User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 46

Nandini Satpathy page rewritten
Hi. The Nandini Satpathy article was originally mostly close paraphrasing (or possibly worse, I wasn't sure) of http://www.snsmt.org/Smt.htm. I have done a rewrite of the text that should resolve the problem, as far as I can tell - I don't think there's a sentence in there that I didn't rewrite, and the tone, etc is quite different; feel free to double-check it, of course - you know a lot more about what's too-close paraphrasing than I do! One thing that the various dealing-with-copyright pages does not make clear is what else should be done in the situation of an article being rewritten - I am guessing that at least some older versions of the page need to be hidden. Is there an applicable noticeboard that I can bring this up to? Thanks very much! Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 15:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thank you so much for rewriting it. :) Whether or not older versions need to be revision deleted depends on a lot of factors, including how egregious the problem was. I've located the point of pasting, and it's pretty blatant at the point of entry and pretty extensive. (Blatant and extensive - two factors I look for, along with how likely it seems to be that the content will be restored.) I went ahead and did the revision deletion. To flag an article for admin attention in this way, you can place Copyvio-revdel on the top of it. The admin who evaluates it will decide if he or she thinks it applies. There's not really clear guidelines there, so I suspect there could be some variance on whether or not they do. I think either way you'll have done the right thing.


 * You did a great job there. I have no reason to doubt you so don't see any reason to check it, unless you're looking for specific feedback there. :) But it's clear from edit history that you were meticulous about it, and I see you explained the issue. Awesome. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite welcome; thanks for the deletions and info! I'm curious: is there a tool that assists you in figuring out where the point of pasting is, like a Duplication Detector that goes through the entire page history? I note that Copyvio-revdel asks for the range of revisions to delete. Allens (talk &#124; contribs) 01:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally, I use "Wikiblame". :) This is easily accessible in the "page history" tab; see Help:Page history. It is an awesome tool. That said, it's very precise. I find it most helpful to limit the search to a word or two at most, since even punctuation changes can impact results. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Close-paraphrasing within Wikipedia
Hi Moonriddengirl, I've seen you dealing against copyvio problems, so perhaps you can help me figure out this problem. Does close paraphrasing within Wikipedia is allowed? A few months back I created a GA Tonga at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games, and today I found out an almost similar article Bangladesh at the 2011 Commonwealth Youth Games, created on May 8, and within one day it's a GA. So again, is it allowed on Wikipedia? thanks and regards. undefined — Bill william compton  Talk   10:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Copying and close paraphrasing from other Wikipedia articles is allowed, but only when attribution is given. We all license our content for modification and reuse. I see that this user did not give credit. I'll fix that and talk to him about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Very Long Baseline Array
Not urgent, but could you take a look at at some time. I mentioned you, though not by name, and promised to bring this to your attention. You were also, no surprise, involved in the original removal of material.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really a tough one! If she prepared the work as a "work for hire" for Associated Universities, Inc. (who claim copyright), then we have to get the license from them. As WP:DCM notes, authors who surrender license to their publishers don't have authority to release content to us. (One of the most painful copyright cleanups I ever did was a result of that - an author whose book publisher had exclusive license. It really hurt having to replace his material, which was beautifully written and so informed.) We could ask somebody in the Astronomy project if they can help incorporate the information with original language? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I urged the editor to contact the Astronomy project, will follow up with them myself if the editor does not.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

image rename
hi i am having trouble renaming this image File:Scan 3.jpeg. can u pls rename it to something better? sorry if i disturbed u. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not disturb me at all. :) It looks like you worked it out by re-uploading it. Happy editing! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! That's very kind of you. :D I try to pitch in where I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Polonsky
Hi Moonriddengirl, a week ago I revised Antony Polonsky in the light of your comments. Please let me know if it's an improvement. Best, Mick gold (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mick. :) Thanks for working on that! I'll try to take a look later today so I can give you some feedback. I only have a few more minutes before work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks for comment and removing tag. :) I'll await second opinion with interest. Happy editing. Mick gold (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mick. Sorry I didn't get to it as quickly as I'd hoped! I've asked somebody whose opinion I really trust here. I think she'll give a fair assessment. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Question...
As you might guess, I'm a bit annoyed about the D&D thing. That said, I am curious. I think your copyright argument for deletion would also apply to something like yes? Am I missing some key difference? I'm suspecting my annoyance with this is coloring my view, but I really do think this argument will lead to the deletion of a lot of our navigational lists on fiction. Given it looks like this close will be sustained, I'm trying to figure out where it leads us. Thanks for your thoughts Hobit (talk) 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I'm sorry that you're annoyed about it, and I do understand. It isn't my goal at all to denude Wikipedia of lists related to fiction or anything of the sort. I just legitimately think it is likely to be a copyright concern and felt I had to voice that. I'll try to explain more clearly what my concerns with the article were.


 * The difference between the list in question and the one you link is that the one you link is an episode summary of a series of fiction - it is innately transformative because it is creating something new: a reference guide to a fictional series. This helps secure fair use of any fictional elements. Mind you, individual articles may still be an issue if they are insufficiently transformative. Articles that consist only of plot-summary or in-universe elements have less of a claim to advancing scholarship than articles that simply abridge the works they describe. And even if use is transformative, using too much is likely to exceed the allowances of fair use.


 * But the list in question was not drawing diverse elements from a series of fiction; it was, as it seemed to me, an abridgment of an existing reference work. To try to find an analog here: we might be able to create a spell guide companion to the Earthsea books, because this would stand as a reference guide separate from the fictional series. It's transformative; we are making new use of copyrighted elements of the original. But it we wrote an article about a published spell guide, we would have to be careful not to supplant it. Critical analysis of the published spell guide companion would be one thing; simply presenting a spell guide of our own is risky.


 * I don't know if you saw it, but User:Jheald spoke to the issue at WT:NFC and did it much better than I had done. (Wikipedia talk:NFC). I wish he'd known about the deletion debate while it was in process. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An interesting take on the issue, but I think you are overplaying the transformative issue here and underplaying the issue of market impact (4th item in the fair use list). Specifically I don't see organizing and copying plot to be very tranformative, but I do it having serious potential problems with market impact.  Where there is no market to impact in the D&D case.  Further, listing where else the monsters have shown up would seem at least as transformative.  I think we're really looking at a matter of opinion here--law isn't settled and I think the case against the Dr. Who list is a lot stronger.  (By the way I _use_ the Dr. Who list at least a dozen times a year and have never used the D&D one...) Hobit (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true that the law is not really clear here. This is, as I think I mentioned, one of the reasons why I didn't blank the article with the copyvio template, which is what I do when I see an issue at AFD that I have no doubt contravenes our policies. It is, as you say, a matter of opinion. I'm not so sure I agree with about the impact on market of the game guide, although I'd be inclined to agree with you that fiction summaries can impact markets. I know I've more than once satisfied my curiosity about a movie by reading a summary of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

So, where to start?
I'm going to bed in a little bit, but when I get up in the morning, I was thinking about starting the help I promised you with CCI. Where should I start? Silver seren C 06:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there's tons of places to start, but it was actually SCV that we were talking about. A totally different skillset. :) WP:SCV is where new articles that contain bot-detected duplication are listed, and it's a wonderful way to help avoid CCIs, by educating new contributors early. It's also a good time to catch issues when they are least ambiguous.


 * Days at SCV will include a combination of redlinked articles which have already been deleted for one reason or another and blue links that may have substantial copyright issues. The thing to do is look at them, look at the source, and decide if it really is a problem. If it is, there's a couple of things you can do. The most important thing is to eliminate the problem quickly before our mirrors spread it far and wide and somebody's intellectual property is irrevocably damaged, courtesy of us. Even notable articles are sometimes deleted for this reason, as it is sometimes better to start over when content is a blatant copy-paste than to risk creating a derivative work. I do not as a general practice flag anything for speedy deletion when an editor shows signs of good-faith effort to rewrite. I will usually blank it with copyvio first instead. I only occasionally rewrite content myself before giving the editor who created it a chance to fix it. If we go behind these people and fix it up, we may save an article but could wind up dooming a whole raft of others, if he or she doesn't correct the practices that caused the problem. Early and courteous intervention is important. (If you do choose to rewrite, be sure to rewrite completely. And if they choose to rewrite, be sure they have before marking any problems as cleared. When we start with a blatant copy, it is especially important to avoid derivative work, since that evidence of first copying will count if it ever went to court.)


 * Anyway, there are basic instructions at the top of the page, but I'm happy to talk further about it. WP:CV101 is also good reading. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But if the creator doesn't appear to have been working on any other articles, implying this is a one-off thing, then it's fine for me to just rewrite the article, if it's a notable subject, right? That seems to be the case with Tommi Parzinger. Silver  seren C 23:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! I've rewritten many an article. :) I used to do it routinely before I started seeing the same people coming back over and over again and before the whole CCI process was born. Since then, I've tried to educate more than patch. It's more time consuming, honestly, to try to do the outreach, and I have to confess that these days with the huge backlog we have I sometimes take the easier route of fixing the problem rather than explaining how they can even when I should take the time. I try not to do that, but that growing number is depressing. :( But when it's a one-off - unless I think permission is plausible - I will often just stub or rewrite. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, all done with Tommi Parzinger. Though I haven't removed the copyvio tag yet. What's the next step for me to get it marked as fixed? Silver  seren C 02:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you'd begin by removing the tag. :D You make sure that the editor received valid notice and then mark what you did at the appropriate day's listing at WP:SCV. If you're working through the list, you already know what day it's on. If you're not, you can find it by "what links here." If you rewrote the article, you'd say so. I use  , which explains and signs for you (you put it on the line underneath the listing), but some people evidently find it difficult. If you do, just make a note of your own. It's no big deal. The little icons really are handy, though, at helping people see at a glance when a problem is resolved. :) And good for you! Thanks very much for pitching in. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What sort of notice should I leave the author? I assume that's the editor you're talking about. Silver  seren C 02:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry, it's late. :) I always just check to make sure that he or she was given the bot notice. That may be enough. Sometimes, especially if they made any effort at all to address the issue, I'll leave them a personal note. I've been using uw-copyright-new a lot lately. Again, though, the bot notice may be fine, especially if you suspect a drive-by editor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personal note left with author, tag removed from article, explanatory note left at SCV. On to the next one! Silver  seren C 02:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Another benefit of rewriting copyvios is that you can submit them to DYK. :P Silver  seren C 00:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, go for it. :) I've got a few that way, including my most recent, Paschal Robinson. And by the way, thanks so much for leaving a note! I have messages above you. I didn't notice them! Epic fail!! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Got a minute?
Hi. Do you have time for a quick peek at Talk:Muhammad? To me, it seems potentially serious, and as a precaution I'd like to take it back to the version that passed GA until all the Britannica citations (and there are a number) and other sources are checked. But I have to log off now, and maybe I'm over-reacting. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A minute. :D I like your gifts of understatement. And, oh, dear. The problem goes far, far back, but I think it may not be so extensive that it can't be repaired. I've put some thoughts on the article's talk page along with a list of major additions to the article by the contributor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooh. You didn't have to do all that! But thank you very much. You're a treasure. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Could I lean on your wide expertise in the field please
Please cast you eyes over the activities of an editor [] who has made a large number of edits at RAF Jurby amoungst others, mainly Isle of Man related. Another editor and I were convinced that the text was being copied verbatim from a published book and now that we have obtained a copy our suspicions have been confirmed. There is a strong chance that all of his aviation and maritime edits over recent months have been similarly sourced from various published books.

I have suggested on his talk page that he reads Copyright violations before adding any further edits, but how do we deal with his back catalogue? Any advice or help appreciated. 21st CENTURY  GREENSTUFF 20:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh oh. :/ Thank you very much for pursuing your concerns. First, if you can, please blank the article you know has been tainted with copyvio and list it at WP:CP. Alternatively, you may best want to revert to prior to his edits. If it turns out that he's the author of the book or has permission, we can always restore that once it's verified.


 * Do you still have a copy of the book? If so might you do a spot-check of some of the larger contributions at ? If so, what would be very helpful is if you could document some of the copying and just verify if this is spread to more than one article. If so, and permission is not supplied, this will very likely mean a WP:CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Need to make sure I have my ducks in a row, and we handle this correctly
Could you take a look at I did not respond, I wrote a draft response in a note. I think I am right, but want another opinion on the substance, as well as the style. It may take more than a minute, but it has got to be quicker than anything with Mohammed in the title :)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Sphilbrick. :) Here's my thought: while the executor grants full authority for the individual to license the content, our correspondent doesn't ever actually name the license, that I can see. Basically, Person A has authorized Person B "to use images of William Newport Goodell's works on Wikipedia and in all media of expression", but Person B has not authorized us to do the same. Also, there's nothing that I see that indicates permission to modify, so I'm afraid I don't think that the release would be compatible with the CC license anyway. :/ I would recommend telling her that while we appreciate her desire to donate, we cannot accept the content if she doesn't permit reuse by others and modification and letting her know that if she is not comfortable with those terms we will delete the content. Not in a threatening way, of course! Just to make sure that she understands that we have explicit licensing requirements and permission for Wikipedia alone does not work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  02:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Article "Sponge Balls"
Dear Moonriddengirl,

I am contacting you because I want to ask you to please send me a copy of the deleted article "Sponge Balls". I know it has been transwikied, but I do not know where it has been transwikied to or if it is okay for me to have the copy of the page. I am not very familier with Wikipedia so I do not know if this article is okay for me to receive a copy of.

Sincerely,

Colosiant (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I'm so sorry for the delay! I overlooked your message, I'm afraid.


 * I'm not 100% sure I've identified the article you mean. We had an article on "sponge ball" in 2006. Its entire contents were "A "Sponge ball" is FPS jargon used to discrip a weapon so week/useless it might as well be fireing "sponge balls" prehaps one of the more famos "Sponge balls" is Goldeneye's Kloob", and it was created by User:Deuxhero. I don't see that we ever had an article on "Sponge balls" plural, but the first one is so old and underdeveloped that I can't help but wonder if that's really the one you mean. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Blocking an user
Hey, I saw that you blocked User talk:Dadjan once! And this user is back by deleting contents and references in articles on Wikipedia and it's completely impossible to track these users again and again! You may be surprised to know that many IP users and this fellow have vandalized an article with the name: Kya Huaa Tera Vaada and Bade Achhe Lagte Hain. I got to know about them after nearly 7 or 10 days when some one put a notability tag there! And I have been asking many admins to protect those pages and they are doing a good job. Now, I am here begging you to block this user so that I get some time to better these articles than reverting vandalism again and again. And whenever replying please leave me a Tb template and please see this. Thank you in advance. Yours faithfully, -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 04:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hope, you don't mind but I took your talk page's help to modify my talk page! Sorry..please forgive me..hope you don't mind! -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 05:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm really sorry that you're having these problems and, as I told you at your talk page, I'm perfectly fine with your using design elements from my page. :) I'm glad you like them. His edits at Bade Achhe Lagte Hain look particularly peculiar. :/ I don't understand why he would be removing sources. Have you tried asking him to explain? He may not understand some of our policies. If he continues, please let me know, and I will try to talk to him and figure out what's going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Every time I leave him a warning notice, saying: "Thank you for your contributions..please in future for test edits use the sandbox" and so on. But he never replies. Please when replying leave me a Tb template. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 05:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! That's very kind of you. I try. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Antony Polonsky
Best. Voceditenore (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Reply
Sorry for the late reply and I am understanding that what are you meaning actually then I was to anxious about those articles. Others did not have patience, before I could add any reliable sources they would delete the whole content so I was forced to write that. Sorry and thank you for your notification, in the future, before doing such I may think twice....-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 03:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI:
For Your Information (no action required):

Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wtshymanski

--Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 May 2012

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development New Delhi
Did you mean to close out Copyright problems/2012 May 1 as far as I can see none of the copyright regulars have looked at the above article and from the talk page I think we may have problems. It seems that they are saying works of the Indian government are PD. I seem to have vague memories of some previous discussion of this but can't remember the result. As such it's possible you've looked at this and decided it was all OK but I wanted to double check. Dpmuk (talk) 00:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't look at that one closely enough. That's what I get for trying to do some extra work when I'm tired. :) I saw the note and completely glossed over the fact that it was not a clerk or an admin. Let me look at it now, because you're right that not all works of the Indian government are PD. Thanks for picking up after me! I appreciate the backup. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I'd seen that one and thought something funny was going on with it but I couldn't remember enough about Indian copyright laws to deal with it myself although I thought it probably was copyrighted. As I suspected you'd remember the relevant discussions (as you seem to be very good at remembering these things) I thought it would be easier to let you deal with it rather than spend the time digging things out myself.  As my memory was that it could be copyrighted I was a bit surprised to see nothing happen with it, hence dropping you a line.  No need to thank me - you're currently picking up nearly all the slack at WP:CP.  At the moment I'm mainly trying to deal with ones you feel you can't deal with and other occasional easy ones. Dpmuk (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Block Him
This user- Dadjan is continuously deleting references from Wiki article like these: Bade Achhe Lagte Hain and Kya Huaa Tera Vaada, I have warned him four times, not only me but more users, but in vain. These pages are protected but he's taking advantage of being an autoconfirmed editor. I suggest to block him. When replying, please leave me a Tb template. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 08:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that he is continuing to refuse to engage, I have blocked him for 48 hours. Templates are not always the best way to talk to other people, so in addition to the block notice I have left him a clear explanation of what he might expect if he continues. Feel free to let me know if he does, but I hope he will stop and talk with you. Please try to engage him politely in spite of the earlier difficulties if he does. Best if we can encourage him to change. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for blocking him, as now, I may get time to better these articles. Thank you again. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dostoevsky
hello,

could you say whether this book and other similar with the same content are copied and pasted to our article Fyodor Dostoyevsky or vice versa? I am confused because it looks like they copied our article, but on each site they wrote that it is copyrighted. Thanks.-- GoP T C N 11:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I'd put my money on their copying from us. :) I'll look more deeply, but will be surprised if that's wrong. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, definitely copied from us. Even the section titles. Not sure what revision though. Isn't there a list for this? The publisher should be added there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very dodgy publisher, to begin with. The domain is registered in the Grand Cayman Islands and is for sale. The "about this book" link claims the book was published in 1972, which is ludicrous since the works cited includes books published as late as 2005. And, for that matter, the text itself refers to a TV show in 2008.


