User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 34

Masrawy
Hi Moonriddengirl, seriously, can you read the language on the website? Can you verify that it's a legitimate news source by Wiki standards? USchick (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I asked another WP:OTRS agent via e-mail; I can't tell you who. His answer included a strong indication that he had no desire whatsoever to be involved for political reasons. Masrawy seems to be a standard web portal, with a mix of news and various other offerings, such as Yahoo, AOL, and Road Runner. I don't know anything about the author of the piece, whose name translates "Ahmed Ahmed", but the purpose of the article is to aggregate what was being said about Saaed elsewhere. I believe that in conjunction with the Facebook profile it is easy to verify that the image is authentic. The primary purpose of the "prior publication" requirement is to ensure that we are not unfairly competing with a marketable property prior to its release by the person who is legitimately able to profit from it; the copyright holder has more than satisfied the requirement of publication, so far as I can determine. I'm satisfied that the image meets all 10 points of WP:NFCC and that its use is specifically governed under WP:NFCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking. USchick (talk) 19:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I responded in detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Does_it_meet_the_file_description_requirements.3F. By Egyptian Liberal's description, Masrawy is like the Huffington Post, it's neither far-left nor far-right, it included a reposted article originally by famous Egyptian activist Ayman Nour whose orginal blog post of the same article with a picture of Saeed was posted on Nour's Facebook blog.  See the thread for links, policy context, and options. Ocaasi (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You mentioned you found a Saeed AP photo. Do you have a link?  I'm keeping a collection of where the image comes up in RS.  Not sure how much longer this should go on.  Better to continue addressing every point or let an admin make the call?  Thanks,  Ocaasi (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ys; I linked it there, but given how ridiculously bloated that conversation is I'm not surprised you didn't see it. :) It's actually included in one of the links you found: . Look to the posters being carried by protesters. Better to continue addressing every point? I think not. Consensus does not require that every one be satisfied. If you feel you cannot convince somebody, leave it to consensus. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't say it wasn't motivated by sheer irateness, but was very good of you.  Unrelated to NFCC, thanks for doing it. Ocaasi (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. His is a very moving story, and whether the image is included or not deserves to be fully told. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Back again!
Do you remember how you helped me with the article on Forum for Stable Currencies?

I would like to update it and noticed that the references are not correct.

BUT: there is this 'general notability' remark. Hence I'd like to add the reference to this article: http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/McNeill2009.pdf

And I'd like to make the link from Elizabeth Kucinich who came to the FORUM @ the House of Lords.

Do you think that might help solve the notability issue?

With many thanks in advance for your help,

Sabine Sabine McNeill (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I'll be happy to take a look at this one, but it may be sometime tomorrow before I get enough time. I'm just popping in for a minute to check on a few conversations in process and then back to my deadline. :P --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank You!!!

Meanwhile I found the HELP for References. But my additions haven't made the para on notability disappear... :( Sabine McNeill (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that has to be manually removed. :) Here's what I would recommend: either (a) talk to the contributor who placed the tag to ask him if he thinks your changes have made enough difference for the tag to be removed. If he does, you can remove the tag. He's still active and can be reached at User talk:JHP. Or (b) ask for opinions of others at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, explaining that you don't want to remove the tag without first making sure it is no longer needed, because of your involvement. Either way, if they don't believe it should be removed, you may have to leave it until there are more references. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

THANKS A LOT once again, dearest Moon Ridden Girl!

Will act on your advice and keep you informed!

Sabine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.227.120.162 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

When you get time!
I have my doubts about most of the prose in Postage stamps and postal history of Nepal that is there since the first edit but unfortunately I don't have access to the given source and that editor is not active. It appears the prose may be a verbatim, or plagarised, copy of the source. I will see if one of my philatelic friends can check it but Nepal collectors are a scarce breed. The book is available from Nepal for $60, per a recent Postal Himal book review that states: … It is then followed by the postal history, which is very detailed and I must say that describes the article's prose rather well. Should I just wait and see or take action now? TIA ww2censor (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oi. This is a tough one! I would agree with you that the odds are great that this is a copyright issue, but we don't have any way to check that without access to the book and there's no behavioral clues from the user for us to assess, since the user only made this one article. Years ago, when I first started working CP, a far more experienced admin had blanked an article as a copyvio on an article for which the book was inaccessible. The situation was a fair bit like this one. I tried to get a copy of the book, but couldn't. I asked him (not confrontationally :D) how I was supposed to process it in that case, and he pointed out the language of WP:C: "If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." Made sense to me; I was in substantial doubt, so that's what I did. What I would recommend here is asking your philatelic friends, first. If they cannot help, it would probably be best to blank the article with the copyvio template with a note at the talk page explaining why. That will give readers of the article an opportunity to help out also. If after the listing period we can't verify that the content is clear, I'll rewrite it.


 * Just to clarify for anybody else who may come upon this, I don't advocate rewriting or blanking every article in case of doubt. :) We have other tags for that situation. But the red flags here are very strong; a huge dump of text with attribution especially at top such as would suggest the content was an excerpt. Given the language, this seems very likely. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What a thoughtful reply, thanks. I will try to confirm if this is an extract or not. Will revert when I find something. ww2censor (talk) 15:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Help with Copyright Issues
Where do you need the most help with copyright issues from an administrator. I know the whole area is backlogged, but where would be a good place for me to start? NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 22:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh! Right now, WP:CP. I had a heavy work deadline late this week, and it's backed up at the moment. Admin tools are also very useful at WP:SCV, since many of those articles are G12able. But with more regular help at CP, I would be able to put more time into WP:CCI, which is our biggest text copyright backlog. I'd be very grateful for your help, be it a little or a lot. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?
So I stumbled onto something today that might be helpful for copyvio work and thought of you - see the bit at the end of Wikipedia talk:Credo accounts. I'm afraid it's not the tool you've been asking for forever to compare two different webpages, though. Maybe someone will be able to make the time to code that up for you soon. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oooh! That would be great! Thanks for thinking of how it can be used for copyright cleanup. And I'm still hopeful about that tool. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bigger article or a bunch of stubs?
Hey :) so I have created this sandbox: User:AJona1992/Sandbox7 and turned it a worthy article, that contains 7 stub album articles and 5 deleted articles (because they contained the same info) into one. Do you think this was a good idea and can be merged? or will it be tagged deleted (once all the other 7 stub articles are merged to this one)? Thanks! AJona1992 (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) It depends on whether the albums meet WP:MUSIC or not. I don't know why they were deleted. One problem you may encounter with merging the stubs is that you might not be able to keep the covers. It's generally agreed that an album article can display a picture of the album's cover, but that discographies can't. When you have multiple albums in one page, you may not be able to display the covers of each. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about having it as a collage since I have the albums as part of my collection. They never charted nor gained any certifications however, they currently have articles. AJona1992 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is, though, that the covers are copyrighted. :/ Even if you own the albums, somebody else owns the rights for the covers. We can only use them in accordance with WP:NFC. A collage usually wouldn't make it, although you can ask at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you. I'll ask :) AJona1992 (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Another copyright question
Sorry to bother you again but since you have all the experience perhaps you can figure this one out better than I can. Recently I noticed a user adding this text to the article on Lithuanian Armed Forces:

"The Lithuanian National Defence Volunteer Forces (NDVF) is an important part of Lithuanian Land Force. The Commander of the NDVF is appointed by the Minister of National Defence and is subordinate to the Commander of the Armed Forces. The NDVF is organised along administrative boundaries. It is composed of companies organised into battalions within territorial defence brigades. Each NDVF unit down to battalion level contains regular army officers and a skeletal cadre that directs training and administrative functions. The rest of the NDVF personnel are volunteers who serve with no pay. The volunteers have already successfully participated in international operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. The NDVF consists of five territorial units and Lithuanian Grand Duke Butigeidis Dragoon Training Battalion."

It read very "formulaic" to me so I copy pasted the passage into google and came up with this where one of the links was to wn.com (world news something) - the link however led to a video. I'm assuming that the text is in one of the subpages. Since this was added in recently I'm wondering if it isn't a copy/paste from that page.

(Update: I wrote this earlier today but decided to put off asking you before I did some more searching. Then got busy and stuff. Just now, I found that portions of the text are copied from the Nato website - I don't know if that's copyrighted or not). Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh oh! I'll look into this tomorrow. I wrapped my work project today (at least all I can really do until after the other party reviews it), so tomorrow I hope to be able to churn some major time into Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, yes, that content is copyrighted: down at the very bottom it says "Copyright © 2001 Mission of the Republic of Lithuania to NATO". Looking further into this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All right; I've removed the content and explained the situation to the contributor. Just as a general rule of thumb, any time content is taken from other publications without noting that it is copied, we have some problem. If the content is copyrighted, it's a problem of WP:C. Either way, it's a problem under Plagiarism. wn.com is a news aggregator, so I frequently encounter Wikipedia text on them, but if they have it before an article does, that's still obviously an issue that needs investigating. Sometimes it's a matter of somebody copying content from one article to another without attribution, which is only okay if they are the sole author of that content in the other article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Here's another one I think, same user: Air defence battalion (Lithuania) from . There's a copyright at the bottom of the page - in this cases where it's pretty clear that it's a copyright infringement can I just go ahead and remove the text myself, and leave a note such as the one you leave? That way I wouldn't have to bother you every time I stumble across something.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, absolutely. Any contributor can remove a copyright problem. :) The note I leave at talk pages is housed at cclean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More from the same user, User:GiW. On the Lithuanian Armed Forces article, chunks of text are copied verbatim from this pdf. On Military Police in Lithuania, it's a copy/paste from. Lithuanian National Defence Volunteer Forces from. This Lithuanian Special Operations Force could also be problematic, with links leading to the Ministry of National Defense of Lithuania and the same news aggregator site. This Airspace Surveillance and Control Command (Lithuania) is from here .Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. You may want to list this at WP:CCI. :/ He does not seem to have ever been warned about this before, which is unfortunate because it seems that this may have been a persistent point of confusion for him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In need of your wisdom
Hi MRG, could you please provide advice at Deletion review/Log/2011 March 21, especially the Water Tribe DRV? The argument made is that for our licensing requirements we require attribution of all material in the page history, regardless whether it is in the current article or not. Yoenit (talk) 09:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Opined. :) FWIW, I agree; that redirect has already been overturned several times. Unless we delete the history of the article, we can't guarantee that the content won't reappear. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I must admit I am a bit worried about the repercussions of this. It basically makes pages immune to deletion if you have merged/copied content somewhere else, unless that content is revdeleted from the history. Yoenit (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no, there is an alternative; you can make a list of the contributors and permanently store it. Prior to rev deletion, I did this more than once with copyvio articles where I wanted to retain some of the content contributed later by others. We could also rev delete the text in the attribution copy, but I think we'd need community consensus to add such a standard. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah that would work, but still require the admin pays attention. Perhaps the simplest and most fool proof solution would be to make part of the history of all deleted articles visible (only the contributor names), but I expect it will be snowing in hell before such a proposal gains consensus. Yoenit (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, you're probably right. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding use of revdel to undo copies, I doubt that there will be much support. In a case last year, Valhalla Vineyards was merged into North Fork of Roanoke AVA, followed by discussion at WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6. Despite wide agreement that information on that single winery was inappropriate for the AVA article (and had been immediately removed), the DRV's closer declined to use revdel to remove the attribution dependency. (According to others' research presented at the DRV, Valhalla is near – but not in – that AVA, but I see that a new source was added a few days ago.) Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I was wondering why Moonriddengirl showed up at DRV. I have long been cognizant of the wide implications and have taken steps, such as WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 58, to rein in potentially disruptive behavior. Attribution requirements are fixed, but editing that deliberately manufactures dependencies can be managed. I have been pleased by the steady adoption of WP:Copying within Wikipedia and Copied, and I think that more familiarity means more users who will tell a wayward editor, "Hey, don't mess around with this." Flatscan (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Basic tool ready
Hey, just reminding you of your thread on Bot_requests. I've whipped up a basic Duplication Detector tool on Toolserver. For curious talk page stalkers, see see demonstration:. Please go ahead and try it out and let me know how it works out for you, if it finds the things you're looking for, if it's fast enough, if you can locate the matching phrases that it identifies, that kind of thing. :-) All feedback appreciated. Dcoetzee 14:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And here's another sample, using Google's cache to compare to a PDF: . Dcoetzee 15:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Me likes it! Can it be modified not to display matched strings of 3 words or less, ideally with a toggle? Yoenit (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can set a threshold on the form. That'll make it faster too. Dcoetzee 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoot! You rock! It rocks! It works! :D You are so my hero. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works great. Is there any way you could get it to parse oldids? Oh, and MRG, run it on the HMS Weazel (1805) page :) MLauba (Talk) 16:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Running into a wrinkle there. Half a mo'. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi MLauba, fixed that issue (fortunately, before I got Toolserver IP blocked :-P). The tool already works with old revisions of articles (and in fact any webpage you can give it), and you can also compare two revisions of the same article. The links above are using this. However it will not look back in time for a better-matching revision automatically. Dcoetzee 16:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the tool now supports PDFs directly :-) See sample. Dcoetzee 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My goodness, but you're amazing. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Where to discuss emerging copyright issues?
Do you know if there is a good place to discuss evolving issues related to copyright, such as Righthaven lawsuits backfire, reduce protections for newspapers. I guess I could post it on the Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, but I wonder if there is a better place for people interested in keeping current?-- SPhilbrick  T  20:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. :) Usually I announce at WT:C and link to it at various other points, which in this case I think would include WT:CP and WT:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Your WikiHero/Heroine award
For a userbox, you can use. -Porchcrop (talk 07:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars in general have lost their value through inflation but sometimes they still mean something. I do have to say that this one is more than deserved.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! That's very kind of you (both). :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

JS Group Page
Please can you take a look at the Wiki page of - JS Group

It is continuously being vandalised with copyright infringed material, please can you revert it to previous versions which are fully cited. You have pointed this out before, but this continues to be done, thanks.

220.255.1.162 (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, my. :/ I'll take a look at it. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks much for pointing that out. I've restored to the last clean version I could find before the warring copyvios (pro and anti) and semi-protected. I'm also watchlisting it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Roman888 and Kitchen Nighmares/Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares
Some time back, you were involved in a series of sockpuppet cases and a CCI case involving Roman888 and his rather sizeable sockfarm. At the same time this was going on, he had a side project disrupting Kitchen Nightmares and Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares by pushing inclusion of updates regarding the status of restaurants long after we had consensus to exclude them (the discussions are archived now.) There's a new IP hopper who popped up on Kitchen Nightmares pushing much the same agenda; he's now moved on to Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares and is doing the same thing. When he got there, I began to notice some patterns in his writing that seemed familiar, and made me wonder if this might be Roman888 back again. He's editing from the same ISP (Telstra) and hopping between Sydney and Brisbane, AUS thus far; we know he did something similar between Victoria and at least one other city (Melbourne?) previously. Another admin has already semi-protected Kitchen Nighmares, and I've given him a heads up about RKN, but I thought it would be well to let you know what I've noticed given you were very involved in that earlier case. I've also dropped a note on the talk page of the editor who initiated the sockpuppet investigation. Drmargi (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, dear. :/ I'll have to look more into this one tomorrow, when I hope to have a bit more time, but I'm not sure how much we can do. I did a range block previously that wound up causing more collateral damage than I had intended. We may have to rely on semiprotection for the most part here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your busy (said she who should be grading projects even as I write), so no rush. It might be useful to give him enough rope to hang himself.  I'm watching for an editorial "tell" that will support our case, so giving him a few days to try to push this might actually help our case.  In the meantime, when time allows, check out []; Mkativerata and I are collaborating on a little evidence gathering to see if we might have a case for a new SPI or a site block.  Drmargi (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum-- and as you can see below, he's busy again, already having hopped to two new IPs in under 30 minutes. It's never dull. Drmargi (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Aaaand he's back again, with a new IP 121.222.16.89 where he's edited on both a Malaysia article and RKN/RKN talk, still going in circles about a so-called lack of consensus for a specific type of update he wants in the article, but still not denying he's Roman888. It's amusing, if annoying, reading.


