User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 19

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi. This article was automatically listed for review at the copyright problems noticeboard when Corensearchbot tagged it. Review discloses that several paragraphs are almost verbatim to material previously published at [1]. The material is hosted there under claim of crown copyright, which is incompatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements, which require that material be released for modification as well as reuse. I've blanked the article for now to permit time to clarify the matter. If this material can't be verified to have been taken from a source that is public domain or otherwise licensed compatibly, it will need to be rewritten in original language, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi,
  • The first mentioned paragraph has been changed

In March 1941, the squadron was loaned to Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to Bomber Command, it continued its low-level daylight raids until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From here it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline. However, as the air defence of the island began to take priority, the detachment was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942.

versus

From March till May 1941, the squadron on loan to RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to RAF Bomber Command, it took up its low-level daylight raids again until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From there it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline. However, as the air defence of Sicily began to take priority, the detachment was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942.^[1]

• • The second paragraph now contains a direct link to the source http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn106-110.htm

• • The 3rd paragraph you mention is twice as long as the original:

With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadron originally controlled three sites. However, it was soon decided to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No 77 Squadron at Tuddenham was redesignated as No 107 Squadron. It finally disbanded on 10 July 1963.

versus

With the establishment of

If this is not enough, just drop me a line Dirk P Broer (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page as best I can at the moment. :) I should be back at my desk on 12/29. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Did a partial rewrite of the first mentioned paragraph, you might want to compare it with the original on rafweb. Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet another version is awaiting your judgement, I hope to have corrected the earlier mistakes by trying to rewrite the passages you mentioned. Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy new year! I have rewritten the Thor missile paragraph, clearifying the information in the process, it is yours to evaluate now. I think the article has much improved under your guidance, happy to see it has already reached B-status. Dirk P Broer (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —" talk ) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Whitman is a grand way to mark the passage. :D A happy new year to you as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here goes my last edit of 2009: Happy New Year Moonriddengirl! My most excellent regards to you, and I hope you have a healthy and happy 2010. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! You, too. I'm honored that you spent it on me. :D My last edit for 2009 will probably be something boring related to copyright. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl, A very distressful situation has developed. I don't know where to begin explaining it, but a user named Daedalus969 came to my talk page last night, and what followed has been a disaster. Please see my talk page. I am not very good at making diffs, but I have been making them if you need them, but I think just looking at the talk page should do it. And then let me know what you think. Thanks so much.

Sorry, forgot to tell you: on the talk page, it begins with "Edit Summaries." Thanks.

Malke2010

13:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry for the distress and am off to review it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that situation unfortunately quickly spiraled out of hand. :/

Okay, here's what I think. I think that you did a pretty good job staying civil in the face of some serious provocation. Daedalus969 was right about this. His tone seems unnecessarily confrontational, but your handling was fine, aside from the edit summary. You read it; you removed it. All well and good. He should have assumed good faith about that removal — "lying" jumps straight past AGF into presumptions about your motivation — and his response to

User:Coldplay Expert

's first note is very hostile, given the tone of Coldplay's note. The whole exchange that follows is just baffling.

Just as a suggestion for future, you might not want to request that people stay off of your talk page until all reasonable efforts at diplomacy have failed. Remember that your goal here (at least if you want to succeed on Wikipedia) is to become the soul of diplomacy. :) Diplomacy doesn't come from a position of weakness, but from the ability to focus on an end-goal over the immediate impulse of emotion. This being a collaborative project, it's good to be able to show others that you not only can collaborate well, but can go above and beyond, even when things are tricky. Also, sometimes people with whom you've disagreed can come around to be valuable colleagues, and it helps to keep the door open. I would recommend that you make several efforts to de-escalate before making such a request.

Your removal of the first note without comment was a good effort to de-escalate. Even if your edit summary was mistaken, there was nothing inflammatory or uncivil about it.

There are basically two approaches that I take to try to de-escalate, depending on the situation: (1) I make my response very straightforward and businesslike, pretty much as devoid of personality as possible, or (2) I try to go out of my way to be particularly friendly and/or cordial in the hopes of reminding the other contributor by example how we're supposed to be behaving. I use both approaches because my feelings are basically similar to those expressed in this essay:

If your next move is carefully considered and rational, rather than ill-considered, you'll give the impression of being a more reasonable person, and you'll be much more likely to prevail. Also, giving the other person time to cool down means they will be more willing to listen to reason. They may even start to regret acting rashly, or forget why they very much wanted things a certain way.

I will not take tactic 2 against egregious incivility, though. Extend a friendly hand to the wrong person or at the wrong time, and they'll cut it off. :) I'm always willing to give people a chance, but diplomacy doesn't require that you surrender self-respect. Tactic 1 almost always serves me well. Even if it doesn't de-escalate the situation (and it can't always, because it takes two to make a civil collaboration), it at least makes sure that others can see where the problem is...not with me. In both cases, I try to read the content of the note around the incivility and respond to the person as though he or she had made a perfectly reasonable post.

At this point, I would recommend that you forgive and forget. I would suggest you not go out of your way to interact with this user and consider letting the ANI thread carry on without you, whether admins decide to keep the block for the 55 hours or to shorten it in belief that he has understood and intends to comply. If you encounter him elsewhere, pretend you do not know him and address him neutrally, as you would anyone else. I'm sorry you lost an adopter over this. (I am also concerned that you may have posted a private e-mail in this series of edits. If so, please remove it at once, as arbcom has rightly forbidden the posting of private correspondence on Wikipedia without explicit permission from the individual who contacted you.) I would give that one time. Once the drama settles down and everyone is back to building the encyclopedia, s/he may reconsider.

As a complete aside, your "stuff" section seems like it might be in need of a better home. :) I keep my "stuff" at the very unpretty page User:Moonriddengirl/Project page. Not much to look at, but it's quick reference when I need it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Forgive and forget is totally called for. This fellow doesn't know me from Adam so I can't take any of it personally. And I would have no problem, after time has passed naturally, in being his friend. I agree also with the responses, you are so right, if you extend a hand at the wrong time, etc. I really do believe this fellow is having a personal crisis of some sort and since he is a regular here he brought it here. I can understand that instinct. In the beginning, I wasn't reading the posts he was volleying to Coldplay (a sweet young person), but then when I read them, I could see this poor man is having something in his life that isn't good at the moment, and I do feel bad for him. His friends seem to have come around for him, like Childofmidnight has said some nice things to him, etc. And as painful as a block is, believe me I know, I do think they are good for gaining perspective. I certainly did after mine. And at that time, I also took a break. Wikipedia is not an easy place, and the environment takes getting used to. And thank you for critiquing my actions because I am so aware of what you have told me over these last months, all your tutelage, and I was trying hard not to make things worse for everybody. So applause to you for your great advice over these last months.

And as regards my stuff section, I compiled those diffs because I wanted to show them to you, so now I will just delete them. I didn't realize I could make a project page instead and I will open one today. I love to collect things that I learn about. And I hope my adopter will come around later on, too. He's really a fine fellow. I wish I had realized what was going on sooner last night and made it to your page before you were off for the night. I was upset and fearful of making a huge mistake so I posted on jpgordon's page, but Jadefalcon archived my request, which confused me. Then I went to the AN/I, saw this Tedder fellow, went to him. I was just looking for someone to say, "Yes, okay, problem here, this is how we fix it." Because that's what I knew you would say. Like you're doing now! I can't tell you what a port in the storm you are for me. I kept thinking about the awful posts that you had and that fellow didn't get blocked and I kept thinking, I shouldn't be upset because this fellow isn't doing anything that bad. So I think it helped me keep perspective so I'm grateful you shared that story with me. And I will let the AN/I go on without me. I've said all I thought they should know from my end. I hope it helps more than not. Thank you again for being you.