 * I didn't put a lot of time into this, but enough to show natural evolution. I seized on the phrase "despotic treatment", which is a striking one. That enters our article in 2006 as a major revision, here. We couldn't have copied from a book which mentions a 2008 tv show in 2006. But beyond that, we can see that some of the content that was merely modified is in the book as it was modified: " Dostoevsky below is quoted in describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago." becomes "Describing the dilapidated barracks which, as he put in his own words, "should have been torn down years ago", he wrote:" Sure enough, that's what the external source says.


 * And speaking of that 2008 tv show, reference was added to our article here. We had it first. They took it without attribution.


 * I'll put the template at the article talk page and list them at Mirrors & Forks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this a little much? I think not... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Moon and Crisco. Now I will unhide the content :). GoP T C N  12:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, GoP, for finding and bringing up the issue. :D Crisco, I suspect that approaching them won't help much. The domain name is for sale, as I mentioned, although the website is still nominally active. And it's registered our of the Grand Cayman Island. I doubt they'd bother much to take steps for compliance. :/ But it doesn't cost anything to try! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism check requested
This just looks like wholesale plagiarism, as I've mentioned in the AFD discussion. No sensible writer writing original prose would write like that, but one lazily copying and pasting someone else's literary analysis wholesale into Wikipedia would. I'm coming up empty so far, though. Perhaps you, or indeed anyone else reading this with good access to books and plagiarism checkers, can succeed where I have not. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Like you, I zeroed in on the 2011 edit by the IP; the earlier edits seemed incremental and likely more original research...or at least de minimis copying. But I couldn't find any sources that were not backwards copies. :/ It's possible that this IP transcribed this from a handout or other printed material from a class. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've re-written this with proper references and chucked out all the incoherent "analysis" cribbed from various "I need an essay quick" websites and/or published study guides. This poem is widely studied in British and Australian secondary schools—fortunately in terms of its notability, but unfortunately in terms of attracting less than optimal "contributions". Voceditenore (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fabulous, Voceditenore. Thank you so much. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's My Birthday!
Thank you! Happy birthday! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

image deletion
as an admin, can u pls delete this non-free image File:Veerapandiya Kattabomman Poster.jpeg which is not being in any articles? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. :) Since it is duplicated by another image, I've deleted it under WP:CSD. In future, to get a non-free image that is not being used deleted, you can generally just flag it with {{subst:Orfud}}. Images must be tagged for seven days under that criteria in almost all cases before they are deleted. (Redundant images can be deleted immediately so long as only the other version of the image is in use and they are identical.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank u very much I'd also like the previous versions of this file File:Pudhiya Paravai New Bird.jpg deleted, since they irritate me. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see somebody else has already done it now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

James D. Martin
Hi. I noticed that last time someone added large amounts of text to James D. Martin, you reverted them as being contributions from a blocked editor. I don't know much about this whole situation, but it may be happening again, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention in case any action was required. Canadian  Paul  14:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Oh, Billy. :/ I've left a message for User:Amalthea. Socks are not really my thing. I have no idea if he's still violating copyright, but he hasn't bothered to negotiate an unblock in spite of admitting that the IP is his. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Returned copyvio material
The copyvio material you removed from Deborah Lurie has been restored by the same editor who placed it there in the first place. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. :/ I've left a personally targetted note that I hope will be clear on how to resolve this. I'm watching it, but if I overlook it's return without permission, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good news
I have cleared up the issue with Permissions - Wikimedia Commons [permissions-commons@undefinedwikimedia.org] and have which states "Texts permissions". Can you please help me reinstate all the texts? Thank you. Drkup(IMJ) (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. :) That is good news. :D Thank you very much! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issue with Wiktionary
Sorry to keep pestering you, but I'm trying to whittle down the OTRS backlog. Good progress, but some of the remaining ones are less than routine. We have a request to sign off that there are no copyright issues in a particular instance. While I have learned enough about copyright to answer many specific questions, I'm uncomfortable making a blanket statement in this case. Could you take a glance at ? Not urgent.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one that frankly makes even me cringe. :/ Our article on Fictitious entry may help. This is just my opinion, mind, and I don't have any special experience with this unusual situation. It's more common in visual works, like maps.


 * Fictitious entries exist to prove copying, and they do a good job of that. They don't, as I recall, warrant any more protection than anything else; duplicating material from a fictitious dictionary entry is no more or less substantial than duplicating material from an actual dictionary entry. I assert that somewhat tentatively, because I cannot honestly remember the details of the case law I'm thinking of; as I recall, there was a copyright infringement case against an author who had based a creative work on a factual work -- a movie, I think, on a biography. Or a teleplay on a history book. :) Either way, the reference work contained some errors, which were replicated in the creative work. The copyright holder of the factual work attempted to use this to shore up his defense of infringement (the fictional work otherwise followed very closely on the source), but the courts dismissed it; they said that even if a "fact" was wrong, its being asserted "as fact" meant it was not protected under Feist. I wish I just took notes of everything I read. :/ I would love to be able to verify and link you to that judgment rather than saying "I think I read that. Once. Somewhere." (I've poked a little bit but haven't found any notes on it.)


 * It's important, of course, to keep in mind that dictionary entries can be protected by copyright. The more elaborate the entry is, the more issue there is likely to be. A simple "fact" (gato = cat) can't be claimed by anybody, but the more creativity goes into defining "gato", the more protection is likely to exist. Even selecting examples of word use from published sources can push at creative selection; the editors of a dictionary put human creativity into choosing examples that best reflect the usage of the word.


 * My personal opinion here would be that they need not concern themselves with fictitious entries so long as their taking from specific sources is limited and conforms to fair use. Another layer of uneasiness comes in, though, that if there is limited definition, they may not be able to deviate from the source material enough to avoid following closely. If I felt like I could avoid too closely following a source dictionary, I would myself feel okay with this particular risk...but I am not a lawyer and cannot give them legal advice. And we are each responsible legally for our own edits. :/


 * I would recommend that they discuss it as a community and reach consensus. If they want to write me in my work role (liaison@undefinedwikimedia.org), I'd be happy to ask the WMF if this would be one of the cases where an intern could be asked to research the case law. WMF cannot advise them either (due to conflict) and are limited in guidance they can give, but they do try to help where time allows and need requires. We have a brand new batch of interns arriving soon, so maybe. :) If you think it's a good idea to advise this, I would not recommend passing along my speculation. The intern speculation (if it can be provided) should be much more informed. :D Alternatively, feel free to just link them to my note here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the in-depth answer - I passed along a link to this discussion to the individual inquiring.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My sincere thanks to both of you for the follow-up on this. I don't know if the proposal will attract any new contributors, but it's good to know that ghost entries are not necessarily problems per se. I will stick to making a note about fair use and a couple of links to copyright discussions. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wronged editor (unfairly accused of copyvio)?
I am not 100% sure, but I might have stumbled upon a case where an editor was unfairly accused of copyvio, left the project in annoyance, and public domain material was removed. Somebody with more experience in copyvio should take a look at this. Links: User_talk:Piotrus, talk page archive with numerous copyvio notes), 142nd Infantry Regiment (United States) (sample affected article). If I am right, there is content to restore, and an editor to apologize to... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 20:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Piotrus. I'm so sorry he left in annoyance. :(


 * I'm not sure that the case you list would be a "fault" situation, though, on the part of people who removed content, as the content gives every appearance of having been copied from the Texas Military Forces Museum, which does at least claim copyright. Content at the Institute of Heraldry, of course, should be generally public domain (and this was retained), but if TMFM is committing copyright fraud, I'm afraid that the editors who are addressing it won't necessarily have any way of knowing that. I see that it was recommended to him several months before that that he should put a direct link to the public domain source for content to help avoid confusion. I don't know if the public domain version of the content in this case is not linkable? I haven't been able to find it yet anywhere that I can verify its PD status (see ;.


 * That said, I do see plenty of instances where he properly flagged content as being from clearly public domain sources and it was marked for deletion anyway. This isn't an error of a single editor, though; it seems to have been several, and in the cases I've spotchecked the speedy deletion requests were turned down by an admin who recognized the mistake or removed by the editor himself after he did. I have no idea what we could do to stop the bot from flagging articles that duplicate government mirrors, except try to whitelist such sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how to prevent this from happening; my goal here is to - if he was not committing any copyvios - to help bring this productive editor back into our fold. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 03:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a good goal. I'd be happy to speak to him, but it would be nice if I could confirm that the content in 142nd Infantry Regiment (United States) that was also present at the Texas Military Forces Museum was actually taken from a public domain source. Mind you, I wouldn't want him to leave even if he did copy it from that source. I'd rather he just not copy from non-free sources. :) But the approach is very different. I can try to have a word with him that just acknowledges either possibility, if you think it would help? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; I presume you've seen my talk page where he explains where he got the sources in question (I think we are talking about the same ones)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Posting about MEAMAR
Hello,

I rewrote the content of my previous posting, but the title remains the same. Please advise.

Thank you, Padizar (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Padizar


 * Hi. :) I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question. There's nothing in your contribution history aside from the one document. Can you clarify, please? --Moonriddengirl (talk)

Is this archive site copyvio free?
is adding this site to multiple articles. There's a clear COI, but I just want to see if people agree it's copyvio free. If it is, it looks good. Dougweller (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * i looked and do not see any copyvio problems, and I do not see a conflict of interest. Rjensen (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for picking this up, Rjensen! :) Sorry, Doug, for ignoring you. I saw this and meant to look into it later, but I'm afraid it slipped my mind and since the "you have messages" bar didn't light up again, I didn't check back! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, and thanks Rjense for checking it. I thought it was ok but wanted a second opinion. Looks like a valuable site. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. :) That's very kind of you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Deleted Article "Sponge Balls"
Dear Moonriddengirl,

The "Sponge Ball" article I was talking about actually meant the prop that the magicians use to perform certain tricks, and not the jargon used to discrip a weapon. I would like to have this message posted on my talk page and not yours, if possible.

Sincerely,

Colosiant (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you please give me a link? I looked for articles on sponge ball under various capitalizations and only found the one I discussed with you above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright status of Army Center of Military History (Possible copyvios on 1000's of articles)
Depending on what you think about this, I may start a larger discussion. I am concerned that information taken from the US Army Center of Military History website is not considered free content under Wikipedia's policies. Non-free content describes free content as "content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, or otherwise use works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially" (emphasis in the original, some emphasis removed). The privacy and security page for the website states that "Unless otherwise noted, information presented on CMH Online is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes" (emphasis added). I decided to check a parent site of the website and found the security page of The Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army. That page simply states that "Information presented on this site is considered public information and may be distributed or copied. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is required". I also don't believe that works by the US government have some exception where we are allowed to use it if it is not allowed to be used commercially. This is due to the third bullet at Public domain. The inherent copyright issue with those was that commercial re-use of those problems were prohibited. After examining all of this, I believe that a community discussion should occur at which point I believe that ACMH should be deprecated, all transclusions of ACMH should be examined and all copied material removed or refactored. Afterwards the template should be deleted. Do you have any reason to believe, in light of what I have found, that the material is still free to use? Ryan Vesey Review me!  05:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My gut feeling here is that the non-commerical purposes is meaningless. If it's produced by a federal employee in the course of their duties then it's Public Domain and nothing can be done about it, this is why they can only request credit be given - as it's PD they can't require it.  Given that they say that copyrighted material is credited it seems reasonable to assume that anything that isn't so credit is PD and so they can't restrict it's use.  I'd suggest that your proposal is, at this stage, premature.  I'd suggest as a first stage that someone contact ACMH and clarify whether any material that is not marked as copyright is indeed PD (by virtue of being the work of the federal government) in which case a "non-commercial" statement is meaningless.  Dpmuk (talk) 05:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I took your advice and sent an email to ACMH to try to receive clarification. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  05:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Dpmuk here. Writing to ACMH is a good first step. If they insist, I would recommend that we put it up for community review before we deprecate the template. We went through a small uproar a few years ago with the State of Florida when I took their word for their copyright assertions on their website, but in spite of their assertions, their own high court had said that their constitution does not allow state government produced materials to be copyrighted. This could be a similar case, where an employee is not himself really familiar with the governing law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Army Center for Military History is a federal government agency and none of its many publications are copyright. I agree with Dpmuk: They are all public domain. But in any case the fear that this would impact Wikipedia is misplaced. Millions of Wiki articles cite copyrighted sources, such as books and newspapers. Rjensen (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

As a past official with a similar Army managed facility - the material is under most circumstances in the public domain. However, best to contact the Center of Military History in DC to confirm and how they might want their material cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.34.21.170 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I have responded with more information and I will see what they say. Ryan Vesey Review me!  14:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note I have just received comment from ACMH with this explanation. "We will double check with our website operations and our publications department, but we believe that this message is on our website because not all photos or documents that appear on our website are works of the US Federal Government. Because of this, some photos and works may be under copyright and we prefer that users request permission from us so that we can verify whether a work is in the public domain or not."

BMW N63
Hi, can you please let me know what happened to the BMW N63 article? I am new and haven't seen old edits greyed out before, what does this mean? Is there a way to access them, in case there is some useful text to be gained from them? Thanks, 1292simon (talk) 11:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, and welcome! As you know, since you were the one who flagged it, the BMW N63 article suffered from content pasted from previously published sources. :/ Your flag brought about an investigation, during which it was discovered that content was not only copied from the source you identified (http://www.topspeed.com/cars/bmw/2010-bmw-x5-m-ar72742.html), but from http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/14/2011-bmw-alpina-b7-review-road-test/ as well. This is okay when the sources are public domain or compatibly licensed, but not okay when they are not. The article was blanked with a note explaining the issue and inviting interested editors to repair it. I was left so for several weeks, during which the content was hidden from publication, but still accessible. Then the text was stubbed. The greying out is "revision deletion", which helps avoid the material being inadvertently restored by somebody who doesn't understand the issue. Some of the text removed is still in the history, prior to the greying out . I found duplication of that and could not determine which came first. Since I was not 100% sure, I did not restore it, but did not "revision delete" it, either. This text is not publicly visible and is usually not restored, but if you want to have a go at rewriting the material, I can temporarily restore it for you to do so. You'd have to be very careful not to create a derivative work by simply modifying the copying, but substantially and thoroughly rewrite it. Would you like to do that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps for the explanation, and for your investigation once I flagged the content. Sorry, I don't understand what "derivative work" means. If possible, I would like temporary access to see if there's any useful content. Of course, anything I contribute would be my own words and with references! 1292simon (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. :) Derivative work is a legal term related to copyright. Our article uses the best quote from to describe it:

"A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”."
 * This can be a slightly different kind of infringement than the obvious copy-paste. To avoid that, we have to be careful that our own works are original creations using our own structure and language. This is particularly important when we are working off of content that we know was copied from somewhere. I've removed protection from the version that you tagged and set a note to myself to re-protect it next Saturday. If you finish with it before then, just let me know, and I'll bring the mop back. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Mop away! I have made a copied that edit to a text file so I can see if there's anything to learn from it. 1292simon (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mop applied. Thank you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to the Deleted Article "Sponge Balls"
Dear Moonriddengirl,

Here is the link to the deleted article "Sponge Balls".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sponge_Balls&action=edit&redlink=1

Sincerely,

Colosiant (talk) 11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! That article was "transwikiied" in 2007; it was moved (in this case by a bot) to another project. It was deleted there in 2009. The entire content of the article at the time it left us was "Sponge Balls per se, is not a single magic trick or effect, but rather, sponge balls themselves (usually in groups of 3 or more) are frequently used in performing magic tricks or entire lengthy routines." This was contributed by User:Bddmagic. I'm sorry that the article is probably not going to be much use to you. :/ As you see, it had very little substance. If you do use the content, please be sure to attribute the author by username. :) If using it, or modifying it for use, on Wikipedia, it's good enough to just list him or her in the edit summary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Supriya Sule
Hello MRG. I've tagged a section of Supriya Sule in the normal way, but I think it needs more than the usual process and may need revdel because of the following. Only the first paragraph of the tagged section is actually copyvio, but it discusses an allegation that was due to go to court in January this year, and it hasn't been brought up to date. Also, the rest of the section, while not copyvio as far as I know, only puts the accuser's side of the case, and is poorly cited -- if the one citation even covers everything after the 1st paragraph. In my view it's a biassed presentation and thus an attack. Best, --Stfg (talk) 12:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I've made a note at WP:CP to take care of any BLP problems before restoring the material. It may be a week or two before it's processed. If you feel like bringing it up to date and addressing sourcing problems, you would, of course, be most welcome to do so. It'll just make processing the copyright issue that much quicker when the time comes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for doing that. I don't feel up to the task of bringing it up to date, as it would mean searching for references on that court case. I'd hardly even know where to start. :) --Stfg (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 May 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright item
I asked the following question of Cirt (as closing admin for the 2010 AfD of this article), and was directed here, so I'll lay out the situation again.