 * I guess the question now, for the neophyte, is what has to happen to get the ban finalized? Thanks!! Drmargi (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ideally, an uninvolved admin will close the AN. If it archives without any uninvolved admin doing so and without any objections, I'll just note it at the ban list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I see; thanks! I just hope we can reign him in somehow, one of these days.  Drmargi (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We could already do this, but once he's banned it'll be even easier: RI. Blocking is not really that feasible in this situation, but you'll no doubt have noticed I did the next best thing at Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the page protection! He's a tough one to deal with, and seems so dedicated to carrying an ancient grudge; I'd tried doing something similar today, until he simmers down at least.  The silly thing is, had he actually decided to discuss one particular update he wanted, he might have been able to make a case, but he never tried.  Why is it that so often, these problems have at their core the need to win by one editor or another?  (Rhetorical question.)  I'm looking forward to the ban, once the case has run its course.  Drmargi (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) One more quick question, then I'll leave you in peace. I archived the discussion at RKN, and Roman is back, trying to start it again. Does RI extend to talk page contributions as well? I want to be careful, and fair, as well as avoid inflaming the situation. I've left a fairly to the point response suggesting he check on his status, and providing appropriate links. Thank you again for the help and support! Drmargi (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, I banned this fellow earlier today, and just now saw this discussion. That said, the rule is simple- a site-banned user has no editing privileges of any kind. Now, we should use a little common sense, of course, if a banned user fixes a typo, we shouldn't revert a misspelling back into an article; but this person has lost the right to edit articles, participate in talk page discussions, anything.  In fact, the principle is codified that reverting a banned user is an explicit exemption to the 3RR. In other words, . Courcelles 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's about as unequivocal as it gets. Thanks!  I was one of the two editors who put the case together, and I thought a wee bit of care was in order before I dove in and reverted.  Drmargi (talk) 06:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on getting a tool - application to Banglapedia CCI
Great news, many thanks to Dcoetzee. Maybe we could use this to help clear one of the outstanding CCIs, which still has hundreds of entries, I think.

Would it be OK there to put a check mark with a notation 'no matches to the corresponding Banglapedia article that exceeded five words, per this tool'. This doesn't exclude the possibility that article text was copy/pasted from somewhere else; that inhibits some of us from describing it as clear. But would it pass muster for that CCI? Novickas (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that tool would be excellent for this CCI. What a great idea. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Harvey D. Strassman
Hey Moon. I ran across a new article on Feb 1st and removed a speedy deletion tag as I felt that there was a claim of notability (satisfying point 1 of WP:ACADEMIC as the subject was part of group that discovered PTSD). Throughout this process, the author identified himself as the subject's son. At least one other editor and I believed that this was an obituary as it seems fairly obvious but were unable to find where the text was previously published. Recently, another user has found that the text was published by The Sacramento Bee on February 6th, 2011 but the text appeared on WP five days before that. It seems obvious that someone in the family, most likely the son and author, either wrote the obituary published by the Sacramento Bee or the Bee gave the subject's son a copy of the obit before it was published and he posted it here. Regardless, I have no idea how to proceed and thought you might have a suggestion. Thanks for your time. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) It's plausible. His article was posted two days after his father died, and I don't find anything that predates the February 1st publication of that content here. The earliest I can find is February 4th. It's quite common for family members to write such announcements for newspapers. I don't believe we should treat this like a copyright problem unless we find some additional evidence, but when the gentleman's son returns, it might be a good idea to get him to correspond with OTRS so that we can put a tag on the article's talk and avoid future issues. That said, we really should cut down some of the unencyclopedic content, like unsourced quotes. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Done
Mission Accomplished! If I missed anything, it was not for lack of trying!  DocOfSoc has given you a breath of Spring to promote WikiLove and Joy ;-)

 — DocOfSoc • Talk  •  07:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How beautiful! Thank you. May your Spring be filled with beautiful flowers. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Restoration Required
Hi, Hope you are doing well; Being the IT personal of JS Group, i have the copyright of the material which i posted on wikipedia from this URL http://www.pak-times.com/2009/05/14/a-self-made-jahangir-siddiqui-in-the-beginning, which you have deleted from wikipedia. some of our rivals are trying to degrade our esteem organization which we cannot tolerate. so you are requested to please restore the material which we posted on 17th March 2011 at 12:38.

your cooperation in this regard will highly appreciated and you may contact us any time on the following numbers

Zahid Khurshid 00923018225993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bberry91077 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible Copyvio - and likely to be a contentious issue
See where I have removed an image that it is alleged to be a copyvio. Could you look at this for me, if I'm in error and there is no problem please feel free to revert. I've no issue otherwise with the edit. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing contentious here. :) The image has already been deleted on Commons. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for a fast response. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem; you caught me "in". :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Netball/GA1
I am back with the understanding that I am submitting my main page prose to a monitor for a prior review before posting in article space. Hence, I am devoting more time this month to clearing out the GA backlog than to article creation. An editor involved in this review has left this remark questioning my ability to spot copyright violations. Perhaps it would be best if I put forward the name of another expert to review the article for copyright / close paraphrasing problems, which I subjectively feel are present: "The Goal Shooter's main role is to shoot goals.[38] Players in this position can move within the attacking goal third, including the shooting circle.[34][39] This player is often defended by the opposing team's Goal Keeper. The Goal Shooter works closely with Goal Attack in the shooting circle, and work to position themselves to receive passes from the feeding midcourt players.[38]" comes from: "This player must get past the Goal Keeper of the other team. He or she can move within the 'attacking' goal third, including the shooting circle." I recommended quotation from the rulebook over close paraphrase. Please let me know if I can put foward you or another expert to take a look. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I'll try to find somebody, because I would shrink away from this one and address it only with great reluctance if it came to WP:CP. I'm sorry to have to confess that I pretty much despise organized sports. It can be hard for me to read articles about them, what with my eyes continually glazing over. :/ I'll see what I can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. It is a difficult area because many sports report a lot of data and scores.  (I hesitate to recall that Darius Dhlomo wrote in the sports area.)  What I really need is someone who has access to one of the online plagiarism checkers.  There are 213 footnotes from publications and scholarly text from around the world. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At least Darius mostly wrote biographies. I can handle those. :) I'm still looking. The first person I thought to ask evidently dislikes sports as much as I do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of this features exotic islands - Jamaica, Cook Islands and Samoa!  Things are escallating and turning very ugly, very quickly.  She misinterpreted my desire to check for "close paraphraseing" and turned it into a "How dare you accuse me of plagarism" wikidrama.  The editor apparently is on a Wikimedia Foundation fellowship and plans to write about her experiences here.  Could someone step in an at least respond to: .  I find this whole situation to be ironic — because she knows that I was blocked for close paraphrasing, she does not want to give me any credance on the issue. Racepacket (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Rodney Rude - website may have copied from us?
I deleted this as a copyvio of http://www.rude.com.au/biography.php. An IP has said on my talk page that in fact the website copied it from us, and given the longish history of the article, and the way it developed, that seems likely; but there's no way to tell when the website text was posted (is there?) and it displays a copyright notice. What to do? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Let me take a look and see if any of my usual "tells" are present. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, promising for us: Wayback does not have an archive of that page, but they do have an archive of the website, dated to October 2009 . It does not include a link for a bio. What I'd like to do now is to comb through the history looking for signs of natural evolution. If you don't object, I'd like to temporarily restore the article under the copyvio blank so that I can more easily compare diffs. If we can pinpoint changes to content that bring it closer to the external site, this strengthens the case for backwards copying. If changes take it further way, it strengthens the case for a copyvio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. I've done a restore + copyvio template. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) As soon as I wrap the copyvio I'm working on at this moment, I'll come and see what I can figure out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I got involved in what I was doing and completely forgot! Sorry. I'm on it now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay: strongly indicative of natural evolution, the first edit in 2004 includes this and only this:

This all looks like seeds of the supposed source: I'll look for when our text altered. If there's good separation of time and contributors, it strongly suggests we wrote it. I may take notes here as I go. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Next edit which changes that content towards the site is the same contributor, but almost a full year later: . --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even stronger indication here and here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And here. At this point, I'm pretty sure that we're dealing with a reverse infringement. It's rare with official sites, but happens more often than you might imagine! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The website bio even includes the line "According to his website, rude.com.au, ..." VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, it looks like they didn't do much copy-editing when they copied it. :D Evidence of natural evolution is strong with this one. :/ See, for instance. The more I find, the more like a backwards copy it seems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What I would suggest we do at this point is restore the text and place backwardscopy at the article's talk page. I'll be happy to do that, if you like, since I'm familiar with the template. :) They shouldn't be displaying a copyright notice for Wikipedia text, but I generally leave that up to the editors to deal with, if they like. I've only tried to address misattribution or licensing once or twice, and I have never once had it go well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - yes, you do that, and I'll watch how it's done. I thought the article history looked like natural development, but I'm interested to see how you tracked it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Query about article deletion
Dear moonriddengirl.

I am an environmental student at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

Recently there has been a huge raise in concern levels amongst numerous parties, regarding the interest Shell (and 4 other petrochemical companies) has shown in drilling for Natural Gas (fracking) in our Karoo. The extensive Karoo landscape of South Africa comprises largely untouched arid farm lands, home to many endangered species, both plant and animal. Water is also a very scarce resource in these areas.

Through having become involved with this subject quite closely, my research lead me to some information that exists, but has been removed. I wanted to inquire from you as to the reason behind this removal? Below are the titles of the extinct Wikipedia links:


 * Release of chemical pollutants at Shell Texas Deer Park complex
 * Environmental infringements by Shell in Louisiana
 * Groundwater contamination by Shell in USA
 * Unauthorised venting and flaring of gas by Shell in USA
 * Shell Pipeline rupture in Washington
 * Environmental law infringements in Brazil
 * Refinery contamination in Texas
 * Oil Refinery in Durban
 * US Clean Air Act violations
 * Emission violations at Shell Wood River Refinery in Illinois
 * Shell settles Martinez Refinery dumping suit for $3 Million
 * Shell fined $19.75 million for oil spill from Martinez Refinery
 * Explosion at Shell Louisiana refinery
 * Pollution at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado

I would be greatly appreciative if you could help me out with this. This is a major concern for our country, (and I mean that with total conviction).

Thanks for your help

Kind regards

Liam May

University of Cape Town Energy Research Center Cape Town South Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.132.136.119 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you have me perplexed. I don't find any sign that we've ever had articles under any of those titles. Where are you finding these links? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * At least some of those are section headers from Royal Dutch Shell environmental issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you! I had forgotten about that. In that case, the article was deleted for concerns that it was inconsistent with Wikipedia's copyright policies. It was constructed as pastiche of previously published sources. See []. A properly sourced, neutral article on these concerns may be appropriate, but it must be constructed in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Boué Soeurs
Could you take a look at this page? Bit of a mess. It's clearly been lifted from a copyrighted document (as it admits in the text) but the article creator also claims to be the original author so it's possible we could get the right releases. User:RadioFan tagged it for G12 speedy but I converted this to using a copyvio tag given it's possible we'll get permission. They've now restored the speedy tag with the edit summary "there are significant concerns with the content (see AFD), not seeing the need to save it.", this despite two keeps at AfD. As far as I can see given the keeps at AfD it's not a valid speedy for anything other than a copyright problem and speedy is probably not the best way to deal with the copyright problem. While typing this the article has been deleted by User:NawlinWiki. Any advice. (Will let NawlinWiki know about this). Dpmuk (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to restore and userfy to author's userspace until we get the copyright issue sorted out. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow. Thanks, NawlinWiki and thanks, Dpmuk, for bringing this to my attention. I've made sure that User:RadioFan knows that G12 does not apply when the content creator claims to be the original author. I've also left the author a note explaining how she may verify. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that. As I said to NawlinWiki I mainly still asked the question after they deleted for my own education.  I realise that people deal with things differently and that many actions are open to intpretation so I wasn't so much questioning NawlinWiki's action as asking how you'd deal with it.  P.S.  Still working on the copypaste backlog - the last few are proving difficult and I'm quite busy with work (well my PhD) at the moment so can't spend too much time untnagling them. Dpmuk (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with what NawlinWiki did. :) It looked like a valid G12 on the face of it, and he restored it once the issue was pointed out. How I would have dealt with the situation if I'd come upon it before its deletion: as an editor and not an admin, I'd have reverted User:RadioFan again and left him a friendly note telling him that G12 does not apply when the contributor claims to be the copyright holder. (I try never to forget that even misguided attempts to deal with copyright problems are well intentioned; he's trying to help, if going about it wrong.) I probably would also have explained that "significant concerns with the content" is not to be conflated with copyright concerns, although I didn't do so at this point so as to avoid complicating my stronger message. It is not unheard of for us to have an article blanked for verification at the same time is undergoing AfD. Deleting under copyright problems when other issues are at hand only creates future work, as I have also seen OTRS permission come through for content that has been restored and then later deleted for other reasons. Much better to address the core issues, if the content is inherently unacceptable. If he had reverted me again, I'd have reminded him not to edit war. While 3RR exempts handling copyright issues, I do not believe he could successfully defend his actions when the template I was using was the correct procedure. That said, I would not have reverted him again if he did, but placed the hold on template myself and explained the situation at the talk page for the reviewing administrator to see. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers for that - I actually thought you'd given another information above. I certainly wasn't expecting another answer, and certainly not one as long as that.  It was a desire to not edit war with another established edit (I've seen RadioFan a lot) and this falling through the speedy removal cracks (as speedys should not generally be re-added but copyright problems are the accepted exception to this) that led to me not reverting again - if I'm honest the hangon idea hadn't occured to me. Dpmuk (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Block
can you please block me from posting things

Nikkotg (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC).

nikkotg


 * I see that this request has already been fulfilled. I'm sorry that you've decided to leave Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When incorporating CC-BY-SA text into Wikipedia...
On Jon M. Huntsman School of Business (which you had looked at before, and removed large chunks of for copyvios), an editor has determined that the source that was copied from (a school brochure) is licensed CC-BY-SA and GFDL. As such, xe re-added the info. While I'm still in the process of editing it (we don't need nearly the same level of details that is in the brochure), I vaguely recall that we're supposed to add some sort of template to show that the text isn't plagiarism (i.e., attribution). I place a "CCBYSASource" template in the reference section in this edit. Is this the correct template, even though the original is GFDL licensed? And does this go here, or on the talk page? Or is this not even necessary at all? Qwyrxian (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good morning. :) That one's on the list at CP for closure today. Actually, it seems that the school has modified the document to colicense it, which is great. And you are very right that we need a template ont the article page, both to avoid plagiarism and to satisfy the attribution requirements. When the material is co-licensed, however, the template we need is dual. I'll come fix that. Thanks for your attention to this. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I have to say, that while the help pages on Copyright and copyright violations have lots of information, I couldn't find those templates anywhere convenient.  That section still needs editing, but I'll worry about that as time goes by.  Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Directions are given at Plagiarism, but really not where we need it. :) I'll get on that immediately. We need to find somewhere to place that information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There. I've altered Copyright violations. I think my changes will be uncontroversial; if it turns out they aren't, I'll make sure that the need to make those easier to find is addressed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Resolve Possible copyright infringement Sayed Yousuf Mirranay
Sangeen01 (talk) 03:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help me remove the "Possible copyright infringement" the article was written and used is in the public domain, and is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia. I am a memeberof the potiical party, it was translated from a foriegn language and was provided to all interested parties to publish on any of the sites including http://afghanmellat.eu. You can always write to them and confirm my statment to fahim.wardag@afghanmellat.eu The Afghan Mellat UK Jerga would be delighted if the content is published on Wikipedia to world about this great man.

Thank you in advance.


 * Thank you for your note. I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello there,

As you suggested, I have asked the content owner to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Please resolve this item now.

