (respectively) to the source version number (where the translation came from) and the destination version number (where you put the translation). This creates links on the talk page that go straight to the relevant versions (making it much simpler to check the accuracy of any particular translation, and providing more robust attribution, especially when several translations were added to an article at different times). TheFeds 08:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoot! Nothing like checking the inbox to find some of your work already done. :D Why does that never happen in my day job? :/ Derrick, deletion of cross-Wiki translations is a problem. I sometimes wonder when I delete articles on en Wiki for copyright problems if the versions on other projects have taken from us. I wonder if there's a bot or could be a bot to provide notice, at least of the ones that use the translated page template? Do you know? If not, maybe I'll request one.


 * The purpose of the edit summary notice is to make those checking the history aware of the origin of text. Derrick's recommendation above is a very good way to explicitly note the origin. The template at the talk page contains full information as well. I don't do a lot of interwiki translation (the languages I studied being more or less dead), but when copying from one Wikipedia article to another I frequently use the talk page template and an edit summary that says, "Content copied from Article, see talk page for details." I must admit to being lazy in attributing Karlspitzen. Because you had included the template at the talk page, I simply wrote "Translated from German language Wikipedia; see talk for link and attribution details" in edit summary. If I were being fully on the ball, I would have probably written "Translated from Karlspitzen; see talk for attribution details". The main thing is just to make it clear to those reading the history where the content came from. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay I'm happy with all this, except I don't know where TheFeds got the source and destination version nos. In fact I don't even know what they are! --Bermicourt (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * See Help:Permanent link and Help:Page history. I apologize for throwing links at you, but those pages are complete and correct. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I added a link to Help:Interlanguage links at WP:Copying within Wikipedia to encourage their use. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Logger9
First, a happy new year, Moonriddengirl, and thanks for your calm handling of the Logger9 copyvio case. As you might have seen, there are new posts by this user on his talk page that demonstrate more clearly than ever his unability to cooperate: In a discussion with Jdrewitt he treats users that oppose his editing style as "monkeys". Then, he posts a "rewrite" about density functional theory ("DFT") that shows that he still hasn't understood what copyright and plagiarism mean: he just varied a few more words per paragraph. Besides that, the suggested text ignores that there is already an article density functional theory, and it is just the kind of incredibly bad writing nobody wants.

I think whatever we do should have some consequence. This discussion is now going on for quite long, and I think the only sensible outcome be a ban of this person. Otherwise he will come back in some weeks or months, and we will have to rediscuss all this over and over again. I would like to ask you to advise how to proceed. Thanks again, -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm very concerned over Logger9's references to self-harm and myself. I am one of the principal editors of the article Self-harm and never has that ever conflicted with my editing of any other articles. To mention that I like to talk about how I enjoy self-mutilating myself on wikipedia is completely fabricated by Logger9 and nothing less than a personal attack. Other than completely not understanding what Self-harm actually is, the fact that I edit that article probably suggests to most people that I may be a user that has in the past suffered from severe clinical depression, to try and use that against me in an argument about copyright infringement is completely unjustified. I would like action to be taken, at least just someone to back me up that in a clear cut case of copyright infringement such nasty personal attacks are intorlerable. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello to both of you. First, I'm very sorry Jdrewitt for the personal nature of those comments. I agree that they are out of line, no matter what motivation may have led you to edit the article. I would hope most contributors would understand that people might become interested in a topic in any number of ways that do not involve first-hand experience, but I'm sure you're right that some are short-sighted. Nevertheless, such nasty personal attacks are intolerable under any circumstances, and I have let him know that if they continue his ability to edit his talk page will be blocked. That said, this blocking of talk page access should be a last resort, because keeping the conversation about unblocking on Wikipedia is beneficial to everyone, both the person who wants to be unblocked and the people who believe an unblock would be a disservice to the project.


 * Marie Poise, it's a bit of a sticky wicket transitioning from an indefinite block to a ban. When you propose a ban, some are likely to say that it is unnecessary, as an indef block which no one is willing to lift has the same effect as a ban, but that overlooks the fact that any admin may lift an indef block. Because of that, clearly, there are great differences. :/ I would imagine a ban discussion here would be most appropriate if there are additional factors other than copyright involved that you think need consideration. In that case, I would suggest a succinct summary of your concerns, with supporting diffs, at WP:AN (not WP:ANI, noting why a formal ban here would be preferable to the indef block. If people disagree that a ban discussion is necessary, it can be pointed out that the 2nd form of banning per WP:BAN is as follows: "In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'." I'll be happy to talk to you about it further, and I will weigh in on that conversation if needed to clarify copyright concerns, but I don't believe that it would be appropriate for me to launch it. If I form an opinion as to the quality of his contributions overall, it may compromise my ability to neutrally assess copyright concerns with his work, and as I am the admin who most frequently works the copyright problems board, that could be an issue. There are quite a few articles that are going to need neutral review.


 * Oh, and with respect to that, I glanced at his CCI after reading his talk page, and I see that there is at least one article you believe should be presumptively deleted. The instructions for handling that are at Contributor copyright investigations/Logger9, in the text beginning "To tag an article created by the contributor for presumptive deletion...." If you have any problem with the templates, please let me know. This tag gives other editors an opportunity to review, and if they wish, rewrite the content prior to its review by an admin. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Please unblock me Rameshvyas
Please unblock me Rameshvyas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.129.125 (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you wish to negotiate an unblock of your account, you need to do so at your talk page. There is a template you can place on that talk page; instructions are given in your block notice. You will need to explain how we can trust at this point that you will not continue violating our copyright policy, given that you have done so repeatedly in the past in spite of warnings and explanations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like copyvio, do you concur?
John ibn Jowey from Sarjoon from Thanks. Hope you had a good Christmas and New Year. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do. Speedily deleted both. I did, and I hope you did as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigations/20100822
No, no… it's not a problem with this CCI again! :-) I just wanted to let you know that I am done reviewing these images, including the Commons files. I know there are still some yet to be reviewed, but those are the ones I am unsure about or don't have the courage to tag for deletion (due to the heated arguments over the rationales). I hope the CCI will be archived soon! Jsayre64   (talk)  17:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Markus Neteler
Ok! Most of the content for the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markus_Neteler come from the page http://gis.fem-environment.eu/neteler/ but, this page is licensed as CC-BY-SA The information is on the footer!!! Do you need the letter? Sorry if i come late, but i was in hollPage license: CC-BY-SA --Napowiki (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Thanks for for pointing it out. No, we don't still need the letter; I'm afraid I did not see the release, as the bottom of the page says "© Copyright 2008-2011 FEM-CRI GIS-RS Platform". I've restored the page and supplied the necessary attribution. If you receive a donation in the future, it's a good idea to put a note on the talk page letting us know where to find the licensing statement. And when copying CC-By-SA content, please be sure to attribute; without the attribution, there are licensing issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year. I recently saw a couple of reverts you had done for COPYVIOs on articles I was watching. Thank you for working on a most important issue which isn't always urgent and using a professional approach to issues instead of focusing on the editor. I appreciate your dedication to helping build the encyclopedia. SBaker43 (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. That is very kind of you. I think the work is important, and I'm happy to help. And Happy New Year to you, too! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

crap, another copy vio (I think)
and on an article on an important person. I thought it was too well written so I threw it in search: Bruno Schultz. The biography section appears to be copied from here which I understand is an "official review". Please let me know if this is in fact cv so i can fix it. Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Good news there! The publisher, Books LLC, is a print Wikipedia mirror. I can't guarantee, obviously, that it isn't copied, but we didn't copy from them; it's the other way around. I tried running the program through a mechanical detector, and all I found were mirrors, so that's a good sign. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, great! Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there...guess what?
Hope the holidays were good for you.