Malke2010

16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad if I've been able to help, even with sharing my experience. Trust me; there are others. :D You're welcome to come by any time you think I may be able to share my experience. As you probably realize by now, I will almost always try to find the peaceful resolution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and trying to always find the peaceful resolution is what makes you so brilliant. You are reasoned, and even, and able to see all sides. That is a talent, my friend. Not everybody has that. Also, would it be appropriate for you to say something to Coldplay Expert? He left a message on Daedalus969's talk page that suggests he's upset and feeling very bad for Daedalus. He's a very young wikipedian and he obviously feels very bad for Daedalus. He feels like he's done something bad and that's a hard thing for a young person to have on him. I thought if you could reassure him that things will work out and be fine for Daedalus, he could feel better about all this. Afterall, the poor kid has been ignored in this whole thing. I would do it but I wouldn't want it to be seen as adding to anything right now. I am only comfortable talking to you about this right now as I think this is something that as the saying goes, "the least said, the soonest mended." But poor Coldplay is feeling bad and I think he could use the reassurance. Thanks so much.

Malke2010

17:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You're very kind. :) I'll see if I can say anything to help Daedalus Coldplay Expert. Let me go see what he's said and if it looks like there's anything I might be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed him. I think that's the best way I can offer encouragement without adding anymore to the drama. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much. And oh, yes, the email is the best way to go as it does not add to anything. I was not aware that you could do that. Please feel free to email me, too, so that I'm not adding anything more, as well. You are such a comfort. And I'm glad to see there's an admin there now who is helping things for Daedalus, too. She seems to be very much like you. :) Please email me.

Malke2010

18:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

← It's he, and chances are that, yes, once all this has settled down and gotten a bit dusty, I will re-offer adoption. However, right now, I really don't want to deal with conflict in any way due to personal reasons and want to deal with improving a long neglected article, so it seemed to be the best course of action to temporarily withdraw. Thank you for helping Malke with this where I couldn't, Moonriddengirl. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 20:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at Coldplay's talk page, I think you helped with the situation. :) I'm sure Malke appreciates your assistance to him. I certainly understand wanting to avoid conflict. Good luck with the article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied. Thanks to everyone :D--

^{Let's talk}

21:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Happy New Year and happy editing to you as well! :D I'd clink a champagne glass, but all I've got is a can of Diet Coke. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year to you and everybody you care about! I haven't been around much lately due to the ridiculous amount of managerial stress related to my new job, but I have been aware for a long time that everything you do on Wikipedia is both unbelievable an invaluable. I apologise for the extra work my absence has created, but have no doubt that your attention in SCV matters has resulted in outcomes both understandable and within the spirit of Wikipedia policy. As those of us who have been here a while will know, the two often seem very much independent!. Fond regards, – Toon 01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, yes, they do. :D I appreciate that, and no need to apologize by any means. Just glad to see you plugging away when you can. :) Hope the stress settles down, though, for your sake. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

and good news. . .Daedalus got let out of his block. I'm so happy he got that in time for the New Year. I'm clinking my Starbucks black iced tea to your can of Diet Coke. :D

Malke2010

01:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. And I see you've extended an olive branch. Hope that it works out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, check his talk page. He said, "Thank you, you are forgiven." I cried my eyes out.

Malke2010

01:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice you've been adding to the talk pages of the relevant articles that they will be reviewed after "about a week". Given the number of articles you are tagging, and also the time of year, I very much doubt if most of the articles will even begin to be tackled in that timeframe. As someone who is happy to help in rescuing many of the articles, I'd be grateful for some advice on how best to proceed. Would it be appropriate to make a call on Derek's talk page (which I expect many interested editors will have on their watchlist) to encourage a group approach towards rescuing these articles? I haven't been involved in an issue of this scale before and would be grateful for any guidance you can offer or point to - not on the issue of copyright violation itself, but more on the best process for getting sound articles back onto mainspace. For instance, would it be appropriate to return relevant articles to the version immediately prior to Derek's edits, and work from there? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Many of these articles probably will be restored to the version they were in prior to his edits. In fact, that could be done immediately; the tags just put the article into a kind of holding pattern in case interested contributors who have subsequently added material would like to consider other actions. For instance, with more leisure (and less copyvio articles to handle), I've sometimes piece by piece re-added that later content with attribution when it doesn't infringe on the original. Experience working copyvios has told me that sometimes contributors are dismayed to find an article suddenly rolled back a year or two, and this gives them an opportunity to be part of the process. A lot of collateral damage in this work, I'm sorry to say. Having poured my share of effort into articles, I can only imagine how dismayed I'd be to find out that my work was wasted because the contributor before me tainted the well.

The articles that are in real peril are the articles that he created, since there is no clean to restore to and many of these will have to be deleted. However, as these have to be rewritten anyway, that's not necessarily an urgent matter. The cleanup page itself, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20091230, will document which articles have been deleted (when those blanked articles go redlinked), so a list of "needed articles" could be generated from that.

I have put out a general call for assistance at

AN

, since we can use all the help we can get. Most of the time, these requests are ignored, but occasionally a project will rally together and do some amazing work--Gastropods, Opera & Mathematics come to mind. :) If you believe that a call at Derek's talk page would bring additional assistance, then, by all means. He has been invited to participate in cleanup on this as well, but his contribution history suggests he may not intend to.

What would help the most in these efforts is assistance in reviewing these articles, especially if you have access to resources. We can't presume that content he has added is clean, given his history of verifiable infringement, which means that all of his major contributions are suspect. I have had to blank Don Partridge even though I have not verified copying because I can't verify that copying did not occur. I've asked at the Librarians WikiProject for assistance in accessing the suspect sources: Guinness Book of British Hit Singles - 14th Edition; Guinness Book of British Hit Albums - 7th Edition. With seven pages, evaluation here is pretty much going to have to be break-neck if we ever hope to get it done. Some of these CCI listings hang around for quite a while, but the goal once we've identified a multiple point infringer is to clear out the content to protect the project from contributory infringement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I'll add a note to Derek's talk page as well. I take the point about the articles he has created - on one of them, Lonesome Sundown, I've already done some re-editing at Talk:Lonesome Sundown/Temp, and would appreciate if you could look at that and advise me on the extent to which my approach so far would overcome your copyvio concerns. However, I think some of the other articles may also have high priority in terms of their importance - such as Al Martino, for example. I think I should make the point that I'm quite sure that Derek is extremely upset by what has happened - and that whatever he may have done was down to a misunderstanding (or, a different interpretation to yours) of the copyright rules. In the circumstances I don't anticipate he'll be rushing back into action on this too quickly, but if it's approached as a learning process hopefully he will return in time. He is not the sort of editor that WP can afford to lose too easily, in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Copyright problems are often, I think, created by people who intended no harm. Unfortunately, Derek was advised of this issue in February 2006, here. It's unfortunate that he didn't investigate further or take those comments on board, as I'm sure he's not too happy to discover that he's wasted so much of his time in article writing. It's also unfortunate for the editors who have collaborated with him or who must take the time to clean up these articles. If this had been nipped back then, we could all be doing something different now. :) It's obvious that he cares about the encyclopedia, and I hope that if he decides to return to writing content he will be mindful of copyright issues and will seek assistance if he's not sure how much of a rewrite is necessary to avoid infringement. While WP should not lose any contributor easily, we don't always have a choice. Copyright infringement does not just damage the articles in which it appears, but can damage the entire project. If he violates copyright again, he will almost certainly be blocked from further contribution.