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangeen01 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio editor problem
Copied from my talk page: I noticed that you had warned for plagiarising material in Cyrus Cylinder. I've found that he has done the same on Sadeq Hedayat, Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet and Ferdinand Eisenstein, copying large chunks of material from http://www.angelfire.com/rnb/bashiri/Hedayat/Hedlife.html and the book Carl Friedrich Gauss: titan of science. The Eisenstein article now unfortunately contains many plagiarised sections. In fact, I haven't found a non-trivial edit by Grinevitski that isn't straightforward plagiarism. Given all the copyright warnings on his page, I think a block would be advisable. I'll see if I can clean up the plagiarism later on today. Prioryman (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of bringing this to your attention but hadn't had time, busy in RL. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Thanks for finding this! I don't think it's blocking time yet; his prior warnings seem to have been about fair use rationales. If he continues, certainly. I'm sorry that there's cleanup to be done, though. :/ Good job he's got less than 500 edits. I'll run quickly through our WP:CCI tool to get an idea of the scope of his contributions so that I can help mop up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I won't. Not now. :/ Toolserver seems to be done. None of our copyvio tools are working! (Panic! Head for the hills!) I'll run it a bit later. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sorted out the problems with Ferdinand Eisenstein, at least... Prioryman (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for bumping this! I'm afraid that when things get hectic, I start dropping stuff. :/ Toolserver came back at some point yesterday, so I should be able to run it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, there's not a lot here. That's good. I'll list it out for quick checking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've got everything left in the list of contribs except the math articles; I'll have to ask somebody else one of you to work on those, if you don't mind. It is difficult for me to assess what is formulaic in that field. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Mini CCI

 * N Symbiocom: Only mirrors found. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * N Pyotr Glebov: Copied content rev deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Robby the Robot: From Cinefantastique; rev deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadeq Hedayat: Already cleaned; I've rev deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sarah Bernhardt: Encyclopedia Britannica. Painfully excised, but not rev deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Positive element: (2 edits, 2 major, +1022) 
 * Mediumship: But long gone. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Soul: Blanked pending some showing that it is usable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * N Orthogonal diagonalization: (1 edits, 1 major, +897) 
 * Gotthold Eisenstein: Already cleaned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Erhard Schmidt: I didn't find anything in Google or Google books. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Inverse eigenvalues theorem: (1 edits, 1 major, +763) 
 * List of snipers: Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cyrus Cylinder: Already removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fyodor Okhlopkov: Cleaned. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi: Only mirrors found. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johann Peter Gustav Lejeune Dirichlet: From a book, removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tehran:, from , but already removed. Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Istvan Pely: Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Coprime: (1 edits, 1 major, +150) 

Hooray!
The SCV backlog (including all of today's taggings) is completely cleared out now for what I think is the first time this year! I also finally got to use OGL-text on not one but two articles today which used some nice freely licensed material courtesy of the UK government. It's looking to be a good day. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoot! I saw you tearing it up yesterday on my watchlist! Congratulations; truly, a Herculean effort. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So while thinking of other things to do I realized I had blanked HMS Scout (1804) for some possible copyvio and am not quite sure what to do with it. It started out as a pretty clear copyvio and it's been edited away since. Normally I'd think it's still close enough to make it a close paraphrase problem (which is why I blanked it), but there are two PD sources with pretty similar wording, so I don't think it would strike me as a problem if it hadn't started as a copyvio from the non-PD source. I know it's still a derivative work, but I don't want to scare away a good contributor by asking him to rewrite it (and some others) entirely from scratch when he's already gone through and rewritten them incrementally. Help? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point to the PD sources? That could help. Maybe I'll just separate it a bit from the source myself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the examples where there's already been a little bit of discussion is at User talk:Acad Ronin and they quote from PD source #1 and #2. The sources seem to be spread wildly about, so I don't think there's one easy section to link to for the whole article. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All right; I'll see what I can do. I had another nasty work snarl today (:P Why you guys haven't seen much of me) but I'm here, and I'll poke at it a bit. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Mohamed_Bouazizi
Hypothetically, let's say I wanted to add an image to this article, since he was also instrumental in the revolution. I think someone like that should have a picture in their biography. But the image itself (unless there's one of the self-immolation) would not be the subject of discussion in the article. Which means NFCC would be a bear. So free-content would be the only way...? Curious if you have any comments or suggestions, wise one. Ocaasic 19:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oi. :/ A few years back (maybe as many as three?) I was involved with deletion debates on a couple of images of deceased people whose pictures were in use in articles. Their "fair use rationales" were very similar. One was kept and the other deleted, and I have never been able to puzzle why. I myself would not upload the image of a person,dead or alive, for an article unless I felt I could make a very strong case for its inclusion. Otherwise, I'd go for free content. Beyond that, I might recommend you ask at WT:NFC for feedback about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, this is the Tunisian fruit-cart vendor who set himself on fire. His story went viral, his funeral attracted 5,000 people, and a month later, the government went poof.  The images are basically these (living portrait: ; visited in the hospital: ; his mother: ; a memorial: ; a protest: ).  These are just 'mock-ups' not from particular sources, and they vary in how newsworthy they were and if they are of the event itself. I'm just looking at how these images which have no commercial purpose and are not of disputed veracity can be included more, where they are historic.  Copyright, IMO, was not designed to keep these kinds of photos out of encyclopedias.  Thoughts, nor no thoughts, I'll keep asking around.  Thanks for your help and work in this area either way; very awesome. Ocaasic 19:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I mostly work text.:) I find the NFC a little subjective and uneven in application, but I guess that's unavoidable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

[Sayed Yousuf Mirranay] - Please resolve Possible copyright infringement - letter sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org
Sangeen01 (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,

As you suggested, I have asked the content owner to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. He has done that. Here is a copy of the email:

Please resolve this item.

Thank you in advance.


 * Hi. You can't publish this e-mail here, I'm afraid. :) It, too, is copyrighted, and you may notice among the content, "Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited." I'll check to see if the e-mail has processed through the permissions queue yet soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn you're too fast MRG... I went to remove the email and got an edit conflict. :( Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I get extra points for that? ;D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You get nothing more than my frustration. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sangeen01 (talk) 01:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC) oops apologies, I didn't how to alert you to resolve the page. Thank you any way for letting me know...


 * OTRS permission verified and the page has been unblanked. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Verno! I was on my laptop last night and because I'm a bit paranoid about security don't log in to OTRS from it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

IP editor
Hi. A couple of days ago you blocked the IP User:99.59.87.102 at my instigation. The editor is now making the same edits (adding unsourced birth & death information to Margie Hines) as User:99.34.90.244. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. We may need to either consider a rangeblock or to use semi-protection if this persists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you very much! That's very nice of you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Grinevitski's contributions
This is frustrating, I feel as if all my efforts & contributions were in vain. I've spent much of my valuable time contributing to certain articles and you just deleted them all! Almost ALL the knowledge in Wikipeda is in one way or another from encyclopedias, text-books and websites, no doubt there will be similarities. If you erased them simply because I didn't cite the sources then you could have just let me know and I'd have added them myself. I just forgot to mention the sources for the Bernhardt, Eisenstein, Dirichlet, Hedayat articles. Besides many of the sentences were completely rephrased/re-written, NOT copied! Perhaps only short phrases remained the same, but under US law, copyright does not extend to short phrases. Besides, if you actually knew so well that it came from Encyclopedia Britannica, why didn't you bother to add that to the article yourself? Instead you erased my entire contributions. As if I had all the spare time in the world to type it in. Remarkable.

--Grinevitski (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify.
Hi there,

I've been editing the Wallsend Football Club page, which has subsequently been edited more so by yourself and others. Firstly, sorry about a few of Wikipedia formatting breaches; this is the first time I've used it. It's a little hard when the guidelines to an ideal page are endless and extensive.

I'll admit to some bias, I wasn't aware of that, but now I understand. However, some sections, namely the information sourced from the website has been removed, About page and so on. While you're probably thinking you made the right decision to remove the information due to the copy/pasting, I wrote what was on the website. I guess that is more a referencing issue? In terms of the removal of the history section, that's also part of the club's property, written for the club. What's the process there? Re-write the whole section while lacing it with quotes and facts from the original?

Finally, not having a dig at you, but the article is classed as "Low-importance." Now is that a customary approach to all football clubs at a similar level, or are you degrading its importance based on your knowledge of the club? I don't necessarily understand how this importance scale works.

If you'd like to pin-point areas of the article that you do not deem appropriate so I can adequately fix them, I'd appreciate it.

Best,

Anthokoch (talk) 14:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I understand that there's a learning curve. Nobody should expect you to be perfect, and the templates are in place in part to bring to your attention issues that may need addressing. In terms of your copying content you've previously published elsewhere, it's not a referencing issue so much as it is a verification issue. You need to verify that the content is licensed so that we can use it. As it happens, I only removed a single sentence because another contributor had tagged the article for copy-paste issues and the single sentence was all I found, but I do see that considerably more was removed last week. The way to handle that is set out at Donating copyrighted materials. If you have questions about the process, please let me know.


 * In terms of the importance of the article, I'm afraid I don't have any idea how football clubs are ranked. That tag and importance assessment were not placed by me, but by User:Grahamec. My only contribution to the talk page was to explain my concerns with the tone, which I see you've been working on.


 * I do have some lingering concerns with the content in that respect, beginning in the "rivalries" section. As I note at the talk page, the purpose of this website is to provide an encyclopedic overview of notable subjects, presenting neutrally information that can be verified to have been published in reliable sources. (Neutral point of view, Verifiability). Looking at this passage:


 * Whose judgment is it that they have enjoyed stellar success, and how do we know that their success stems from this desire? These are not objective facts, but subjective evaluations (the level of success; the source of success). The second sentence is even less neutral, I'm afraid. It begins with a subjective opinion: "Unfortunately", offers an assumption that the club has dominated the region and that the club deserves respect. This kind of language is fine for a profile of the club in a magazine or newspaper or for the club's own website, but it is not a neutral presentation of information. The word "passionate", too, is problematic.


 * Further down, I see content such as this: "players that have in no small part, assisted in putting our club on the footballing map"; "In 1933, the club put arguably its best ever team on the park"; "Arthur was arguably the best player on the field"; "both players were amongst Australia’s best on ground." In addition to the persistent use of the first person pronoun, these all contain value judgments. While it is fine to include critical evaluations if these are attributed to reliable sources (for instance, if a newspaper comments that Arthur was arguably the best player on the field), our articles are not meant to present this as though it is fact, and it cannot rely for value judgments on the club's own publications, as they are of course likely to have some bias. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Revert a move
Any chance you can revert revert this move? See the talk page? The singular naming is simply wrong. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that should be uncontroversial, but let me clarify. :) It started off at Mauritius "Post Office"; it was moved to Mauritius "Post Office" stamps and then to Mauritius "Post Office" stamp. I take it that Mauritius "Post Office" stamps is the desired destination? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the speedy reply. If you read the lede, it is about two stamps, not one! Non-controversial when you read it. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I like There are two of these puppies, not one. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

copyright concern
Hi, My name is Hammouda Salhi, I am using the Nickname of: Milham Kabbani on Wikipedia. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that I am the author of the Article on "English-Arabic Parallel Corpus of United Nations Texts". I have copied this text onto my own web site (http://hammouda-salhi.webs.com/eapcount.htm). When you raised the copyright problem I deleted the page once for all and created a new one containing a link to the original Wikipedia article. As for the other link you mentioned, It is again my own presention where I mentioned this Corpus. Therefore, I hereby confirm that I am the owner of the copyright of the three sources of information on this EAPCOUNT. Thank you in advance for your kind understanding Hammouda Salhi

Hammouda Salhi41.227.116.148 (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your note. I have left a response at your talk page here as to how we might finish this swiftly. I look forward to concluding this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Moonriddengirl. The requsted email has been sent from hammouda_s(at)hotmail(dot)com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milhim Kabbani (talk • contribs) 19:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mail
Hello, I have sent you a mail. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of article on Ernesta Drinker Ballard
I was sorry to see that the article on Ernesta Ballard had been deleted, apparently fairly recently (Jan '11). Do you still know what the problem was specifically (I realize it was copyright related), and how it might be corrected? I am not an author of the article, but I am an admirer of hers and know some members of her family. Does an archived version of the deleted article exist, from which someone might get some help or a jumpstart in starting over? 108.2.147.192 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. The problem with the page was that it was a copyright problem. It was listed at Copyright roblems/2010 December 23 and remained open for a week to permit contributors an opportunity to help address concerns, but no usable rewrite was proposed. I'm afraid we don't keep visible archives of deleted articles and can't restore copyright problems. But I have created a stub of the article which might be expanded. I hope this will help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, MRG. Your stub is terrific, by the way.  -- Peter 108.2.147.192 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lists
Just to double check before I go and upset a bunch of people: am I correct in that the latest advice from counsel means that the lists need to be removed from all of the AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars series of articles since they're creative? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. IT would, yes, but those are exception because they've gone through OTRS: . I wasn't the correspondent who addressed the letter, but I wrote back to follow up. I see I didn't add the OTRS template to all those talk pages. :/ I'll try to do that later today! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, great. I'm glad they don't have to be completely stubbed. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Virginia State Police
You may remember a little while back I removed a lot of text from this article as a copyright infrimgement. Now some of that removed text has been re-added by the editor that originally added it. The problem is, apart from one sentence I can't find a source for what they've re-added so far. I'd originally removed it under the assumption that all their edits were suspect. If it wasn't for the one sentence ("To honor the brave and gallant men who fought those bitter battles of the Civil War 70 years before, blue was selected for the Union and gray for the Confederacy." taken from ) I'd probably be assuming good faith and thinking they were only re-introducing text that wasn't copyrighted but that one sentence gives me doubts. Could you take a look please as a) I'm unsure how to proceed and b) I think this may now need admin intervention (even if only in the sense that most novice editors seem to take more notice of admins). Dpmuk (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. Am aware that section titles etc will need sorting if the editor's changes are kept - I'll sort this out once the copyvio concerns are sorted. Dpmuk (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've run it through the various detectors I have and have only found old mirrors from before the text was cleaned. I think it's probably an effort to rewrite that fell short in that one particular place, although it's also possible that it's taken from a print publication. I've removed the single sentence. What we should do now is thank him for expanding the article, point out the one copied sentence and ask him if the rest is original language...let him know that we appreciate his input, but just need to be sure that it meets our copyright policies. I can do this if you'd like, but you can also do it yourself if you'd like the experience. He may respond well. :) The key is to remember that he probably meant to do no harm in the first place and is more than likely willing to meet our requirements. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Your advice
Please could you comment about a copyright issue. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Opined. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

A question which may become more common (if it hasn't already been asked...!)
Hey Moonriddengirl. First of all, I hope all is well with you and as ever, my best to you for all the good you do around here. I have a specific question, and then a general one, both relating to copyright of images and fair use. Neither are urgent in any way, but would certainly help my understanding of fair use!

Firstly, I'm interested in expanding Terry Butcher. Perhaps not well known to you but he is very famous for his "blood-soaked headband" (see a simple Google image search), so much so that he has it on the front cover of his autobiography. This injury has been often written about, (to put it into context, he smashed his head to bits, got patched up, bled on throughout the remainder of the match, and hence the famous photos) but there are, as far as I know, no free images available. Do you think it would be fair use, when discussing this iconic image, to use a low-res fair use-licenced image?

Secondly, and on a related but different note, I was wondering about the "impossible to re-create" stuff I've read in fair use rationales for some images. When Diego Maradona scored his "hand of God" goal against England in 1986 (see here for examples), it became perhaps the most iconic photo in modern soccer history. Now this cannot be recreated either, well not as far as I can tell. Can a low-res image of this be used under fair use?

I do apologise in advance if I'm asking the wrong question of the wrong person that perhaps has been asked far too many times, but I've always wondered about this fair use "cannot be recreated" (my words) get-out clause. As ever, thanks for your time and energy here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I'm only the wrong person for the question, really, in that it has less to do with my area han you might think. Text is where I'm at home; I still poke about at images, particularly because our non-free content policies are not always obvious to me.


 * The thing about fair use, of course, is that only a court can decide if you've got it...and sometimes one court isn't good enough. Lower courts make judgments; lawyers appeal; higher courts wind up arguing about it and reaching some consensus, perhaps even with dissenting opinions. This is probably one of the reasons why WP:NFC is written somewhat conservatively; when the line is not clearly defined, you don't want to be pushing boundaries. Being wrong on this one can be a serious issue.


 * I suspect you could make a good fair use claim for both of these images, considering other factors (particularly the origin of the image, the amount of supporting text, the overall purpose and scope of the article). But the real question is whether these images are usable under WP:NFC. I have to admit that I find the application of that a bit confusing and inconsistent. For instance, we accept non-free images of dead people, but not living people...unless it would not be possible to replace the image with a free one or for the individual's "notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance", but they are retired/disbanded. (Ala WP:NFC). And so Bella Swan can use a non-free image of Kristen Stewart, but Kristen Stewart cannot....even though I personally find it hard to defend the position that we need a non-free picture of an actress to demonstrate the concept of a normal teenage girl. And we have a non-free image in Heart (band) showing the band ca. 1970, even though the band's appearance is immaterial to their notability (unlike, say, Gwar). It really doesn't make much sense to me.


 * If I wanted to use these images, I'd focus on (a) the possibility of re-creation or free image existing and (b) the quality of sources that support a reading of the image as iconic. I suspect that you have a stronger case with (b) of the "hand of God" (just based on the above) because it was a single moment from a specific angle. The "blood-soaked headband" (yuck!) seems to have been carried through much of the match, so there are possibilities of free images floating about. At least I'd guess, presuming they allow photography. Once you've gathered some links to sources that talk about them, I'd take it to WT:NFC and get some preliminary feedback from the editors there as to whether your usage is likely to mesh with community view of the issue. If you get strong support, you can certainly give it a go. But that won't mean that you won't wind up on WP:NFCR with a community finding of "unusable." :/ In that case, I really think you'd just have to remember that this isn't at all akin to the bald-faced copyvio of, say, claiming rights over somebody else's image or blatantly ignoring guideline. There's a lot of room for interpretation and good faith differences, and finding out that you're on the more liberal side of the fence than the community at large is not a crime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your considered and detailed response. The "moment in time" question has bugged me for some years, in particular the "hand of God" incident.  It really is entirely beyond reasonable recreation and generally these shots are beyond those expected of free use image potential.  Still feels like a minefield, but thanks for your help! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you aware of File:Hand of God goal.jpg? It has been here for years. Yoenit (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't, but I was thinking in general terms for "moments in footballing history". I guess they are all on a case-by-case basis, like Jeremy Goss scoring against Bayern Munich, the first and only time the Germans lost at home, or Gazza getting nut-crushed by Vinnie or Zidane loses the plot.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mark Nauseef
Left a note at Talk:Mark Nauseef regarding content permission. Adrignola (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) I've restored the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

GfK Retail and Technology TEMAX
Hi,

Please can you hlep me add this information to wikipedia, I work for GfK Retail and Technology and hold the international copyright for this product.