Here is a question - OTRS check please. File:Michael Palin.jpg is on Wikimedia Commons, with a Flickr source licensed as non-commercial. I stumbled on an old (2006) discussion where the image was obtained by permission and someone suggested an email be sent to OTRS. The response was "Permissions already archived it." I know the "FlickreviewR" supposedly verified the license in 2007 but if there is an OTRS it should be put on the image. Yes? No? Soundvisions1 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. If standards should ever change, the redundant license verification could be helpful. I'll dig and see if I can find it, though it could be difficult. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Voila! Hope your holidays were good as well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Prostitution in Rhode Island
First, you have failed to point out where there was any kind of copyright violation, and I really fail to see where half the article is plagiarized. I removed the tag because it seemed to be blatantly in error. Second, I really don't like your threat of sanctions against my account one little bit, I think your tone was very WP:UNCIVIL, and just straight up out of line. I hope we can settle this like adults and I won't have to bring this into dispute resolution. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've responded at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
I'm terribly sorry!!!!! I have no idea how that happened - somehow I unintentionally clicked on a "rollback" button against your edit, rather than a history button against a completely different page. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And now, of course, I want to know why you found it amusing!


 * I am easily amused. I like this about me; it makes my life much more fun. :D Specifically, I found it funny because I knew what happened. It's happened before; I've had it done to me, and I did it once to somebody else. It's no problem, really. Accidents happen to human beings, and better to my talk page than an article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, given my experience with your personality, much better on your talk page than ...
 * Much better on your talk page than ANYWHERE else. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CP
Hi there. I actually wanted to help out here (I even mentioned it in my RFA) but each time I looked, there was no backlog. You and others seemed to be on top of it. I am still willing to help out, and I'm assuming there is a need since you posted about it. I will start making a habit to visit the page and clear anything that needs doing. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoot! Oh, yes, there is a need. :) I keep on top of the backlog generally, but at expense of WP:CCI, which is growing ever more backlogged. If you are willing to help out there, I can put more time into CCI. I'll back off of CP to give you a shot at it, if you're up for it. Just let me know when you want to start and if you decide to stop. I'll be glad to keep it in my rotation if there are complex issues with which you would like assistance or just to pick up what remains undone. I'm not trying to pass the ball to you, but I also don't want to bump into one another. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take a day or two to re-review the admin information there and make sure there's nothing new since I last reviewed it. I'll start going through on 1/5? -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fabulous! Thank you so much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll be going through today. :) -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  19:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! :D We still have a bit of backlog, but we've been catching up. You may find SCV a bit more extensive than usual, as its backlog is a bit more extensive. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr Fay Khan
Hi dear, This is malghalaray and i created The Page " DR FAY KHAN " and its been block several time and i gave explanations about it, that the source you are linked " http://www.wix.com/faykhan/faykhanweb1 " is the page where anyboday can creat pages with out copyright and the same link is also created by me but there is no way to delete it. I know Dr Fay khan Personaly. his email is " drfaykhan@gmail.com " i can give you his contact information for the copy right issu. so please its my own sentences and i creat those pages my self and there is no copy right issu with it. if you have any quiestion please feel free to contact me.