List of Grand Masters of the Grand Lodge of Scotland was AfDed back in 2010, and interestingly enough, the creator of this article, User:Craigy144, was, subsequent to the AfD, indef blocked for persistent copyright violation. I didn't find this out until after posting the AfD this time (I couldn't notify the creator due to talk page protection because of an indef ban), but since I'm nominating this time around for a total lack of sources, I think it's fair to assume that the list was originally taken off the Grand Lodge's website (and that page is totally gone), not from the 1987 book that was falsely cited. Is that enough circumstantial evidence to pull the AfD and go for a CSD G12? MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) The questions we have to ask ourselves with any list (in terms of copyright) are: (1) is the material included fact? (2) If fact, is it creatively selected? and (3) If fact, is it creatively displayed? A list of office holders is almost certainly going to be pure fact. If it is a complete list, it should not be creatively selected. If it presents information straightforwardly, it should not be creatively displayed. The only dubious elements I see here might be the consistent addition of such facts as "(afterwards King George IV)." and the indentation of "Acting Grand Masters." These creative elements are small, though, so I don't think that WP:CSD would be appropriate. Even if they were considered creative enough for protection and even if he copied them verbatim from the source, those flourishes could be removed. If it is to be deleted, I think AFD would be the route to go, but I do not myself think copyright would be a valid reason for deletion in this case. (Stating no opinion on other factors, as I haven't really time to look into it deeply. :))


 * The bit I know and have discovered about copyright issues related to lists are expanded in Copyright in lists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but through the course of the AfD, I've discovered that your (1) is a "guess" - it may be accurate, but I can't verify any of the information except for the current GM. The book cited for the list was a later reprint of an 1877 book, so there's no way info current to 2012 was in it.  A GL of Scotland page was in the ELs, but it was not cited for that information, and it is now gone.  The info is probably somewhere, but I'm not sure where yet. MSJapan (talk) 14:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "guess". :) Do you mean that the source that originally published this list was speculating on it or parts of it? If so, the degree of creativity is determined best by the nature of that speculation. If their speculation involves things like going through old records, looking for dates when an individual is mentioned in the role, that would still not be copyrightable in the United States, as we don't have a Sweat of the brow doctrine.


 * The EL is not actually gone. :) Courtesy of internet archiving, you can see exactly what it said: . Be warned, though, that the green color they used is pretty rough on the eyes! They assert in their footnote that the information is "true and accurate" to the best of their knowledge, which would mean that the list creator themselves are asserting that the content is "fact." (The fact that our list is updated with information from other sources wouldn't add any additional copyright burden.)


 * The only element I can see that might be a problem is "afterwards King George IV", unless such formulation is standard in such lists. It's a small issue that could, if necessary, be easily dealt with by simply changing the method of display. For instance, those snippets of text could be removed, or the list could be turned into a table that includes a sentence or two about each individual. It kind of feels formulaic to me, though, so even that might not be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

How to verify permission
Hey, I'm Gary Schreckengost, author of Wheat's Tigers and would like to allow my work that I posted on Wiki. I like Wiki. Anyway, I don't really understand what I have to do. Can you make it simple? Like a link that I can fill out a form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzrschreck (talk • contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I'm glad you like Wiki, and I appreciate that you're interested in donating your work. I'll come talk about it more at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Phil Valentine
Terrible bio, but looking at the edits by the most prolific editor there,, they look like a paraphrase of - my question is whether the paraphrase is distant enough from the original not to be copyvio. I'm not sure, as although there are a lot of different words, it is recognisably similar. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Doug. I was a bit puzzled when I look at this one, but then I looked in the article's history. It's undergone considerable renovation since you left this. :D Because the article has changed so much, I haven't closely evaluated the earlier version. If it was a problem, it isn't now. At a glance, I saw significant differences between the two, but that doesn't mean that there weren't parts that followed too closely.


 * Even if language is different, there may be infringement if other creative elements are duplicated - such as selection and structure of facts. (If it were solely a question of language, it would not be copyright infringement to translate something from Mandarin to English, as every word would be different. Similarly, you can switch out every word in a sentence for a synonym and still infringe your source.) Factors to consider here include how creative the selection and structure of facts are and how closely and extensively we follow the source. Chronological order counts in our favor, since the facts belong to everybody and organizing them in the order they happened is not creative. Choosing them still can be; for instance, everyone is going to include in a bio the date the subject was born, who his parents are, where he went to school, etc. Not everybody is going to think that the death of his Aunt Sally from creeping worm fungus was a significant factor in his development and give it a paragraph. The more such subjective detail we take, the more at risk we are. My general observation is that the more detailed our source is, the more likely it is to include subjective detail. This won't always be the case, though, obviously. A bio that includes exhaustive detail on release dates of an author's books may not be any more creative in selection than one that says, "John was born; he published books; he died." :)


 * Generally, I find it safer when relying on one source with considerable subjective detail to distill it to the obvious and essential facts - the ones that are inarguably going to be common to most biographical works about the subject - and to make sure that they are presented in as obvious and ordinary a fashion as possible (chronological is a good one). Better if we can find multiple sources that incorporate a variety of details so that we are building something more transformative rather than simply recasting our original source into new form, but when this isn't possible truncating an overly detailed article may reduce the risk of creating a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. This is how I understood the situation but I wasn't sure, and it's nice to have that confirmed. Thanks especially for expanding it more generally. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki access - lost password
Hullo - we've corresponded about Joseph Farey, and you know who I am!!

I've hit a problem that I can't resolve. I've lost my password for Wikisource, and posted the following message about it on the WS Adminstrator's Bulletin Board. Its followed by the reply from Jeepday(Sock) I've put the same message on the help page of w:Wikipedia:Unified login, but so far with no response. Do you have any thoughts on how I might resolve this. Whom might I contact? I am sure I am not the only person this has happened to, and there is a simple solution. many thanks, Apwoolrich (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My name is Tony Woolrich (AKA Apwoolrich). I did quite a bit of work on Wikisource 2005-6, but the work lapsed because I was involved in non-Wiki activities.


 * I have been working in recent months on a project on WP, and want to place some reference texts on WS. When I try to logon to my user space, I can't because I don't remember the password, and WS can't send it to me because I have changed by email address, and my old one has lapsed. Its suggested I create a new user name, which I don't wish to do. I am sure there is a work around for this situation, but I can't find it. I have an idea there was talk about making a common logon for all Wikis. Any advice, please? Thanks 86.132.76.135 15:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * SUL for "Apwoolrich" http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Apwoolrich

Info on common login w:Wikipedia:Unified login
 * Not sure it can be recovered with the hurdles you mention, but this is a good place to ask.

JeepdaySock (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm so sorry to hear this. I'm afraid I do not know of any work-around to this issue. :( Help:Logging in describes creating a new account as the only option, and it's the only one I know. We do now have common log-ins for Wikimedia accounts (m:Help:Unified login), but I'm afraid that it did not come in time to prevent you being in this situation. It was not retroactively applied since there was no way to know if users who shared usernames on different projects were actually the same person.


 * I'll check around to see if I can find any other options for you, but I'm really concerned that this may not be possible.


 * One thing that may be possible, since the account has been dormant now for six years, is to explain the problem and ask that the original account be renamed so that you can start fresh with that name. This is evidently done at Wikisource:Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard, a section that is empty as of this writing, but I can see the format required in earlier listings (such as this one). If they are willing to rename your original account, you would be able to create a unified login that would allow you to use your name and password on that project as well. You would not, however, inherit any permissions from the original account (including admin status) unless the Wikisource community had some policy in place to permit that. If I were in your position, I might begin by visiting Wikisource:User talk:Hesperian. Hesperian is an admin on Wikipedia and Commons as well as being a bureaucrat on WikiSource, and I know his work. I'm sure he'd be very familiar with the WikiSource policies and approach.


 * I'll let you know if I come up with any solution that allows you to retain the account, but I wouldn't hold out much hope for this. I've never heard of it being possible. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Shreckengost permission
I hereby affirm that I, Gary Schreckengost, am the creator and sole owner of the exclusive copyright of The 1st Louisiana Battalion: Wheat's Tigers in the Civil War (McFarland, 2008). I have placed excerpts from that book on Wikipedia into the article Louisiana Tigers, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Louisiana_Tigers&oldid=480321215.

+

+ I agree to publish those excerpts under the free licenses "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 this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

+

+ 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 claimed to have been made by me.

+

+ I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

+

+ Gary Schreckengost

+ Author and sole copyright holder

23 May 2012

Thanks for protecting our work...but I do like Wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzrschreck (talk • contribs) 11:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Large-scale constructs
You are invited to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

More eyes
Hello talk page stalkers! If you'd care to cast an eye over the contributions histories to find anything that I've missed, it would be appreciated. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Sfsorrow2
 * Special:Contributions/Sfsorrow2
 * Special:Contributions/50.68.6.12
 * Special:Contributions/174.7.23.169

Late breaking news that you might like to look into: Köln-Düsseldorfer was originally copied from. Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Uncle G. If nobody else is working on this, I hope to be able to take a look at it later! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * copied from p4
 * "Related content"? copied from (some of this is PD, but this is just a blatant paste)
 * Contributor copyright investigations/Sfsorrow2. MER-C 06:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, MER-C. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Email issues
sorry, Moonrider, but "permissions-en@undefinedwikimedia.org" seems to be a broken link. I'd like to send this form off--we need an easier process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pzrschreck (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. What result did you get when you sent an email to it? I just tested it, and the email went through just fine. :/ I know your first email to them was received with no issue. It's in their system. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that the link you have in quotes contains an embedded template. When you actually send the email, don't copy and paste that address; it won't work, but change the template, which renders as "@" to an "@" symbol. If this isn't clear, click on the edit button, and you will see that the material in quotes isn't a proper email address.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * (I added the same response to Gary's page, plus sent him an email)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank, you, SPhilbrick! I couldn't understand the problem. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

axiomamnesia.com
} states that has no copyvio (his edit summary says "no COI and no copyrighted materials are on the site. Files obtained DIRECTLY from FL St Atty's Office via FTP download". I have no idea why he claims no COI, but do others agree there is no copyvio on this site? Thanks .Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC) The site is a member of the media, which is how the files were obtained directly from the Florida State Attorney's Office.  On a page discussing the shooting of Trayvon Martin, it would seem prudent to included the witness interviews in their entirety.  The mainstream media is releasing only clips of the witness testimony, and this does not allow people to hear what the witnesses said in their entirety--the actual source of these clips being played in the media.  There is no copyright on the witness audio recordings, because they are public information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axiomamnesia (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyright in speech is complex. Copyright goes into effect the minute something is put into fixed form. A prepared speech is copyrighted the minute it is written down. If it isn't written down, but improvised, it isn't copyrighted unless it is recorded with permission (express or implied). The recording of a speech usually has two copyright owners: the speaker and the recorder. The recorder only owns copyright to the individual recording, not to the underlying speech. Copyright in transcripts of the speech belong to the speaker only, since a faithful transcript contains no originality. But to add an additional layer of confusion, according to Nolo, "a conversation reconstructed by an author from memory, rather than quoted verbatim from written notes or a recording, may be protectable by the author (not the person who made the original remarks) if some originality was involved in reconstructing the conversation.(Harris v. Miller, 50 U.S.P.Q. 306 (S.D. N.Y. 1941).)" Other sources used in constructing this paragraph: Fishman (2011), p. 382;


 * Witness statements are generally public records, but I don't know of any test case that has set precedent for them being public domain. "Edicts of government," which includes judicial decisions, are copyright exempt under US law. But witness statements are in no measure "edicts".


 * My own inclination would be to treat witness statements as we treat other public records that we know to be copyrightable; we can link to them, certainly, where right to publish is unquestionable (such as government sites) and we can quote from them to the same extent we quote from other non-free works.


 * All that said, even if they were unquestionably public domain, the core issue here (in my opinion) would be whether or not this is a reliable source. I do not intend this in any way as a personal slur, Axiomamnesia. :) None of us can rest on our own laurels here; even if I know something is true and accurate, I can't add it to any article without referring to an established authority that allows others to verify it. I couldn't publish it on my own website and then link to that. :) This website is a self-published source; moreover, it is a self-published source being proposed to substantiate information about living people (both the witnesses and the people they're talking about). This is really problematic under WP:BLPSPS. Even though I have no reason to doubt that they are accurately reproduced, we can't prove that the website reproduces the documents accurately. This is why it must first pass the acid test of reliability before it can be used in this fashion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely that it doesn't pass the test for a reliable source. The editor can't reply at the moment as they've been given a username block. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Setting Standards: New York Sessions
So... do we get to see an MRG-written album article soon? I was snooping — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, wouldn't that be lovely? :D I've got to see what's going on at WP:CP (I fear to look) and want to nominate somebody else's work for DYK today. But maybe soon! It is a long weekend. If CP isn't too bad. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd love to read that. I think this week my article creation will grind to a halt, as I am dealing with what the US marines would call Hell Week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed! I can't nominate it for DYK as it seems to just miss the cut-off for five-fold expansion. :( History of Arizona. That's rotten; Rjensen put a lot of work into building that up after I had to gut it for copyvio issues and I really wanted to more tangibly thank him for the effort. Hell well does not sound like a good thing. :O Good luck with it.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it's a shame. It falls 5k short of the expansion criteria... Darn! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Dempsey, Thomas Morton (colonist) and copyvio
An IP has added this to the article: "NOTE: Most of this article is lifted directly and without attribution from Jack Dempsey's biography "Thomas Morton: The Life & Renaissance of an Early American Poet" (Scituate MA: Digital Scanning 2000)." I can't find the alleged source. What's more annoying is that I've run into this before and can't find either the editor Jack Dempsey or reference to his website Ancientlights.org although I know I've run into both before. And my faded memory tells me this accusation of copyvio is probably correct. A post to the article's talk page says "Aside from being largely citation-free in the manner of a personal essay, this article suddenly includes a briefer article-within-the-article about Morton at the end. What's up with that? Is it some vestige of the original article posted by someone else?". If anyone can find the original we can remove any copyvio. Otherwise I'm tempted to stub it. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Alleged source: ISBN 1582182108 (and others),, , , Amazon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oi. Thanks for finding the source, Jen. :) Lack of preview makes this tough. What I usually do in such cases is apply the copyvio and list it, explaining at the talk page what the problem is and then placing a request at WP:RX to see if anybody has access to the book. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. There's enough red flags, though, that I would not be inclined to dismiss the IP's note but would instead suggest we either stub or rewrite the article. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as you running into it before: I found some posts from you about the site at User talk:Vsmith/Archive18, as well as user . VernoWhitney (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How did you find them? I did a search and failed, including a user search. Ah, maybe forgot the capital J. I see I blocked him for being an advertising only account, not copyvio - I thought maybe he was one of the editors I've found adding their own material. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I used Special:LinkSearch/*.ancientlights.org and then skimmed Vsmith's and your edits for the days surrounding that brief conversation that turned up. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Odd one
Just found James West Fraser. It's apparently been tagged G12 for two months, and I've only just found it. I live in CSD, and I'm sure the category has been empty at least one point recently..... It seems to have had a licensing email sent that wasn't up to standard - if it still isn't properly licensed, should it be deleted? And where (and how) has this thing been hiding? Peridon (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't tagged G12 for two months. It was deleted two months ago and was just appropriately licensed and so undeleted and the tag removed. Apparently you managed to see it during the period after it was restored but before the tag was removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I was getting worried there... Peridon (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Peridon. :) Glad Verno could help you. And Verno! I haven't see you in a dog's age! Always lovely when you pop up. Hope you're doing well. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm around (and have been since the last time I dropped in to say 'hi'), I just haven't been putting in the same amount of time I used to here, so I generally stick to smaller edits and helping around the fringes of copyvio work these days. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Understandable. As my own note below discusses, I am all too aware of the endless timesuck of core copyvio work. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Review required
Hi Moonriddengirl! I'm trying to find new areas of Wikipedia to build my knowledge in and copyright concerns is something that interests me. I've stated by checking listings at Suspected copyright violations but would like to make sure I'm doing things right. So far I have cleared out the remaining articles at Suspected copyright violations/2012-05-11. Could you check my work and let me know if I've got it right so far? Thanks for your time. Pol430 talk to me 20:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Pol430. Sorry I didn't answer you sooner; I was dedicated to trying to get at least one day done today, but, alas, it looks like I'm doomed to fail. :/ We are direly in need of more people in this area, and I'm very happy to give you all the feedback you want. :D


 * It looks good! The one thing, though, is with false positive. "False positive" occurs when there isn't actually duplication. Sometimes the bot goes nuts and picks up articles that are completely unrelated to the source. :) In a case where content is duplicated but isn't a copyright problem (be it a fair use quotation, public domain or what have you), I usually just use the "n" parameter. When it's a quote, I'd probably just say "Reasonable quotation" or something like that.