I dont want to promote the product, just explain what it is. Please find the text below.

Thanks Will Morrison International Marketing (Digital Media) GfK Retail and Technology Tel. +49 911 395 2319 Fax +49 911 395 4046 william.morrison@gfk.com GfK Retail and Technology Global: http://www.gfkrt.com GfK TEMAX (Technical Market Index): http://www.gfktemax.com

"GfK TEMAX (Technical Market Index)

GfK Retail and Technology’s index tracks technical consumer goods markets in 34 countries worldwide. GfK TEMAX (Technical Market Index) is designed to support decision makers from Industry and Retail in obtaining substantiated facts about their markets.

GfK Retail and Technology is the world's leading market researcher tracking technical consumer goods in more than 80 countries.

Reports and press releases are published on a quarterly basis in February, May, August and November at macro level for the following markets:


 * Consumer Electronics
 * Imaging/ Photo
 * Major Domestic Appliances
 * Small Domestic Appliances
 * Information Technology
 * Telecom
 * Office Equipment/ Consumables

Like-for-like comparisons with corresponding periods in previous years reveal fundamental developments in the technical consumer goods market and also identify trends and volumes specific to particular market segments. Explanatory background information, such as the impact of major trade fairs, international sporting events or significant changes in tax policy, is also provided.

Statistics are produced in both tabular and diagram form. Starting with full year 2008 data, GfK TEMAX reports are available for selected countries together with corresponding press releases in English and local languages on this website.

GfK TEMAX findings are based on the retail panel surveys of GfK Retail and Technology which are carried out continuously in over 80 countries worldwide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gfkrt (talk • contribs) 14:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

"Co-ordinated organisations", test page in my User:GillesAuriault/Sandbox
Bonjour Moonriddengirl,   I would like to recreate this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Co-ordinated_organisations&action=edit&redlink=1  which was deleted by User talk: MLauba on 23 February 2010 for CopyVio. I have put the new proposal in my Sandbox, it is a translation of a page of the French Wikipedia, and I hope there is no CopyVio this time - although, of course, I used some web data which I quote in the text and in the footnotes (inter alia, EU web, and OECD) in addition to my knowledge of these institutions, and of recent news. Unfortunately, MLauba is on "indefinite Wikibreak" (which is a pity for the Wiki community I think..), so could you have a look at my proposal or indicate a way to have it checked for acceptability? Thanks in advance for your time and help, User:GillesAuriault Gilles 21:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note; I'll reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Wjemather
Just a courtesy note to let you know I closed the interaction ban on Wjemather last night, and added your idea of him contacting you directly with CCI concerns. I'd have checked if this was OK with you before closing, but it you did volunteer (:P) and it seems non-contentious. Let me know if there are any issues :) -Errant (chat!) 08:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! No, no contention. :D Thanks for the heads up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Did I do a bad thing?
Hi Moonriddengirl! I copied the full text of a USA Today article that appears not to be available without cost online to a talk page, in collapsed form. The subject area is so contentious that I thought citing to a behind-a-paywall source would evoke suspicion, but perhaps I did wrong? You can see the USA Today source, in collapsed format, in this section on the talk page. Please feel free to revert this edit if I've been bad, or just let me know here, if you'd prefer, and I'll do so myself, if I've violated fair use.

I've never met a Queen of Malapropisms, before: very cool! I'm no good at those, I regret to say. But you might enjoy knowing that while I was rummaging in our refrigerator I once said to my girlfriend, "Didn't we have some veg-over leftables?" This seems especially charming to me because (to be candid) I said it ... but also because I just learned it might appropriately be categorized as a kniferism and forkerism, which seems very apt! Best, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and then there was the really adorable nine-year old kid from next door that we took to lunch at KFC one afternoon, and who, while we were there, earnestly and repeatedly insisted we were dining at "KenFriarTucky Chicken". He had and his brother had just seen a Robin Hood movie, and acting out its scenes had become a favorite bit of play. When he finally was able to grok what he was saying he had had the giggles for about an hour over it. Too cute! – OhioStandard  (talk) 11:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Yes, I'm afraid you've done a bad thing. :/ Our Terms of Use allow us to copy only brief excerpts of copyrighted text; this applies to any space on Wikipedia. The fact that the text is tucked behind a paywall actually makes fair use harder to claim, since in this case the only reason to copy the whole thing is that we're trying to bypass their rights to commercially exploit their contents. I've rev-deleted it to avoid its being exploited by others for that very reason. Thanks for second-guessing yourself and following up.


 * Veg-over leftables. Cute. :D I would much rather be the Queen of Spoonerisms than the Queen of Malapropisms. Spoonerisms are charming; people think you're absent-minded. Malapropisms? People think you're an idiot. :) My problem is that my brain and my fingers do not always communicate well. I generally get my words right in speech, but when typing or writing they all to often go their separate ways. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. You can, of course, briefly quote from it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That part I knew, but for the rest ...


 * Sorry! Perhaps those were pangs of conscience that I was feeling when I posted that, not just an empty tummy. I'll restrict myself to soggy veg-over leftables for a week as punishment. I appreciate your reverting, and for explaining, too. Only an idiot could possibly think you're an idiot though. Many thanks, –  OhioStandard  (talk) 12:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * LOL! I think that would be an overly strict consequence. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Diablada
Could you please revert the Diablada article to the version which was agreed upon between me and User:Erebedhel (Proof: )? Which would be this one:. As stated before, User:Erios30 is coming over from the Spanish WP with the goal to do in the English WP what the admins and users in the Spanish WP did not allow him. By protecting the article under his version, you're giving the guy wings to keep his plans in motion. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 12:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't believe I can do this and remain within policy. In content disputes, I am required to protect it as I found it, unless there are clear policy violations such as copyright or libel. The discussion you link to is a year old; consensus can change, so I cannot see it as a clear point for restoration.


 * The protection is for three days, but it can be lifted sooner if a clear consensus emerges or if contributors agree not to edit the article until it does. The best thing to do here is to reach out to others in the community who can help determine how to handle the article. Once sufficient input is achieved to establish how the article should be developed, it will be much simpler to see if somebody is disrupting the article to press their preference. At that point, administrator intervention with the specific contributor will be a far simpler matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (BTW, I see you've listed it at WP:3O. That's a good place to take it at this point; if somebody takes it up swiftly, the matter may be resolved soon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC))


 * I understand your position, thank you for the explanation. Yes, I am following your advice and going for the third opinion on the subject. In retrospect, protecting the article from further edits is certainly one of the better options at this time. Thank you once again. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 13:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind having a look at Alix Strauss?
filed 3/23, needed to be re-tagged 3/30 as original author removed the tag. page history. The author is still trying to tinker with the article despite the template. With the need to re-tag the article, it's possible it got caught in the shuffle. Thanks, We hope (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you for bringing that to my attention! The error was all mine, I'm afraid. I must have glanced at the page, seen the indented comment and thought that the matter had been resolved. I'll go take care of it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! We hope (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The only copying that I found really was from that one source; I've removed it and a small amount taken from another. I suspect there is a COI here. I've added a few tags and cautioned the creator. Please let me know if you believe I've overlooked anything. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems to be an SPA dedicated to the promotion of the subject of the article. Saw the YouTube, Facebook and Twitter links be removed by others and re-added (still there) by the original author. Actually backed into this copyvio because of an uploaded file (non free, subject living) for the article. When I went to tag the image, I started reading and doing some comparing. We hope (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Neat one for you to answer
I was at the 04/01 SPI for Jimbo when I noticed the section just above had a copyright question I think you would be perfect to consider answering. I am curiously interested based on the premise. If you are able, and as always, much appreciation. My76Strat (talk) 05:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Good morning. :) I'll be there in just a minute; I have to give my dog his breakfast. (Demanding little thing.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:LINKVIO. :) Given that, we needn't concern ourselves with the question of privacy. If the image were public domain, I would advocate hosting it locally and modifying it to obscure the personal information. (I've explained the policy issue there.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dupdet
FYI I've added a template dupdet that makes it easy to link to Duplication Detector reports, like this: Thought you might find it handy. :-) I was pondering if I should have a bot add links like this to CP to streamline things further. Dcoetzee 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * produces
 * Hi! I was just thinking about you, given that I'm giving your Duplication Detector quite a workout at the moment. :D In fact, I took it with me to France (well, the French Wikipedia). Certainly, it wouldn't hurt. I'd say I'm using the tool for about 50% of the listings. Some of them are just flat obvious. But that's still quite a lot. I bet Verno could add it to his bot. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, that'd be great if he could. :-) I just made the template a little briefer, it can take page titles as well as URLs for the first parameter:
 * produces
 * Like that. :-) Dcoetzee 21:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could certainly add it to most of the listings that VWBot posts but it should probably be worked in somehow to Copyviocore (or maybe {{subst:article-cv}} somehow?) so that manually-added listings include it too. The html comment for daily CP pages should also be tweaked - again not a problem to set up VWBot to do that (and set it to pick up after Zorglbot should that ever get its act together and be unblocked) once we know what we want it to look like. Oh, and I put the source up at User:VWBot/source, so you can link to it from wikigit. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I added it to copyviocore so that the copyvio notice will now include a dupdet link and also include the markup for a link in the wikitext to copy-paste for WP:CP. Take a look and see if you like. :-) Dcoetzee 22:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Folling your example there and on Close paraphrasing and the Csb tags I added it to Copypaste, so that should be all of the actual copyvio tags in use. This seems to be an easier option than placing it on the daily CP page (and hopefully not too much more work for the reviewer). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm going to leave you guys to talk about that one, but I wanted to ask for feedback: is this a good announcement? Am I not mentioning something that I should or mentioning something that I shouldn't? I want to post this at various points where people might find the tool useful, and then I'm going to add it to WP:Cv101 etc. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. :-) Of course talk page notices will eventually scroll away so if possible I'd like to also get something a little more permanent on project pages. I think it'll help a lot though now that it's in the copyvio template. Dcoetzee 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I'll do that, too. I just wanted to put it on talk pages first since I think people might see it there. I was thinking about WT:DYK, WT:GA, etc. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New fair-use template
Could you please cast your experienced eyes over this MCQ thread? The new template may be 100% legal and correct for all I know, but it could be seriously damaging to leave an incorrect fair-use template lying around. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not comfortable with it. :) It's at TfD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Frédéric Lemoine
Hi, thanks a lot for + - I delete - Our french is better than my english - Have a good day - --Lomita (talk) 10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahmadinejad at Natanz.jpg
Hi - would appreciate your input with respect to this discussion, notably the image's fair use in the Stuxnet article. Thanks in advance. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I've weighed in on the question of Non-US copyright, but the question of whether it meets WP:NFC is less a bright line than a matter of community application and interpretation of rules. I suggested listing it at WP:NFCR for additional feedback, but I see it is already at WP:FfD. If the image is retained, you might want to follow up at WP:NFCR to get consensus on application in individual articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for that. WP:NFCR looks the business, however the fair use template was removed just before the image was nominated for FfD, so I'm not sure where the opportunity would have arisen to have had this discussion if the FfD now precludes it. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 13:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't really have a strong sense of which takes precedence in these cases: FfD or NFCR. :) My personal thought is that FfD may determine that the image is not usable under any circumstances, while NFCR determines if it is usable in a given circumstance. If I wanted to list an article for review, that's probably the principle that I'd use. Once it's listed at one, I'd be inclined to let it run its course, as the other may not be necessary. In this case, if the FfD finds strong consensus for use in Stuxnet, then there's no need for the NFCR. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Vrghs jacob
Hi MRG, been a while. I've been off and come back to see that it looks like we have a reincarnation of User:Vrghs jacob --. His last unblock request stated that if he wasn't going to be unblocked he's going to come back and do the same stuff under a new account. Same articles, same behavior (especially at commons where he's been uploading images from the same flickr account -- copyvios from Vrghs jacob's flickr!!), see Central Secretariat Service as an example. Do you think this is ducky enough? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  09:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, though there are "beans" reasons for me not to explain further why. The evidence you present is more than quacky enough. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it. I'll let the folks at Commons know too, since he's doing the same with the new account there. I'll take a look on the new copyvios over the next couple of weeks. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries there; I ran a mini-CCI on him already and reverted or cleaned everything I saw that looked like a concern. Yes, though, we do need to let Commons know, especially since he's "flickr washing". I've confirmed socking via CU and evidently he's doing plenty as an IP; see Jpgordon's talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Moonriddengirl, many thanks on fixing copyvios made by the (currently) blocked user on Rajiv Gandhi. I was getting suspicious when I saw the Flickr image having Vrghs Jacob's name, but fell short on reporting; Looks like SpacemanSpiff has done the honours. Thanks again! Regards,  Yes Michael? •Talk 13:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) It's discouraging that his behavior has continued unchanged. :/ He's still copying & pasting material from news outlets and other websites. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A clarification needed: I've noticed your clean up on Sonia Gandhi and Subramanian Swamy, two articles which I am closely monitoring. You have reverted all edits made by the blocked user there. If a user is blocked for copyvios, is it necessary that all his contribs be reverted? Kindly enlighten me on this :).  Yes Michael? •Talk 13:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and generally, they're not. :) We have the WP:CCI process to avoid that. But in this case he is a serial infringer who is violating a block to begin with. We took him through a CCI, and before he'd even finished the CCI had to update it with more copyright violations. I've confirmed (and see you've already cleaned!) copyvios from this incarnation, too. I'm afraid that his English may not be up to the task of much composition. :/ Per WP:CV, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." But I leave the CCI notice at the talk page if I am not sure there are issues so that other contributors can check and, if they think it's okay, restore the content. If you run a google check on his text and don't find duplication, then it's probably safe to revert me. :) If there's a long string of text, though, and it shows familiarity especially with idiomatic English, I'd be careful. His English is a far sight better than I could manage in his native tongue, but he still authors content like "I however to this, regret my bad talks and conversation with Moonriddengirl who was allowing me to learn from what I did. I am grateful that she has been kind enough to overlook through my mistake and answered to all questions, email I had sent to her in regards to this misdemeanor." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see Shakespeare turning in his grave there; Hope his English improves next time around! Anyway, thanks for the clarification. :) I never knew WP:CCI even existed! Hope to see you around :) Regards,  Yes Michael? •Talk 14:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Right up your street
This post at MCQ re a quotation on Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear which is probably right up your street if you don't watch the page. ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) I do, but not closely, so I probably would have missed it. I'll be right there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Seek better understanding
Hello Moonriddengirl. I am encouraged by your declarations of good intent on your user page to approach you, after some months of consideration, about a post by you at WP:ANI that seems to me to contain an egregious lapse in judgement. Can we seek a better understanding here? The subject is my exchange with user APL here. It must be apparent that I asked a question then APL responds with a question about my honesty. It must also be accepted that I may give a factual and civil reply to a question. To "Are you confused about my meaning...?" I replied "I can guess what you tried....to write", which is simply true and relevant to the question whether I am somehow pretending dis honestly not to understand. That was never the case. (I don't object to the question having being asked.) The sensitive issue is that a minor punctuation error really had been made. APL agrees that error was made. It was unquestionably a failure to follow the grammatical rules of English. English is the language of this Wikipedia and its rules are also documented in Wikipedia using reliable sources. Almost everyone including myself make such occasional errors and it would be indefensible for someone's pride to get in the way of editing out such errors in Wikipedia articles (done voluntarily) or paper publications (done by copy editors who are paid for their work), or even pointing to such an error as is the case here. I read with incredulity your judgement "''I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English". This is absolutely unacceptable.'' I am hopeful that you will reply constructively here. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I've reviewed your conversation at the link provided and reread the ANI, and I'm afraid that my opinion about your words is unchanged. "I can guess what you tried and failed to write in English but one should not have to" is a belittling comment. I can see that APL's question to you may have seemed provocative, but so, too, is your question to APL that inspired his response. If there is some issue that makes it difficult for you to understand meaning from context, you may wish to clarify that so that such questions do not seem pointed. Based on what you said later in that conversation , it seems that the issue was not actually that you could not understand him but that you believe that "questioners to the Ref. Desk should not be answered in substandard English." If this is the case, the proper approach is to attempt to change policy or guidelines, not to make statements to good faith contributors that seem to uninvolved reviewers intended to cause shame. If it was not your intent to cause shame, then you may wish to reconsider your approach. Obviously, I'm not the only one who read it as problematic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. I see it as so obvious that "questioners to the Ref. Desk should not be answered in substandard English." that enshrining that axiom as a guideline would be superfluous and doing it a waste of everyone's time. If an answer contains a mistake then the options for others are 1) ignore what one sees, 2) add corrected information to the responses, 3) mention the error at the Ref. Desk talk page, or 4) mention the error to the poster on their own page. These are the only options because to edit another's answer is interdicted (unless it is both one's own post and no subsequent comment is marginalised by the correction). I suggest that 4) is a diplomatic choice that one makes not to cause shame or exposure. The receiver can do whatever they want with the message, including discussing, deleting or ignoring it. But if one cannot stand hearing about a mistake one has made then one has no business working on this project where every edit window tells one "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." That is because we deal with verifiable information without insulating anyone from feeling belittled because their post needs an edit. In the conversation that you have looked at, my first question offers alternative answers. You may call that clarity "pointed" but I beg you never to invoke the WP:POINT guideline (as you did by link) irresponsibly unless you are certain that someone is disrupting Wikipedia. APL never answered the question. There is no "issue that makes it difficult for (me) to understand meaning from context" that I am aware of. Questioners at the Ref. Desks can have such difficulty, sometimes their communication skills are poor, hence the need to answer carefully. That is my approach. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't have any interest in debating whether or not its/it's errors are a serious matter of concern at the reference desk. However, there is a difference between mentioning an error to a poster on his own page (which might begin, for instance, "Pardon me, but I noticed that in this post you....") and the approach you took. If there is no issue that makes it difficult for you to understanding meaning from context, then surely you were not seriously confused by what the other user had written. A straightforward note might have received a different response than the question you left. On the other hand, that ANI conversation notes that others had objected to the scrutiny at the reference desk talk page, so perhaps not. You acknowledge that you regard this as a "sensitive issue". Sensitive issues require sensitive handling. Sometimes, the polite thing to do when others make errors is to overlook it. It seems that has been the consensus of others at the reference desk. But, in any case, if you attempt to approach someone on a "sensitive issue" and offend him, the civil thing to do is apologize for your first attempt, not escalate matters into belittling comments. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you ever failed to write something in English? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, as have you. As you say above, "Almost everyone including myself make such occasional errors...." In informal discourse, I don't generally proofread as carefully as I should, and I am forever typing "pubish" when I mean "publish." But that's beside the point; the issue here is approaching others respectfully and courteously...assuming, of course, that the community believes you should be approaching them about this at all. It is a widely agreed-upon standard that errors in articles should be corrected and that errors in talk pages should not. I know you're aware of that, because I know that you've been pointed to the guideline. You acknowledge above that you should not correct them yourself, but you may have overlooked the reason for this: "It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." The spirit of this guideline seems fairly obvious given that; consensus is that it is better to allow an error to stand in a discussion than to irritate the person who made the error. If you believe that public discussion boards such as the reference desk should be handled more like articles, then you should really pursue a change to guideline. An approach that irritates others violates the spirit of that guideline. When it crosses the line into belittling them, it violates Civility. If it becomes a repeated annoyance, it is Harassment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant in English words but "pubish" is not an English word. You don't have to tell me about typos which are mechanical errors that may show up one's typing skill and attention to proofreading but they do not reflect on one's literacy. Having clarified that, I return to my question. Have you ever failed to write something in English? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I don't find that much clearer. Are you asking if I've ever made a grammatical error? Undoubtedly, many. In fact, I'm sure I've made an it's/its error a time or ten in my life, although I know the difference. But I'm not sure if that would qualify as failing "to write something in English" in your definition, as it's inattention to proofreading rather than a reflection of my actual knowledge. But this seems unrelated, unless you're satisfied on the point of civility and just generally curious now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant wanting to say something but actually saying something else still in English words. I don't mean an error that, say, a spelling checker would flag down. The word grammar covers a host of things but I don't mean errors of conjugation like "I is curious", "Jim stealed my pencil" or "Jim picked five flower for you". Having clarified that I ask: Have you ever failed to write something in English? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you're talking about using the wrong words, then, yes. My user page documents some of my favorites. If I'm still not following you, then we may as well drop it. I'm not sure I see the urgency of the question, and I don't doubt we've both got better things to do. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please specify what you refer to on your user page because it is long. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See User:Moonriddengirl --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for answering. I can guess you meant to write "Given large influx of copyvio material (hopefully all reworded)" but failed when you typed "rewarded" instead of "reworded". I agree it's amusing but Wikipedia readers shouldn't have to guess at a writer's malapropisms. Is also this post belittling or unacceptable? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether you have been repeatedly trying to elicit examples of my failures simply so that you can declare them inappropriate. In that case, you would be attempting to goad me, which would be unacceptable. I'm not bothered. I am, however, actually engaged in improving Wikipedia, so I'll be getting back to that now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We know that is not the case. It's been one question, one answer, and I have not characterized the failure except to agree with your characterization of it. Having clarified that, I return to my question. Is the post belittling or unacceptable? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but this conversation doesn't feel productive. I tend to be fairly busy on Wikipedia, and while I'm always willing to stop to talk about issues where I can see the importance, this one seems to have wandered. I've reviewed, on your request, that ANI conversation and the events leading up to it of half a year ago and still feel as I felt then, as I've explained above. But as this is beginning to feel very circular and the point of it is unclear, I won't be responding any further, unless you can somehow convince me that this conversation will be of sufficient benefit to you to take me away from other work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. We need a better understanding, as the section title says. and I am not asking you to go back on your opinion that I assume was honestly held at the time. I am asking for your opinion, of the kind that you have been willing to volunteer here and to other admins, solely of this post whose background you know. Is that post to you belittling or unacceptable? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I can help with an answer here CA3. Yes that post is unacceptable. You have been over this same ground again and again with your thesis that every single sentence appearing anywhere on Wikipedia simply must be grammatically and typographically perfect, else you shall stand as the defender of English. And you've been told over and over that for articles, yes indeed, but on talk pages, not especially necessary. You've harped on this so much at the RefDesks that now there is not even a glimmer of support for your thesis, when you raise it repeatedly, editors just say "oh please, not a-fucking-gain". You have been blocked for this activity. I've given you a direct blocx threat for creating a hostile environment for other editors. It looks to me like you're now here at the talk page of another very hard-working editor, badgering them about the exact same issue. You need to let this drop. I applaud you for seeking Moonriddengirl's advice, as she's the very best editor there is. But she gave you her advice way back up there in this thread, and she's now said there's nothing more to be said. So drop it. I won't hat this thread since it's not my talk page, but please do take that as a warning. Franamax (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sami Yusuf
Hello Moonriddengirl. Like you, I have been trying to keep the Sami Yusuf page accurate, balanced, neutral and reliably sourced. I find it rather difficult at the moment because of the flood of subjective fan-like edits by user:Turquoise21. I am at a loss as to how to get rid of his peacock sentences and weazel words without painstakingly going through the entire page sentence-by-sentence again. I have tried to remove the peacock sentences by undoing his latest edits, but the peacock template seems to stop me from doing this via the "undo" facility. Any ideas? RegardsGorgeCustersSabre (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) You could go back to the last edit before he started and restore that; you won't be undoing anything substantive of mine. I just added the tags. Oh, but do be aware that he's right about the Iranian nationality thing. We can't include that because being born in Iran doesn't make him Iranian; this would be the one to revert to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, Moonriddengirl. Thank you very kindly for your advice. I am grateful to you. I suspect that I'll have to watch the Yusuf page very carefully. My regards, GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC) :)