Malghalaray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malghalaray (talk • contribs) 18:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Monroe Commission
Hi! When you have time, would you be willing to take a look at the conversation here and see if there's a better way to explain my concerns (or straighten me out if I'm missing something, naturally)? I seem to be at an impasse. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have weighed in. I agree that it is a problem, given its base, that requires additional revision. Hopefully the conversation will progress more smoothly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Maybe this weekend I can find the time to catch up on SCV. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question (lists)
Hi Moonriddengirl. I had a question about copyright policy and someone suggested that you may be able to help me out. Any ideas? 28bytes (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) We've had a number of list articles come up over the years. User:Kww in that AfD is quite correct: lists are copyrightable to the extent that they are creative, that is, that the information in them is creative or the presentation is. The presentation is not creative if anybody would use the same presentation; for example, if we're listing song title and artist, it's probably uncreative. Generally, the more information included in the list, the more likely selectivity (and thus human creativity) is to be involved. In terms of the creativity of the information, with greatest hits lists it's a question of how the ranking is devised. You can see a similar case from 2008 in which we consulted our then attorney, here. In that case, because the formula was simple and published, the list was determined to be non-creative and the articles were retained. We consulted him again in 2009 over Billboard Hot 100 charts (see), and he again opined that these should be no issue. In terms of the information included, it would be a question of whether there is any subjectivity in the creation of rank or it is a simple and obvious formula. If it is a simple and obvious formula, the information would be fair game according to precedent, but the presentation may still need to be altered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply and the links. If you wouldn't mind contacting counsel, I would greatly appreciate it, so we know where we stand. I'll comment further at the AfD. Thanks again, 28bytes (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Michael Kors semi-protecion
Re: this protection edit - I think perhaps the length of semi-protection might be incorrect (looks like it only lasted an hour). Just thought you'd want to know, as another IP came along and seemingly vandalized it immediately (but who right now seems to be doing AGF edits after all). Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. :/ The main problem is that he or she is copying content from the official site. I semi'ed for an hour in the hopes of reaching out to him or her, with messages at the named account and the previous IP, as well as at the talk page. Looks like it didn't work. I've semi'ed again for a week, and we'll see where it goes from here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that all makes sense now. I hadn't researched the copyvio aspect, I was mainly taken aback by the ALL CAPS/shouting style.  Shearonink (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Another Pohick sock
Sorry to bug you, but I didn't know what steps needed to be done to vet the contributions of that I uncovered this morning as a sock of Pohick. If you let me know what to do I can handle that step. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. First, thank you for finding it before it ballooned. :) I see you've already gotten it checkusered, which is the important first step. Last time I began with Special:Nuke and followed up by WP:CSDing every article he had created which had no significant contributions by others. The good news here is that he's only created 42 articles. Last time there were thousands. Alternatively, we might look at the articles he's created to see if there is significant textual content, as these are the most likely to be copyvios. OTOH, there is support at WP:CSD for blanket deletion to make the message clear: he is not welcome to contribute until he negotiates an unblock. He mostly doesn't seem interested in doing that; I've stopped watchlisting him, but the last I checked he was still railing against the zero tolerance policy, as though copy-pasting were an unfortunate but unavoidable accident. In either event, we'll probably finish up by running the CCI tool on what remains (best to delete first any created articles we're going to delete) and adding it to the stack of unreviewed at Contributor copyright investigations/Pohick2. Last time, we tried out the new bot function on it, but there were issues in application, and I don't know if they've been resolved. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Nuked, and I'll take a look at the rest.  It would be nice if he realized that we don't care at this point and will nuke any socks we find. Syrthiss (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I though this would be a good opportunity to ask. In terms of G5, if you end up dealing with a user who has created pages, but is not known to cause copyright violations, is it still proper to delete the pages they've made that have no significant contributions from others? G5 is the CSD rule that I disagree the most with, since we should be dealing with building an encyclopedia and saving notable content, not removing pages wholesale just because someone who is now banned made them. I'm just being reflective on this, really, but your wise opinion on the matter would be appreciated. Silver  seren C 19:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm working through the latest contribs too, it's short enough it can be done today. I haven't had the chance to update VWBot yet to account for the feedback received, but once I do it's first task will be completing the rollbacks on Accotink2's contribs (it's only about half-done if I recall correctly from last month). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (@ silver seren) In my opinion, it is up to the one marking the content to make the call. So far I've kept a few of Pohick's edits because I agree that they are not copyright violations and improved the articles, and I'd expect that someone else considering a G5 do the same...but at the same time, for persistent insidious editors we need to show them that it is futile to continue their editing because by and large their contributions will be disappeared when we find out. Syrthiss (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Show[ing] them that it is futile to continue their editing because by and large their contributions will be disappeared when we find out", has absolutely nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. This is not a social networking site or some kind of forum. We're not here to "show" banned people anything, besides keeping them out. We also don't do anything punitively here, but preventatively. What you seem to be saying is that we should be punitive toward all banned users, even if that means getting rid of edits that were good for Wikipedia and even removing entire articles just because they were made by a banned user. Silver  seren C 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats a pretty selective reading of what I said. I'll bow out now. Syrthiss (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. :) Silver seren, as you know, this is really a conversation for WT:CSD. WP:CSD is policy because at least at some point that perspective gained consensus and so far consensus has not swayed completely in the other direction. In a sense, making bans stick is preventative (not punative) if it keeps bans from becoming meaningless. In my current Wikipedia state of mind, I would be selective in G5ing. Serial copyright infringers, hoaxers, others whose edits might cause difficult-to-discern damage I'd G5 readily. Others, it would depend. I knew that User:Dromeaz was an indef-blocked contributor pretty much from my first encounter with him, and though he didn't create new articles I made no waves about his contribution. It felt best for the project that he be permitted to discuss his concerns and participate in development of the article, until things got out of hand. Even now, I would still engage his IPs as long as he is on topic. That's what WP:IAR is all about. I think in each case we have to weigh the long-view good of the project; sometimes that may mean keeping an article contributed by an indeffed or banned contributor, and sometimes that may mean deleting it. I support the policy, myself, but I support applying it sensibly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

cblock and cblock-i
Hello! These templates are based on an (at the time) 1,5 years old version of uw-block1. First of all, I think they should be edited to transclude the uw-block template. That way, the cblock templates are always up-to-date. Second, what about merging these templates and then move that merged template to the template space? They are certainly useful for any administrator who blocks a user for copyright violations. And what about implementing them in Twinkle? Moonriddengirl, do you have any objections? Hey Mid  (contribs) 19:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I have no objections whatsoever. I'm not much at coding or templating or what have you, but I've got a whole host of little templates I've created for myself, largely in copyright work. If you think others will have use for it, I'm happy for it to be in template space, and I'm always happy to have them cleaned up by somebody who knows what they're doing. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries! Cheers,  Hey  Mid  (contribs) 21:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr Fay Khan
Hi, i just delete the link " http://www.wix.com/faykhan/faykhanweb1 " now there is NO COPY RIGHT problum. i hope that my link DR FAY KHAN will be restore soon. if you have any further question please feel free to contact me.

Thanks, Malghalaray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malghalaray (talk • contribs) 05:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Washington Times takes (possibly incorrect) text from Wiki?
Worth pursuing? Talk:Andrew Wakefield. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 11:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The only people who have any legal authority to pursue it are substantial contributors to the copied text--people who contributed enough to that content to have copyright interest in it. But they may respond to a request for attribution from anybody. There's some recommended letters at Standard license violation letter. It's important, though, to note the copying at the top of the page with backwardscopy so as to avoid later removal of the text. As much as I work to keep copyright problems off of Wikipedia, I absolutely hate it when backwards infringements result in the loss of our legitimate content. :P I actually once verified backwards infringement and tagged the article's talk page accordingly only to have another contributor come in and remove the content as a copyvio anyway. But putting a kind of permanent link up at the top will at least reduce the likeliness of that happening, especially if somebody detects uncredited similarity years from now when the conversation about it at the talk page is long archived. I'll put the template on, if you like. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Revived an article.
Korea Communications Commission. It was deleted almost a year ago. No copyright related contents. Just translated the core stuff from the Korean version of this article. Is everything ok with this? Komitsuki (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) As long as the Korean version of this article was not a copyvio, then there should be no problems, except that you do need a direct link to your source. Copying within Wikipedia has some procedures for translating from other language wikis, here. I've gone ahead and put the template on the talk page for this article. Thanks for filling the gap! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Re. Inshallah Football.png
Hi,

Re. your concerns about the copyright on this image, can we continue the discussion on my talk page so I can maintain the thread there? Thanks Spy99 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

FAY KHAN
Sir i am the auther of the page i created the page. those are my words and sentences. you can recheck the web its not any where els. why wikipedia is giving hard time to me for the page DR FAY KHAN or FAY KHAN. how can i solve the problum. need you kindly advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malghalaray (talk • contribs) 20:15, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Quotes in footnotes
Hi. I'm thinking about attaching the exact quote from the copyrighted source to each citation in an article - where the citation doesn't already link to a free online version. Provided they are short, one- or two-sentence quotes, can you see any copyright violation there?