 * It's always a good idea to look at the edit flagged by the bot and check the duplication detector. With Battle of Ambur (1749), we have . In this case, there is a bit of duplication, and it looks like the author might have been paraphrasing the source in this paragraph:


 * The source says:


 * There are other areas that catch my eye, too. The first sentence of this section:


 * The source says:


 * I've marked the text to show where it is precisely duplicated, although words may be eliminated at one end or the other. It really helps to see similarities in language and structure. :)


 * The duplication detector is not as good at picking up close paraphrasing issues as it is extensive duplication. With a situation like that, I'd look at the current version to see if the content still remains and, if it does, would probably tag the article for close paraphrasing, leaving a note pointing out and explaining the issue to the creator. I only blank in those cases if the taking seems really substantial. If the contributor has rewritten it so that close paraphrasing is not a problem, I'd usually just note that it had been cleaned.


 * Thank you again for taking on this work. It's so important, and we really need the help! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll be more careful with close paraphrasing, I could probably have re-written those sections of text myself, in fact I may toddle off and do that later. One more question before I stop bothering you... Is it ok to leave copyvio in the page history, such as at BGMEA Institute of Fashion & Technology? I'm a bit unsure about when to request Revdel, also if I do need to request Revdel, how do I find revision numbers? Pol430  talk to me 07:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rewriting them yourself is perfectly fine. :) I usually decide whether or not to tag them based on how much of an issue it is and how likely the contributor is to continue. There's more up front time investment in talking to the contributor about the issue and honestly it isn't always pleasant. (I generally use language taken from or modified from Close paraphrasing, and I always document what I've found the way I did here.) But if it can prevent an otherwise good and motivated contributor from continuing the problem and winding up at WP:CCI with tons of articles that will wind up being gutted, it's all to the good!


 * It is okay to leave a copyvio in the page history. Whether or not it's optimal is debatable. I myself rev delete when (a) content is only present in a revision or two and can be removed without much damage to the history, or (b) content is extensive and present for a long enough time that the odds of inadvertent or intentional restoration seem high. I know inadvertent restoration happens, having done it myself once. (In the timeline of an article, copyvio entered at point a. Second copyvio entered at point b. First copyvio was removed at point c. Copyvio b was flagged, and I reverted to just prior to its entry...bringing back copyvio a.)


 * To find revision deletions, you identify the point in history where the problem entered. I've snagged a random article: Dragon Boys. I'm not actually checking it for copyvio. :) Not sure if you're familiar with it, but if the copyright problem isn't foundational, "revision history search" is invaluable at finding out where it came in. You can access it through page history.) Click on the version where it entered, and the URL is your revision number: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dragon_Boys&oldid=99507762 (randomly chosen as a large text entry). You do the same thing to the last version of the page where the content existed.


 * So, my tag for that one would look like this:


 * Alternatively, you can just put the entire page diff where it says "start" and "end". As an admin, I kind of prefer it that way, because I find it easier to verify the issue by clicking the link and seeing the version.


 * If an admin ever declines a revdel request, I wouldn't sweat it unduly. Some admins are very zealous about it, while others are completely laid back. If it seems to be a pattern, though, you either need to think that maybe you're using too rigorous a criteria or maybe (and more likely) we really need to codify this practice to make sure we have consistent application. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Awesome, thanks for your input. I have just finished clearing out Suspected copyright violations/2012-05-12, the only one I've not actioned is MED13 -- against this source. The author is claiming PD use under the United States National Library of Medicine but the source text does not link there... Confused dot com! Pol430  talk to me 11:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the bot finds the wrong link - picks up some webpage that it is mirroring a public domain source. If we can verify that, we mark it as not a problem and move on (making sure it's attributed per Public domain. In this case, the content was copied from . Just because it's on a government site doesn't mean it's copyright free, however. The complication is evaluating individual instances. Their copyright disclaimer notes that there are exceptions. I am not personally familiar with RefSeq, so I do not know if all content is created by federal employees in the commission of their duties. Their handbook seems to suggest it is not, though: "A portion of the RefSeq dataset is curated by NCBI staff. This subset includes viral, mitochondrial, vertebrate, and some invertebrate organisms. Most bacterial, plant, and fungal records are provided either by collaboration or by processing the annotated genome data submitted to the INSDC; however, a small number of bacterial genomes are annotated and curated by NCBI staff." I check INSDC, and their policies seem compatible. They permit attribution requirements but no restrictions or licensing fees on redistribution or use of their content. That "either by collaboration" could be concerning, but in this case I feel pretty sure it's okay. If the article were blanked, I'd go a bit further, since I'd be taking on personal liability by restoring it. In that case, I'd run the question by WT:C or even WP:MCQ (while generated for media, it's quite the hang-out for copyright knowledgeable Wikimedians), just to see if others have more information. If I were annotating this at WP:SCV, I'd use the tag, but I would add in the optional comment field an explanation of the situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Great stuff, thanks again for all your help! Pol430  talk to me 13:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Note to talk page stalkers: I may take a hiatus from WP:CP
Since a lot of people who are interested in copyright work come by, I just wanted to let you all know that I am seriously considering leaving WP:CP (at least for a while) and turning my attention to WP:CCI. I don't want to give up on copyright work altogether - it's very important to me - but I cannot keep up with the backlog there. Last weekend I was highly encouraged by a burst of spare time (family left me to myself for most of the weekend); this weekend I have a lot of family obligations, and the backlog is as bad as it was before. :/ It feels like a treadmill I can't keep up with, and it's pretty demoralizing. At least if I work on CCI, I might feel like I'm making progress and can even consider doing something fun sometimes, like writing articles. :) The backlog at CP makes me feel compelled to catch up, and I can't. So it just winds up consuming all my free time and leaving me feeling drained and somewhat desperate.

I'm telling y'all this so you don't wonder what happened if I suddenly cut it loose and also in case you have any ideas for what we can do to make the situation better. This is not a thinly veiled plea for you to do it. :) I swear. I really just don't have any fresh ideas on how to bring in enough hands to make that workload tolerable. We've created non-admin clerks and advertised, and there are still only a handful of us who work over there. :/

Oi. Anyway, off to sleep on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Beers? Either way, take all the rest you need. Content creation is, of course, my favourite way to relax. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And enormously satisfying. :D I think I've decided to, on those days I do work CP, try to clear a single day. (My goal to date has been: as many days as humanly possible.) If I can do more, great. If not, I will at least have done a single day. I will put time into CCI. Yesterday I handled at CP an article that has been listed at CCI (if I'm recalling correctly) since 2009. That's not right. :/ If we know for years that a contributor has copyright issues, we ought to be doing something about it rather than waiting until some contributor happens to randomly happen upon it. "Oh, yeah, we knew that. We just hadn't gotten around to it" is not a good defense. Seems to me that if the CP backlog gets much larger, people are going to notice. I hope. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually why I stick with CCI myself; I don't feel the pressure to have to do it every day, I just do a chunk of articles when I have a rare moment of free time (i.e. tonight). Of course, it always seems like the users under a CCI are the ones that add huge blocks of text at a time, so it can still be a pain. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Aah, MRG, at last, I discover you are human! And your feelings are completely understandable. Your stamina in working through the landslide of CP is unparalleled -- your constant polite dedication to its solution has always left me stunned. (Especially given my own exhaustion there.) But, please, do take some time away from it. Don't sweat it -- you have created a fantastic foundation for the CP work -- and it will get done. It will. In fact, it might be a good thing for everyone to realize that they no longer had someone like you to bail them out. Uncheck it from your watchlist for a while -- say for the summer -- and let's see what happens. In the meantime, do the things which give you energy. After all, Wikipedia should be a fun hobby. — Cactus Writer (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What CactusWriter said x 2! :) Voceditenore (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. :) I'm not entirely "at peace" with my decision, but I think it's the best one to avoid total head explosion. User:Wizardman, it's been so long since I sat down to a CCI that I had forgotten how difficult they can be! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

BLOCK HIM!!!
Moonriddengirl I am getting mad!!! This guy, Dadjan is continuously going on vandalizing an article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, even after two blocks and several warnings. Please I beg...I beg to block him indefinetly, increase the protections span of the article and also protect the article Dekha Ek Khwaab, as that is also been vandalized, but by auto patrolled users..so semi-protection will not be enough. Its protection level must be increased. If you want you can see the edit(s) done by Dadjan and reverted by me in Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, here. And for the history of Dekha Ek Khwaab you can go through the history of that article too. Please do not overlook this, I am struggling a lot to better these article and here are they who vandalize them daily. Please I sob. cry, beg...I'm helpless!!!!!!!! When replying please reply on my talk page. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lennie Tristano.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lennie Tristano.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * replaced by better free version. What puzzles me is why Moonriddengirl got notified? Agathoclea (talk) 05:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What puzzles me is why Dr. Blofeld uploaded a new image over an existing one that had been in use for over two years. :/ I restored it, but I see now that somebody else uploaded it again after Dr. Blofeld effectively deleted it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of Mansoor Ijaz article
Dear Moonriddengirl, We had communicated some months back about an article on my father's life which you had edited and I wanted to help re-construct. In the meantime, I became involved in a serious diplomatic crisis in Pakistan now known as Memogate (see http://www.newsweekpakistan.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=609&Itemid=53 for details of what this case was all about). During the past week or so, as the Judicial Commission comes closer to releasing a report that will confirm everything I said was true and uses forensic analysis of my computers and blackberry devices to prove that point, the antagonist in the matter, former Amb. Husain Haqqani, has become overly active in using proxies (David Frum, Peter Bergen, Harlan Ullman and others) to vandalize my Wikipedia article. Statements have been made that are not true -- they are resorting to the tried and tested journalistic formula of slandering in another forum and transferring that data without challenge to vandalize my article and malign me in front of anyone reading about me on Wikipedia. We have fought long and hard to maintain objectivity in my Wiki article through the many issues I have faced in public diplomacy over the years. As I do tough things, they generate controversy. So, before I have to start taking legal steps against Wikipedia for allowing slander to be propagated against my person through their article, I thought I would contact you and ask you to intervene and make sure objectivity remains the bane of the article. In fact, virtually every word of the recent additions have been addressed clearly, concisely and with balanced reporting and sourcing of content in other sections of the article. Mr Frum and his associates want to be able to say I fabricate, when I do not -- ever. His problem is that he knows we know the truth about him and that is why he is making pre-emptive hits on my article to try and create a fabricated record of false statements that he himself promulgates about me to retaliate against me and my lawyer in Pakistan for what my lawyer did in his duty as an officer of the court. I seek your help in maintaining the objectivity of the article and not allowing slander and defamatory statements to be made. Since I cannot objectively edit the article myself, I can certainly provide you with the information required to do the same. Thank you. 88.209.71.203 (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm sorry that you're experiencing problems with the article. :( I'm afraid that I cannot help you directly in this matter, due to my own employment policies, but I hope to be able to point you in the right direction to resolve your concerns as easily and amicably as possible.


 * First, let me recommend that you be careful to avoid making any statements that may be interpreted as a legal threat. The Wikipedia community has a policy prohibiting statements that may be interpreted as legal threats (please read WP:NLT), and if you are interpreted as violating that policy, it can make it much more complicated to resolve concerns.


 * Concerns about biographies are likely inevitable on an open source project like Wikipedia, but the community has created policies and processes intended to help with this as well. Biographies of living persons/Help gives an overview of the situation. It's important to remember with either approach that all of Wikipedia is based on a "consensus" model. Editors evaluate sources and agree on how best to represent them in accordance with the site's policies, which have also been created by consensus. The chief governing policy here is the biographies of living persons policy.


 * There are two main avenues where you can get assistance with your concerns (there are others, but these are likely to be your best approach).
 * (1) WP:BLPN is an open, web-based noticeboard which attracts volunteers who are interested in helping to maintain neutrality in biographies. Because everyone who contributes content to Wikipedia is a volunteer, the noticeboard does have some challenges; if your request for assistance does not attract a volunteer who wants to help you, it may not prove a fruitful avenue. But its main strength is that, if a volunteer decides to help, it usually happens pretty quickly - within a few days. You also have the option to persuade people directly, but it may require that you understand the biographies of living persons policy pretty thoroughly, and you may also need to familiarize yourself with other policies, such as verifiability, neutrality and "no original research".
 * (2) The volunteer response team is an e-mail based forum where experienced volunteers will receive your letter and try to work with you one-on-one to resolve your issues. This avenue is generally a little slower, as there are fewer volunteers who have access to this email address and working with people who correspond generally takes considerable time. The volunteers who receive these letters must still work within the consensus model - there are constraints as to what they can do without going through community processes themselves - but they can often resolve issues pretty handily. You can contact them at [mailto:info-en-q@wikimedia.org info-en-q@wikimedia.org]. Please give them a link to the article in question, if you take that approach.


 * If you'd like more information about either of these approaches, please let me know. I hope that one of them will work for you and that you will be satisfied with the outcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you overlook this?
''Moonriddengirl I am getting mad!!! This guy, Dadjan is continuously going on vandalizing an article, Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, even after two blocks and several warnings. Please I beg...I beg to block him indefinetly, increase the protections span of the article and also protect the article Dekha Ek Khwaab, as that is also been vandalized, but by auto patrolled users..so semi-protection will not be enough. Its protection level must be increased. If you want you can see the edit(s) done by Dadjan and reverted by me in Bade Achhe Lagte Hain, here. And for the history of Dekha Ek Khwaab you can go through the history of that article too. Please do not overlook this, I am struggling a lot to better these article and here are they who vandalize them daily. Please I sob. cry, beg...I'm helpless!!!!!!!! When replying please reply on my talk page. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 16:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)''
 * BLOCK HIM!!!

I am getting madder day by day...............-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 10:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I did not overlook it. I had not gotten to it yet. I did not visit my talk page yesterday, and when I do address my talk page, I usually work my way up from the bottom. If you have urgent need of an administrator, you should visit WP:AIV or WP:ANI. If it is my attention specifically that you need, I'm afraid you may sometimes have to wait until I am available. I will look at the situation in a few minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done in WP:AIV. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 10:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well you must leave him a message there saying that he has been blocked indefinetly. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 11:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you may be very emotional about this, but I would ask you to try for more patience. :) I told you I would look into the situation in a few minutes, but you filed at AIV anyway. And you left me this note in the same minute that I was leaving him a message. One of the automated scripts we use for leaving block messages was malfunctioning in my monobook.js and needed addressing, and I typically add a customized note as well. This can take a few minutes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you extend the protection span of Bade Achhe Lagte Hain as Dadjan may be back with an IP address, and even others may vandalize it as done esrlier as this topic is very popular nowadays. And same goes for Dekha Ek Khwaab-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 11:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If he returns, I can protect it, but I don't think the articles currently qualify for semi-protection. The first one has not been edited by an IP for weeks; the second one was edited by an IP constructively earlier today. We should not close down articles if we don't have to, and I am not comfortable proactively blocking editing of an article before giving Dadjan an opportunity to do the right thing. :) If the problem returns while I am not here, you can request protection at WP:RPP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Horrorcore
The only debate that there has been over who coined the term "Horrorcore" is whether Russel Simmons (the owner of the label that released "Flatlinerz U.S.A and the uncle of Redrum of the Flatlinerz) created it or if Redrum created it. Either way the phrase "Horrorcore" still came from the Flatlinerz and neither you or anybody else can present a "source" that can prove that it was in use before the Flatlinerz.

So instead of you presenting a secondary "Source" which is inaccurate and misleading (seemingly done for some intentional purpose which needs the truth misconstrued), why not just use the fact the the term Horrorcore was first introduced on the Flatlinerz album "Flatlinerz U.S.A". And untill you can find a legitamite "Source" that proves otherwise, why not stick wit the "Facts" that remain unless you have an ulterior motive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horrorcore1992 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) Wikipedia relies on secondary sources; see WP:V and WP:NOR. As a tertiary source ourselves, we are here to summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects. Unfortunately, proving who was the first to use a word is not easy to do; if there are reliable sources that indicate that the Flatlinerz were the first to use the word, then by all means we can and should include that. Without that, we can't without violating our core policies. The best we have is a reliable source that says the origin of the term is disputed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mentorship?
Can you please reply to this message? Best, Jona yo!  Selena 4 ever  22:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

May I borrow your expertise for a moment?
Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to trouble you with this, but I've always seen you as the go-to guy (gal) for copyright issues... I've recently uploaded this file, which I believe is acceptable under fair use. However, my experience of image copyright is somewhat limited, and I'd appreciate a more skilled pair of eyes to just check that I've got it right. The image dates from the 1940s, so I don't think it's public domain (although it originated in India, and I don't know what the PD rules are like there...). No rush (unless of course it is a copyright violation, in which case it needs prompt deletion - maybe there is a bit of urgency after all?). Cheers, Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 10:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a chance that it is public domain in India, anyway. The website I go to to read India's copyright law is down, and I'm not entirely sure how corporate works are treated. If corporate works are treated like anonymous works, this would have become public domain in India in the 2000s. Unfortunately, that wouldn't make it public domain in the United States, courtesy of URAA. :/ Regardless, I think that you are fully within compliance with WP:NFC with it. I would feel very comfortable uploading that image under that rationale myself. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Grand news; nice to know I made the right call. Thanks very much. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 11:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Tourism in West Bengal
I recently crated the article, Tourism in West Bengal. Some except me have edited it or reviewed it and I want you to review it and notify me about the missing points on its talk page or my talk page. When replying please leave me a Tb template on my talk page. Thank you.-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'd love to help, I'm afraid I don't have that much time. If you don't find somebody else to review it directly, you might request feedback from somebody at WP:HELPDESK or Teahouse. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay..as you wish!-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Another copyright-of-lists issue..
..but don't worry, this is my own article and the only one doing major editing to it. I'm just trying to get your opinion.