I'm in the middle of addressing a tagged copyright article (rewriting it, a luxury I don't have as often as I used to), but as soon as I'm finished, I'll come take a look at your rewrite. I appreciate your assistance with this clean up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't aware of the 2006 posting. Clearly, there is a very fine line to be trodden between

WP:SYNTHESIS, and many of us fall foul of it inadvertently on occasion. But I'm not downplaying our legal responsibilities. Ghmyrtle (talk

) 14:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Derek does not appear to be unaware of copyright, having discussed it several times on his talk page. [2], [3], [4]. This is not an indictment; indeed, he cautions others against it. I think it's just an issue of education. And cleanup, of course.  Frank  |  talk  15:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

←There can be a fine line, but I think perhaps that this situation goes well beyond it. Perhaps I'm misreading your tone, Ghmyrtle, which can be easy to do with text, but such statements as well as "whatever he may have done was down to a misunderstanding (or, a different interpretation to yours) of the copyright rules" leads me to wonder if you are under the impression that there is something borderline about this matter.

Consider the article now at User:Derek R Bullamore/Pete Mayes, which he created only days ago. In addition to copying verbatim several passages from [5] (the sentence "Despite years of ill health that included heart problems, diabetes and the loss of both legs and the use of his hands, Mayes continued to surface around Houston at occasional shows to sing in a spirited shout that suggested none of his ailments had him down" is copied verbatim, as is "Mayes' few recordings are best represented by For Pete’s Sake released in 1998, nearly fifty years after Mayes first stepped onstage."), the bulk of the article is blatantly derivative of [6].

Compare the following three examples, article followed by that source:

I believe that the problem may be more obvious in comparing such text. There certainly can be a fine line between usable paraphrase and unusable, but I really hope that most people would not view this as treading close that line. I do not debate that he may have been operating in good faith, but he was cautioned about precisely this kind of thing almost four years ago, and it's a real shame that he either did not understand or did not comply with that advice.

I'm off to look at your rewrite. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your rewrite certainly addresses the problems in the original. I've used it to replace that text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. I wasn't intending any criticism of your approach at all. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My feelings aren't bruised. :) I just wouldn't want you to think that we are blowing a molehill into a mountain and unfairly mistreating this contributor. Again, I believe he may be working in good faith, but the problem sadly is substantial. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. I've cleared my diary for the next few weeks. (Not.) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear MRG,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone in the world.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow! That's so pretty. :D Thank you; Happy New Year to you and yours as well. (I was just talking up your project and your responsiveness to copyright cleanup in the section right above. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you tak a look at the e-mail section. Thanks.--

Hi. There's not enough there for me to piece together what's going on, but it seems that you are feeling harassed by

User:IMatthew. Wikipedia:Harassment contains processes for dealing with that situation, but I am concerned that you seem to have wandered pretty far across the civility line in that interaction. As I was suggesting to Malke a few days ago, the advice in that policy is paramount: "If you feel you are being harassed, first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). It is hard to over-emphasize this." I would recommend you disengage from the other contributor immediately and seek assistance at one of the recommended fora if you reach the point of feeling that frustrated and angry. I'm afraid it's likely to just complicate resolving any problems you may have. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, excellent advice. It's best if we archive that thread and Coldplay doesn't respond anymore. Just ignore. If iMatthew can't get a rise out of Coldplay he doesn't get what he came for.

Malke2010

01:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why me?--

^{Let's talk}

01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. When things calm down, perhaps you can ask him. Right now, it doesn't seem like a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I always expected my wikipedia career to be full of GA's FA's DYK's and people likeing me. It has turned out to be quite the opposite.--

^{Let's talk}

01:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the only way to avoid this is to work on uncontroversial articles and stay away from community fora. Wikipedia is a tense working environment, otherwise. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that. Somehow I got magically pulled into this stuff.--

^{Let's talk}

01:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Return your focus to the Coldplay article and getting it up for FA. In the meantime, get off line for awhile and come back later. It's still early where you are.

Malke2010

01:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I warn you there would be questions? I'm pretty sure I said "many questions" actually. :) Also, happy New Year! Franamax (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And to you! I've responded there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

14:47, 3 January 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "Karsten Gerloff" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.fsfe.org/about/gerloff/gerloff.ro.html)

Hello. The content of the article was taken from a site that allows copying it. Take a look at the source site footer: "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vektorman (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be possible to restore the content? Thanks!

--Vektorman (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In creating a new article, if you want to add some photos how do you show to Wikipedia that they are either public domain or you have permission to use them. i.e., is there a process the photos have to go through to be cleared for use? Thanks. :D

Hi. :) It depends on where you got the image. If it is previously published and the license or public domain status is not indicated on the publishing site, you do need to go through the process at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials (or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, if it isn't yours :)). If it is previously published and the license or PD status is displayed on the original publication site, a link to it is sufficient (so long as you comply with the terms. :D) If it is not previously published and you are the copyright owner, you should not need to go through any other process. If it is not previously published and somebody else is the original copyright owner, it's possibly a good idea to go through the permission process anyway, just in case. If at some point somebody questions your right to license the material, having that on record can help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, got it. Thanks so much.

Malke2010

17:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The "copyright infringement" is a misunderstanding. The disputed text was provided to http://www.nobletruth.org by Wangchen Rinpoche's secretary Eydie Dolma, who prepared it from material contained in the cited Kalu Rinpoche talk. The text is certainly not copyrighted by http://www.nobletruth.org, it is public domain. Eydie Dolma also gave me a version of the same text for use in a Wikipedia article. Sstovall19 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl. I am forming this question to you because I have noticed your active involvement with copyright problems. I see what I think is a problem on the Diane Lane page. I noticed after a few google searches that one sentence kept popping up at numerous sites. Some of those sites clearly state copyright. I am unsure of the original source of the sentence in question (possibly the whole paragraph) but it is troubling. The sentence I am referring to begins with "One of few child actors to make a successful transition into adult roles, Lane..." and goes on to a specific list of credits. This sentence can be found at numerous places on the internet in almost the same form see here. What do you think? And, what to do? Thanks. WTucker (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I have convinced myself that WP is the source of this sentence. It must be a good one because it has been copied to numerous places. Browsing through the history of the article, I can see how the sentence was composed from several different phrases over the years. It is unlikely to have duplicated a copyrighted work in the manner. Instead, the more probable answer is that the WP sentence has been copied with false claims of copyright. Thanks for your consideration if you wish to double check me, though. WTucker (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for my delay in getting back with you. Crazy real life stuff today. :) It sounds like you've evaluated it exactly the way I would. Evidence of natural evolution on Wikipedia is a strong indicator against infringement. Given this edit and similar, I would agree with your conclusion. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've placed a couple on Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_December_29, but I think we have a pretty consistent pattern permalinked at User:Derek R Bullamore. My first note to him wasn't exactly cheered but not especially confrontational either...the issue is that the majority of the created articles I have checked (only a few so far) look to be blatant copyvios. I've started some work so I guess I'm looking for a reality check from you, and if more extensive action is warranted...let me know.  Frank  |  talk  18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reality: Y.