The purpose would be to make the whole article instantly verifiable by all readers. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Hmm. There could be a copyright problem, depending on the proportion used and if multiple citations are drawn from a single source. It also depends on the length of the sentences. One- or two-sentence quotes from Faulkner could take up pages. :D Have you considered limiting it to contentious information? That would probably help with "fair use" defense of the quotes, if it ever came to that, and might also avoid unbalancing the ratio of article text to footnotes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Yes, I was being a bit unrealistic there. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sigma Nu entry; History section
Hi Moonriddengirl, First off, I am a Sigma Nu alumni from a chapter that has been active for over 125 years. Secondly, I am curious as to why you deleted the entire history portion of the Sigma Nu Fraternity entry. It is clearly marked in the "Terms of Use" for the website, that non-commercial usage (even complete copies) are permitted so long as all copyright and other proprietary notices are retained. I understand your reasoning as listed on the talkpage for Sigma Nu. However, I do not know if you realized the exact ToU for Sigma Nu's online information.71.225.111.140 (talk) 06:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid that Wikipedia does not accept content that is licensed for non-commercial usage. We are only able to import content that is compatibly licensed with our own CC-By-SA, which requires permitting modification and commercial reuse. I appreciate your note here, and I have placed a little more information at the talk page of the article, where you also raised the question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI
Please see the discussion at User talk:Mkativerata. Essentially, I would like to contribute to the cleanup process with regards the Epeefleche CCI, however I am wary that should I start editing articles on mass it will be taken the wrong way by the subject, and I have no desire for further drama. As such I have created a subpage in my userspace (here) where I have listed articles that I have found problems with. Articles with no issues, I shall check of the CCI list myself. If this does not help you with the cleanup process please let me know. Thanks, wjemather bigissue 10:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe it would help tremendously. Thank you very much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio report
Hi Moonriddengirl and a belated Happy New Year.

I wonder whether you might be able to help with a problem that has arisen on Eugenics.

I discovered two copyvios in Eugenics and made a report here Copyright_problems/2011_January_10.

I left a message at the talk page of the editor reponsable and put what I thought was the correct template on the article page itself, twice. It was twice removed as vandalism, first by the editor reponsable and then by another user. I was surprised that it replaced the whole article, but I have seen that before (when there were copyvios in a whole series of mathematics articles by Henry Delforn, e.g. on Quantum Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations).

I was surprised myself by the effect of the template on the article, which other users, such as , mistook for vandalism.

I have left details of the two problematic passages here, having mentioned the fact the hopefully you would be able to help us sort out this matter.

Thanks in advance, Mathsci (talk) 11:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) Happy New Year to you, and I have weighed in at the various appropriate pages. I do apologize that the template instructions were not clear as to how to limit blanking; I hope they are now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

how long and distinctive can a word-string be?
I've picked up this phrase, "becalmed in the bight", at Action_of_1_January_1800 and raised it at FAC here.

Seems to occur in a book by JF Cooper that treats the same event: (google search). But then a number of texts use it, at least one in a quite different context. I'm unsure about this; it may be quite ok. Surprising that the Cooper source is listed in the refs, but is not the referred source at that point. Maybe the phrase has gone viral on the net, which does reduce the benchmark for plagiarism, I think. Tony  (talk)  13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The unsatisfactory answer. :) Never having heard the term "bight" before, I had to look it up. As its a geographical feature, I would imagine this one is probably okay as long as surrounding material is not closely paraphrased. It sounds highly poetic, but if it were "becalmed in the water" or "becalmed in the ocean" it would probably not raise a brow. Since it literally is in the Bight of Leogane, I don't think there's enough poetry to it to constitute true originality. But that's just my take.


 * As a general rule of thumb, the length depends on the distinctiveness. A single apt word might require attribution to avoid plagiarism (cf. ) It really comes down to how unique the language is, I'm afraid, or how POV, for lack of a better word. If everybody refers to John Doe as a "power monger", it's not plagiarism for us to do so without specific attribution (completely ignoring that other policies forbid it for the moment :D), but if only Sally Smith does, it would be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure editors are alive to the basic features that must be counterbalanced to form a view of whether plagiarism is occurring. What do you think of the kind of arrow-graph that is used at canvassing? Tony   (talk)  00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it could be useful, but also possibly difficult to devise. That "I know it when I see it" factor can make for debates especially at the margins. If you want to work something out, I'd be happy to pitch in with ideas, though, and we could see how it flies. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tagged article
I have tagged Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu as a copyvio because it appears to have been copy pasted from this source. I do like to bring such matters to your attention and appreciate your diligence regarding the deficiencies.  My 76 Strat  13:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) This one is a copyvio all right, but not ours. They published their content in August 14, 2010. We already had it by then. I appreciate your attention to these matters! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am curious if you believe they should be reminded of their obligation to respect our copyrights through attribution?  My 76 Strat  17:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be a good thing, but it's not something I myself follow up on. I tend to have my hands as full as I can handle already with Wikipedia work. :) The process, if you're interested in notifying them, is at Mirrors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I have a unique opportunity to contribute photos that are completely free of copyright restrictions
Hello again, Moonriddengirl! I came to you before for an Editor's review of the bio for Sarah Cahill (pianist). Thanks again!

As you can see on my user page I have contributed a public domain photo and have the opposite problem that you usually find. I have suggestions regarding how to improve the chances that others might succeed in making successful public domain contributions, and specific issues with the language in the copyright alerts that are meant to guide the contributor.

While it is true that I was lucky to have found this particular photo, it is very likely that there are more photos that would benefit WP greatly, as the time period covered is subject to copyright in the US. This Polish magazine has been in publication continuously and I have a contact that writes articles today in that magazine, and gave me the assurance that these photos are public domain. He uses old issues of the magazine himself as the "photo archive"; he scans old issues and re-uses them when needed, along with new articles. That is why you see that image in an article published in 2006. That's about sixty years worth of issues that qualify, and I could easily ask my contact for likely subjects and date ranges to search.

However, I find that the details of the PD-Poland assertion and its guidelines are fatally flawed and self-contradictory. I go into painful detail as to why, in the "Todo" section on my user page. I also offer ideas for how to present the unique opportunity that is PD-Poland better, hopefully. I would really appreciate if you could assess my ideas or refer me to the person must knowledgable about not only copyright restrictions, but when and why such restrictions are not applicable. As it is now, assuring "public domain in the USA" is impossible because it doesn't recognize "never published in the USA" and would seem to require that a PD-Poland photo never published in the US be published before 1923. That is the publication year before which copyright expires today, but in my situation there is nothing to expire. The public domain doesn't expire, although PD-Poland stops cold in 1990 something. These photos were published first and only in Poland, hence the opportunity. I'm quite confident that if I did see my photo published in the US somewhere, any assertion of US copyright would actually be theft, which I could verify. As opposed to PD-Poland defeated by a valid US copyright.