Conversations with Eternity
The additions by look like clear copyvio; google indicates they existed on websites prior to the addition. So, I reverted to the prior version.

I think, probably, the intermediate revisions should be deleted? If you agree, could you do so? There's little other editing, so this one seems quite simple, I think.

Cheers,  Chzz  ► 13:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tyvm. An easy one, for once. Yay.  Chzz  ► 02:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Template Non-free book scan now unused
Hi, I changed the license template of to Template:Non-free fair use in. I think this resolves the discussion at Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 2. Template:Non-free book scan is therefore no longer used and thus (as far as I know) suitable for deletion. I copied the Wiki-Markup of the template to a subpage in my userspace to preserve it for possible future use, should consensus ever be reached to allow its use. I apologize for any trouble this template has caused. I still think the template does neither break US law, nor Wikipedia policy. It was never my intention to stimulate misleading beliefs of the usability of non-free content on Wikipedia.

Sincerely, Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Thanks for letting me know. There's nothing to apologize for, to be sure! As I said at the TfD, I felt like your creation of it was done in all good faith; I just disagree that we should have it. It's not at all meant to imply that you've done anything wrong; it's just a difference of opinion. I'm sorry if it came across personally; truly, it wasn't meant to. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fine with that, thanks. Is there anything more to do with the template right now or will a bot handle it? Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's still got a few more days to go. Consensus can always surprise us. Whichever admin closes the TfDs for the day will attend to it and delete, if consensus lands that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Lets see what happens then. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * All righty. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

FSQL
Hello,

I'm an Algerian PhD student and I work on Fuzzy SQL queries with a French university laboratory. I was surprised to see that the FSQL article has been deleted. I understand now the reasons of that deletion but I was wondering:
 * are you aware that the user User:PepeGalindo is the creator of the FSQL language? Just check the name of the author of the main reference: José Galindo a.k.a. Pepe Galindo (also check the URL: http://www.lcc.uma.es/~ppgg/FSQL/ and the title of the page http://www.lcc.uma.es/~ppgg/ : did you notice the "~ppgg"?)
 * the deletion request and the message you sent to Mr Galindo occurred a long time after the article was created and after his last contribution and I guess he may not have the time to check his messages in Wikipedia
 * did you try to contact José Galindo to ask him if he was the author of the article in Wikipedia? see on bottom of http://www.lcc.uma.es/~ppgg/ for e-mail, telephone number, fax, etc...

I see that the Spanish Wikipedia didn't delete the FSQL article but I'm not very comfortable with Spanish. --Amine Brikci N (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I assume that you're using the plural sense of "you", since I never left a message for User:PepeGalindo. I'm the administrator who closed the listing, but not the user who tagged it. Under that assumption, I do not know if that person or anyone else tried to contact Mr. Galindo other than leaving the standard notice at his talk page. While Wikipedians are encouraged to attempt to make effort to contact the copyright holders at CP (under "Alternatives to Deletion"), it is not required. What is required is that the article remain blanked for a week with a note cautioning that it will be deleted if the contents are not permitted or the article not rewritten. You can see the template that formerly blanked the article, as it appeared then, here. Unfortunately, no one rewrote the article and permission was not provided. That said, it's not too late. You are very welcome to use any of the methods of contacting the copyright owner that you like to invite him to address these concerns, even belatedly, and the material will be restored. You are also welcome, if you'd like, to write a new article on the subject in original language.


 * I can't say at this point, nearly a year later, whether I noticed the connection or not; unfortunately, I typically evaluate a dozen or so of these articles every day, and I'm unlikely to remember them unless they are unusual in some way. But it isn't uncommon for us to delete content placed by somebody whose name seems to suggest that they may be able to provide permission, if they do not. Since we have no means of verifying identity on account creation, we cannot presume that anyone is the copyright holder of previously published content. This must be verified. And we lack the resources to adopt a policy of attempting to track people down just in case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hill Place
You state that you have a "catch and release" philosophy to copyright, yet you are still haunting me. I created a page for Hill Place using a précis of available material, with the permission of the copyright owner. This then created an ongoing battle which has left me in the position of not really feeling like I can contribute without every edit I make being criticised for copyright. Whilst I understand your position, I don’t agree with the actions you have taken. Perhaps you wish to explain as I have read your talk page. Hennahairgel (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm afraid that you've misread my user page. My "catch and release" philosophy has to do with articles on which I work as an editor, not on articles I work as an administrator with copyright concerns. Beyond that, it's really little to do with me, since I am not the contributor whose note you are removing. I'm sorry if you feel haunted, but I am watching the article, as I frequently do prior copyright problems, not you. I had not remembered that I had reverted you in the past for removing the notice, although I did recall reverting an IP. As the note I left you at your talk page this time explains, removing such content from talk pages isn't in line with guidelines. You are, however, welcome to remove notes from your own user talk page. I'm sorry I failed to notify you of that the first time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page on Fr. Michael Scanlan, TOR
Hello Moodriddengirl, Can you tell me why the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Scanlan was deleted? Many thanks, John Flaherty Grand Island, NE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.23.209 (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, it was tagged by an editor on 24 June 2010, who noted its resemblance to http://secure.franciscan.edu/home2/Content/news/main.aspx?id=258, a website published under copyright reservation by the Franciscan University of Steubenville. I'm sorry to say that the webpage in question is no longer functional, and while internet archives have preserved some content, they did not record that one. The article was blanked and the creator notified, although unfortunately since the creator was an IP it's very likely that he would not have seen it. However, during the investigation period, the article included instructions for how to address the copyright concerns, either by rewriting it or by verifying permission. Since neither step was taken during the week that it remained listed, it was deleted for those concerns. It's not impossible for the article to be restored, but we would need verification of license from the Franciscan University of Steubenville. See Donating copyrighted materials for the procedures; if you can arrange that donation, I'm very happy to help you with it.


 * Alternatively, an interested contributor can write a new article for Fr. Scanlan. Even without that verification of license, the bibliography could be restored from the older version of the article as well as some of the "Wikipedia markup", including navigational categories. New text content would need to be generated, however. If you're interested in doing that, please let me know; I'd be happy to restore what I can, but I would want to be sure that you were able to work on it at that time. Articles that have little to no content are also routinely deleted.


 * Just let me know if I can help. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Horsies and such
Hi Moonriddengirl! Just wanted to let you know that if you find any copyvio problems on any article with a WPEQ tag, we are pretty active over there, so please feel free to ask us to fix any problems that come to your attention. Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about identified problems at the moment, but as far as probable issues go there are 3 related articles left at Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime which haven't been checked yet (you appear to have already checked the rest of those articles last year Face-tongue.svg). VernoWhitney (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Got too twitchy, had PTSD from the sockpuppet bust, which after I endured considerable abuse from the sock, I had a significant role in bringing to the attention of those who could act! LOL!  The three left happen to be big ones worthy of being kept, so will be some work to sort out the wheat from the chaff.  But thanks for the reminder.   Montanabw (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't see a lot of animal articles. :) But, oi, Lassie. :/ I'm trying to work through Paknur right now, and it feels like those CCIs just go on forever. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * May have something to do with the fact that all Paknur articles are still crappy 2 line stubs 5 years after creation. At least I almost done with page 8. Yoenit (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it amazing? I'm finding copyvios untouched since 2006. :O --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Another - on a related note - would you would be willing to add your voice in support of this proposal to add confirmed copyvio notices to Article Alerts? Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Feature_requests. Project members may be willing and able to act before coreopsis sets in. Novickas (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. I think we've had it there before, though I'm fuzzy on the details. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I'm sure they're overworked, but it's important... OK so I tried the dupe tool on a Banglapedia CCI article. It was vastly easier than before. (But could you review what I did?, ) And does this CCI require identifying and notifying the editor(s) who added the material? Whenever you have time. Novickas (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks great. :) Generally everything except the ; we use when we find sufficient issue to require addressing. It's not a serious issue, though. And, I'd say that, no, that particular editor probably does not; the problem dates to 2007, it is relatively minor, and he has more recently been advised.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm looking for is some sort of rule of thumb about identifying and notifying the contributors. The thing is, I enjoy parts of copyvio cleanup, in this case learning about unfamiliar topics like Bangladesh and chipping away at its CCI, but the ID followed by notification part sometimes leads to angry confrontations. So I'm sort of looking for a more gnomish path. Would it be OK to note, in a Bpedia CCI entry with a yes, 'contributor not identified'? Novickas (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's my thinking on when to notify: I notify when either (a) notification will advise the contributor a policy that they may not understand and help prevent future issues or (b) notification will help establish a pattern of repeated issues that may lead to a CCI or sanctions. In this particular case, the contributor who placed the content has been notified of copyright policies, so (a) is not necessary. It's relatively minor, and I didn't see a history in talk page to suggest that (b) is going to be necessary. That said, looking at it in more depth now, I do notice another issue. We may need to double-check some of the ones he's marked cleared to make sure that his marking them wasn't based on the same misunderstanding that led to his placing the content here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear that. Well, how about for this CCI, if a yes, note the contributor (that looks to have been done in the diff you cite), that way someone going over the CCI can get a feel for when notification is needed? Novickas (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay; I lost track of the horsies. :D I suspect that nobody will ever look at the individual listings at that CCI, other than to note that they're done. What I would recommend for you, if you're willing, is just to drop the contributor a note if you identify them and think that notice may be needed. I've created a template for the purpose at Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source)/Note. If you like it, all you'd have to do is add, substituting in (of course) the name of the article. If you like it, I'll note it at the CCI page. If you don't like it but like the idea, let's talk about how to make it better. :) The language is straight off the top of my head. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * S'ok, you look busy. (Dog bites man.) The template is fine by me - but how about if, for record-keeping, when infringement is found, I make a note like 'added during this entry (diff)' - that way, if one of us wants to go over things, it'd be relatively easy to find and we could discuss the issues of multiple, possibly persistent infringements by individual editors on the CCI talk page? To be followed by notification if it seems warranted? Regards, Novickas (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's extra work for you, but that would be great. It would help us see if there are patterns of problems. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good :) Novickas (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Svea Orden
I understand that you are the go-to girl on copyright issues. Svea Orden is an automatic translation of the official webpage of this society. I pointed this out to the page creator nearly two months ago, but there has been no reaction since (see User talk:Alla7). He/she has only created a few pages, all with similar problems. --Hegvald (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) That's not good. :/ I've verified the problem and deleted the article. Let me take a look at other contributions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. My Swedish is pretty rudimentary (although one of my best friends lives in Stockholm :D). If you can tell what pages are being copied there, could you mark them and list them at WP:CP? This isn't too complicated, if you haven't done it before. It involves placing  on the article. Once that's done, it generates its own templates for listing at WP:CP and notifying the contributor. I'll be happy to help, if you like, but I'd need you to please give me the precise URLs that are being machine translated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the other two articles, Christian Clausen and Solresor were mainly problematic in being automatic translations, but those two both originate in the corresponding articles in the Swedish Wikipedia. That should probably have been indicated in the first edit, but it seems to be less of an issue than when something is copied from outside Wikipedia. Both articles have later been cleaned up by others. Personally, I think deletion is better both for auto-translations from other Wikipedias and for copyright violations/plagiarism, but some people get fanatic about "cleaning up" such articles rather than just letting them go and starting a new article from a clean slate.