WP:CCI is necessary. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've already tagged three five more; see User_talk:Derek_R_Bullamore for details.  Frank  |  talk  22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt that more serious action needs to be taken here.  Frank  |  talk  23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so, either. That's a shame. I'll open a CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, the program is running. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

←Thanks for the message below. :) I ran the CCI program, but it messed up. We've been having some problems with it. :/ I'm running the older version, and this takes many hours. It's been running in the background of my computer for a few hours now. Pity, as it's nowhere near as user friendly as the new one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the updates.  Frank  |  talk  17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Where do we stand with this?  Frank  |  talk  17:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It finished running last night (it's long!). After I finish the CP from the 21st (down to SCV listings), I'll put it up. As usual in the world of Wiki, stuff keeps coming up. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's up. The first few I examined didn't have problems - larger edits were reverting vandalism - but I've located another, Gary Puckett & The Union Gap. We're ready to go, it seems, although we need to randomly section off subpages for easier handling. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical note: The allmusic URLs contain a | character, which can be problematic. See this version of U.P. Wilson, where the url was not encoded. If you click the link at the bottom of the article, it doesn't get you to the reference; if you edit and then copy/paste the URL, you get there. Derek has actually been pretty good about doing this encoding in other articles, but this one was missed. I'm not done with this article; I'm just using it as an example. Since so many of them are from allmusic and for some reason they don't show up readily in Google, I thought I'd alert you to this little twist.  Frank  |  talk  22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been checking Allmusic rather routinely just in case. The ones that vex me are articles like this. This contributor's record would suggest this is a copyvio, but the book on which it is based is not visible. We do have a template for preemptive deletion, but I really hate to use it without hard evidence. :/ {{subst:CCId}} (in this case, the name is the date: 20091230; since this is likely this contributor's real name, I have minimized its usage.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At what point - if any - do we block? I really prefer to

There isn't a hard line on this. Typically, I do not block unless there is a prior warning to the contributor, since copyright infringement is sometimes done innocently. I don't think it's going to get any prettier; I believe he's probably been doing this since at least 2006. But the only notice he ever seems to have received was this one. Is that enough? I don't know. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a nudge - could you take a look at Talk:Gary Puckett & The Union Gap/Temp and Talk:Sandie Shaw/Temp, and move them back to the article space if you're happy. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. If you're ready for early review, I'll be happy to check them out. I should be able to get to them within a couple of hours, sooner if I don't have any work emergencies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With the Shaw article, it would be great if you could retool the sentence that currently reads "In 1970, Shaw attempted to become a family entertainer, but her plans were undermined by a failed marriage and scandalous rumours in the British newspapers." It remains structurally identical to the source and includes some identical language: "In 1970, Shaw tried to become a family entertainer, yet those plans were scuttled by a failed marriage and scandalous rumors that circulated in the British newspapers." You've changed "tried" to "attempted", changed "yet those" to "but her", "scuttled" to "undermined" removed the words "that circulated." This is an uncomfortably close paraphrase, particularly under the circumstances that we are attempted to eliminate a massive copyright violation of AMG by this contributor. In such a case, we should be particularly careful to rewrite text completely, since putting back into article space is giving our "stamp of approval" so to speak that the copyright problem has been removed. There's no question that one sentence that cuts it close constitutes "substantial taking" — the courts would toss it out as "de minimis" in a heartbeat. But the cumulative impact of copied content from AMG into articles by this individual adds some sensitivity to clean up. We need to be very careful with our due diligence here to avoid contributory infringement.

I'm off to look at the other. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Gary Puckett is in place. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Amended Sandie Shaw now. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl. Can you protect the Pinchot Institute for Conservation article? A user keeps adding copyrighted material despite warnings. Theleftorium 16:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Rather than fully protect the article (which as you know is necessary, since we aren't dealing with rotating IPs but a single, logged-in contributor), it would be better to block the individual if he persists. I see that you've given him a strong, clear warning at 16:00. If he returns the material after this, brief blocking may alert him that he really must comply with procedures. I'm watchlisting the article and the contributor, and if he continues about it will do the needful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How long do you think an appropriate block would be if he/she continues? 24 hours? Theleftorium 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It depends. If he's active, I will block for 24 hours, since he'll notice. :) If he only edits every couple of days, I may block a bit longer. The point is to catch his attention so that he will not persist, and if he doesn't come back until after the block is over, he may ignore it as he did your first notice. If he returns after the block and continues at the same behavior, I would probably indef. At that point, we have to conclude that he isn't going to stop, period. With an indef, he always has the option to engage in conversation and say, "Oh, I'm connected with the organization" or "Copyright policy? We don't need no stinking copyright policy" or whatever else might be motivating his behavior. :) There's a chance that your second notice will be sufficient to get him engaging in conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, while I'm thinking of it, let me add that I will routinely protect an article if it still has the copyvio template on it and the material is being restored out of process. In that case, there's no collateral damage to good faith contributors, since the article is meant to be locked anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Shall we set another date for the RfA? It seems Ceranthor is busy today, and I will only be online for ca. two more hours. Theleftorium 21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

See

I agree. Since it's on Commons, I've tagged it there. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The article had the most amazing nonsense, and seemed to be using a tourist website to show that this 'pyramid' wasn't used in tourist literature. I found clear evidence of who built it, etc.

talk

) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moon,
I hope the new year finds you well! Once again I've a copyright question where I just don't know how it is handled in US law, or at least in practice here on Wikipedia. Not particularly pressing, but it's actually been nagging me for a while.

What's the status of an image if I ask a stranger to take a picture on my behalf (typically on my camera, possibly with me in it)? Common sense would suggest that I've made some kind of oral contract, similar to a commissioned work (if that's the English legal term for it), that lets me use the image as I see fit (or even has me own the copyright?). Of course, copyright law has little to do with common sense, so I don't know what's actually the case (and German law is quite different in that respect anyway).

In practice, I'm fairly certain we always at least accept it as an implicit permission by the person who actually took the picture, but is that legally sound? Current case where this came up is at User talk:Drsjpdc#Image deletions, feel free to reply there if you want.

Cheers, Amalthea 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am almost entirely certain that legally the answer is no. (Though I agree with you on common sense.) When it comes to copyright, verbal contracts are (I believe) worthless, and the copyright belongs to the creator of the creative content. Similarly, if a five year old borrows your crayons and draws a picture of you, the rights to the picture are still hers...even if you asked her to do it. :) I'll poke around in a bit and see if I can find something more definitive than my opinion, though. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So far, everything I've found is in the "what you'd expect" category. There is this circular which speaks about commissioned works and seems to verify that unless the individual is an employee, a written contract is required for him to relinquish copyright. In this, the feds speak specifically of reproducing family photographs at local copying stores and note that:

The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.

IOW, no loopholes. :) I'll poke a bit more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's stupid!!! :)
How've you handled that on-wiki in the past? If we were going to enforce this, quite a lot of images are going to be in trouble. Most people are ignoring this issue, not least a relatively prominent law-studying Wikipedian (picked him just because I remembered him displaying lots of pictures of himself), we'd have to pester them all to try and remember who took those pictures and, if at all possible, make them send in their letters of consent.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've handled it by focusing on text issues, mostly. :D Seriously, I think probably it is widely ignored, at least when it comes to the "friend uses your camera" model of things. I have seen professional portraits taken down for copyvios because the subject could not verify. When I get permission for an image at OTRS, I do make sure that the person contacting us understands that we need verification from the photographer, not the subject. (Again, these cases were not like yours, but professional portraiture.) And this has caused some mighty unrest in people writing us. I've poked a bit more, by the way, and I still haven't found a special exclusion. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to a prior discussion about the same subject.[10] --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of this a few months ago, and was wondering how community property (in particular in the US) would play into it. For example, if my wife takes a picture, is the copyright the property of both of us, or just her? --kelapstick (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Things start to get complex there. :D I don't live in a community property state, so I'm largely unfamiliar with them. I can't imagine how that would play out, especially since the states have different laws. Even more, I'd rather not imagine trying to come up with a Wikipedia policy to cover that. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration
  ;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide
  .

Thank you for your input and patience, IZAK (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year! Thanks for the fix on the Tony Hatch article, he was rather the "guy in the background" who deserved at least a little of the credit.

We've talked before about whether a site's copyright justification was sufficiently airtight for use in Wiki external links. In the case of metrolyrics you pointed to a sentence that suggested copyright infringement.[11] I have another such situation, could you see what you think?

The Gracenote company publishes lyrics from many groups. Their FAQ reads suggestively "Much of the information in the Gracenote Music Recognition Service (originally known as CDDB) was initially submitted by users."[12] The word "copyright" doesn't appear on the page. So, are they Wiki-safe, or no?