US copyright law is weighed so heavily to one side, it would seem to trump all other Commons and public domains, but it doesn't in a few extremely narrow cases. Photos by Polish photographers published in Poland before 1990 something with no copyright notice attached, never published in the US, is the magic CC-0. I'd like to hear someone argue otherwise, actually. I'm that confident!

I've made my case and await judgement or feedback from you, or any editor you might suggest. Sorry for the verbosity, but I think the possibility of a raft of CC-0 photos does deserve help from the very top legal authority here, if needed.

Your in optimistic sincerity, Reechard (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Be sure to consider the URAA, which states that any image that was copyrighted in Poland in 1996 and first published 1923 or later remains copyrighted in the United States until at least 2019 (even if it was never published in the United States). See Non-U.S. copyrights for details. Confusingly, Poland extended their copyright terms to 70 years after the author's death in 2003, and it's not clear to be whether works whose copyright was restored by this law were also restored in the US or not. Commons does accept images that are in the public domain in Poland but not the US (if tagged with commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA) but such uploads remain contentious. Dcoetzee 22:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Alas, we don't really have a top legal authority at the moment. :/ International copyright law is really outside of my area, although since coming to Wikipedia I've certainly learned quite a bit more about it.:) I'm trying to think where you might best get proper feedback on this. If I were you, I would begin by posting the argument at Template talk:PD-Poland and then publicizing the conversation (asking people to weigh in there) at WT:C, WT:Non-U.S. copyrights, and WT:Image use policy. It might also be a good idea to request attention at Village pump (miscellaneous). You would then want to watchlist those pages, as in my experience even if you ask people to weigh in at one point, inevitably somebody will comment in the wrong place. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks. I'll turn to that when I have a block of time to start by addressing the first article. It's helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. Two quick questions.  One -- is there a timeframe?  Second -- should I have you look at it before I restore any such article?  Three -- While I want to clear up any matter that is even within a gray area, I have the sense that one or more editors have a divergent understanding of the applicable rules ... I don't want to slow up any "fixing" by discussing that, but believe it worth a discussion. Where would the best place be for that?  Fourth -- I have two individuals who I believe are wikihounders; how should I approach their involvement in this process, should that occur?  I would appreciate their not involving themselves in this.  Can that be effected?  You can reply here.  Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) The timeframe is completely unpredictable, I'm afraid. :/ We've got CCIs that have been open for over a year. Some are processed far more quickly, generally when the community at large pitches in. When an article is blanked, you should not restore it, but put the content in the temporary page. Blanked articles are listed at CP, and whatever admin addresses the daily listing will review it and replace the contents if they work. If an article is just tagged close paraphrase, you can replace it directly. Please try to err on the side of caution there, though. It's better to go too far in rewriting than not far enough. In terms of your third, it depends on whether you're talking about general approach or specific articles. Specific articles are discussed at WT:CP. The general approach is probably best discussed at WT:C. Fourth, unless they are topic-banned or have a prior history of copyright problems, any editor is welcome to pitch in, but we of course want to be sure that analysis is done fairly. One of the contributors that you may be speaking of is the person who opened the request? That person has proposed an approach to assisting whereby s/he would clear articles that are found to have no problem and list at a separate page articles that are for an uninvolved person to review and address, if they agree. (Specifically, User:Mkativerata). That seems like a good idea. If anybody else becomes involved that you think may have too much investment to fairly assess, we can deal with that, but usually CCIs are very low drama. There have only been a handful that have generated issues, I'm happy to say. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page on Ruth Oldenziel
Dear Moonriddengirl

I noticed that a page on Ruth Oldenziel has been deleted by you, but I couldn't find out the reason, except that it had apparently been started by a now banned user.

As far as I know the deleted material was correct and useful. If someone creates a new wikipedia page with precisely this content, will there be a problem?

Yours Richard Gill  Richard Gill (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) The individual who created the article was indefinitely blocked for copyright violations and has created several accounts to continue editing in spite of the block. There may be no problem with the specific text of that article—his sock's articles have been deleted without examination, other than to make sure that they actually do meet the deletion criterion—but we have the problem that if we create an article with his content we become the ones with a copyright problem. If he has not copied that from somewhere, the text belongs to him; if the text belongs to him, we can't publish it without proper attribution.


 * It would be better to create new content and should be fairly easy, since the article was brief. I'd be happy to resurrect the non-creative elements for you, including categories and refs, if you'd like to. If you'd like assistance with crafting a new article, I'd be happy to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks for the clarification. I was inquisitive since I know the person in question and she did not even know there was (to be more precise: had been) a Wikipedia page about her. I was looking for her on Facebook, and found the page there: it had apparently been automatically copied from Wikipedia to Facebook. I will tell her this amusing story but otherwise do nothing. Richard Gill (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. :) If you decide to create an article and would like help, let me know. I prefer to replace articles deleted under these circumstances, but unfortunately this individual has overwhelmed our resources. I've only been able to do a couple. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad Girls Club Episodes
I agree 100% about the semi-protection of the page. Although, while you just joined in removing IPs mess from articles regarding the Bad Girls Club, I begin trying to expand the article on my sandbox (User:AJona1992/Sandbox9). I wrote everything in my own words, but before doing anything, I need some second opinions on what I should do next? Such as, if I copy and paste everything (not currently finished) then the article will gain 90,000 bytes, or should I do individual articles of each season episodes, but then IPs would be vandalizing them. If you can give me any insight on what I should do, that'll be great, thanks :) AJona1992 (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) As a general rule of thumb, if the article would be a problem under Article size, then splitting into multiple pages might be a good idea. It's possible once the episodes are fully described that the copyright problems, at least, will cease. We do need to be careful, though, that the plot descriptions you give are not overly detailed. I've never seen the show, so I wouldn't know. :) If it turns into an episode summary, then we run the risk of exceeding fair use and creating a derivative work, particularly since "fair use" defense is thin anyway for a list article. Since it's a "reality" show, it should be a little less of a problem than a scripted series, though. If vandalism or copyright problems concern across multiple articles, that can be dealt with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if I placed (what I have done so far) the main article would see an increase of 90,000 bytes so I'm guessing that's well above the article size allowed. So what I'll do next, I'll check over my work to see if nothing will be a problem and create a new article for those. The plots and summarys are to be between 500-700 bytes per im guessing, if so, then the work that I have done is ok since they are below that mark, didn't want to overly detailed the information. Thanks AJona1992 (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good plan. The proper length of a plot summary, of course, depends on the length of source material. A three hour movie is going to have a lot more detail than a three minute music video. :) WikiProject Television/Style guidelines suggests 100–200 words for each in list articles as a rule of thumb, with extra space given to particularly complex "story" lines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free content concerns re: Bergier Commission
Thanks for the comment about the copywrite issue. When I decided to do an article on a report I thought about some of those problems and was aware of putting in the quotation marks. Thanks for pointing out wording that slipped by me. I have examined the whole article, comparing it with the original report and have rewritten another part which was verbatim. I don't believe that there are any other non-quoted verbatim texts which have slipped by me.