 * I looked at one of the copyright pages at some point and found the procedure rather complicated, but then noticed someone else reporting something to you, or saw you commenting in a discussion somewhere or whatever it was. I'll try to get the hang of it. --Hegvald (talk) 20:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, looking at it I see the attribution at the article talk for Solresor. So that's okay, from a copyright perspective. :) You are welcome to come by any time that you think I may be of assistance. I'm happy to help! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Did you know
Hi Moonriddengirl. Would you take a look at Template talk:Did you know? At issue here is whether the content at Post-detection policies is a copyright violation. I think the attribution is sufficient (the blockquote template), though I believe such a large quote may violate WP:NFCC. Would you advise new user and myself about what to do? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I've weighed in there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your insight! Cunard (talk) 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy question
Content can be fully and perfectly attributed, but still follow too closely on the source to meet our mandate to write content from scratch (except for brief excerpts). Can you elaborate on this for me? I was under the impression that it was acceptable to lift text from one of my articles and place it into another. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, it is. It's also acceptable to copy from public domain and compatibly licensed sources, as long as Plagiarism is met (including the necessary attribution). Sorry if I wasn't clear; I thought it was understood that we were talking about copyrighted content. If you think I need to clarify that, I'll be happy to add something. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

clan of xymox edits
Dear Moonridden girl. I am not an experienced editor but like to contribute to a better bio of the band. So far it is not really that good, it kinda rattles. Also the history is actually wrong: Ronny Moorings and Anke Wolbert started the band in Nijmegen in 1983. The other 2 Nooten and Weyzig only joined the band in 1984 AFTER the release of the said Sunsequent Pleasures EP. I base this on the numerous interviews and bios you can find all over the web. "Funny" that only WIki makes this mistake. I ask you to look into this as I saw a lot of confusion going on with this.

I added some quotes just to spice a dull summing up of releases and quoting some phrases as was allowed with the negative Best of Clan Of Xymox review or Nootens " "To be honest I never listen to pop music" | which I find irrelevant..

Apart from that I thank you for keeping an eye on the page. If you want I can submit edit suggestions to you and you can approve them or not..or I am willing to argue some point (when I have time :) 567fuall (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Found a volunteer yet?
Just checking in. Things are getting a bit tense over the issue. Obviously, the editor does not agree that close paraphrasing is a problem because she check with one of her professors who used the "John Smith was born on July 1, 1940." example as permissible. In this case, the article paraphrases websites which explain the rules of a game. In my opinion, such content is copyrightable and not mere facts without literary expression. She has now gone to a dozen places claiming "I've been unfairly accused of plagiarism," even though I am careful not to use that word and not to attribute the problem text to any particular editor. I have zero credibility with her and her friends. So we really need an expert well-versed in Wikipedia policy to take a look. I've cited WP:PARAPHRASE and she has cited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plagiarism#What_is_not_plagiarism because she feels that the website's presentation of the rules is "the simplest and most obvious way to present information." I have recommended putting quotation marks around the text, but she rejects that.

On a somewhat related issue, who is the best person to consult regarding on-wiki Trademark infringement problems? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry. Several people had declined; I thought I had found one via e-mail who might help, but his "I'll get back with you" slipped into "...or maybe I won't" and I'm afraid that it slipped my mind. I see that quite a lot has gone on with this in the meanwhile. :/ Let me catch up here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Started before my dentist appointment, but wasn't able to save it before. I've weighed in at the RfC/U, here. I'm sorry that I missed your last note about it. :/ I don't know if I could have helped avert the level of distress that followed, but I should have at least tried.


 * To your other question, I don't know that we really have an on-wiki Trademark infringement specialist. I've dealt with situations a couple of times. If you can give me details, I can either try to help out myself or point you to somebody, even if that somebody winds up being a noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you for your RFC/U comments. They were very evenly phrased. The trademark question is given that §110 of the U.S. Amateur Sports Act gives the USOC exclusive rights to word "Olympic" and that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that "The protection granted to the USOC's use of the Olympic words and symbols differs from the normal trademark protection in two respects: the USOC need not prove that a contested use is likely to cause confusion, and an unauthorized user of the word does not have available the normal statutory [Lanham Act] defenses." at 531. The USOC has granted a license to the public to use the trademarks. My concern (which frankly caused my break with a certain editor) is that calling a sport an "Olympic sport" or "Olympic recognized sport" suggests more of an association with the Olympics than is permitted under the license.  If the organizers and promoters of a sport and its tournaments cannot say "Olympic", I don't see how Wikipedia can use "Olympic" to describe those activities either.  It is a contributory trademark infringement problem. Also, since this is a "special" statute, do we have any safe harbors as exist for the DMCA? This may be above both of our pay grades, but you wanted to know the question. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's above my pay grade, but I can check with our attorney. :) Before I do, is there any reliable source to substantiate the use of the world "Olympic"? Full information would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The IFNA website, which is probably translated into English says "In 1995 Netball became a "recognized" Olympic sport and one of IFNAs objectives is to ensure this status is retained and encourage the International Olympic Committee to include Netball in the Olympic Games Programme in the future." Someone gave a speech in the Parliament of New South Wales (primary source) saying, "Honourable members may be unaware that technically, at least, netball is an Olympic sport. It was recognised as such in 1995, but it is not included in the summer Olympics program." Taylor's paper is cited at page 68, which says, "Adding to its enhanced status, and some twenty years after lodging its first application, netball was recognised by the International Olympic Committee allowing national association access to membership of their country's National Olympic Committee in 1993." I don't have access to the Smartt, Pam; Chalmers, David (29 January 2009). "Obstructing the goal? Hospitalisation for netball injury in New Zealand 2000–2005". The New Zealand Medical Journal 122 (1288) paper which is also cited, but I question whether a medical journal is reliable on Olympic matters. The Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations website has a letter from the President of the IOC which uses the phrase "looks at the IOC-recognised sports to evaluate their potential contribution to the future Games." The IOC website lists sports as "official sports" or "recognized sports". If I could find a reliable secondary source that said that "netball is an Olympic sport" or said that the IOC endorses the terminology "Olympic recognised sport", I would have drop this a long time ago during the GA Review. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Being an avowed enemy to organized team sports, I may be missing some nuances. :) But a 1996 issue of The Bulletin (, alas only viewable in snippet) says, "Australia - winner of seven of the nine world championships since 1963 - is still the dominant force in netball, which has now been recognised as an Olympic sport, although it lacks the vital ingredient of a politically aggressive..." something. I don't know; the snippet cuts off there (see the quote at ). The BBC said, in January of this year, "The International Olympic Committee approved netball as an Olympic sport in 1995, but it has still failed to gain classification as a participation sport at the games, and lost out to rugby sevens and golf for Rio 2016."<> Just a week or so ago, The Voice online wrote, "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) approved netball as an Olympic sport in 1995 but it has never gained classification as a participation sport at the Games.".

The Olympics website clarifies that "To make it onto the Olympic programme, a sport first has to be recognised: it must be administered by an International Federation which ensures that the sport's activities follow the Olympic Charter. If it is widely practised around the world and meets a number of criteria established by the IOC session, a recognised sport may be added to the Olympic programme on the recommendation of the IOC's Olympic Programme Commission." 2006's Historical Dictionary of the Olympic Movement says, "Netball has never been contested at the Olympic Games, even as a demonstration sport. However, it's governing body, the International Federation of Netball Associations (IFNA), is recognized by the International Olympics Committee.(, bolding in original )

Based on that, it seems that netball has cleared recognition and its administering body has been recognized, but it has not yet become a participation sport? I'm not really sure about approaching the attorney on this one. I try to do that only when we're absolutely against a wall, and in this case we have reliable sources that do seem to use the term "Olympic sport" in reference to this game. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking in to it. There is probably a lot of sloppy terminology being used. Netball's IFNA became an IOC-recognized federation in 1995.  (Like sumo wrestling, chess and the bridge card game.) The sport will not be admitted to the Olympic program until it is played in a specified number of countries and meets other criteria, but I have called the issue to someone's attention and my duty has been discharged. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all due diligence on your part. :) You shouldn't have to worry about it. Your sloppy terminology conclusion seems likely, but I'm not sure if the trademark concern is ours if we are citing published sources. Still, I'll invite additional review to see if I seem to need to invite attorney overview. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Netball became an Olympic recongnized sport in 1995 because it met all the criterea, including being played in the required number of countries. It is therefore eligible to be included in the programme schedule of a future games, but a vote is required. Netball organisations including IFNA always describe the sport as an Olympic sport, which they are legally entitled to do, and recieve funding from the government and the IOC on this basis. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Problem
Hello Moonriddengirl,

I am attempting to solve a copyright problem on our page: [].

I believe we need to send an email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Is this correct?

I have prepared the following email to be addressed to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org.

I hereby affirm that I, Paul Rogers am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of LogZilla, LLC and all of the content published at www.logzilla.pro. I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Paul Rogers, CEO of LogZilla, LLC I have the full authority of LogZilla, LLC to enter into this agreement. April 7, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LogZilla

Would this clear up our issues? Any guidance or comment you may provide is most appreciated.

Thank you,

Paul Rogers Paulrogerslogzilla (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be sent to, but other than that it looks good. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) I see that's all resolved! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Article tagged for deletion under G12 criteria. Your specialty
Could you please delete the article David Lee Smith. It was proposed for deletion but that simply isnt enough. it is infringing on this website. Thanks MRG. You rock. ''' Jessy  ( talk ) ( contribs ) • 22:01, April 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't think I deserve the praise for a straightforward G12. :D What content there was, all of it was copied. Thanks for catching the issue! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Questioning Neutrality
copied from the talk page at the The Fiscal Times entry.

I'm at least relieved that the editing is now serious. The above history has not been professional and this current shift is a welcome one after the previous back and forth edits. However as for neutrality, I beg to differ. Were it I to stop this dispute by contacting Wikipedia 'authorities', the balance would have had to be against the recent pro-fiscal times edit, and thus neutrality would have been for example to reinstate a clear criticism section, albeit with certain 'correcting'.

I am not a professional news person, nor am I being paid for this crusade. Jackieleo and the other anonymous ips are associated with the Fiscal Times. I do not have their resources, so when I'm not familiar with Wikipedia procedures (technically a 'bureaucracy', however benign), and I see my edits as reactions to a self-interested entry, I see it appropriate to work as an automat and not to begin a new process. The Fiscal Times have employees that can do this.

As result, this recent edit would be more welcome for Fiscal Times than it should be with people concerned with the proper use of Wikipedia as an independent community tool. Businesses creating, embellishing and protecting their own controversial entries are not native members of this community. They are interested parties. As long as an entry can clearly be shown to have been dominated by an interested party (jackieleo), any subsequent edit that comes as a direct response is completely appropriate. When texts have been copied without reference from the their website, it is justified to have criticism that answers directly to claims of non-partisanship (copied word for word from fiscaltimes.com) by contrasting it with existing arguments saying the publication is part of an advocacy network.

As long as you go to great lengths to resolve this dispute, by actually rewriting many of the sections, or recontextualizing by way of removal, then please pay mind to the fact that there probably could have still been a "criticism" section without hurting the 'structure' or integrity of the entry. News sources linking this publication which runs a "debt watch" section with other Peterson funded advocacy operations dealing specifically with national debt could be quoted as arguing that advocacy is taking place, not just bias.

Wikipedia itself is in spirit meant to work as a balance to institutional and interested information sources. It has become perhaps the most important such balance. When it becomes clear that now interested parties manage their own entries, it is the role of the community to make sure every such entry is equipped with an unmovable criticism section. A criticism section gives voice to controversiality. Not having one, or contextualizing criticism within 'history', whitewashes criticisms into noncontroversial sections. Just think of the Environmental Record section on the ExxonMobil entry being under History, with a neutralizing view to each point.

You should look into the fallacy of "neutrality" in the sciences. Sometimes neutrality is achieved through balancing an inherently imbalanced situation.

Regarding calling out people on self-editing, please take a look at WikiScanner. I recall that at the time these self edits were mentioned in criticism sections. Checking now, it is disturbing to see that the Pepsico entry doesn't even have a criticism section. More to the point perhaps is the Conrad_Burns section. Wikinews is the qouted source here, and it is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is it the foundation's policy to view Wikipedia manipulations by politicians more "wikinews" worthy than manipulation by self-legitimized news sources? I see your point of needing an external source, but where is the balance for the real-life editor of the Fiscal Times acting also as the main wikipedia editor for the fiscal times, in obvious conflict of interest? in handing them back their entry to play with?

joeav Joeav (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have replied at the article's talk page, although I may not have covered all of your points, since you have expanded this in the meantime. If there are outstanding questions, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

For the third year in a row


I lack words in English to express how important you are for this project, and how much you have encouraged me in working hard and good, so i`ll keep it simple: Happy Wikibirthday to our beloved Girl. Zidane tribal (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah! It's my birthday! I almost missed it! Thank you so much for the reminder and the birthday wishes. You are very kind. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy wiki-bday MRG! You continue to be one of the awesomest Wikipedians around here =) Here's to another four years! – xeno talk 18:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You will need something to drink with that! happy day. ww2censor (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Seconded, thirded, fourthed... Tillykke med din Wiki fødselsdag!!!! — Cactus Writer (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoot! It's a proper party! Thank you all very much. :D I had no idea when I registered four years ago how much of my free time this hobby was going to consume! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Me Too; thanks for all the help whenever I bug ask you stuff :) Happy Wiki-Birthday! --Errant (chat!) 22:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, happy wiki birthday, MRG. ''' Jessy  ( talk ) ( contribs ) •22:35, April 8, 2011 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday! :)  Yes Michael? •Talk 04:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you.:D And I'll raise that pint to us and our collaborative project. I enjoy working with you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation quotes
Hi, there seems to a commonly used interpretation of WP:QUOTEFARM (in turn reliant on WP:NPS) that quotations in citations are a copyright problem and the QUOTE essay is used to justify deletion of quotations from citations. I have come across this before but the current case in point is this instance of multiple quote deletions by Acroterion with the rationale "...please don't quote within refs - there are copyright issues we needn't get into". Admittedly the quotations are extensive but these were added in the light of the article being up for deletion on the basis of a lack of independent reliable sources and with the likely prospect of the quotations being integrated into the article in the future, at which point they would be naturally trimmed down. Without quotations many of the citations would lack sufficient context to understand why they are relevant (the article titles would not be obvious) and many have no free online version for the layman reader to check and understand the context for themselves. There is some earlier discussion at User talk:Fæ.

If you would like to give an opinion this might help future similar discussion where this approach might be used for an article rescue with multiple citations. As I see it the key questions are:
 * 1) Is the QUOTEFARM essay a copyright related rationale to mass delete quotations from footnotes and can it apply in the context of third party sources?
 * 2) Where brief quotes are added to citations on the basis of context is there an established consensus that we should always prefer to remove all quotes (or integrate the material) and is this a basis for immediate deletion or an ongoing improvement recommendation?

Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Heady conversation. I'll be back to after about 10 more ounces of Diet Coke. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, there is no established consensus that I know of that we prefer to remove all quotes or integrate the material from citations. If there is, I need to know about it, because I have (sparingly) used quotations in refs myself. That said, we typically do truncate extensive quotations in them and remove quotations for which there is not a very strong fair use defense. Basically, the quote parameter in citations may serve to quote content that would not fit stylistically in the article, but it does not have any stronger fair use claim than the rest of the article. If the quote would be too extensive in substantiality in context of the article or in proportion to the original, it's too extensive in footnote. And it still must be transformative.