That's actually the main issue. MTV is involved in a secondary way: They had several links that were provided by Gracenote that were recently removed from the MTV site.[13]. Currently, the pages are replaced by a message that MTV is "looking for another source". Why *this* is a minor issue, is that the external links to what seem to have been ex-copyright violation Web sites are still in Wikipedia.[14] Given that there are no lyrics, and that it is entirely possible there may not be copyright-correct lyrics ever added by MTV, it seems that we're leaving an open invitation for MTV to add lyrics from another lyric copyright violation source. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year to you, too. :) Happy to revert; I tend to feel like that sudden solution must be a bit of a system shock to article contributors. That's probably something I need to get over. :D

I don't think the Gracenotes statement is quite as damaging as the sentence about metrolyrics, given that they could be talking about any kind of information, including track lengths or catalog numbers. They are a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony ([15]), and according to this page, they have licensing deals with "more than 80 music publishers to date", including EMI, Universal, Warner, BMG, ABCO and Disney. (Naturally, their parent company is also included.) They seem to be legitimate; while the hits I get on google news archive that are actually about them are mostly press releases, that's a good sign for them. :) [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. It's a very different picture when you do the same search for Youtube: [21].

I think pending further evidence, that Gracenote can be presumed to be Wikisafe. I don't think we're in danger of contributory infringement for linking to a company that has good reputation and a well-known corporate owner of good standing in the music industry.

As far as MTV, I wonder if their removal of Gracenote lyrics is a licensing issue. Gracenote charges for the link up, of course. It's a good idea to remove the MTV lyric link in any case, just because those links are currently not working and, as you may note, may never be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting through the Gracenotes FAQ and etc. I always have the feeling that you're better at it than I, so why should I bother? (Lol, ducks) My first guess was in fact that MTV had simply run into some licensing problem. There were a couple other weirdnesses that I didn't mention, partly because I imagined their FAQ were conclusive. But having licensing deals with 80 companies (which probably include Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga, the artists in question) seems to head the direction of truth and justice. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! :D Happy to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya Moonriddengirl! I'm back in the library, but this one's a bit beyond me (geographically speaking!). Most of the holdings for these titles are in England, so you'll have better luck finding a UK librarian to check the works. Try asking in WikiProject England, since they seem pretty active. If no one's able to help, let me know and I'll request the items through interlibrary loan--but you'll probably have faster luck finding someone physically closer to the items. Good luck hunting! Clifflandis (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What was the question? I may have an answer - I have an old edition of the Hit Singles book. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,

Wikipedia:WikiProject Librarians. Cliff was very helpful with checking a print source back in November at Victor di Suvero. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

18:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't sure if it was a more general question. I'm working on rewriting that article using some different sources in any case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about image licensing and you are the one I thought to ask. I am reuploading images from www.averycoonley.org for

Hi. :) OTRS doesn't do anything automatically. Noting the OTRS number is a good idea, but it's better to have an OTRS agent place it. I'd be happy to help with that, but I want to write the individual who granted permission just to be sure that subpages and images from them are covered as well. The language he used is perfectly fine, but a bit vague on that question. I don't imagine that will take long. Once I've confirmed, if you let me know when you upload images from that site, I'll be happy to pop the tag on them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Have written and have CC'ed you, since you were CC'ed in the original letter. Please refer to me as Moonriddengirl on Wiki. :) I prefer to keep my identities separate, where possible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm having a bit of a problem with an editor,

Basically, content submitted by contributors to IMDb is somewhat similar to content submitted to Wikipedia in that the contributors don't actually relinquish their copyright, but license it for reuse. The difference between IMDb and Wikipedia is that the content placed here is licensed for our reuse and for reuse by others, while IMDb only requires license for their own reuse. You're quite right that we can't use that content; we'd need verification that the person placing it here is the same person who placed it there...and that's not going to be easy, if it's even possible. I'll speak to him and keep an eye on the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks so much for your help :) Pinkadelica^♣ 01:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've left a note for the contributor and have removed teh birth date from the article altogether with an explanation of why at the talk page. I'm watchlisting the article, and I'll block or protect as necessary if the situation continues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Without sounding too pious about it, my interest is in making sure that readers have the service they expect here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't be spending as much time here on WP as I currently am, so certainly don't want to take on any more general commitments. I have quite strongly overlapping interests with Derek, and I can easily see how he's got into this mess, but really my interest is limited to getting articles that interest me, and obviously interest readers, up to a reasonable level. I don't intend rewriting all of Derek's articles by any means, even if I physically could - essentially I'll only rewrite the ones that I'm interested in and which get significant page view figures. Please don't feed the addiction by suggesting new avenues for me! Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you delete User:Dougpew/Joel Hoffman (composer)? It's a copyright violation and the user later created the "real" article at Joel Hoffman (composer), which has been cleaned. Thanks, Theleftorium 19:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Have mop; will travel. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I had seen a page that is now deleted; it was of Liepman Philip Prins. I see on the page that it is thought that he did not publish, well he did. He is therefore a legitimate entry (if I understand why he was deleted). Is it possible to restore the page so that I can update the source for his publications? Thank youDrkup (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Drkup 20:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that article was deleted by community consensus at

Wikipedia:Deletion Review, which "may...be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." You'll want to be prepared to demonstrate that new information. Without sources, restoration is unlikely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

01:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I know my reputation is totally shot here, but noticed your recent actions on this article. I do not know if you looked at its recent editing history, but I was involved towards the back end of 2009 trying to desist various editors from having a minor editing war over the question of legitimate band membership. I do not have the answer, or access to any reliable third party sources to help, but checking recent history might give you some more background - if that is useful.

Actually, I find there are more editing disagreements regarding specifically 1960s pop group's membership; record releases; ongoing band line-ups etc., than almost anything else across Wiki's pop music articles. Oh, except perhaps for music genres - an ongoing backwards and forwards on many items info boxes.

I hope this helps in some small way.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Your reputation is not at all shot here, and the information is useful. Thanks. Letter writers do not always give us much detail. I've explained some of the rules on Wikipedia to the letter writer, but suspect that we haven't heard the last of it, especially since you indicate that there's been a problem before. I had no idea that membership was so contentious on these articles! I've watchlisted that one, but if you should perchance notice unsourced information being added (or sourced information removed), your help keeping it in line would be much appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, MRG, how are you? Under other circumstances, I would just add this content back in to the article, but since a highly respected editor removed it, I came over to discuss here :) This content actually reflects and confirms the consensus of multiple other neurological experts and commentators, such as Kushner, Freeman, Shapiro and several others mentioned in the article. I think it should stay, because it certainly is a reliable reflection of how Sacks' work on Tourette syndrome, at least, is viewed, as documented in the article. Could I talk you into re-instating that content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. :) I'm fine; hope you are. I don't dispute that the viewpoint may be carried by experts and commentators, but I think it would be better to let those experts and commentators voice it, as to some extent they do. My only objection to it is that it seems to be an off-handed comment by a film critic reviewing a movie that doesn't have anything to do with the article's subject. I think criticism of a biographical subject might do better with more, um, weighty(?) representation. If you disagree, we could ask for other opinions? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not that fussed over it; just wanted to see if you'd reconsider given the background. It's not a big deal :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. But if you think I've watered down the criticism too much, I'll be happy to help look for more weighty (I just can't come up with a better word for it) expression. I didn't figure it would be controversial, but I'm not deeply familiar with him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's *really* not a big deal; not to worry :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, it's been a while, I had a question more of a personal/professinal nature from your previous interest in hospice---wasn't sure the protocol, how/if you would want me to proceed. Hope you are well and thanks so much for your previous help with the articleTbolden (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, I did send you an email wasnt sure if you received----I am used to your lightning quick edits on WP----just wanted to make sure you received. Thanks. Tbolden (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[22] is clearly a hoax by a vandalism only editor. Thanks.