I am not a lawyer, but I would be surprised if there is a copyright issue. The report was commissioned by the Swiss parliament to be a public report and was posted by the commission on its website as were the 25 volumes of specialized reports that were incorporated into the final report. I suppose that the listed copyright by Pendo Verlag is related to the published hard copy.

It is the first time I have edited an entry on a single report but I thought that it would be worth the effort to make this material available (the report is after all over 500 pages and hightlights important issues.) I realized early on that I would have to use more quotations and footnotes than I normally would, but thought that the words of the commission were better than a paraphrase, particularly of their conclusions. I don't really understand what it means to use them "tranformatively" but guess that this and the term "derivative work" has to do with copyright law. However, if this runs up against the law, the only alternative I could see would be to reduce the size to something like a bloated executive summary which would be a pity. As for plagiarism, it seems clear with all those footnotes that we are not trying to pass the work of others as ours...Joel Mc (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Thanks for your attention to this matter. To start with the less important (to me, anyway :D) issue of plagiarism, Wikipedia by consensus has adopted a definition of plagiarism that requires noting direct duplication; footnotes are not sufficient. See Plagiarism.


 * Governments, of course, have the option of releasing their content into public domain, as the United States government does. Even the U.S. government, however, does not release all of its commissions into public domain. The copyright in commissioned content may be owned by the agencies or individuals contracted to prepare the reports. Even if prepared for the government, it is very possible that a third party holds copyright in this particular commission. Copyright law does not protect individual copies; it protect the creative content so contained. Too, unlike the United States, the government of Switzerland has not chosen a blanket release into public domain. (Note that their website, for instance, is Copyright, Swiss federal authorities, 2007 and requires written permission to reproduce.) Even if they had acquired copyright to the commission, it would still have to be used on Wikipedia in the same manner as any other copyrighted text.


 * "Derivative work" and "transformation" are indeed terms to do with copyright law. As defined in our article, a derivative work is a work that incorporates substantial content from a copyrighted source into a work that is overall different. It is not straightforward reproduction, but might be an abridgment, an expansion, annotated versions, or even an unusably detailed summary. "Transformation" has to do with one of the points of the fair use allowance. Again, our article explains, although not very well. :) The question is whether content taken from copyrighted sources is adding something new or simply superseding the original. Wikipedia is itself a nonprofit entity, which helps, but it has chosen to incorporate commercial reuse into its vision, which is we can't accept images that are non-commercial only, even though we are non-commercial. When writing content, we need to consider not only whether use would be appropriate in a nonprofit encyclopedia, but also whether it would be appropriate in a for-profit book.


 * It's unfortunate that sometimes copyright concerns present challenges in adding information to Wikipedia. And I know what a pain in the neck it can be to try to rewrite content when the original seems to say it best. But our current model requires that we respect copyright, whether we expect the copyright owner to prosecute us or not. I'll take a look at it a bit later today, and if I see any lingering issues I'll try to help revise some of the content. I have a bit of experience in finding new ways to convey the same information. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this helpful reply. Just a quick note to help. The report is not a Swiss government report but that of an independent commission which is given the task to report to the public.  However, if you go to the site of the commission at: http://www.uek.ch/en/index.htm you will see the express statement that the "Downloading and use of the final report is for private use only." Even though this seems to refer to using a copy of the whole report for commercial use, it does seem to raise similar issues to the copyright ones.  It is a pity, for it does seem that some of the clarity will be lost.  However, if you give me some indications of problematic parts and suggestion how I might resolve them I will try my hand at it.Joel Mc (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Sorry for the delay. I had meant to review it today after I finished my day's "work", but as it sometimes does real life intruded, and I didn't even finish the day's tasks! I'll make it a priority to review tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * With a document that long, I could not affirm under threat of a firing squad that it's all been addressed, but it certainly looks to me like you've taken care of it. :) I've removed the tag, pending production of some evidence that problems continue. I did use WP:INTEXT attribution for two direct quotes. Thanks for taking care of this! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time.Joel Mc (talk) 09:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Pido Lalimarmo
Hi Moonriddengirl,

Advice from User:Derek R Bullamore pointed me in your direction, saying you are the bees-knees in dealing with these little horrors. Please look at: Pido Lalimarmo. This one's been in this state since Nov 2009. It appears a straight copy from a web article from 2004:. Why has no-one picked-up on this blatant promotionese filch in the past year; it must be copyvio against Warner Music mustn’t it? I’d be grateful for your help – I’m inexperienced in this type of Wiki misdemeanor, so perhaps you or your readers might like to get your teeth in: if not, give me pointers please.

Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Good catch! Yes, that's a classic copyright problem, and it always amazes me when something that blatant goes unnoticed. I rather suspect that few or no editors have read the article closely. I've done the needful, which in this case involves blanking the article with copyvio and listing it at the copyright problems board. (CP) There's nobody to notify, since it was placed by an IP editor over a year ago. The odds that my notice would reach the same person are slim. :/ I also considered simply reverting to the redirect that used to exist, but it's been around long enough to go through the CP process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

2nd opinion?
Hi MRG :) If you have a couple of minutes to spare (unlikely I know!), can I request your expert opinion here? If not, no worries. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 10:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I always have time to spare for copyright questions. :D I've weighed in. I don't have much authoritative to add, though, as you guys have pretty well covered it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that :) EyeSerene talk 13:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sinn Sisamouth

 * Thank you! Yes, it did. Quite a mess, that article. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi - sorry that I had not re-edited the section in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincvs (talk • contribs) 16:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Vivian Maier
A photographer who shot most of her images between 1950 and the 1970s, recently deceased, but who never showed her images to anyone and never published them. An anon IP has suggested, see here, that her images are now PD. I doubt this quite a lot. Would you care to answer anon IP's question on the talk page? Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I commented where you suggested. ww2censor (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Swiss hits
Thanks, good thing you caught me, I was hitting "save" just as the message came through. Mandsford 02:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Óscar López
Hi Moonriddengirl,

Another one I think. As far as I can see its cobbled together from two pre-Wiki-creation articles. The article: Óscar López: created by IP 112.198.79.67 on April 25th 2010.

Chunks of it appear copy-pasted from (see text down the right hand side) from April/May 2004, and  (right at the bottom of the page – it grays-out but you can still see it) from March 20th 2010.

There is broadly the same article on Phillipines Wiki,, created in 2007, three years after the Lopez Family Values article, but the real give-away I think is the unrelated words "(see main story in this issue)" in the 'Contribution to the Community' section in both Wikipedia and Phillipines Wiki... (got the old antenna wobbling), indicating a filch in both, from either Lopez Family Values or something even earlier. What is interesting is that the Russian-registered essaysforstudent.com article is itself partially copy-pasted from earlier sources - you can't trust anything! But I think we can be sure that our Wiki article is at the end of a line of copy cheating - just shows how difficult it is to trust anything written onto web pages as being an original source.