 * When asked to review such situations (and they come up occasionally at WP:C), I imagine the content as blockquotes within the article. In terms of the article under discussion, I'm afraid that I also have concerns about the substantiality of copyrighted content in relation to the length of commentary it is being used to support. Several of those quotes are a bit lengthy, clocking in at over 100 words. In terms of its body, the article itself is only 99. If this had come through WP:C, I would have removed the quotes, too, and asked the contributor to summarize the key points, using more limited quotation where necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, I'll try being rather more sparing for quotes to give context or add them as suggested sources on the talk page in a similar rescue situation. It sounds like another area where we will probably pin down some better guidelines at a future point rather than leaving it to a debatable essay. Cheers Fæ (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Archery Association of India
Hello Moonriddengirl, you removed content for 11 revisions as article had copyright issues, but why didn't you care of my two edits - one for tagging the article for wikification and other of language temp of Hindi; you should at least exempt the lang-hi temp.  undefinedBill william compton  Talk   23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not sure what you mean by "exempt", so please forgive me if I misunderstand. When doing revision deletion, we have to delete every version of the article that constitutes a copyright problem. I cannot selectively delete part of the page. It is not meant as any kind of slur against the content you edited, but the copyrighted material was a substantial part of each page after its introduction. Ideally, when such situations happen, we'll come in to find that interested contributors have proposed a rewrite in the temporary space that will incorporate any positive changes, but unfortunately this does not often happen. If you would like me to resurrect the lang-hi temp, I can do that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do that and may be i'll rewrite the article, thanks.. undefinedBill william compton  Talk   23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And one more thing if you ever find any such copyright problem with any article related to any sport governing body, feel free to contact me; i'd be happy to give my service in rewriting the article.
 * I don't see them until they're due for (or even overdue for!) admin closure. :/ We have attemped to get copyright problems added to Article alerts, but I see that it's still in the "not now" priority. That would be very helpful not only in letting you see sports articles, but in letting other contributors keep an eye on articles of concern to them. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

interview request
Hello, My name is Natalia Ioana Olaru and I am a final year master student in the Corporate Communication programme at the Aarhus School of Business in Denmark. I am currently working on my final paper on the topic of user motivation to create content on collaborative media websites, the focus being Wikipedia. As a sample I chose the English and Danish portals. I would like to invite you for an online interview on the topic of what motivates you, to participate in editing and creating articles for this platform. I plan on doing the actual interviews in the period between 1st and the 15th of May via Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I am, however, open to other channels of communication too. Please let me know if you would like to participate in this interview and the preferred channel.

Thank you, Natalia Olaru Email: natalia.ioana.olaru@gmail.com MulgaEscu (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would be willing to help you, but I'm afraid that I do not use Skype, MSN or Yahoo Messenger. I would be willing to communicate with you through google chat. If under those circumstances you would like to talk to me, please use the "e-mail this user" function in the toolbox at the side of my page (you will have to have enabled your own e-mail under your user preferences to do so). After I receive your e-mail, I'll reply, and we can set up a time that works for both us. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Joe Fab

 * Thanks for taking the time to sort it out. This was just a vanity bio. The subject/author has been copying versions back and forth, left and right all over town, thus creating a closed-circuit of copyvios and reverse copyvios. I couldn't work out which version he had copied and from where. I just hate that sort of stuff, so I prodded it. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't actually PROD it, but tagged it for copyright investigation, or I'd have probably never seen it. :D He could very likely have granted permission for the content, but he hasn't, and it's not really appropriate anyway. A relatively fresh canvas should allow a new article to be built without COI or copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, I'm glad it's fixed, for there was actually little doubt in my mind that he is notable. But why did you remove the orphan tag, it still seems to be the case according to thedefinition of 'orphan' ? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because, as it says there, the tag is currently only used if there are zero incoming links from other articles. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OIC! -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

DTET, Orissa
Could you take a quick look at this article for me if you have a moment. To me it's a clear copyvio of (it's not word for word but pretty close) and so a G12. However an IP has now twice removed my speedy tag. Rather than continue to add the tag and then have it removed before an admin has a chance to look at it I thought I'd see if the friendly copyright admin had a little bit of spare time. Thanks. Dpmuk (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirection and abbreviation of "Joe Fab" page (redirected to "Joseph Fabiszewski"
Hi! I'm Joe Fab. Could you tell me why you changed the page about me? I see a notation "blatant copyright violation" -- can you please tell me what items on the page caused you to think that was being done? Thanks in advance!

98.191.210.88 (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) The article was listed for copyright evaluation on April 1st, Copyright problems/2011 April 1, and remained blanked for a week to permit time for interested contributor to verify license of the source or to rewrite content. Material was duplicated from a variety of sources, probably originally written by you or your employees, including and . Some content had already been removed before the contributor who noted the issue listed the article for evaluation; according to his edit summary, it seems to have been published at . We cannot use previously published content until permission is verified (see Donating copyrighted materials), but beyond the verification of license, the content has other issues that make its usage problematic on Wikipedia. The bulk of information in Wikipedia articles should be based on second-hand sources that are not affiliated with a subject. For example, given its awards, I don't doubt it's true that "Fab has received wide acclaim for his recent work as producer, writer and co-director of the feature documentary Paper Clips", but we need to source it to those who have provided the acclaim. WP:COI and Autobiography discuss some of the challenges with working on an article about yourself on Wikipedia. If you follow the licensing process, the content can be restored, but given the other issues is unlikely to remain as it was.


 * Please let me know if you have any questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

website comparison tool
Hi MRG and stalkers. Would anybody so kind to link me the article/website comparison tool presented here a while ago? I seem to have lost the link to it and it would be quite useful now. Yoenit (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Duplication Detector! to the rescue! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Yoenit (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

request for Userfication
Hello my page 'Be The Bear' was recently deleted, the band has done music for two TV commercials so I thought they meritted inclusion here, I didn't have time to add this on the talk page as rationale before it was speedily deleted. Can you help? Bunnyman78 (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfied. See your talk page for details. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Great job!
Great job on the reverse copyvio on Peter Roget!! -- Nczempin (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have to delete so much as copyright problems that I'm always happy to find out when copying isn't our fault. :) I appreciate you raising your concerns so that they could be evaluated; always important to verify! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your copyright expertise is requested
Could you please review my responses at commons:User_talk:Fetchcomms and commons:Template_talk:No_permission_since? I'm trying to find a policy that explicitly says that we need explicit permission, and that AGFing that permission was given to "trusted" or experienced users is not enough. Thanks in advance, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How about Image_use_policy? Edit: As the discussion is on commons I assume you are looking for a commons policy. Image_use_policy specifies that a license page "should also contain information sufficient for others to verify the license status (source link) even when not required by the license itself or by copyright laws.". Yoenit (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The en page says, "If a source does not declare a pre-existing free license, yet allows use of its content under terms commonly instituted by them, the source must explicitly declare that commercial use and modification is permitted. If it is not the case, it is to be assumed that it is not unless verification or permission from the copyright holder is obtained", which is what is true, but the Commons page does not. I'm just afraid that the quote you cited is too vague. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  15:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. If this were an issue on en Wiki, it would be easy. :/ WP:C says, "If the material, text or media, has been previously published and you wish to donate it to Wikipedia under appropriate license, you will need to verify copyright permission through one of our established procedures." Let me poke about and see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My first search having not been that productive, I'm asking at the OTRS mailing list. OTRS has been around much longer than I've been involved in it, and I trust that somebody there will be able to clarify for me. I'll pass along any feedback I receive. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's commons:COM:L which says, "The information given on the description page should be sufficient to allow others to verify the license status." and there's commons:COM:SCOPE which states, "In all cases, the burden of proof lies on the uploader or other person arguing for the file to be retained to demonstrate that as far as can reasonably be determined: the file is in the public domain or is properly licensed, and that any required consent has been obtained." VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's excellent. I note, too, that Deletion policy says, "Images missing source or licensing information should be tagged (no/missing source, tagged by date) or   (no/incomplete licensing information, tagged by date) or  (no/missing permission, tagged by date). Please notify the uploaders that you have tagged the image as well (see notes on the templates after tagging a file with them). After this they will have 7 days to fix the information. If it is not fixed after a week, the file is then eligible for speedy deletion. If sufficient license and source information is provided, the tag should be removed." (Bolding lazily removed.) There is clear evidence that permission must be verified, per policy, and that images lacking verification of permission may be deleted, although frankly I think that the language of the policy needs clarification. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks all (and thanks for thinking of the OTRS list, MRG). I agree that the policy is not really as organized/clear as it could be, but I never thought it would be disputed. Thanks again, / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all about networking. :D If I don't know, I figure somebody else does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Want a ticket?
Any chance you want to grab 2011041310026732? It's another one of those state copyright deals, so I'd like to be extra sure on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the current mess with the Puerto Rican images, I think we need to clarify this one. Another agent snagged it during the night and approved it, but I am following up with the senator. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oy, leave it unlocked for one night and someone takes it. I suppose it's better than it sitting around for months, though. BTW, the "related ticket" you linked to in the note is the Skyscraperman mentioned below - maybe that's the wrong one? ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, indeed. :D I need to fix that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Vasectomy third-opinion
Hi Moonriddengirl, in case you haven't seen them, I have requested your opinion on some misinformation that Dijcks is placing in the vasectomy and post-vasectomy pain syndrome articles. For one issue in the vasectomy article, he wrote a combative edit summary, and the sources he is providing for his claims on the preferred method of vasectomy do not support his point-of-view claims. Please assist when you have the chance. Best wishes. Giancoli (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will come take a look and see if I can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

An OTRS request
Can you check out File:Defender-of-Tall-Buildings.jpg as the uploader claims an OTRS ticket was issued but it does not seem to have been applied to the image? TIA. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Weirdly, the uploader did not answer a request for further information from the OTRS agent. I say weirdly, because he obviously got it, or he wouldn't have had the ticket number to release. :/ It's more technically "OTRS pending", but may go through swiftly at this point. I'm not tagging it myself because I'm not entirely sure the extent of the correspondent's rights to the image. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've dealt with the correspondent previously, so I went ahead and approved it. Thanks both of you for pointing out that they had actually uploaded it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no doubt you would handle it properly. :) And, btw, I e-mailed the OTRS agent with the correction to the above, since he would not receive the internal note, now that I own the ticket. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could tell/e-mail me the OTRS ticket(s) in question? I was involved in some Puerto Rico image releases, so I'm wondering if I'm involved (or if there are other releases I approved which could also be a problem). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure! Generally, you seem to know everything, so I honestly thought you would know. :D It's not the one you handled, but 2010021610034321. See also this horribly titled discussion (seriously, what was I thinking? Could I have been less precise?). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks folks! ww2censor (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm flattered that you think I'm omniscient, but sadly I do miss things from time to time. I've weighed in there with some questions/comments. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I kid you not. Everything. :) I appreciate your input there. I want to be sure we save what we can, but we want to save it legitimately. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking of you knowing everything, we may have just rendered File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg not only replaceable, but replaced. File:Khaled Mohamed Saeed.jpg, too. Are there derivative concerns with File:Egypt Uprising solidarity Melbourne protest, 4 February 2011.png, do you think, or are the elements incorporated from other copyright holders de minimis enough to pass? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make a point of ignoring this until later today or tomorrow - I had enough stress yesterday and I wan't today to be a good day. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I invite you to a short survey about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." cooldenny (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done. Good luck with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

WuhWuzDat
Thank you for the administrative action you took in this matter. Thank you very much for all the work you do here. It is appreciated. Cullen328 (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you; that's very kind of you to say. :) I'm happy to pitch in where it seems I can help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright for internal scripts
I can't find the answer to this anywhere, so I've come to the Copyright Oracle. Free software is normally provided under a variety of licenses very different from the documentation type licenses used for Wikipedia text. CC-BY-SA can perhaps cover software, especially for new contributions. But what about using free software libraries provided by others under licenses such as the LGPL or the standard GPL? I write a lot of user scripts used in the management of Wikipedia. They aren't part of the encyclopedia, but they are loaded on the site and executed by many others. Can I incorporate software licensed under the LGPL into my scripts if I retain the original author attribution? Technically, the edit window doesn't permit such a license. In some cases, I have seen scripts marked as copyrighted by the author, while also being provided under one of the free licenses. Note that the LGPL permits use in proprietary products while the GPL does not. Others sometimes use a free MIT license, the only restriction on which is a disclaimer of all warranties. Thanks! —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I don't know. Can you give me a day or two to track down an answer to this one? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No big hurry. The reason I'm asking currently is for a new smart watchlist gadget that I'm developing at User talk:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js. However, I've run into the same question several times before. When it comes to software, it can be terribly difficult to "rephrase" to avoid a copyright problem. Computers generally don't like that. Thanks again. —UncleDouggie (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, I can imagine. :D I've already started the ball with an initial query. I'll keep poking until I find an answer or run out of places to poke, and I'll let you know either way. Please feel free to ping me. If something Big And Dreadful happens, I may get distracted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi UncleDouggie, the short answer is that all content on Wikipedia, even user Javascript and CSS, must be released under CC-BY-SA according to current policy. You can put any code you wrote yourself on Wikipedia, regardless of what software license you release it under, since you can multilicense under both the software license and CC-BY-SA. You cannot, as a rule, put other people's code on Wikipedia, particularly not copyleft code like LGPL or GPL, since (despite superficial similarities) these licenses impose restrictions that CC-BY-SA by itself does not, and so are incompatible. You can seek permission from the original authors to multilicense their code under CC-BY-SA, or you could propose a revision to policy at Village pump (proposals) that would allow code licensed under these licenses in user script/CSS space. Even non-copyleft licenses such as the MIT license are incompatible due to specific requirements (the inclusion of the license text) that are incompatible with CC-BY-SA. The only software license that would be compatible is one that releases all rights and imposes no requirements, and no such license has yet been OSI approved, as far as I know. Dcoetzee 19:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I suspected this might be the case. I think it would be useful to update our copyright policies to make all this clear. Based on this guidance, I regret to inform you that all Wikipedia operations, both editing and browsing, must cease immediately. This is because the "free" jQuery library has recently been integrated throughout all JavaScript code on the site, especially since the release of MediaWiki 1.17. However, jQuery is only GPL/MIT licensed. So sorry, I guess we can have our lives back now. —UncleDouggie (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, no! What would I do without Wikipedia! :O Seriously, though, is this something we need to ask our attorneys about? I'm barely computer literate, but I'll be watching this one with great interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mediawiki itself is not CC-BY-SA compatibly licensed - code integrated with the engine is okay. Code on wiki pages is the problem. I don't think anyone sane will disagree with allowing certain open source licensed code on user .js or .css pages (or site .js/.css pages), and there's precedent for allowing non-CC-BY-SA compatible works in the case of media, but it requires a change to policy. Meanwhile, nobody will care and nothing will get deleted, so it'll be fine. Dcoetzee 12:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Wuhwuzdat
Per the ANI thread, I agree although I did not have time to comment and pile on. I just want to tell you that you made the correct decision. I have had to save and clean up many of this user's misguided attempts at clean-up, most recently Amy Krouse Rosenthal, which I took from Wuhwazdat's speedy tagging to the main page's DYK section in a week. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. :) Seriously, though, all I did was read a pretty clear consensus. If anybody deserves that barnstar, you do, for taking an article that was blatantly not an A7 candidate and polishing it up so beautifully. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just butting in--that was one silly, silly A7. Man. Congrats, Bearian. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI
It's still not about what you think LOL  :-D

Got this message .... and it seems he is busy writing to lots of editors... "Contributions". Before doing anything, I thought an Admin might want to take a peek at him. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (butting in) I've just ignored it. It appears to be a poorly worded, hosted offsite questionnaire and I've treated it as such. - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a poorly translated offsite questionnaire. It was brought up a few days ago by the poster at WP:VPM. Apparently they decided to go ahead without despite the less-than-stellar feedback. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What Verno said. :) FWIW, I took my best stab at responding to it, but the English issues made responding somewhat challenging. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More cognitively laborious, you mean! - Sitush (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes, I got a good chuckle out of that one. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

OFFER of TRUCE
I wanted to let you know that earlier today, I've offered a truce to user:giancoli. I hope it is accepted.

Also, there is an something that I think is important to note, which I pointed out to him.

They are separate and distinct things. It's relevant due to his past desire to use citations that include PVPS, and struggles if PVPS is not considered in abstracts/conclusions of these citations. Good Evening Dijcks HotTub Pool 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Vasectomy is a Surgical Procedure.
 * PVPS is a Medical Condition/Syndrome that comes about as an effect of vasectomy.