Hi. Not quite sure the best approach on that one. :/ Their "deletion debate" process can take forever. The general category of problem tags, including speedy deletions, on Commons is at Commons:Category:Problem tags. I don't think any of them specifically apply. What I would probably do in this situation is bring it up at their admin noticeboard or ask a friendly Commons admin how to handle it...and I think I will. :D

Now I have. I've asked User:Dcoetzee to stop by with ideas or appropriate action. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He doesn't seem very active though so I've put a request here [23] as you suggested/ —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And it's been deleted.

talk

) 21:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Good job. :) Glad somebody there picked it up. I didn't notice that Derrick was currently out of commission. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I know this isn't your speciality, but I'm sure you'll be able to help in some way. My question is this: if I were to take a photo of my mobile phone and upload it for use in the article, could I license this as CC-BY or would I still have to justify fair-use, due to the copyrighted design etc.? – Toon 23:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. This one is a bit iffy. I've encountered the question before mostly in the realm of packaging--board games, medication bottles. I'll have a poke at Commons and see what I can come up with. I think I know where to start looking. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping for a definite answer the Commons Casebook. The closest I see is

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Still, I'm inclined on the basis of that to offer tentatively that Commons accepts these images. Want me to ask a Commons admin? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

02:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes please, if you don't mind. No rush, though. Cheers,. – Toon 18:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm no lawyer, but it should be fine for a standard phone, providing there's no screenshot or large logo. For your mass-market handset, see this Commons guideline. Naturally, if it's encrusted with jewels or has an ornate cover or something, that would not apply. For a small logo/icon on the casing (or, if unavoidable, on the screen) de minimis will apply, meaning it will be OK. Hope that answers your question. J Milburn (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great. And no, definitely not encrusted with jewels. Thanks to both of you for your help. – Toon 13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I know your forte is copyright issues, but as an admin, I was hoping you would be able to give me a quick piece of advice: If an article was nominated and failed for GA in September 2009, then was renominated again in one month later, and I am reviewing that now, but I notice there haven;t been many major changes, is this eligible for a quick fail? Brambleclawx 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, all that's occurred are minor formatting changes: a moved picture, a new reference and a few new links. Brambleclawx 23:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've never reviewed a GA nom, and I've only been involved in GA reviews as a writer a couple of times. I suppose I'd ask myself first what it failed for; did it fail for reasons that clearly make it ineligible and that can't be easily repaired? If so, it's only going to fail again. Quick fail is probably appropriate. Is it nommed by a different person, or is it the same person not wanting to take no for an answer? Also things I'd think about. If it's a different person, I'd be more likely to explain over again what it lacks and give them a shot, since I wouldn't want to discourage people from making a legitimate effort to improve articles. If it's the same person, I'd be more likely to fail it. If they didn't fix it last time, there doesn't seem to be much reason to suppose they'll fix it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll ckeck over why it failed before, then make my decision. The person who it was the same person, by they haven't been back since they renominated it. Brambleclawx 19:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As you have commented on a report on AN/I in which I have been involved, I'd like to inform you that I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins".

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion on the noticeboard! It would be really odd for an editor with 6000 edits (like me) to vandalize the administrators' noticeboard intentionally.  Cs32en  03:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it would, but unfortunately that doesn't mean it couldn't happen. :/ I'm glad if you have located a sockpuppet. However, I am still of the opinion that the behavior around the issues in the article was problematic. If you are having problems with another contributor, it's better to seek assistance via dispute resolution before the situation escalates. With an article about to go DYK, I can understand that the situation might have seemed more urgent, but I suspect that you would also have found more input for the same reason from other contributors, perhaps at the content noticeboard? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl: Since you have been involved in the topic of Chabad, this is to let you know that an official arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. You may wish to add your comments for the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence. The ArbCom asks that evidence be submitted within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Workshop. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but, really, my sole involvement in this was moving it to a subpage. :) I'm not really familiar with the facts of the case. Hope it all resolves swiftly and well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not playing games anymore at this site. I will file a grievance against you if you make any more false accusations against me. I am requesting you remove that FAKE accusation you made that I "evaded a ban" - because I was NOT banned. Do NOT force me, because I WILL file a complaint against you. I am not going to tolerate harassment from you or anyone else.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment is inappropriate. I have responded to your note at ANI and will not discuss this matter with you here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Naval Battle of Kaliakra single sourced article, a direct translation from a Bulgarian internet page, which in it self does not include any sources of the event was taged copyright concern. The page has now been recreated, was this agreed? regards Hittit (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry. I almost missed this up here at the top. :) (We usually put notes on the bottom on Wikipedia, which is kind of the opposite of the way a lot of websites work.) No, it wasn't agreed, and the copyright problem has not been addressed. I've deleted it again and will speak to the contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your efforts. regards Hittit (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please let me know if you see additional problems. I'm watchlisting this article space but am concerned that the restoration of this without comment might mean the contributor does not intend to comply and might have created similar copyright problems with translated material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering what was the outcome regarding the Wikiproject illustration, I noticed there is no activity, I have been thinking on starting a similar wikiproject but first I need to check that there is no similar wikiprojects like the one I have in mind. Let me know please ASAP. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It was merged into Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media. It might be good to ask at the talk page what's being done in that area. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems you have the issue under control here, and someone has taken over at Commons. I'll not step in on this one at this time. As ever, you know where I am if I can be of any help. J Milburn (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that you can call that a copy. The introduction and the conclusion are mine and the section of the battle there are a few sentences that explain what happened again in my words. After all, for every article in Wikipedia there are existing books and articles used as a source generally the events that already happened can only be told with different words but generally describing the same thing. Instead of deleting the article you could have removed what you think is copied. --Gligan (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, in fact that is what I did. When I rewrote it a few days ago, I greatly reduced the section for the battle because that is mainly a text translated from the source. And for example, how would you suggest to rewrite that sentence "After the heavy defeats...the Turks were in desperate need for weapons, munitions and food supplies". After all it is a fact that after the heavy defeats they need are in need for weapons, in what other way am I supposed to tell it?

In any case, I will just write that this was a battle between Bulgarians and Turks and we were victorious. From where I can find the text so that I don't have to create again the same infobox and categories? --Gligan (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have shortened and rewritten the article. Is it better that way? --Gligan (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl. Thanks for directing us to

No problem. Copyright work is kind of what I do. To a scary amount of time. Actually, I prefer not to reflect on it. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I only hope that none of the advice I gave MoodFreak (talk) in that thread was incorrect. Would it be okay for me to mark the thread at ANI resolved? Or is that an Administrator-only function? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

Last week, I simply reposted most of the blanked items on the 6th (which is coming up fast). Any suggestions on how to handle what's not yet been cleared - leave it here and repost for a couple more weeks until they are cleared? Cheers, MLauba (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) If the contributor was not the creator, let's just revert back to the last verifiably clean. If he was, maybe we can relist one more time. Alternatively, we can make a new stub, copying over whatever non-creative elements (infobox, els) there may be. I did that with one yesterday where I also copied over (with attribution) the lead, since I believe the leads have been usable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of that, Talk:Bull City Red/Temp on today's listing: compare it with this: I think Derek did a couple of very smart rewrites but this one I'm uncomfortable with. What do you think? MLauba (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an abridgment, aka as a derivative work. :/ I will explain that the structure of the original is protected by copyright laws as well as the language and ask him to work on it a bit more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

On today's listing: Henry Curtis-Bennett. How do we handle ODNB issues? And if the reporting user is to be believed, a CCI might be required there. Enjoy :) MLauba (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Typically, I track down a contributor who has access to ODNB. Another CCI from sources I can't check? Just what I needed. :/ I'm on it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As we say in French, "Bon Courage" :)

And another case for which I'd like your opinion:

Danish Landrace (sheep) from [24], listed at SCV on the 4th. Is the language used to describe the sheep race considered "factual" or can it be paraphrased more without hurting the species' description? MLauba (talk