Is this another scalp for you? Best wishes, Acabashi (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope not. :/ But I'll go take a look and see. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear. Your observations are kind of irrefutable. Seems to be another scalp. Those things are so nasty. :P Mopped up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Authorisation Letters - Where to from here?
Dear Moonriddengirl,

We seem to have had a break in our communication. You requested from your last email if the documents I have are written documents or scanned documents and I did mention that they are scanned documents which are part typing and part handwritten completions by the owners of the pictures. Is there an email address I can email them to? Please advise. I have also taken a look at that site for the foundation but did not see any contact details there, can you please help?

kind regards--Smikect 12:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smikect (talk • contribs)


 * I've replied at your talk page. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

History purges of copyvios
Hey MRG, I just wanted to ask what may be an obvious question. If an article contains a blatant copyvio, and then is reworded to avoid it, should it, without question, be listed for Revdel and marked on WP:SCV with ? I was kind of presuming so, since that's why the template exists, but wasn't sure if that was prevailing practise? Any advice much appreciated as usual! -- Beloved Freak  19:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi.:) The standards for this one are still not entirely settled, but, yes, that's the basic idea. Some admins will do the history purge and some will not. I myself am more likely to do it if the copyvio is extensive. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I guess I will list some for purging and see what happens!-- Beloved Freak  13:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you've found copyvio-revdel, but I'll mention it here for the benefit of any readers. Flatscan (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Do we add credits to images?
Not a copyvio question, but see Armageddon top image. Thanks. --Dougweller (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding credits to image captions is an editorial/style decision - editors of a particular article can decide to include it if they really want to. But the general convention on the English Wikipedia is that the image description page is used for credits. However, I was suspicious of this image because it doesn't really include a source (just "Taken in Israel" - but the uploader doesn't appear to be the author). I looked it up and sure enough it's a Flickr image released under a noncommercial no-derivatives license. As such I've deleted it. Dcoetzee 21:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Derrick. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks Derrick! --Dougweller (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Graffiti in the United States
I am working on a related article, and while adopting content from that article I discovered it may be a copyvio of. Our article is from 2010, IA confirms that page existed since 2008. Close or verbatim paraphrase starts from "Around 1970-71, the centre of graffiti innovation moved to New York City" I think, could be earlier. Seems rather widespread... PS. On the other hand, this could be a false alarm, it seems that content was split from graffiti where it existed in 2007. I'd appreciate your input on whether I can reuse content from that article, or should it be rewritten? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Looking into it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently, I'm thinking this is highly suspect. :/ We got this content in one chunk here. I have not yet looked for matches, but that's a serious red flag. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think it safe to assume that the site you found is a reverse infringement. Clearly our IP didn't copy from them. I centered in that search on the text "centre of graffiti innovation", and that phrase came into the article in May 2006. The phrase "early trendsetters", by contrast, don't enter the article until February 2008. That big bulk of text in 2006 is still a bit concerning, but I found no matches for it on google or in google books. It may have been a student essay; it does seem to have some of the earmarks of that kind of writing. I believe you're safe to use the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've already verified most of it with other sources, and rewrote part of it, so... we keep on improving :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Ultra marathon
Quick question about this comment on Garside page: "(redundant wikilink removed; please don't approve this, bystanders. It's to test a new reviewer with an issue. :) " Since I put that edit in there... I'm wondering what's it all about? CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't generally wikilink the same term twice in an article. It's wikilinked in the lead, so it should not be wikilinked in the body. :) See WP:OVERLINK. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Eeeek that was probably the edit where I put in comment (I thought I did that!!)  LOL  Got it.... ! PS: Even if I have approve option, I'll stay away from approving over there :-D  CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads up: User:Ahmetyal
I ran into at the CP page. On looking through his contributions, almost everything seems to be either a direct copy from one of his sources, or a close paraphrase. Luckily, he actually provided his sources so they are easy to check. I'm going to start going through them, but I'm not sure if we want to open a CCI or not. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. Another CCI. :/ If it looks too extensive for you to handle in one sitting, a CCI is probably a good idea. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is massive, and encompasses almost every iteration of "Denmark – relations" you can imagine. I will work on opening a CCI. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  21:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for moving Jackie Fields!
I just wanted to say thanks for moving the new article across into the old space. It's appreciated :)