Copyvio template in non-article space
I've just tagged this user space draft for copy vio. It's a pretty obvious copyvio but in the requested move that alerted me to it there's a vague claim of permission so thought the copyvio template was the right way to go rather than G12. I notice however that the template breaks in user space. Is this a problem with the template or is there another process for copyvio's in user space? I haven't listed it yet at WP:CP as given that it's in user space I'm not sure it's the correct forum. Will list it if you advice that's the correct thing to do. Dpmuk (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is the correct course of action for copied material where there's an assertion of permission. It was already listed by my bot at Copyright problems/2011 April 14, so there's no need to worry about that now. What do you mean the template breaks? It displays an error when used in the File namespace, but everything looks just fine there as far as I can tell. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of posting on your talk as well but then realised you stalked this page enough that there wouldn't be any point. Was aware that your bot might list it but was hoping for an answer before midnight.  What broke is all the links to the "article's" talke page which pointed to Talk:Fgdesign2/Diana B. Henriques rather than User Talk:Fgdesign2/Diana B. Henriques.  Anyway think I've now fixed the problem with this edit. Dpmuk (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a subtle issue! I don't think I'd have ever noticed that. :) Good for you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.
Dear Moonriddengirl, I want to personally thank you for what will have been several hours of your time regarding the debate over at "vasectomy". I do, however have some questions, sentiments, and concerns and I am, asking for your help (or insights) here..


 * As well, I'm not sure now what is next. Do we now wait for 2 weeks?


 * I'm offering this award with the sincerest of thanks and appreciation because I know how hard it is to come in cold on a subject. I know because I recently offered a WP:3O at "scar" (however not nearly in the same detail). It can take a lot of time to dig in and understand what is going on. These editors however, in the same exact situation of debate on content are being left alone to work it out after WP:3O, meanwhile an admin who did nothing to really look into the case, protected Vasectomy, which I think is so unfair. Even though you were not there in an administrative capacity, you ARE an administrator fully aware of the situation.
 * The article is in no danger of vandalism, edit-warring or any other danger. Note: there have been very few true reversion edits to this article currently, or over time, that didn't incorporate several inclusions of new or corrected content to support the changes.


 * In general, I feel very unappreciated for the efforts I've made to the article, but who would pat me on the butt anyways? It is true that when first starting to edit here, I felt a certain "ownership" (or responsibility for) of the article, but I know that it can be worked on by anyone, and I am completely fine with it. What I wish for is a surgeon to come in and help. My personal goal is to bring it to GA.  That's all this is for me.  I want to be a part of raising the quality there.
 * I'm not even sure what I am looking for, but I feel that the copious amounts of hours researching and then copious amounts of time writing original content should be given a bit of weight vs lead-footed wikignomism. Especially when it comes as a blunt-force effort on the other side. (I'm somewhat confident that you might not agree with that statement, but I am tired, and not having tools to put it to an end is frustrating)


 * I feel I am the victim of "squeaky-wheel" syndrome. (Scream louder and someone WILL see your side of it all).. Yet, over time, I've ASKED so many times to move on, and work together. This sentiment has gotten ZERO consideration or exposure by anyone.


 * You mentioned that I've also crossed the line of civility. I don't want to cross that line with anyone. I'm not even sure where I've crossed that line.  Unless administrators really are held to a higher level (as to what they can say or do), my exchanges with the other editor have been civil and to the point.


 * Vasectomy is in the top 5,000 of most-read articles. It needs to be right.  By now, you may have a good understanding of what the procedure is, but I've perused 100's of articles and some of the content is simply, "common knowledge".

What it's all come down to basically is, I should NOT have to work this hard to "qualify the word "sometimes" or use the word "traditionally", which now your are aware of in dispute. Or deal with resistance regarding insertion of what is well-known acceptance of certain methods. Yes, you can always find an article that refutes anything I suppose.  There is substantial support for my edits in question, and yet hours, days have now been lost by all. 


 * My Deeper Disappointment:


 * If I were an administrator, my exchanges with this person would have been acceptable, based on the assumed "authority" that administrators are given. I've aspired to be an administrator ( I know I have the logic and reasoning ability ).  But all this will have done is make it impossible for me to achieve it now, and it will have come at the cost of trying to make an article the best it can be.  How is that fair to someone who wants to make a difference here?

Analogy: Green light. You drive through an intersection. You get hit by cross traffic. Nobody witnesses it. The person who hit you says YOU ran the red light. What do you do? You Fight To Defend Your Rights, and The Truth. Thats what I've been forced to do because I value my efforts here ~ and I believe in the truth Dijcks HotTub Pool 19:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) I hope that we'll be able to reach agreement.


 * With respect to the protection of the article, I have full confidence in User:Philippe's judgment. If all goes well, I hope that the article will not need to remain protected for two weeks, but removing editing from the equation can help reduce some of the urgency people are experiencing to fix or improve problems in an article, which can fuel disputes. There are two concerns here: (1) that Wikipedia have a neutral and well-sourced article on this subject, and (2) that Wikipedia not lose either one or both of two involved and passionate contributors because of conflicts over achieving (1).


 * You should not worry that this will prevent your obtaining adminship. Most of us have had interactions with other editors which have tested our patience. One of the questions usually asked at RfA is for candidates to identify the greatest frustration that they've had on Wikipedia; this is an opportunity to show what you've learned. Admins are actually supposed to hold to a higher standard of behavior than other editors; we may be WP:NOTPERFECT, but "Most especially, administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another." We're expected to do this even in the face of some pretty egregious abuse. :)


 * The only civility concerns that I have seen on your end are in edit summaries: the absence of edit summary I noted in one and the imputation of motivation in others. Too, when you tell a contributor at his talk page that "Furthermore, you INSIST on erasing other good information OUT OF SPITE, some of which I didn't author", you are essentially accusing him of vandalizing an article (as Wikipedia defines it), which is quite a serious charge. I understand from your tone that you were feeling very frustrated at that time, but hope you will be able to see in retrospect how provocative a statement such as that might seem to the recipient. The impact of our approach on the editing environemnt really can't be overemphasized, I'm afraid. :/ We have almost as many behavioral policies as we do content: WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, to name a few.


 * What I would recommend that you do here is let go of your prior concerns about this person's behavior; drop all old issues and focus solely on coming to consensus on the content of the article. If you think you are being reasonable, aim to be doubly so. Bend over backwards to communicate cordially. Even if the person you are talking to persists in being rude, you may be able to bring the conversation in line by pointedly ignoring the rudeness and focusing yourself on the issue. If this does not downshift the antagonism from the other side, it may be time to politely and directly ask them to focus on the content and, if they still do not, to involve others. If you are calm and reasonable and somebody else is haranguing you, it'll become clear who has the problem.


 * I would never, ever take a contributor for behavioral-based community assistance in the heat of the moment. If I were angry, ruffled or hurt, I would first go do something else for as long as necessary to calm down. You need to be able to analyze your evidence rationally and coolly and to compose your note in the same mindset. If you feel like typing an "!", you may still be too involved. Too, if at all possible, I would deal with the content issue first and then address behavioral concerns. All too often, people try to resolve heated disputes over content by claiming the other editor has behavioral issues, and even if that's not what you're doing, people may mistake your motivation.


 * Honestly, with an approach like this, I do not believe that this incident should derail your hope of achieving adminship. If anything, it proves that you are capable of self-reflection and taking on board recommendations from others. Those are good qualities in an admin. :)


 * In terms of this article, we need time for the other party to weigh in and to discuss content issues. I imagine it will become apparent to Philippe if the tone changes enough that he feels confident that protection is no longer needed. If not, we can certainly request it of him when we feel it reaches that point. I don't think we're there yet. We need to see what his response is and whether we will be able to push aside older grievances to focus on collaborative content building. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read this, and will take your advice moving forward for sure. Recently, I spent a good deal of time reading the vote process at RfA for a hopeful, and I can't imagine it was that hard some years ago for a new "recruit"! He's been grilled to every level of "done", lol. It's an interesting process, and myself having been in a leadership role nearly my whole life, hence business owner, manager, corporate officer, and usually someone that others come to for help, well it intrigues me. I can't help wanting to work toward that goal (I think that's a good thing, right?). It should be noted that it has nothing to do with having power and everything to do with wanting to be in a position to actually do something at a level that some or most simply can not or should not be at. This might sound presumptuous but it's not. It's simply how I've already spent my life with and interacted with others. Everybody has a "self-sense" of value and I simply feel (or would feel) more satisfied knowing I can contribute at that level. I'm not sure if that makes sense, but recently I met with a colleague who was complaining about his employee-base (I'll spare you the particulars), but what I pointed out, is, "we NEED people who are willing to be employees, else everybody would be an entrepreneur or business-owner". There are ~ those who are satisfied doing an 8-hour day and others, innately, are willing to work past 5pm. "It takes all kinds" comes to mind here. I realize that I would have to give up (to an extent) my desire to work on articles. I'm okay with that because to be honest, I simply want to see if, over time I can develop (with help of course) an article to GA or better, and I think with that will come a lot of experience, which now will have included "war-wounds" :), of the current process I/we are dealing with.

This is not an appeal for anything and I don't want to dwell what you've already gone over, but on the page protection.. ..as much as I am unhappy with the other individual, we have both exhibited restraint in edit-warring, and this should have been considered, especially given the heat involved. We've both been around long enough to have been given this benefit of the "doubt".

Okay, I'm done for now.. take care, Dijcks HotTub Pool 21:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The RfA process has definitely become more difficult over the years, and there are always investigations afoot into how to correct that. I believe most recently Jimbo himself is looking into it, but I don't keep up generally with that side of things. Whether or not adminship is a good goal is certainly subjective, but I think it's a very good goal. :D We need admins. There's a lot of work to be done. There are plenty of admins, too, who write content. While I don't get to write as much as I'd like, I've written a number of articles since becoming an admin. All of my few GAs postdate my adminship.


 * In terms of page protection, I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that using protection is a "benefit of the doubt". When benefit of the doubt is not given, protection is not applied; blocking is. I'm sure blocking would have been the remedy if either or both of you had crossed the 3RR line. But "edit warring", which full protection is meant to prevent, is about more than just crossing the bright line. It's what happens when cordial communications break down, for whatever reason. Protection gives an opportunity for the participants to reboot, so to speak, and get the conversation back in line so that when the page is reopened, progress can resume without what has become a toxic atmosphere.


 * With respect to your offer of truce, I do hope it will be well received. We need to give it a few days to see if and how he responds. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you feel that I was overbearing in my offer? Dijcks HotTub Pool 18:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Vrghs jacob
I have added some IP addresses which this user has as aliases. Would like to note the most peculiar obsessions in his edits, but no doubt you know this since you seem to have been investigating for some time. Karnan (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you for noting them. I've been particularly interested in his copyright problems in my own investigations. Have you by any chance noticed any of those? It's unfortunate that a rangeblock is not really a doable solution. In his range, we would risk blocking 16,777,216 people. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes, he seems to be numb to any suggestions, copyright restrictions or otherwise. Perhaps a manageable rangeblock could be served which encompasses at least some of his aliases. I shall try what I can to undo any copyright violations and other issues. Also I suspect this is the same fellow: User_talk:Kumaripriya; someone tried to masquerade as another user I was in conversation with, and issued rubbish threats, again something this fellow is chronically subject to (another example is ). Also, by his own user page, he is part of the propaganda wing of the Indian National Congress political party, so all his edits seem part of his efforts to climb in the party apparatus. They tend to glorify Congress people, include linkspam from propaganda material, and engage in blockheaded disruptive arguments when challenged, etc. Some particular articles of his interest are Manmohan Singh, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, A. K. Antony, Pranab Mukherjee, Kapil Sibal, United Nations (particularly in ref. to India), Indian Central Civil Service, etc. Anyway, thanks for your attention, and please feel free to let me know if I can be of any particular help. Karnan (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Parry (author)
Thomas Parry (author)

Hi, Moon, after noticing a large uncited (well written) addition I went to ask google where it could have come from and found web cashe and now the google address redirects to here at wikipedia http//www.inf.aber.ac.uk/advisory/faq/956/ is this normal practice. Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Rob. No, that's not normal, but believe it or not it's not entirely unheard of, either. Let me see what I can figure out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I can't find any solid archives of the content, but clearly it was published there first since they only added it here today. I've reverted for now, but I haven't rev-deleted, because I suspect that the person who placed it is in position to verify copyright permission. I've left them a kind of modified cclean at their talk page to tell them how and will be available to help them out if they need assistance with that process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this, I found it interesting, in regards to remote hosting - my amusement asks myself, why host your own articles when you can move them to wikipedia and create a redirect. Thanks Mrg, its small beer and ill keep my eye on it also, best. Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I know samples are encouraged but...
Is this alright? Zidane tribal (talk) 04:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) If the sames were non-free, that would absolutely not be all right. But that album is released under a license compatible with our own. (See ) It's not exactly a good article and arguably it's not very encyclopedic. :/ But from a copyright standpoint, it's okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I see, well as long as doesn`t violate any guidelines. Thanks.Zidane tribal (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Template Non-free book scan
Hi, the discussion regarding the book scan licensing template has been closed, see Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_2. Just to let you know. Cheers. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you for letting me know. :) Hope all your wiki-endeavors are going well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel I have a habit of getting into tricky discussions like this one. On the other hand that keeps my Wikipedia work quite interesting. ^^ Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL. There's always something going on. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question
On a website such as this, does "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, redistributed or derived from." mean that a Wikipedia editor (or anyone else) can't use it at all?--NortyNort (Holla) 11:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) No, they can't limit the rights granted to us under U.S. law to make fair use of their copyrighted content (U.S. law being what governs Wikipedia). We can still quote from it and use it as the basis of information in accordance with those rights. But we certainly would't want to push it in terms of overquoting. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, got it. Thanks for the response. It is tough work in the copyright spaces; is there a burn-out rate?--NortyNort (Holla) 12:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it seems to be variable. It would be very interesting to do a "study" to see who hangs on longest and why. Maybe we could come up with some "How to keep going without losing your mind" guidelines. :D Personally, I've been having some issues lately myself, but I find that it works best for me to keep my eye on smaller goals rather than considering that it will go on for all eternity. I find it a lot easier to just look at the trees; that forest is way too big. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a good way to put it and you're right, the forest is pretty big. Every time I refresh one of the pages, a bot/user has added more work! I think I'll be a subject in the study and later an observer. It is a noble place to work, copyright violations are a big problem here. The bots don't pick up a lot of them. On Uw-copyright, I think a link to WP:COPYPASTE would be beneficial. New editors I have come across seem to identify with copying/pasting before copyrights and the page is easy to understand.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you remember this? (nearly 2 years ago)
See User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_18

I believe at the time your opinion was this was fine for a short time during a mediation case. That is long over.

User:Ecemaml/Selected quotations about Gibraltar

The page is still there, as are copies.

User:Imalbornoz/Gibraltar User:Imalbornoz/Capture of Gibraltar User:Imalbornoz/Exodus to San Roque

As it happens, there are extensive quotes in the Gibraltar cites, so the original purpose of these pages appears moot at best. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Before I approach the contributors involved, can I trouble you to link to the mediation case? Based on notes at User talk;Imalbornoz, it seems that the cas may not have begun evaluation until January 2011? To an outsider, it's all pretty confusing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The original mediation case was closed in 2010, the most recent mediation case closed in February 2011. In any case as all parties claim to have access to Hills and Jackson, so the need for such extensive quotes is not apparent.  Especially as it was a short term expedient nearly 2 years ago.  Wee Curry Monster talk 14:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks very much. It's greatly appreciated. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Which came first?
Hi MRG, While trying to do a little referencing for an unsourced BLP, I came across this page which has identical content to our article, 3-D Studios. I suspect that the page has mirrored our content, rather than our article being a copyright violation, but I don't really have any logical basis for that suspicion. What do you recommend? Lady of  Shalott  16:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the .co.tv subdomains are mirrors - see for example http://elephant.co.tv/. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's useful information. Thanks! Lady  of  Shalott  16:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That probably needs to be listed at Mirrors and forks. I'll take a look to make sure I'm not missing it and, if it's really not there, add it in! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Added. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ilče Pereski
Hi

Please provide me a copy of this article on my userpage untill i can recreate it with reliable resources. Thanks :) Amirreza talk 18:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. You've been on Wikipedia for years, I see, so probably don't need any of this information, but I'll pass it all on just in case. :) For copyright reasons, I can't just give you a copy of the article but have to give you the whole thing. For the same reason, once you've managed to address the concerns that led to the deletion outcome of the AfD, please be sure to move the article to article space rather than copying & pasting it. You'll notice that I've tagged the article as a userpage and have neutralized the categories by adding  tags to the bottom. Whenever you're ready to move it, you can just remove that template and the nowiki tags, and it'll be good to go. :) The article is at User:Amirreza/Ilče Pereski. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)