) 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It can and should be paraphrased more. I'm concerned not only with the taking of language (one sentence is reproduced verbatim, I see), but also with the retention of structure. I'll speak to the contributor and rewrite it myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Bennett and Cockburn, I'll check them out this evening and confirm/deny any concerns. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• As promised, here we are. Henry Curtis-Bennett is certainly over the line:

  ODNB: "born on 31 July 1879 at Brentwood in Essex, the son of Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett (1846–1913), chief metropolitan magistrate, and his wife, Emily Jane Hughes-Hallett (1855–1942), daughter of a Kent solicitor... He was educated at Radley College and Trinity College, Cambridge, where he won blues for cycling"

  Article: "was born at Brentwood, Essex, the son of Sir Henry Curtis-Bennett (1846–1913), Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and his wife, Emily Jane, née Hughes-Hallett (1855–1942), daughter of a Kent solicitor. He was educated at Radley College and Trinity College, Cambridge"

  ODNB:"Curtis-Bennett was called to the bar by the Middle Temple in 1902 and appointed a KC in 1919 and a bencher in 1926"

  Article:"Curtis-Bennett was called to the bar by the Middle Temple in 1902 and appointed a KC in 1919 and a bencher in 1926."

• As is Cockburn:

  ODNB:". He was commissioned ensign in the 1st, afterwards the Grenadier Guards, on 9 May 1781, and in 1782 went to Gibraltar, where he was aide-de-camp to General Eliott during the siege"

  Article:"He was commissioned as an ensign in the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards on 9 May 1781, and in 1782 went to Gibraltar, where he was aide-de-camp to General Eliott during the Great Siege"

  ODNB:"For his services he was promoted captain-lieutenant in the 105th regiment in 1784, and transferred in 1785 to the 65th, then quartered in Dublin"

  Article:"For his services, he was promoted to captain lieutenant in the 105th Regiment of Foot in 1784, and transferred in 1785 to the 65th (2nd Yorkshire, North Riding) Regiment of Foot, then quartered in Dublin"

• Hope that helps. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

  No problem; as always, give me a poke if you've got any other ODNB violations. I also have access to a large journal store, so if you have some more academic copyvio suspicions, don't hesitate to contact me in that regard. Many thanks, Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I think this might need an admin's attention: [25]. Please see other contribs by this user. Thanks.

Yes, that's certainly worth looking into. :/ I'll wrap what I'm doing and come take a closer look. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his contributions and talk page, I think that it may be in hand. I see User:SarekOfVulcan, also an admin, has communicated with him, and I think others are interested in guiding him to work within process. I've left him an additional resource. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks for being so quick. Hope things work out for him.

Malke2010

18:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm part of the OTRS team, and we've received an email from a District of Columbia governmental agency saying that the text in this article was taken from a government website. It is my understanding that this would mean that the text was in the public domain, and wouldn't constitute a copyright infringement. Could you please let me know if this is true? That way I'll be able to let the person know how they should proceed. If it wasn't taken from a government website I will ask them to provide us with the relevant releases. Thank you. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, fellow OTRS team member. :) It's only public domain if its from a federal government website or from one of those states that does not claim copyright. The government of the District of Columbia is not federal, and it does not relinquish copyright, as per [26]: "United States and foreign copyright laws and international conventions protect the contents of the Site." That's also addressed in

District of Columbia, or of the government of Puerto Rico are not "works of the U.S. government" and thus are subject to copyright." (It says so here

.)

I hate it when we get gov material that isn't federal, because it can lead to quite a bit of running around as I try to determine if it's from one of those gov sites we can use. :/ I don't think we can accept this one without the relevant release. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. That's incredibly useful. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any time. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I was wondering if you knew of a correct way on Wikipedia to cite the liner notes from a music album? As I think you know, I'm working on cleaning up the article on

Hi. There's a template for citing them: {{

Cite album-notes}}. Basically, I'd use them like any self-published source connected to the subject, to add detail but not to verify extraordinary claims. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I read those over, and I'll try to work on the article some more in the next few days.

talk

) 02:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl. In your edit here, you restored the indefblocked template. This places the page in

Morning. You inadvertently placed my page in the same category, which I find funny because it is so something I would do. :D (I've neutralized the category.) My note there is no longer necessary, as it's been confirmed that the contributor has e-mailed others and received a response from at least one. I'll just revert to the redirect that existed before my note. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to make formatting mistakes like that. I recently messed up WP:RFPP with this edit. ;) Cunard (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Moonriddengirl,

How do you see this developing? Do you think I should resign my admin bit?

--Richard S (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've answered at your talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read your response at my Talk Page. Here's where I'm at right now on this whole mess...

I see three separate issues to be resolved...

1. Whether I should be blocked.
2. Whether I should give up the admin bit.
3. How to clean up the mess that I have caused in various edits over the past.

Re #1, I appreciate you not blocking me. There certainly is a case to be made for doing so. As a gesture of good faith, I propose to refrain from making any "new text" contributions until substantial progress has been made towards cleaning up the mess in #3. When this "self-block" will expire is indeterminate but, since any further copyvios can be found and would be pretty stupid on my part, the real issue here is one of good faith. With this step, I am proposing not to make a bigger mess than already exists.

Re #2, Well.... a bunch of people have suggested that I give up the admin bit. I might yet do so but I haven't come to that decision yet. UPDATE: I have now done so.

Re #3, This is the real purpose of this message. Looking at my watchlist, it seems that you are reviewing my edit history looking for copyvios, both blatant and those which are less blatant (e.g. weak or non-existent attributions, failure to identify text copied from other articles, etc.) Looking at my watchlist this evening, I see a bunch of articles that I have edited popping up with your username on the edit history. Sometimes, your edit relates to one of my edits and sometimes, it doesn't.

Is there a way we can work together to fix any copyvios that I might have committed? Sometimes the copyvio is blatant and other times, it's insufficient rewording and paraphrasing.

Contrary to the interpretation of another editor, I didn't mean to say "You fix it. I can't be bothered." What I meant was that I didn't have time at that very moment to fix it (I was on my way out the door) and that I would try to get back to it when time permitted.

This message is intended as a good faith offer to help clean up the mess that I created. It's also a request to you to see if you have a list of copyvios that you suspect me as being responsible for that I can use as a "To Do" list.

--Richard S (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This was vandalism to a couple of articles from a new account, but if it is genuine, do I raise it at ANI with links or try to get the diffs removed somehow? Thanks

See WP:Oversight. LeadSongDog come howl 19:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just what I was going to say. :D Except with a lot more words, as usual. Depending on what it was, oversight is probably best. Arbitration determined that "Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've emailed oversight. Nice to get a quick response!

talk

) 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleted, plus another. Moonridden, any chance you good give her some counselling?

talk

) 19:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, although I may need to figure out what kind of edits she was making when she placed this stuff. Let me wrap up this copyright thing, and I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. One edit was details about her age, family, town where she lived, boyfriend, the other was about the boy that she said was 9 (her name and his name were in the edits). It could be a hoax but I've got no reason to think it is. No address or phone number.

talk

) 19:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Best to treat it like it's serious, just in case. I've left her a note. We'll see what happens. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, I knew you'd do a better job than I would! The oversighter was on her cell so it would have been difficult. I've joined in on that Admin's page as you may have seen. He really should resign. He doesn't do much and got the bit when it was easy to get.

talk

) 20:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have done a fine job (your welcome was nice), but my username may be reassuring, especially if her mom & dad come online. :D (OTOH, maybe we should be trying to teach her that people named Moonriddengirl could actually look like.... Well, I was looking for a file of a scary old man, but unless he's a dead scary old man, that would be a BLP issue anyway. You get my point. :) As for the other part, thanks. I think that would be the most low-drama way to proceed and probably best all around. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of your username in fact. By the way, I just got 3 messages saying "Welcome Doug Weller". It's a great message, I may steal it. :-) —Preceding

talk • contribs

) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what to make of this [27]. Can something be done to help?