The article Geek a Week is about a card series of famous "geeks" drawn up as trading cards. The selection of who is drawn is a combination of who they can actually get (as the process includes a podcast interview with said person) as well as possibly some personal opinion by those involved. They've done this for an initial 52 card set, plus 2 sets of 15 afterwards. Normally if this was something like Magic the Gathering cards, it would be pointless to list them all out but because nearly each one listed is a notable (WP standards) person, its more navigational than that.

But that said, I'm torn over whether this is truly a creative list or not. If it is, that's not a problem since I can strip the list from the article to leave behind more than sufficient notability along with pointers to where the artist himself lists these out. I just need a second opinion in light of the recent issues. --M ASEM (t) 21:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Phew. You know how to stop my heart first thing in the morning. :D (And, coincidentally...are your ears burning?) This one is interesting. My first response is to say that yes, it's creative - "geek" is a subjective assessment, as is "famous". But the label is also applied by consensus. I think we'd all agree, for instance, that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are both famous geeks. But it's not an exhaustive list of famous geeks (couldn't possibly be), so there is some selection...availability is not a creative choice, but there is choice in whom to invite. :)


 * If this were mine, I think I would probably focus in on what the attorney said about selection criteria: "Unless you know the criteria involved in creating the list, it is impossible to even gauge the potential of a court finding that it warrants copyright protection." I'd probably limit myself to discussing some of the notable features of the list rather than risk it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That was the side I was falling on (and rather being overly cautious). And its not like one clickthru will take people to the full list in control of the copyright owner himself. Thanks. --M ASEM  (t) 13:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks like a list of creative works in a series, in numerical/chronological order, similar to anything in Category:Lists of television series episodes or Category:Lists of Pokémon. Are these also likely to be protected by copyright? Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a plausible point, if they weren't published all at once but sequentially. (Which I would guess is possible from the article title.) If they were published at once, the "title" defense is a bit harder to make. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point: there is a specific source citing the creator that says that it was a leapfrogging network effect: after doing one geek, that geek got him in contact with another, which was then added; this happened a couple times. In other words, he had no idea what all 52 cards would be at the start. And of course, the success had let to 2 x 15 more sets that he never expected.  Hmmm....--M ASEM  (t) 01:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Help
I want your help! As I have a privacy concern can you please hide the revisions of my user page from 07:24, 31 December 2011‎ till  10:50, 31 May 2012‎. After this I would like to rename my account.-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 10:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I will, by first deleting your page and then restoring it with the edits you wish to retain. This will call less attention to itself than revision deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So you mean that now there's no userpage on User:Jagadhatri..but I wish myself to be renamed..but cannot suggest a name..do you have one?-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 11:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I picked an unusual term from a poem. There can be problems with that, though. :) The term is not unique as a username on the internet (it is a term from a poem, after all), and a couple of years ago I was contacted by another Moonriddengirl from a popular social site, disgruntled that she had picked up an angry stalker because of me. :/ I really like my username, but maybe I'd have gone with something not quite so unusual if I were starting an account now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have thought of Kolgo or Tamravidhir..how bout that?-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * They both seem fine to me, although I don't know what they mean to you. Kolgo is taken, but it's never been used, so there's a pretty good chance you would be allowed to usurp it. Tamravidhir is a little harder to type, but it's never been used. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both use pronunciation and scripts from Hindi and Bengali, so it's not a problem for me. But which one is the best(est) Kolgo or Tamravidhir. -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer Kolgo, because it's shorter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as big as your username I am liking Tamravidhir, as that will be the only page with that name in Google (till date). So after your opinion you may change my name to Tamravidhir, but what will happen after doing so? -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm afraid I can't; only bureaucrats can change usernames. You have to ask at Changing username/Simple. I would recommend that you make clear in your request that whatever name you choose isn't a real name, since otherwise they might delay the request to ask you if you're comfortable using a real name. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A Bengali name perhaps.. Or write your name in anagram or use any other word trick.. I have another suggestion: you can try Homo sapiens wikipedian or try Homo superior (you need to read story The Hampdenshire Wonder written in 1911 to learn what is Homo superior--<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta   ✉  12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Using Tito's suggestion, with the help of Anagram: Jagadhatri may be changed to Itahadargj. Is it OK? -- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Or Tamravidhir is fine?! Is it? My god I am getting confused. Please help me. Which is the best:


 * Tamravidhir
 * Kolgo
 * Itahadargj
 * I need a quick reply please. I am giving this reason:

"I have a privacy concern. Recently I indefinetly blocked many vandals and I am afaraid that they may turn up to take revenge and secondly, Jagadhatri is a name of a Hindu Goddess so it is very common."-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What happen after one's username is changed on Wikipedia?-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 12:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * you can use anagram in your real name (since there are only 6 letters in your real name, add surname too, there are some anagram generators– search in world wide web), who blocked multiple vandals? You? You don't need to worry about that. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  13:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And after changing username, you need to start from beginning.. edits, counts can not be transferred.. see help pages for confirmation. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ED791A 0em 0em 0.8em,#F55220 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#1D6B00 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;"> Tito Dutta  ✉  13:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I requested Moonriddengirl and she did. Well really I have to start from begining. Secondly I have requested Jagadhatri to be changed to Tamravidhir.-- Jagad hatri (২০১২) 13:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The good news is that you don't have to start over. :) That's WP:CLEANSTART, which is something a bit different. A username change " moves your contributions and userspace pages to a new name, while preserving your account preferences." Look, for example, at this user. While you can tell by looking at her talk page that she used to use the former name (because of her signature), you can't tell by looking at her edit history. Everything looks like it was done by the current account. But you shouldn't need to ask, Jagadhatri. Remember, you're required to read Changing username before you make your request. If they think you have not, the bureaucrats might decline your request. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

User:KIRILL95
Hi,

Can you have a go at geting to use edit summaries ? Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  12:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC) NB : I have asked you as the admin at the top of my watchlist. Mt king <sup style="color:gold;"> (edits)  12:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Considering that I have blocked him in the past, I may not be the best person to have a friendly word with him about this. It's best practice, but not really required in most cases, and I kind of wonder if he would react better to a request from somebody with whom he has no history. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright of The Brothers article
G'day,

In regards to the 'copyright violations" on this particular article, Ferries of Sydney (www.ferriesofsydney.com) is my own site - so I guess I can give myself permission to paraphrase myself :)

cheers,

Lance Lyon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklord (talk • contribs) 03:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can. :) The steps are linked in the notice on your talk page. The simplest is to change "(c) 2005 - 2011 The Ferries of Sydney" to read:
 * The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).


 * If you don't want to do that, that's fine. You still have to release the content as you've placed it on Wikipedia under that license, but you can instead write to permission-en@undefinedwikimedia.org with the form letter at Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you need assistance with that process, please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, appreciated. I've modified the copyright notice on my main page and replaced it with the suggested license - will that do the trick? --Blacklord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes it will. I've removed the copyvio tag. Dpmuk (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for your help. --Blacklord (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC on Close paraphrasing becoming a Guideline
Hi MRG! I've mentioned you at Wikipedia talk:Close paraphrasing Best, Voceditenore (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I've weighed in there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 June 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

UK - Public Catalogue Foundation
Hi MRG, could you have a look at this image I uploaded yesterday File:Isaac Holden.jpg To me it appears to meet PD-art as the artist died in 1896. However the extended details claim it is in copyright to Bradford Museums and I'm wondering if this is a generic claim placed on every file they are dealing with (see for details) or whether I've misread the copyright rules. If it is a copyvio - I'll hold my hands up to that and it can be deleted without any protest on my part. NtheP (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. If that man died in 1896, that work is public domain in the United States. :) See File:Copyrightterm.pdf; even if it's never been published, copyright persists for 70 years after the death of the author. It may be a typical but somewhat lazily worded "courtesy of", but it's also possible that they are claiming copyright under "Sweat of the brow", which may be afforded protection in the UK. See also National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. While I feel quite confident that the image should be usable on Wikipedia under our policies, you always need to consider personal liability. We are each subject to the laws of our own jurisdiction. Derrick had protection in the NPG dispute to a certain extent as a US citizen. If you are in the UK, you may be personally liable if the UK doesn't continue its sensible move away from "sweat of the brow" protection. If you have any concerns about that whatsoever, it might be worth having it uploaded by a US citizen. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's one image so I can't see any great issue personally. NtheP (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Flame (malware)
Hello - need some advice regarding a copyright issue please. I added a widely-published screenshot that demonstrates the origin of the name of this malware, specifically, the names of some of its code modules. The image has been nominated for deletion at Commons on account of copyright violation. The author of this source code is widely believed to be one or more government intelligence agencies - no-one expects them to ever come forward and accept responsibility, let alone claim copyright. How their commercial interests have been affected is a stretch of the imagination. How this code snippet can be used by anyone else is also unclear, as it contains only function names, rather than their implementations. Thanks Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 11:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) I'm not an admin on Commons, but Commons has its precautionary principle, which means that inability to identify the author or expectation that the author will not come forward may not help with the copyright issue. I don't actually have much experience with copyright protection of computer code; I'm afraid I don't know enough about the jargon of programming to quickly puzzle this one out. :/ says that "Copyright protection extends to all the copyrightable expression embodied in the computer program. Copyright protection is not available for ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts." I have no idea whether the code captured in File:Worm.Win32.Flame.png constitutes "program logic, algorithms, systems, [or] methods". Commons:Commons:Screenshots doesn't really talk about computer code. I do think the community of regulars at Commons is very smart about copyright; I don't think it will be deleted without careful consideration. If it is, there is the chance to upload it to Wikipedia under non-free content guidelines, if it fits.


 * If I were you, I would do one of two things - either wait to see what others have to say (deletion debates move sloooowly on Commons) or ask whether it is protected expression at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright. If you do the latter, please remember to word your question neutrally. While generally they are not as uptight about "canvassing" as we are, it does sometimes come up. The important thing here is not to persuade others, of course, but to find out the actual situation. If there is precedent, I bet some of those people will know it. :) (Alternatively, you might ask at WP:MCQ to see what some of the locals think. I wouldn't double up on that, though. I'd go with one or the other.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much - that's sounds like well considered and sound advice. Socrates2008 ( Talk ) 12:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy if I can help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

User:GreenUniverse
It seems that they've been doing merges without proper attribution for a while now. There's a complaint at WP:A/R/C about five of them in late April, and I've found at least one from early March on a cursory look through their contribs, so I'm suspecting that we'll need to do a more systematic check. What's the usual protocol for this kind of situation? Creating a new CCI case? Is that usual for CWW violations as opposed to external copyvio? T. Canens (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be the first, as I recall. :) CCIs are about organizing cleanup, and it seems like it would be appropriate here. Setting it up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've started the page, Contributor copyright investigations/GreenUniverse, and noted the special circumstances in the background. I haven't listed it in the template yet. We may be able to address this without that step, especially if GreenUniverse would be willing to assist. That could avoid it dragging on for some time and help keep it kind of low drama. I think it may be helpful beyond the usual CCI format to look at his edit history and see when he is blanking content at other articles to help figure out when he may be moving material around. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thanks a lot! T. Canens (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

RevDel request for copyvio
Hi Moonriddengirl, I resolved a recent copyvio problem but need your help on a final step. Can you RevDel Royal Society of Canada revision 496154617 on June 5 by user Rsc src? This are copyvios from http://rsc-src.ca/rscinfo_what.php http://rsc-src.ca/rscinfo_history.php. I have also put a COI message on his/her talk page. Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 19:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for taking care of it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I could have placed in my user page but since you are the only person whom i truly care reads it...
As i wrote this i have a preview of the edit in my userpage with the "semi-retired" banner.

Don`t get me wrong i still love Wikipedia, i haven`t lost a bit of faith on the project, its just that the hunger, the drive to edit has faded, for a few months now i have only made like 100 edits a piece, and it certainly it isn`t for a lack of things to do.

It`s just that, well i assessed maybe 9, 000 albums articles, and upgraded over 6, 000, not that anyone cares, and it went to nothing, when i started, i still remember you taught me how to rate properly, there wer over 37, 000 articles, after all my work, there are over 35, 000, there are so many stubs that need only 5 minutes to be starts, but i no longer have the drive to dedicate those thankless minutes.

The barnstars you gave me are my most treasured things in all the Wiki, last time i got discouraged you told me to change activity and i did, i started creating articles and that got me going for a while, i started adding images to articles and adding reviews templates, but it`s just so much and no one notices, it`s not that i do this for the fame or anything but... i just got tired that`s all.

I still check my watchlist several times a day, specially for assessment request (habits die hard jejeje); retirement is not in sight, at least not in the foreseable future as far as i know the drive could be back tomorrow.

Lastly, and i can't put too much emphasis on this, ANYHTING you need, you let me know, an assessment, a RFC, a review, move the sofa up the stairs (you know, if i`m in town), anything; you let me know.

Until next time my Dear mentor. Sincerely yours Zidane tribal (talk) 20:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: Did i use the "Whom" correctly in the headline?


 * Oh, my friend, I am so sorry you feel this way. I understand completely how it is to get weary of repetitive work. I have cycled in my time through vandalism patrol to speedy deletion patrol to copyright work, and in the midst of those tasks I did article reviews and worked at the drawing board. It does sometimes feel never ending and as though the work has no meaning. Please don't ever believe it. If not for you, the list of articles would be so much higher than it is, and many article creators have appreciated the time you've given, I know. I know this because I appreciate it, when I write articles. :) I have recently decided that I can't continue with the same level of copyright work I've been trying to keep up for years now, and it was a hard decision, but it will allow me to keep Wikipedia fun. I hope that, perhaps, after you take a bit of a break the drive will come back for you, and the pleasure. There are many, many jobs that can be done, and I would be quite pleased to try to help you find something that would make you happy.


 * Whether the drive comes back or not, I hope you know that you've made a difference. On a personal level, you have helped me (remember that odd Spanish translation issue :D) and inspired me, and your presence makes me happy. You are kind and patient and thorough, and I love the sense of humor you display in edit summaries like this. :) (Not to mention your furniture moving! :D) I have your userpage on my watchlist, and though I missed your note on May 3rd, I saw your update yesterday and was proud of you. Your work has not only been motivational to me and to those article creators whom you've reviewed (especially the ones who request it, who otherwise might not have gotten the feedback they wanted), but it has also been informative and helpful to our readers. Dozens of people read articles you started every day. Using my magic copyright tool, I can tell you that you have edited 9,259 different articles. You've added substantial content to almost 2,000. I know every one of them is better for it.