Regards, ManicSpider (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for writing one that I could move. That's always a day-brightener for me. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!!!!!!!!!
Hi! Thanks a ton for restoring the article Shankardev Kalakshetra. Very appreciable! Killerdove 09:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Killerdove (talk • contribs)
 * I'm glad I was able to do so. :) After all the work you've done on the article, it would be a shame to lose the article because somebody else copied it! While I did find that some of the content in our article was copied from other websources, that material all seems to have been recent. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Copyright
Hey, if you have a few minutes, can you look over the few articles on User:Ctjf83 for copyvio issues? I use the tool you told me about, and looked it over manually, and believe I have addressed all the issues. No rush, my current RfA is all but dead, so not even gonna bother saying on there the issues are fixed. Thanks! C T J F 8 3 chat 12:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure! Can't predict how quickly I can scan through them, but I'll be happy to. I've spent as much as an hour on a single complex article (kid you not!), but I doubt I'll run into anything that dense. :) (Sometimes checking for copyvios requires looking at the foundational entrypoint of striking phrases, since they may later be modified. If you find the unaltered entry text, you may be able to locate the source and better compare.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, as always! C T J F 8 3  chat 13:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit War
Hi MRG, I've just broken the 3RR. How long will I get blocked for? Jayy008 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You have no block history; assuming that a block is forthcoming, it isn't likely to be more than 24 hours and may not be that long. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Would you be able to do me a little favour? Jayy008 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't say before I know what it is. :) BTW, I see you've both gone over 3RR. Instead of you guys getting blocked, you might just stop reverting each other and get a third opinion? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, I know, I should have perhaps said what it was first :). I asked Logical Fuzz as we've had our problems before (the first time I spoke to you, when he reported me), so I think that's a good impartial opinion. But he hasn't replied. Could you be third-party please? It's very simple, it's just facts that are being twisted. Jayy008 (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that the revert-warring is continuing. I've issued you both a warning. Further reverts from either of you will almostly certainly lead to a block. So don't, please. I cann't provide a third-opinion in this case. What I will do is copy the conversation over to the article talk page and try to find a neutral third party for you both. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help, as always. I only carried on blocking to get the attention of an admin (stupid, I know) as I never get anywhere with the user. Nobody, aside from myself and ClaudeKade11 has been on the talk-page before. Thank you for the offer, but I'd rather you didn't, I lose my cool in conversations with him and I don't it displayed over Wiki for people to get the wrong impression of me and not want to engage in discussions. <<< Sorry, did that sound rude? Jayy008 (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No matter, you beat me to it lol. Can you point me to a user who you know edits television shows? Jayy008 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I've already copied it over. :/ It is relevant to the article in general. And, yes, disruption to get the attention of an admin is not a good idea. :/ You should behave on every page on Wikipedia "for the record", as it really doesn't matter whether you are on a user talk page or an article talk page. It's all permanent, and it's all available to those wanting to evaluate your behavior. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I did that as I'm sure you have much better things to do with your time here. It's just I've been here a while and now because he got away with all that bullying bad faith to me last time, that I can get away with it now. Jayy008 (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you guys are both very heated there, but his removal of your efforts to talk without comment doesn't exactly demonstrate good faith. :/ In any event, I would really just recommend you focus on the issue. I've changed my 3O section a bit to reflect what you say about there being no speculation. I don't want to confuse a 3Oer off the bat. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, editors like you give me hope that Wikipedia can go back to how it used to be. I better change my comment now too. Thanks again! Jayy008 (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Is one opinion enough? Jayy008 (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. One is not only enough, but it's all you'll get. :) It's called "third opinion" for a reason. :D However, you still can't change the article, not until 24 hours have passed. This is a good idea anyway in case the other editor wants to come back and make his case. He may persuade your third opinion. It is good practice to give him an opportunity. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL, I know, I was just checking :). And yeah, I'll wait. I'm 100% sure he won't change his mind, he said it in a very educated and knowlagable way. What happens if ClaudKade11 continues after I revert tomorrow? Jayy008 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have told you that it would be better if you didn't revert at all, and I'm glad to see that somebody else has implemented consensus. I trust that ClaudKate11 will respect consensus. If you run into contributors who do not, but persist in placing their preferred version in the face of objections, you're dealing with a Disruptive editing. In that case, you would probably bring the matter to WP:ANI, although multiple rounds of dispute resolution are sometimes appropriate first. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, yep, somebody else did. All seems ok :) Jayy008 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Rollback request
As you're my go-to gal for copyright concerns, I'd like to request a rollback of apple cider vinegar (currently listed at Copyright problems/2011 January 9). The copyrighted content in question was added in this edit of 9 December 2010. I believe this should resolve the issue. Thanks! Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see, at first or second glance, where they copyvio problem is. Can you cite a couple of phrases that occur in source and WP article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it is a close paraphrase in some parts, including lifting of phrases, similar wordings, etc. The source is .  One paragraph that stands out is:
 * Despite its apparent fame, it wasn’t until a book was written in 1958 by D. C. Jarvis, M.D., that ACV became well known for its medicinal value. The book, entitled Folk Medicine: A Vermont Doctor’s Guide to Good Health, suggested that ACV could be used as a cure-all. The book was not immediately well known, but in 1959 it became a bestseller and stayed on the bestsellers list for months. In just a single week, more than 245,000 copies were sold, and testimonials were received from many who said they had benefited from taking “honegar,” a mixture of honey and ACV that Jarvis had suggested in his book. ACV became popular once more during the 1970s, when it was suggested by some who had read Jarvis’ book that taking ACV with kelp would help speed up the metabolism and therefore contribute to weight loss. This was thought to be due to the amounts of lecithin and vitamin B6 taken in when consuming the ACV-kelp mixture.
 * It's not a word-for-word copy, but most of the word-choice remains the same, phrases have been copied wholesale from the source.  If this doesn't qualify as a copyright violation, then perhaps the tag should be removed from the article instead of rolling back?   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at this, and I think that perhaps this would do better with a "close paraphrasing" tag. On my wishlist with my people-who-program is a tool that would do a comparison of a specific source with an article, and if I ever get that I'll be able to make quick work of this kind of thing! I'm doing another readthrough comparison just to make sure I'm not missing something. I don't want to restore an article to publication if it's over the edge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm more concerned with content under "Health benefits." For example:

The source says:

The source says:

It continues like this, presenting the same studies and facts selected by Wong in pretty much the same structure. Similarities in language are enough to make me uneasy, but would not be an issue if not for the solitary reliance on this source and the point-for-point reproduction of its fact selection criteria. This content was evidently added by a student, who may not have the writing experience yet to understand the amount of rewriting required in paraphrasing. Rather than rolling it back, though, I think it would probably be better to just cut out those remaining sections that follow too closely, replacing them if there was prior material on the same topic. If you guys agree, I'll go ahead and do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that uncomfortably close paraphrase as well, but I was not successful in tracking it down. (Or, rather, I thought I had tracked it down.)  Your solution sounds eminently reasonable to me.  Perhaps Drmies has some additional input though, since he has been actively involved in editing the article.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead presumptively, on the grounds that incomplete information is better than no information.:) We can discuss further if need be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help, as usual! Best,  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Victoria Price
Hi Moonriddengirl, I was doing some research on the Scottsboro Boys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys and I was wondering why the wiki page for Victoria Price http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Price was deleted. Any incite on this would be helpful.

Thank you,

BillyZ313 (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. It was proposed for deletion for notability and sourcing concerns. It was an unsourced article on a California realtor who had evidently done some modeling and television acting in the 90s, though no details were provided as to where and in what. It's not related to Scottsboro Boys. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi Moonriddengirl, there is a user who keeps vandalising the article Mahinda Rajapaksa, I have warned him many times and told him to use the talk page to settle his issues, yet he still continues. I have tagged him but he keeps blanking his talk page, now he is making personal comments towards me. Can you please block him or tell him to stop. Thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I could, if it were obvious vandalism, but I'm afraid that to someone unfamiliar with the subject it's not. I see no conversation at the talk page whatsoever related to the recent dispute, which is surprising since it seems to involve multiple people. I can see that there is edit warring going on, and he has been warned. The thing to do at this point is to pursue dispute resolution, which should begin by discussion on the article's talk page about the changes and why one version is better or worse than another. If you can't reach consensus, you can call for assistance from the wider community. Once consensus is established, any contributor who wars against it is likely to be perceived as disruptive and handled accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Nancy Isenberg?
I was disappointed to see you had deletd the article about her because I was s student of hers in Rome in 1973-74 and I was hoping to find out about her an d possibly reach her. Can you tell me where to look for info? Thanks.∼∼∼∼ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.69.40 (talk) 10:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article was for a different Nancy Isenberg who began her professional career in the 1980ies, and was deleted because it was written by an editor who has a long history of introducing copyrighted text on Wikipedia without permission.
 * For information on the professor, you may want to look at social networking sites (facebook, linkedin and others). MLauba (Talk) 11:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)