 * I would not wish in any way to pressure you to stay if the fun goes out of Wikipedia for you, but I can still hope sincerely that that the fun comes back. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I`ve read your message over and over, like 8 times now, and it makes me feel a sweet nostalgia every time. I can`t thank you enough for all the times you were there for me. If i get back full time, you`ll be the first one to know. Zidane tribal (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * You have my best wishes, whether or not you return full time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Iamnotcreative
Seems aptly named, as it looks as though virtually ever edit by (and this editor is editing right now) is copyvio. Can't find them all and only reverted one so far, but there's clearly a problem. I've just posted to xhe's talk page about this. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yikes. Do you think we need a CCI? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I have been reverting pretty much everything, on the grounds of either copyvio or unsourced. Most of the "unsourced" is probably copyvio or at least unattributec copy/paste. Some could possibly be rapid-fire translations from non-English WPs etc. I am fairly sure that I have looked at every contribution made, but if anyone feels like checking ... In any event, what this needs is more eyes. I have left a pretty stern warning on their talk page but, not being an admin, would require assistance if it needed implementation. - Sitush (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

YGM

 * Hi. :)
 * This situation is going badly, I'm afraid, and it isn't likely to end well unless everybody calms down and pulls back to look at what matters: the content.
 * I've read the email you sent me. Let's assume for the sake of argument that everything you assert in there is actually connected to this user. That still wouldn't mean the information was entered in an intent to deceive. Unless there is a pattern of entering false information, we are required by policy to assume that he is doing the best that he can to create a good encyclopedia article.
 * What really matters here is the content question. You have found something that is asserted as fact that you think is not fact. You may be right. The thing to do is request a reliable source to verify it and, if no source is forthcoming within a reasonable time, to remove the unsourced material. This is the recommended handling of disputed content in accordance with policy. WP:V says:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself.
 * I have been, in accordance with this, attempting to find and cite supporting sources myself. I haven't found any. The editor in question found one, but, as we know, the source is likely to be unreliable. The information is tagged as suspect; the thing to do now is give it a few days and see if a source is found. If not, the material will need to be modified or removed in accordance with such sources as are produced.
 * This whole thing is likely to go much better if the emotion is removed from the equation and it focuses solely on proving or removing the disputed claims. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case at least, I neither confirm nor deny the contents of any hypothetical E-mails that I might or might not had sent. I thank you. — KC9TV 00:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been, in accordance with this, attempting to find and cite supporting sources myself. I haven't found any. The editor in question found one, but, as we know, the source is likely to be unreliable. The information is tagged as suspect; the thing to do now is give it a few days and see if a source is found. If not, the material will need to be modified or removed in accordance with such sources as are produced.
 * This whole thing is likely to go much better if the emotion is removed from the equation and it focuses solely on proving or removing the disputed claims. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case at least, I neither confirm nor deny the contents of any hypothetical E-mails that I might or might not had sent. I thank you. — KC9TV 00:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole thing is likely to go much better if the emotion is removed from the equation and it focuses solely on proving or removing the disputed claims. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case at least, I neither confirm nor deny the contents of any hypothetical E-mails that I might or might not had sent. I thank you. — KC9TV 00:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cigarette Holder AN/I
Could you please comment here? KC9TV is seeking to have me blocked because of my edits to the Cigarette holder talkpage. Chillllls (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * NM, looks like Fluffernutter has removed the AN/I posting so that things can be handled by oversight (which is something that I've literally never seen before; I've seen someone admonished for posting an oversight request on AN/I, but never seen the request removed). I guess I'll start drafting my unblock request ;) Chillllls (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And now he's given me a UW-4 for my previous post here. I guess using emoticons on your talk page are grounds for a block. Can something be done here? Chillllls (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the warnings. There's nothing remotely "social network" about this. :/ Please note that his giving you a block warning doesn't mean you've done anything blockable, and you are welcome to remove material from your talk page that you do not want there. I'll take a look at the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that his warnings were meaningless, I just didn't revert them because I had a feeling that he was going to report me to AN/I for the second time in two hours and some of the more lazy folks at AN/I have a bit of trouble with page histories; I wanted everything out in the open and also didn't want to antagonize him by reverting them myself. Chillllls (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to revert me and put them back, of course, please feel free. I'm glad you weren't really worried; your "start drafting my unblock notice" worried me a bit. :D I didn't notice your wink, I'm afraid. I've got company and am a bit rushed for time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything's a-ok, I suspect he just needed to blow off some steam. Thanks for your help! Chillllls (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

YGM

 * I'm sorry, but I don't discuss matters of this sort via email. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism
See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 107 and Articles for deletion/Frederick William Sanderson. Uncle G (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Uh oh. Looks like we might need a CCI? :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I've looked through all of the new article creations in Special:Contributions/Thegn in detail, but not the other edits. Drink driving (United Kingdom), Paul Randolph, and Wolterton Hall just need another set of eyes to check against the potential sources that I identified on Jimbo's user talk page, confirm my conclusion, and tag the copyright violations if the whole edit history is polluted.  (I'd appreciate you or one of your talk page stalkers doing that.)  Boyle Farm requires more attention to determine its source, if there indeed was one. Having said that, the non-creating edits are definitely worth reviewing, alas.   to Drink driving (United Kingdom) adds the text "you should contact us for expert professional advice" and "Again you should seek our help when you go to court" to a Wikipedia article.  Clearly it's copied wholesale from a law practice's WWW page.  The copied texts both from the original creation and the later edit still form the body of the current revision of the article. Uncle G (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have opened the CCI and indefinitely blocked the contributor. He began receiving notices of copyright policy violations as early as 2006. He removed these, but does not seem to have modified his behavior. His most recent creation, now blanked, copied from an "all rights reserved" source. The CCI is located at Contributor copyright investigations/Thegn. I plan to poke at it a bit today. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Flowers Brass Band
Hello there! Your name is one that I have seen mentioned everywhere wrt copyvio, so I hope you don't mind me approaching you directly regarding article copyvio issues? The article is Flowers Brass Band, and since creation it has been almost entirely a copy of the bands website history page. It has been updated periodically, again with content that is basically a direct lift from the website ( see http://www.flowersband.co.uk/content/history ). I'm not sure if it should be blanked/deleted/tagged or rewritten(beyond my capabilities), anyway can I leave it in your capable hands? best regards 94.195.187.69 (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I'm happy to help; thanks for noticing the issue and following through with it! I've blanked the article with the copyright template and left a targeted message to the person who placed it, who is almost certainly a member of the band. That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that he has permission to license the content. We'll need to get this verified if it's to be retained. Now that people are emailed on default when notes are left on their talk pages, there's a pretty good chance he'll get the word. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Incivility barnstar

 * Hello MRG, some IP loser came by my discussion page to post this thinking it was a funny idea, think you might have to delete it from commons as it is gross violation of civility. Thoughts? -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; that's pretty rude. :( I'm not an admin on Commons and have no special authority over there. I'm afraid you'll have to discuss it with them. Keep in mind, though, that misuse of the image may not concern them as much. You might want to consider an MFD for Template:Civility barnstar, though, since that one is a local matter. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ The page is WP:Miscellany for deletion/Template:Civility barnstar, feel free to comment. Thanks again~! -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 16:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama
hello,

I am writing to you as you are always a help. ;) Last time the article List of churches in Moscow failed the featured list nomination as it was against 5b as there is no freedom of panoarama in Russia and I am not allowed to put the pictures without attributing to the living architect. So I ask you, was the decision really correct? If it was, what exactly should I do to meet this criteria? Should I contact the architect and ask if it is possible to use it here under a specific rationale? Regards.-- GoP <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">T <sup style="color:#8EE5EE;">C <sub style="color:#8EE5EE;">N 13:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. :) It is correct that Russia does not have freedom of panorama - at least Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama says so, and I think they're really good about keeping up that list. People in Russia who publish pictures of buildings that are still in copyright may be liable for prosecution for infringement. That said, the United States does allow pictures of buildings, and their law is generally what governs on Wikipedia. I'm not sure why use of images within policy here would bar a list from being featured, but I'm not really sure what those criteria are.


 * Are the images still on Wikipedia or Commons? I might suggest asking at WP:MCQ. If they were on Commons but were removed, they may be permitted on Wikipedia under US law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 June 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you. :) I'm very happy if I can help you guys move forward. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey
Hiya MRG, it's been a while.

Need a revdel at 2012 Asian Beach Games on a copyvio from here. Only two revisions involved.

Having asked you in the past about copyvios at similar multi-sport event articles, I'm wondering if it may have come from the same user? Is it worth looking through his past contributions for copy-and-paste material and opening a CCI? —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. It could easily just be that this is a subject area prone to copy-pastes. Television shows are, for instance, as are school articles. I see you've asked him about it; it might be best to just see if he identifies any other copying, unless there are older instances in his history of copying from external sites. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. He hasn't replied, but he has apparently gone through three other articles to remove copyvio he introduced, judging by his contribs. Could we have revdel on 2007 Asian Indoor Games, 2009 Asian Indoor Games, 2009 Asian Martial Arts Games? Thanks. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * And as if to prove my point, I went to look at the last one and found suspicious text still in the article. Confirmed it, looked back in history, and, lo, it was placed by somebody else. It's rampant. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect the problem is partially that copyright isn't "such a big deal" when it comes to Asian multi-sport events. We don't normally see this with the larger events involving the Western world nations. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

fixed
Please see my comments on Contributor copyright investigations/GreenUniverse I have reverted the articles back to what they were, I have fixed the problem I dont see why I should be on the copyright list any longer. GreenUniverse (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not entirely sure what you mean; a look at the list shows this as the very first edit. It seems unlikely that you would have created a page with a "citation needed" tag unless you copied it from somewhere else? There is nothing at Talk:UFO hypotheses or in the edit history to indicate where. Fixing the problem would require identifying and properly attributing in every instance content that you have copied from one Wikipedia page to another. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote most of the article myself, but the extraterrestrial information was taken from the Extraterrestrial hypothesis article. And the psychology stuff was taken from the Psychosocial hypothesis article. I have since moved it all back. And the UFO hypotheses article is now a Disambiguation. Is that the case solved? The guy who reported me is confused, I have not merged 100s of articles, I did a few Theosophist ones (which I reverted) and the UFO one, nothing else. GreenUniverse (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. It's not so much a matter of moving it all back; as I explained in the background section of the CCI, it needs to be attributed in accordance with Copying within Wikipedia. It's good to do this even if you've put it back, since there's always the chance that somebody will restore it.


 * It's perfectly fine to copy content from one page to another - all of our contributors liberally license their material for reuse - but since it's not public domain, we do have to give the requisite credit to the original authors.


 * The CCI listing is simply a method of helping make sure that all articles have proper attribution by listing them in order of size. This is hardly the same thing as a case where somebody has been copying content from outside of Wikipedia. Even that can be a simple misunderstanding; issues of people copying from one Wikipedia article to another almost always are. CCI is not a discipline board; it's purely there to help correct any lingering copyright issues that may exist.


 * Please provide the documentation following the guideline for the articles you've copied, even if you've reverted yourself. Once you've done that, if you will note where you've done so on the CCI, I'll do a spot-check to see if there are other issues, like UFO hypotheses, that you may have forgotten. If not, I'll be happy to close out the CCI and remove it from the list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. GreenUniverse did not write "most of the article" xyrself. I speak as the person in  back when  was nominated for deletion in 2009. Uncle G (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:GreenUniverse has been blocked as a sock of User:BookWorm44. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah. Interesting development. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Friends Hospital


Hi,

The Friends Hospital page has been blocked for cutting and pasting issues. I have the written (email) consent of the media person at Friends Hospital, as well as two other closely related organizations to be able to copy and paste their materials to the page. How do I go about fixing the problem on the site? Who can I forward the emails too? I know it says to put it on the talk page, but do I delete the comment that is there about plagiarism? Is there someway to respond to it? Any help is helpful

AlysonFerguson (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the best help that you can get, because it will stand you in good stead in every case: Don't copy and paste other people's non-free-content writing. Just don't do it at all, in the first place.  You and the person who actually owns the copyright on what you copied are now in for a world of back and forths, with OTRS permissions statements and so on, that you could have avoided from the start just by writing in your own words.  So write in your own words from now on and always. And aim higher, too.  &#9786;  There's a whole book on the hospital's early history by, ISBN 9780934223829 published by Lehigh University Press, that could give you a far better history of the place than a mere three bullet points for 1813, 1817, and 1827 copied and pasted from a WWW site. Copying and pasting isn't writing. Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:FoP-USonly
I am highly concerned by edits like this. That building is not in the US, it is in France, and photographs of it are not protected by any freedom of panorama, as that template strongly implies. Furthermore, that template places the image in free content categories, when, for our purposes, it is non-free. Can I ask why you are making these edits? J Milburn (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. I closed the TFD for NoFoP-France. The template doesn't imply it's free in France; it actually specifies "This image is believed to be non-free in its home country, France." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but it should not be placing it into a free use image category, and it should ideally be making clear that, for our purposes, the image is non-free, and so needs to be accompanied by a non-free use image tag and a non-free use rationale. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm not convinced. "The photographical reproduction of this architectural work is covered under United States copyright law (17 USC 120(a)), which states that while architectural works completed after December 1st, 1990 are protected by copyright laws, photography is not an infringement of it." No it isn't; that's just plain wrong. The building is in France- it doesn't really matter what the American copyright law says. Frankly, that TfD is a joke, and would be funny if it wasn't so misinformed. If only American law applies, as the nominator seemingly believes, I can only assume that we will soon be deleting all pictures of recent sculptures? As, obviously, American law does not allow freedom of panorama for sculptures. Who cares if the home country does? J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just come across this. Sorry to vent on your talk page, but my faith in Wikipedia has just plummeted. I can't believe that this discussion is still open. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the image category, that would seem to be a matter for discussion at the template. Beyond that, though, I had not read that TfD, but I'm a bit disturbed by your tone there ("morons"?). :( If you're too angry to argue your position without insulting people, you should probably wait and go back later when you calm down. It's important, sure, but it's also important not to forget the whole "mutual respect" thing, which also keeps us functioning. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Uboater FYI
Just FYI, that almost certainly was Uboater, but it was also block evasion. See User_talk:Boing!_said_Zebedee for background. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Has this apparent change in process been discused?
I notice that g12s are now blanked. I don't think it is happenstance, so wondering if there's a change in process I missed?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  21:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion that led to this is at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TPS.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems noticeboard split
I quite boldly split the noticeboard itself, previously at Copyright problems, to Copyright problems/Noticeboard. For a complete explanation, see Administrators' noticeboard/Archive237. Aside from the bot (which I only realized updates the page afterward, and have left a request at the operator's page to please update it), you were the predominate editor there, so I wanted to leave you a note. Let me know if you have any concerns, or if you want to... yell at me... as I'm expecting some people will do. Thanks.  Equazcion  ( talk )  08:19, 16 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to yell at you, but I've undone it. :) I don't have any issue with separating out the board, per se, but we need to have the bot prepared first. I haven't looked yet at how you did it, but I would imagine any quibbles I have will be small. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's a good idea to separate out some of the materials you've moved from the header of one to the header of the other, but I guess we can judge by time. Who knows if people read that stuff anyway? Once the bot is ready, I don't have any objections. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Could I please get a series of deleted articles?
Hello there, MRG. First, I want to thank you for your years of service to the project, especially CCI and your work for the WMF. The thing I really appreciate is that you care about the project and the people and I sincerly appreciate that. I hope you didn't mind my suggestion a short while ago possibly adding to your workload becuase I know you're busy as well as being one of the hardest working Wikipedians here.

I really hate asking for a bunch of deleted articles, but I'm hoping you might find time to help. I was hoping to get added to another wiki so they can be worked on there. There is an automated tool here that will copy any article (that's in article space) over to that wiki and the tool automatically includes a list of previous contributors for attribution purposes. You've helped that Wiki before, so I'm hoping you'll help again. I'd like to think the process would be as easy as undeleting, using the tool and redeleting, but as an IP I don't have experience with undeletion. Also. some of these articles may have confused article histories being created, deleted, recreated, moved, redirected and so forth, so it might be more invloved. Perhaps you could do a few articles at a time over a period of weeks, but I know you busy so if you can't help I'll understand. Thanks very much for any help you can provide and thanks for being part of our project here. Kind regards. 64.40.54.97 (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your kind words, and, wow, that's a lot. :) I'm game to give it a go, as long as they were not deleted for copyright or potential libel. That tool of yours is pretty sweet. I've done the first ten (although a few of them weren't actually deleted; I'm annotating at User:Moonriddengirl/Transwiki request). I checked to make sure that the tool was working properly with the first several but then just assumed it was. Can you please let me know if something doesn't transwiki properly? And if I haven't managed to finish the list by the end of next weekend, please feel free to nudge me. I'm afraid that there's constantly something going on, and I do get distracted. But this shouldn't be too time-consuming if the first 10 are any indication. I would imagine I could complete it within a couple of hours. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much MRG, it very generous of you to help and I really appreciate it.
 * "wow, that's a lot." Yes, I apologize for asking for so many. With your permission, I will go through the transwiki list you set up and comment on the ones that have been userfied so that they can be skipped. Thanks again for all your help. 64.40.54.97 (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I just wanted to mention that this isn't urgent, so please take all the time you need. I know your busy with other things. Thanks again. 64.40.54.97 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again MRG. I've been updating the transwiki list, I hope you don't mind. This is far more time consuming than I initially thought, so I'd like to pause this request for a while to see if I can trim this thing down to a much more reasonable size. I'll be back with something more reasonable. Thanks again for the help. 64.40.54.97 (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, of course I don't mind. :) Just let me know when you're ready for me to resume! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Sorry, but I came back. I've trimmed down the list, but it's still huge. You've already done so much that it's not really fair for me to ask for more. I feel bad about it. I'm going to ask a couple other admins if they'de be willing to help. Thanks again for everything. I really appreciate your help. 64.40.54.81 (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did a few, but I'd like to hear that they were done correctly before doing any more. I was surprised to see a redirect on the list, but the others made sense. Please leave a note on my talk page-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @ MRG - I assumed, when I looked at the copied article history, e.g. example, that I would see the original contributors lists. Isn't that required? Did I do something wrong?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you did it right. Attribution is taken care of by means of a notice on the article face - at the top, it directs you to look at the talk page. The talk page includes a complete list of contributors: http://en.wikialpha.org/wiki/Deleted_talk:Abdullah_Shahab. It would be nice if the bot put something in the edit history, but the article face suffices - same as when we use OTRS templates on talk pages and add something like dual to an article face here. :) Thanks for pitching in! I hope to do more of these over the weekend. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, got it. just assumed it would be in the history and didn't check talk. I'll do a few more.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks very much, Sphilbrick. I really appreciate the help. Thanks also to Moonriddengirl, Dcoetzee and WereSpielChequers. I certain appreciate everbodies generous help with this task and I must thank each of you for your gracious efforts. Kind regards. 64.40.54.160 (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your generous support

 * Oh, that's very nice of you. :D I'm happy to help, and I appreciate it very much. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Billy Hathorn back at it
Just thought you'd like to know banned User:Billy Hathorn is still editing. He has been editing James D. Martin here by adding an obscure 1993 local article by Billy Hathorn called "A Dozen Years in the Political Wilderness." Then he moved to J. Lister Hill here with that same IP adding another by Billy Hathorn article called "James Douglas Martin and the Alabama Republican Resurgence." And then that IP added another Billy Hathorn article called "The Frustration of Opportunity: Georgia Republicans and the Election of 1966" to Peter Zack Geer. This IP (72.191.52.222) is also making similiar edits today. Easy to track just search "Billy Hathorn" to see the more 100 wiki articles he added his name to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLARKer7 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have blocked both of his known IPs for three months and spent some time this morning undoing the bulk of his recent work. I don't know any other way to encourage Billy to follow policies, as he obviously continues to be determined to do as he pleases. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

For your inbox
We hope (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll look for it soon. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Supriya Sule not cleaned?
Hi MRG. Please could you check Supriya Sule from the 21st May page once more? You appear to have just removed the copyvio notice but not the violating material itself, and the BLP problem may have survived because of that. (There's stil a /div at the end of the problem part too.) Best, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh! Sorry. I thought it had been blanked, not covered. I'll go take care of that. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I would have blanked it myself, but wasn't sure whether you agreed that it should be. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Nipping a CCI in the bud
Hello Moonriddengirl's talk page stalkers! There's a noticeboard discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive237 and a final warning to the editor who started it at User talk:Kazemita1. It seems a good idea to nip this behaviour in the bud, lest we get to have another contributor copyright investigation months or years from now where we have to go over every article where this person has copied entire paragraphs of non-free-content writing. That person is in response asking to have the concept of writing in xyr own words explained to to xem, again. You are welcome to try, if you think that you can explain it more thoroughly. Uncle G (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe not, but sometimes explaining it in different words is enough. :) I'll read the AN discussion and give it a go. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikia attribution, inuniverse
I'm trying to research Nathan Hale (Resistance) and James Heller (Prototype), both listed at Copyright_problems/2012_May_23.

Both were copied from a Wikia site, but that site claims CC-BY-SA, except when otherwise indicated. However, both fail to properly attribute the content. I thought it might be easier to AfD, not being a gamer, but a quick glance indicates there are a lot of references, if not exactly the NYT.

I know that when material is copied from another site with an allowable license, we often use Category:Attribution templates. However, I'm not sure if those are only used when the source has been vetted, to make sure it complies with copyright law, or if we AGF, until evidence proves otherwise.

I also see an INUNIVERSE problem, as contrasted to Resistance: Fall of Man, but have no experience with this issue. I see our MOS says not to do it, but I don't know whether doing it triggers an AfD reason, or a cleanup template.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Tough one. :) What I would generally recommend doing is looking at the history of the wikia articles and seeing if content was added there in one mass dump or if it developed incrementally. Since their history tabs are accessible, that can be helpful. If it was one mass dump, I'd probably look for an older source on the internet. Failing that, I'd more than likely provide the requisite attribution but add (in my own name) cv-unsure to the talk page.


 * Since the content is rampantly inappropriate for us, though, you also have the option to reduce considerable material or simply to redirect it to the parent topic. Since a redirect has been tried and reverted on Resistance: Fall of Man, I'd suggest instead one of two options: either a Merge proposal or an AFD, indicating that you did not simply turn it into a redirect because that has been tried and failed and that, if consensus is that the article should be a redirect, you believe the history should be deleted to prevent the content being restored out of process, as it was previously. Some people may complain, but I'd be comfortable with that. You can't make everybody happy. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I nominated one for AfD, will see how it goes, then address the other one.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on copyright issue.- 3d objects in UK
Relevant ticket: Article: Mamod

At issue are approximately 35 photos of steam models (plus the logo, which may have different issues)

If this was the US, I think we would conclude that if there was no copyright symbol on pre-1976 models, the item itself would be pd, and the photo would be the copyright of the photographer. (same for 76–89 if not filing made). But it isn't the US it is UK. According to this copyright extends to 70 years after death of creator. While the emphasis is on literary creations, I think model designs would be included?

While there may be some question about whether models are covered as works, I assume there is no question abut the logo and it is squarely covered.

However, when I read Non-U.S. copyrights, it sounds like I can apply US standards, leaving the onus on a reuser in the UK to know that they cannot reproduce this page.

(The more I learn about copyright, the more I realize how much there is to know.)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The relevant law is and, and to some extent  and , of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. I'm afraid that the law on applying U.K. standards in the U.S. and U.S. standards in the U.K. isn't as simple as it was only a few years ago, as each jurisdiction is becoming more willing to hear cases based on the law of the other as long as the act of state doctrine isn't involved.  The blas&eacute; "U.S. courts won't hear a U.K. copyright claim." isn't as true as some might think.  For a proper explanation, read  in Lucasfilm Limited v Ainsworth, which was just last year.  And we don't even have an article on  where a U.S. court heard a claim by a U.K. plaintiff against a U.S. defendant under U.K. and Chilean law. Just in case your head hasn't exploded after reading that, note that you've now got to determine whether  is a EEA national (CDPA 1988 &sect;12(6)) and which Plymouth is "Plymouth". Uncle G (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, those 39 pages are tough sledding. I assume the photographer is an EEA national. I assume the Plymouth in question is the one in the UK. looks intriguing, although I suspect it is intended to refer to physical reproductions, not photographs, although it would be odd if you could  make a physical copy after 25 years, but couldn't use a photo for far longer. Thanks for the relevant links -- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  18:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very glad that User:Uncle G weighed in, because this one is out of my comfort zone. :) There was actually a debate that just deadlocked at Templates for discussion/Log/2012 May 28 that hinged on the question of how international copyright law applies to us. I found User:Carl Lindberg's argument convincing that we would be unlikely to supply protection to something for which we would not protect our own citizens, and some of those look like utility objects to me, although I'll grant that they're hardly every-day objects. The completed models are an entirely different matter. If you have remaining questions after slogging through the reading, here's what I'd recommend (because it's what I'd do): head over to WP:MCQ or to Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright, link up the images, explain the complication, and ask them. If none of the images of the completed models are retainable, we may be able to keep one or two under WP:NFC? Again, that's not my comfort zone. But it's what I'd look into. And I'm sure it goes without saying, that I'd do my best to make the poor uploader feel better, since he has obviously worked very hard on this article and will be understandably disappointed if we can't retain some of these images. :/ Uncle G, if my recommendations sounds off base to you, please let me know. I'm comfortable with most text issues, but when images enter can start to feel a bit shaky. :) If it were text, my answer would be "WP:C says we can't take chances and if there is any doubt we need to rewrite. So I'll help rewrite, and all will be well." It's not that easy with non-text media. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted to MCQ-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  20:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether the design to which the model is built is a registered design is also a factor. There's also a lot to unpack from the two words "artistic craftsmanship".  See  and, which although based upon Australian law do comment upon the laws of other jurisdictions, for more. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 June 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing question
Sorry to bother you, but I came across some close paraphrasing which may -- or may not -- be a violation.

was created by in his or her user space by copying Bodhi Linux, swapping out the proper nouns and screenshots, and adding a "Latest Version" section", then moving the final product into Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quelitu (computer operating system). Is this sufficiently different to be acceptable, or does it violate attribution requirements?

Also, I can't help but be suspicious, because:
 * has all of 18 edits, all but the first to this article.
 * , the editor who approved and moved the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Quelitu (computer operating system) into the main space -- has all of 96 edits to his name.
 * Their latest edit was to add to the page of, a persistent plagiarist.

Something about this seems off, but I don't know enough about either the primary or secondary concerns to judge properly. What do you think? --Calton | Talk 07:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably okay. The only substantial duplicated text found by the duplication detector is system text, not article. Other matches seem trivial.


 * is obviously not a new contributor; this is his first edit. Two days later, he placed this - if it weren't for Steven Zhang's rebuttal of that, I'd wonder if it might be a clean start of Coffee. As it is, not sure who he is or what he's up to, but I'm not sure if he's related to the other account. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright & Lists question
Hello there. Sorry to bother but can you please help me here? I am patrolling new pages at the moment and have come across this new article, and I'm not sure whether to tag it for CSD G12 or not. I know what source the text appears to be copied from, but as it's a list, and that the WP:Copyright in lists guide varies in what content you can keep and what you can't, I am confused and not sure what to do. Minima ©  ( talk ) 13:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (tps)Remember that G12 means "unambiguous". IIRC, MRG isn't fond of list issues, because they aren't always easy. I don't see a lot of creativity in the list, so I don't see it as an unambiguous copyright problem. (BTW, not sure what to make of your statement that you don't know where the list came from, the source is given.)


 * On the other hand, it isn't clear to me that this list belongs in WP, so I would be tempted to AfD, and see whether there is a consensus to delete, or to merge into another article. Or maybe it deserves to be an article, but with a little punching up.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes, lists are not my favorite. :) I'm inclined to agree with SPhilbrick. The list is meant to be comprehensive - it's not a ranked list of "best" or anything. The only issue I see is that we do not know what the arrangement criteria are on that external source. I doubt there's much creativity, but it would be better to eliminate any doubt and put it in alphabetical order. I'm also inclined to agree with SPhilbrick that this may not be very encyclopedic. :/ --15:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible serial copyvio editor
Hi. Sorry to drop this on you personally, but I have no time to spare right now and I don't know the appropriate venue. I came across an unblock request at User talk:Druidhills, and took a closer look. They've made a lot of edits, and the first couple I looked at were clear copyvios - but would take a bit of time to unravel. (For example, this contains text that can be found at a number of bloggy places, like here dated 2008). Their article additions are all in very good English, but their talk page English is very poor, so I think there's a strong chance that everything they have added is a copyvio. Not sure what needs to be done. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the evaluation of the talk page writing versus the article writing. And having looked at American Association of Adapted Sports Programs, one of the bigger articles written by this person, I find that not only was the first currently undeleted revision pinched wholesale from several of the organization's own WWW pages ("Copyright © 1996 - 2011 American Association of adaptedSPORTS® Programs"), but there are deleted revisions from only a week before that where the copyright violation was even more blatant, and they were spotted straightaway.  Similarly,  to Carlee Hoffman comes, entire paragraphs at a time, from  &mdash; and the text in preceding edits from an IP address came from another copyrighted biography.  So, yes, a CCI seems called for. American Association of Adapted Sports Programs is an interesting knot to unravel, incidentally.  Some of the content was contributed by, who is almost certainly the Tommie Storms who is COO of the organization and named in the article.  But, conversely, there's an OTRS ticket commons:ticket:2011040710018315 that edit summaries imply is a copyright violation complaint by the organization.  Moonriddengirl, can you see Commons OTRS tickets? Uncle G (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After a brief look at some contributions, and the OTRS ticket, I support the need to open a CCI. (MRG can read the ticket)-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems essential. :/ Firing up the tool. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Opened at Contributor copyright investigations/Druidhills; several uncovered already. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Help
Hi Moon (and Moon's talk page lurkers!) I know you are probably up to your eyeballs in copyvios but nevertheless, if you (lurkers included) could help me with the copyvio issues at User talk:Judgesurreal777, I'd be much obliged. There are 80 articles shown through Soxred's tools but a few are from page moves so I'd guess there are 75 in all. The whole story is there, but I've scrubbed four articles so far, and checked another ten which appear okay (though with this its hard to be sure; webpages die and the Wayback Machine is spotty. One thing to note, it appears that for most of them, the infringed source was either listed as a reference or an external link. I have done nothing to check whether there were copyvios added to articles that were not created by the user.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, my. Thanks for finding the issue. :/ I'm pulling up the CCI tool just to get a list of edits. My threshold for listing a CCI has always been 5 articles, which seems like enough to justify checking the rest. It'll finish running right about the time I get my son packed and out the door for a weekend event. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A CCI is almost certainly going to be needed. There's a problem with unattributed splits and merges that will need to be repaired. The ones I've seen so far:, , , , , . These have all the earmarks of a split as well: , . Some of these were merged from requests, so finding the source articles will be easy. This is definitely one where practices have evolved over the years, so I don't mean to imply any allegation of wrongdoing. It's simply a matter of needing to provide adequate attribution. Still looking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, this was copied from the official biography. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Found one of the same ones you did. :) Okay, I'm seeing plenty enough unattributed merges and splits to by itself require a CCI. In addition, we've got five articles with content copied from external sites, not all of which are cited. I'm going to go ahead and open it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, CCI open. :/ Contributor copyright investigations/Judgesurreal777. Notified contributor. Cleaned up a bit. Took a while. So.... People above to whom I owe responses, I'm sorry! I've got to go. I've got company due in an hour, and if I don't vacuum my house I will ruin my reputation confirm that I am the type of person who doesn't vacuum. I'll will duck back in later today when I can get away with it, when my guest is not looking. Sorry! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, MRG actually suffers from RL pressure? And here I thought she was online 24/7... ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL! It only feels that way. :D Actually, extra this week - vacation coming up in the second half of the week and a ton of stuff to squeeze in, on top of family guests! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and question
I appreciate the help you and the other admin are providing in cleaning up some articles I have contributed to since 2006. I would very much like to help, and I am curious if you have a tool that you use to scan for such problems. You see, copy editing has not been my strength, so I often had to eyeball the text to see if it was totally in my own words or not. But you and the other admin seem to be scanning at a rate much faster than that! Please let me know, as I am eager to fix any issues and avoid any in the future, I love Wikipedia! Thanks, Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm glad that you're interested in helping out. :) Maybe the easiest way, to start, is to simply look for the merges where you were reacting to a merge request? As I mentioned, those are the easiest, since when you look at the diffs you can see the "merge" request in the window before your edit. Otherwise, I have a lot of practice looking for copying. But I look at your edit summaries, and I look also at formatting of the text and some of the language. For instance, I knew Ofermod (band) was copied from a disambiguation page or another article because it started with the words "Ofermod is also the name of the Orthodox and religiously fantatical black/death metal band from Sweden". That "also" doesn't make sense unless you talk about some other Ofermod first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, but I believe since I have only been occasionally active in the last four years, I think I have missed a guideline or two. So is part of the issue that content was transferred from one article to another? And that is what has to be attributed on the both the article edit history and on the talk page as a template? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes. That's the major issue. Attribution has always been required, but this was not well explained in 2006, and I can well understand that you might not have been aware. :) Content on Wikipedia can be copied from one article to another without any issue so long as it is attributed. The talk page attribution is not essential, but it's a good idea, especially when adding it in later, since you can add the diff when it is placed in the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, I will start fixing the issues, let me know if I do so incorrectly or incompletely. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that is a major issue, too.  It's only a minor thing here in the sense that (from a quick sampling) you've done a lot more of the unattributed mergers than you have the copying from outwith Wikipedia.  It's major in that it's something that you shouldn't have done at all, and not merely something that you didn't do properly.  Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

length of quotes
Hi,

Are there any rules regarding the amount of a article that can contain quotes? I am reviewing Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein) for GA. There a lot of quotes in the article, plus many extensive quotes in the citations. A similar situation is Drowning Girl.

Eleven of these short articles on Lichtenstein's work using extensive quotes from the same sources passed GA today.

At what point does quoting become questionable or actual copyvio? For example, in Look Mickey, there are several lengthy quotes in the references cited Bader, Graham. "Donald's Numbness". In Girl with Ball there are long quotes from Waldman, Diane (1993). "Comic Strips and Advertising Images" and other sources. Another is Brushstrokes series.

At what point does using extensive quotes from the same sources, even in one article, nevermind many, actually appropriating the work of another? Regards, MathewTownsend (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC) This is just one of the quote examples (from "Notes"):
 * In addition to length, consider purpose. Take Mermaid (Roy Lichtenstein), for example.  Why is the quotation in the second paragraph even there at all?  Who is it quoting?  If those aren't Lichtenstein's own description, why should we care so much that the exact words are quoted?  Why cannot the same information be given in ordinary running prose?  (Contrast the quotation at Look Mickey.)  In addition to purpose there is clarity.  Take the third paragraph.  Who regarded it that way?  Who is being quoted? I'm interested in Moonriddengirl's opinion of the amount of quotation in Look Mickey.  In some cases there appears to be more quoted material in the citation than there is prose that it is supporting. Uncle G (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I attempted to get the community to reach a consensus on how much material could be used in a citation here. (If you want the background leading to this see background). I failed in my goal to come out of the discussion with a clear guideline. Someday, we'll have to try again to get a clear guideline, but there may be some useful information in the discussion.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the editor's articles have way too many long quotes; he should be able to paraphrase (I know exactly which editor you're talking about). Agree with Uncle G, unless its Lichtenstein himself describing the work we don't need a long quote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that Moonriddengirl has already expressed an opinion. &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ""his reputation lies completely within the fine arts. He has shown no interest in reaching a wider audience, even on appropriate occasions. For instance, his Mermaid (1979), an outdoor sculpture installed in Miami Beach as part of the Art in Public Places program, is not notable for addressing a wider audience than usual. The Mermaid with a hank of blonde hair, bouncing on three waves under the stylized metal rays of the sun, is geographically apt, but it has more to do with Lichtenstein's paintings of the preceding two years than with the community. This is not said as a complaint, but as a corrective to the idea that an artist who quotes the mass media can only have mass audiences in mind.""

Am I off base in being concerned about this? Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * why can't this be put in wikipedia's own words? It seems to me Lawrence Alloway's creative expression is being appropriated, especially since Alloway's words are quoted in dozens of article on Lichtenstein.
 * In Uncle G's example (above) of Look Mickey as a more appropriate use of quotes by Lichtenstein in the article (as those by Lichtenstein are in blue while others aren't), look at the extensive quotes in the "Notes".
 * Are the rules the same (whatever they are) for using copyrighted quotes in the "Notes" as they are for the rest of the article?
 * What if the same source is quoted over and over in many articles? See Roy Lichtenstein
 * No. It's a valid concern, and it's good that article review in this case is not pressing for writers to create articles that copy and quote sources extensively.  (I'm remembering the concerns that have been repeatedly raised over the years about how the DYK, GA, and FA processes, when done badly on the parts of the reviewers, put pressure on writers to copy sources word-for-word, and to quote extensively.  You only need to look a little further down on this very talk page to see a case with a GA writer who has copied sources entire paragraphs at a time.)  See the discussions that Sphilbrick hyperlinked-to above.  Uncle G (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Lots of conversation here! There are no specific word counts, but, as explained above, extensive quotation can be an issue and is forbidden by policy, when the sources are copyrighted. What counts as "extensive" is up for discussion, but I'd agree with you that context is important. I hate to put you off longer, since I wasn't able to get to this yesterday, but my guest is almost wrapped up her phone call and her tolerance is not going to outlast that! I'll look at the specific cases probably tomorrow, but in the meantime, take a look at this one I cleaned earlier in the week: . One of the worst I've ever seen. :/ Those quotes are taken from the same couple of articles; from one source, we used over 1,200 words! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * More Lichtenstein: Big Painting No. 6, Whaam!, Girl with Ball, Torpedo...Los!, Artist's Studio—Look Mickey (besides Look Mickey} Some of these Lichtenstein ones seem to me about as bad as your example! Especially since in some cases, large quotes from the same few authors are used in many articles. Almost seems that eventually their entire work will be quoted on wikipedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it's a problem. The question, really, is what to do about it. The first step might be to tag the articles with issues non-free with an explanation at the talk page? I started to do that myself with Look Mickey, but I really won't have time to shepherd the ensuing conversation right now. The few days I have this week before my vacation are going to be crazy busy, and then I've got tons of stuff before Wikimania. :/ Anybody else have time to work through it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see that Look Mickey has a non-free tag, or any talk page discussion. If you could do just one, as a model, so I could see what you mean and how to approach this. If I knew what to do, I could help out. A bunch of these articles (about 11, I think) have just become GAs, but I don't think GA has any criteria preventing an article made up mostly of quotes from becoming a GA. I have one on hold and have brought up my concern in the GA review. Don't think I've a real leg to stand on though, with the GA criteria being vague. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, as I said, I started to, but I realized I don't have time right now to follow through with the conversation. I can barely even keep up with my talk page at the moment. :/ I can tag it, but only if somebody else is going to do the followup talk. Uncle G, Crisco - do either of you have time? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, a request
I know this is rather sudden and out of the blue (it kinda is for me too), but per this section, Michaeldsuarez would like to nominate me for adminship. I was wondering if you would be okay with being a co-nominator? You're always the first person I think of when I have a question or a request. :P (Sorry about that!) I hope you aren't too busy. I can find someone else if you are. Silver seren C 00:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, Silver seren. :) I'm afraid things are pretty much nuts for me at the moment. :/ As I note on my userpage, I don't usually even visit RFA because it takes me so many hours to review candidates. I'd need to spend a whole lot more than that for an RFA review (I've only done a couple), and things are crazy right now - I've got out of town company, am getting ready to go on vacation and will be dealing with some family stuff in the days leading up to Wikimania. I, of course, know you from our interactions, but the first RFA I took me by surprise because I was unaware of an editor's work in a certain area. Since then, I've been very careful to make sure I know what challenges a candidate might face before going in. I have to add to that that I would never be comfortable nomming somebody in circumstances that I worry might work against them, and while I don't actually know what ArbCom action is under discussion there, I would hate to see you judged unfairly because of some unrelated drama. If you decide to go ahead and under the circumstances, I'll wish you luck, but, honestly, if I were you, I might wait until there's no cloud on the horizon. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I rather gathered you were busy from the below discussions. I've just been weighing who else is best to ask. You really were the best option. As for the Arbcom thing, eh. It's already been far longer than I was advised to wait before trying again as it is. It really is more or less time to try. Just have to find the right person. Thanks anyways and good luck with all the things you have to do. Try not to wear yourself out. :) Silver  seren C 08:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck to you, too! Are you going to Wikimania, by the way? It would be nice to meet you in person. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Karin Magnussen
Karin Magnussen (born February 9, 1908 in Bremen, † February 19, 1997 ibid) was a German biologist and teacher, who propagated the Nazi racial theories. At the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute examined her eyes of murdered prisoners from the Auschwitz concentration camp who were sent to her from the concentration camp doctor Josef Mengele.

Dear Madam, I am writing to ask if you could make a post on this important nazi scientist, Karin Magnussen. I had to go to Deutsche wikipedia and google translate the bio in order to obtain the information on this little-known, unprosecuted nazi. Obviously this is of historical importance to wikipedia readers. I don't know what your policies are regarding deutsche wikipedia, but there must be some way to include something of this scientist's bio.

Sincerely,

Paolosilv 74.239.209.92 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Moonriddengirl isn't an article writing service. Nor is the problem here anything to do with the relationship between the German and English Wikipedias.  Indeed, nor was it related to what the article subject is.  Please read Copyright policy.  Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the problem with our article was its copyright status. :) If the German article is not a copyright issue, Paolosilv, translating it from German to the English Wikipedia would be fine! While you'd need to create an account to do it yourself, you can "request an article" - you'd have to be sure to note that it is a direct translation, for copyright reasons. But since content on the German Wikipedia is as liberally licensed as content here is, that's all that you'd need to do.


 * If you decide to create an account, there's a little bit of information at Article Feedback Tool/Create. I'll be happy to talk to you in that case about how to attribute your translation, but you can also read for yourself at Copying within Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

A dodgy image returns
Could you perhaps take a quick look at File_talk:The_Genealogy_of_Bharata.png. You may wish to comment. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Have commented. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Mail
— TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 June 2012
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 06:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Khokhar rajput copyvio?
You wrote at WP:ANI that the deleted content was previously published at Facebook and implied at User talk:X-Zaynab-x that the user committed copyvio. While I think you're right in that the page creator copied the text from there and did not think about (or did not care about) copyright issues, the Facebook content is actually an unacknowledged copy of our Khokhar article, specifically this revision of November 1, 2011. Thus, Mike 7's speedy-deletion rationale was on the dot, and the page creator's protestation that "only the name was matching but the information was differnet" implies incompetence or dishonesty. --Lambiam 17:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) I'm so sorry for the delay in responding to you. For some reason, I find it easier to answer my talk page from the bottom up, and when I was catching up this weekend I thought I had caught up with the page. I missed several notes up here on this end. Right you are! Thanks for clarifying. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

More copyvio from blocked socks
See Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy/Archive and Sockpuppet investigations/Trabucogold/Archive. These two are IMHO pretty obviously the same editor, and I am finding copyvio from the puppetmasters and socks in various articles. Quite a bit is copied from one Terry Mortenson, not at all a reliable source. is an example of a source that has been used in several articles, or rather copied to several articles. Each article I've seen so far has had more than one sock edit it. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly working my way through those edited recently - if you look at this from the intersection tool, AshforkAZ, a sock, created a number of these or heavily edited them, and SmittySmithIII and MThoodhood (two accounts used by one person - see the talk pages where he/she admits to logging on as the other account) have replaced some stuff that was removed before they stated editing. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Doug! This week has been crazy, and for some reason I thought I had caught up my talk page. Do you think that this warrants a CCI? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * After a bit more work today I think I've cleared it up, as the copyvio issues were mainly around work to do with a Creationist writer Terry Mortenson and Scriptural geologist and articles on Scriptuarl geologists. Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Help with (what else) potential copyvio
Hi, Moonriddengirl. By all accounts, you seem to be the resident copyright expert, so I was wondering if you could give me your opinion of Herb Cohen (Negotiator) versus. It looks like a close paraphrase to me, but I'm not all that confident of my ability to detect such things, so I was hoping you could give me your ideas on it (and any pointers, too!) Thanks. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) The article has been cleaned up a lot since you dropped by, but as a first step I always run it through WP:DUPDET. That raises some red flags with the version you dropped off: . The dupdet is better with finding straightforward copy-paste, but a couple of items raise alarms and help me zero in on this area:


 * The source says:


 * I'm not saying that's the extent of it; I'm just sharing my own process per your request for pointers. :) That area is enough to tell me there is some close following. I'd then read both article to see how much of an issue it is - and the first sentence catches me. Our article said "Herb Cohen is an American negotiation expert[2], and dealmaker[1], who has been intimately involved in some of the intense headline dramas, from hostile takeovers to hostage negotiations[2]." The source says "For more than three decades, world renowned negotiation expert Herb Cohen has been intimately involved in some of the world's most intense headline dramas, from hostile takeovers to hostage negotiations." That's highly evocative language, and there's no reason for us to duplicate it.


 * My next step would be to figure out if the problem is severe enough to warrant copyvio or if close paraphrase would be better or if I can just correct it myself and explain the issue to the contributor. Looking at the contributor's history, I see that this is a problem. Madmanbot caught similarity in to . He addressed it, but it's still a problem. I've now blanked that article and spoken to the contributor about it (as well as leaving a note at the talk page). I'm more likely to correct by myself an issue from a drive-by contributor than from a regular user, since regular users who don't learn how to do this eventually wind up at WP:CCI or even potentially banned from the project. I'd much rather have them contributing constructively from an earlier stage. Over the years, I've seen a couple of nasty CCIs that I perhaps could have prevented had I not cleaned, but taught in the beginning. :/ (Please don't ask for specifics, anybody; my memory is not that good. I just remember the "Oh, rats" feeling of seeing that I had visited an article in a CCI list.)


 * Since I've got a couple of notes I see I need to address above, and I'm running out of time, would you mind looking at the current version of Herb Cohen and seeing if the problems persist? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It looks like there's still some close paraphrasing in the Career section (for example, the sentences "He started formally teaching the subject of negotiating strategy in 1963, when he was offered to teach a two week course in negotiation for attorneys sponsored by Allstate Insurance Company. It is where he coined the terms "Win-Win, Win-Lose and Lose-Lose" to the line in here: "He started formally teaching the subject of negotiations during a two week course for attorneys in 1963 sponsored by Allstate Insurance Company. It was then he first used the terms “Win-Win. Win-Lose, Lose-Lose”."  Ugh.  I'll probably try to reword things and fix it; it's just the one section (even though that section is most of the article...)  The thing about it is that, for a lot of these sentences, they're very similar to what's in the sources, but I can't think of many other ways to put things. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) If you still need help, let me know. I just kind of ran through my time with the other article and have to get to work. I worked late last night, but I still have to log in my hours. :D I find it helpful sometimes to bring in multiple sources, but in the absence of that, radical restructuring can sometimes help. Off to work with me! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions and help requested
Hi, Moonriddengirl. I just read the potential copyright violation with respect to the contents in David J. Schwartz (Author). Kindly help me with some suggestions for the page in question, and other two pages (see below) I m contributing to avoid potential copy vio.

Help 1 : for page David J. Schwartz (Author)
Please suggest me a solution for page - David J. Schwartz (Author). I would highly appreciate if an edited version is kept, instead of deleting the whole page. So it could serve as a reference for future edits. Jean Julius Vernal 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure. All you have to do is rewrite it. :) The instructions for doing that are on the template blanking the page, under "Can you help resolve this issue?" where it says "Otherwise, you may write a new article without copyright-infringing material. Click "Show" to read where and how." Basically, you just go into the temporary page it links you to when you click "show" and write the text over from scratch, and it will be used to replace the content we have. Please be sure to start from scratch. Sometimes people who aren't familiar with this process begin by copying over what they had. It is very hard not to create a derivative work that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the detailed explanation. Though the thought of starting from scratch was bit tiring, managed to frame a page Talk:David J. Schwartz (Author)/Temp with some innovative words. :-) And of course, I need some expert opinion on the structure, especially grammar. Your thoughts please. Jean Julius Vernal 19:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Help 2 : for page The Magic of Thinking Big
As you can see in the revision page for The Magic of Thinking Big - I removed few mins back some potential copy vio quotes and passages

Kindly share some insights on the usage of passages or quotes from revision 499569759 ? ( Any possibility to keep some bare minimum lines or passages?) Pls see revision comparison in ques Jean Julius Vernal 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are several factors to consider when using quotes and passages from a copyrighted work, and this one is especially complicated.


 * First, let's deal with the list of quotes copied from his homepage. Somebody - probably the author or his agent - has accumulated this list of quotes because they think it's important. There is creativity in the selection of the quotes; they didn't just choose them at random, and they are not necessarily the same quotes that somebody else would determine are important in the book. That makes their list in itself copyrightable, separate from the copyright status of the quotes themselves.


 * In this case, you expanded the list, which can help. That means you're using your own selection criteria and not relying on theirs. But there's no getting around that you used their list; you cited it. :) The US copyright law that governs us regards recasting, transforming or adapting pre-existing works as creating a "derivative work". If the pre-existing work is in copyright, you either need permission of the copyright holder or you need a valid fair use defense. Since your list incorporates the entirety of theirs, fair use could be difficult. Taking is substantial. You would do better to select quotes that you yourself find notable in the book, bypassing their list altogether. Their list is short; it will be difficult to avoid taking too much. The book is long. It's a bit easier.


 * But that raises other issues - while you can use reasonable quotations as necessary to support your article, you have to have good reasons for including them, and they need to remain balanced with other text both to avoid copyright infringement and sustain fair use and to comply with our local standards. See WP:QUOTEFARM. Quotations should not overwhelm the article. Nobody has an automatic right to take content from a copyrighted work. We can only do so if we are in some way advancing scholarship, creativity, etc. You could write an article on that book that would infringe on the copyright even if you didn't copy a single word, if you summarized it in too much detail without having a good reason. This is because one of the key factors of fair use is whether or not you are making use of copyrighted elements "transformatively" or simply superseding the original. If you talk about the contents of the book solely because you want people to know the contents of the book, you may be replacing the need for the original without adding anything to it. If you are critiquing the book - praising, criticizing or analyzing it - you are adding something new. This can then be carefully balanced against the amount of non-free content you appropriate. You can quote more, summarize more. As long as everything has a good reason.


 * It would be easier in this particular article to justify retaining quotes if you balanced the article out with more scholarship. Could you add a critical review section? Could you talk about the influence it has had? For instance, I see two articles where notable people discuss the impact the book had on them: ; . Both Lou Holtz and Brian Wansink seem to have transformed their lives after reading it. Articles on Wikipedia are never finished, so it isn't always necessary to develop one area before working on another, but this is one of the few areas where we need to build one before we can really use the other. :) Laying the groundwork for a good article opens it up to transformative use of non-free content.


 * In overall terms, on Wikipedia, we try to take as little non-free content as necessary to produce a good encyclopedia article. Non-free content can certainly be essential to a good article, but we should try to choose the non-free material we use carefully to make sure that it is the best at serving its purpose and that we do not draw too much from any one source. Quotations should generally be woven in and among other content that sustains and elaborates on it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed analysis and comments. I highly appreciate your valuable inputs. Jean Julius Vernal 07:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Help 3 : for page Herb Cohen (negotiator)
Any suggestions? Jean Julius Vernal 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * My typical suggestions are (1) bring in as many sources as you can, and (2) weave them together to create something original. This is harder to do when you are covering basic facts of a person's life, but in that case it's particularly important to avoid taking "striking phrases" from your original. For instance, in your earlier versions, the article opened with " who has been intimately involved in some of the intense headline dramas, from hostile takeovers to hostage negotiations". This is very finely crafted, highly creative language taken verbatim from the source. It includes two [[alliteration|alliterative'' runs: "intimately involved intense"; "headline hostile hostage" and ends with a nice bit of linguistic balance. While job titles, etc., are not copyrightable, content like this cannot be taken unless it is quoted and fully attributed and, as mentioned above, unless it is "transformative."


 * I suspect that this particular article is not in that bad a shape at this point; it's been edited by two different contributors since it was established. What I would do in your position is read over the article and read over the sources, asking myself if there are points of commonality that could and should be altered. If I could not find them, I'd politely ask the editor who tagged it to point out the issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I ll take your earlier point - "Articles on Wikipedia are never finished, so it isn't always necessary to develop one area before working on another". I let the page remain as it is, and hope others open it up further in years to come as I m unable to find anymore reliable sources to tweak. Was inspired by his book - You can negotiate anything, so thought of writing a bio. Cheers Jean Julius  Vernal 07:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanking you in advance. Jean Julius Vernal 11:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)