That kind of thing, unfortunately, requires police intervention. There's nothing we can do within Wikipedia without some indication of who is involved, because there really is, literally, nothing we can do. :/ All we'd be able to do is block somebody if it turned out they were on Wiki (per Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment). Not a good idea to delete such correspondence, but the impulse is understandable. If they were stored on his computer, they may still be retrievable (though don't ask me how; I'm not remotely techy and only know what I'm told); if they were stored remotely (such as by his e-mail provider), he might be able to get them back. Likely the best thing you can do at this point is to minimize attendant drama. If this is just some bully who gets his jollies off on bugging people, then bluster is going to be a lot of fun for him. I think you could support him best by being friendly, but focusing on Wiki activities while online. Via e-mail, of course, anything goes. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC

Yes, I can see this requires something beyond wikipedia. Agree with best means of support suggestions. I'm not techy either, but I imagine these things could be retrieved. Thanks for the suggestions, they're good ones, as always. :)

Malke2010

22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

And as a follow-up, we might want to ask whoever manufactures these to add a button for the cclean and cup templates :) MLauba (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That would be great. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Moonriddengirl - I posted a query to User:Ged UKs talk page here regarding a BLP concern I have with this page, which seems to be a hoax/joke-type article listing the real names and containing a picture of a few non-notable individuals that have formed a "literature group". The picture file lists an OTRS email related to the picture, and Ged UK suggested you may have additional input regarding the legitimacy of the photo/article. So there are apparently two issues: 1) Is the photo legitimate? and 2) Even if it is, is there any reason to have a page such as this on Wikipedia? Would it not be more appropriate for a social networking site such as Facebook or MySpace? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll look into it and be right back. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is showing up in OTRS about it, but that doesn't mean the contributor hasn't sent it. The image is fresh, so it may simply not yet have arrived. Research suggests that the putative copyright holder is a children's writer ([28]). She's not likely to be the photographer, as she's evidently the second woman in, but that's an issue for OTRS to work out. :)

I agree with you whole-heartedly that the material is not encyclopedic. I don't think it's a hoax, so much as it is a slightly funny article about a group of friends who write, and the contributor may not quite get that it isn't appropriate. Presuming that the contributor may be the putative copyright owner of the image, she seems to be a basically sensible, good humored woman, judging by her blog. :) I'll talk to her about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. I feel like a spoil-sport bringing it up as the piece is well-written, humourous, and there was obviously time and effort that went in to creating the article. That being said, I still believe it would be more appropriate for MySpace or somesuch. Cheers for your help, --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 17:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I agree about where it belongs, and thank you for protecting the disambig page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated Teh blademaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Taelus (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it's long since served its purpose. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Greetings again... this one is down to 4 images - 3 of which look legit & the last... ?? Probably could be closed, as IMO there's not much more to be done on those. Skier Dude (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/VanemTao - looks like we've done everything that we can here for this one, just the commons & the "et" files/edits that are left. Skier Dude (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Good morning! :D As soon as my eyes are properly open, I'll take a look. Closing more? :O Wouldn't that be wonderful? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! I've archived Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rajvaddhan, but I haven't courtesy blanked it yet, because I've referenced it at PUF. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/VanemTao may indeed be all done on images. I may do a mass deletion debate at Commons, as I've done with others, but MLauba has asked the contributor to comment on text issues, so I'll leave that one open pending that. And you rock. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Asbox#Image alt text and try to lend insight. Thanks! –xeno^talk 13:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

cHEERS =) –xeno^talk 14:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a new article I have created. I am sure others will notice this fact, and trust I have avoided all potential copyright pitfalls. In view of what has occurred, I thought it prudent to alert you to this new article. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Derek. Hope you're doing well and that cleanup is going okay. I'm in the middle of an article review at another CCI, but will happily come take a look when I've finished this one. :) (Could be a bit; lengthy history!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, Derek. Sorry it took me so long. As I said, that one was pretty lengthy. I've been working on it for over two hours. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No problems - thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. It appears that you copied or moved text from

22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add a template at the back of the page, as I often do, but I had since noticed that somebody had already done it before me, i.e.

Text and/or other creative content from Ecclesiastical response to Catholic sex abuse cases with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

As for copyrights, I was not aware that the original page entitled

Catholic sex abuse cases

was suffering from copyright problems. If this matter has leaked onto the more precise entry, then it would be appropriate to deal with the problem in a separate way.

ADM (talk)

I added it there myself, 10 minutes ago. :) [29]. I have not yet gotten around to all the others. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The other articles which you did not attribute, by the way, are

20th century history of the Catholic Church in the United States. Please remember that the template is only one step. It's necessary to include a note in the edit summary, with a direct link to the source article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think at the beginning, I separated some articles and did not atribute them clearly enough, because I was not really used to doing so. However, in recent times, you can easily tell that I have attributed them much more frequently and systematically. So, the ones you are pointing out are more likely to come from several months ago when I wasn't completely sure about the procedure. [30][31][32][33][34][35][36] ADM (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

[...]

Regarding

Curial response to Catholic sex abuse cases, I left a small message here. [37] Isn't that sufficient ? ADM (talk

) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the

articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. – Eastmain (talk

) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

British squadron badges

A user has created several pages on British squadrons, copyvios of rafweb.org, which I'm dealing with, but has claimed the badges from the site are British Crown Copyright and thus free to distribute unlimitedly. I don't think they're right, but would you mind taking a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:117Sqn.jpg and Stephenbt63's other image contributions? Happy new year, Buckshot06 (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year to you, too. :) And, oh, dear. I'm alarmed even before I look. I'm familiar mostly with Crown Copyright (not being personally subject to it) as relates to text, but I know that in that department it distinctly is not free for unlimited distribution, as it does not permit modification. I'll look into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most of these badges should be PD by age and have left him a note accordingly at his talk page on Commons. The tag he's been using is clearly wrong, and understanding that now might save him inadvertently using it on an image that is not old enough down the road. I appreciate your dealing with his problematic pages. Please let me know if you need assistance with this. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

these are my own photoes

Thanks FRIEND for ur reply? opinion?. photoes of prakash ambedkar with jpg file are my own work File:Ambedkarprakasadressing.JPG, File:Ambedkarprakash1.JPG & File:Ambedkarprakash.JPG r my own works.(i am photographer) thou a small and nonprofessional. plz tell what proofs will make u and other wikipedian other so called othorities. i wanted to help wikipedia as best as i can , i dont want to make wiki trouble, believe me if u want truely to believe a true guy. long live wiki and jimbo...AND HIS AIM TO MAKE KNOWLEDGE FREE sorry if any..... rajvaddhan —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Thaks for ur guidance , sorry for my old images from internet(thou thier pure intention was to help wikipedia). but File:Ambedkarprakasadressing.JPG, File:Ambedkarprakash1.JPG & File:Ambedkarprakash.JPG these r purely my creations. when mr prakash ambedkar was in parbhni , india , i caught it in my camera . plz give justice to justice dear friend long live wiki

rajvaddhan —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC).

The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland

It seems as you are the person who started discussion about (copyright)?

To be honeyst this original version of article about Karl Tõnisson and The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland as other pieces what I used hier in wiki is written by me.

So what?

And the conference "Buddhism and Nordlandand" as a project were started by me years ago. And now ,ll be the queation from my side ,,,whats wrong with this?

DO I need any copyright hier in wikipedia to share my own nformation what,s written by me?

Sorry if I got it wrong. --VanemTao (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No, I'm not the person who started the discussion, but I have been evaluating some of your contributions. I did not evaluate The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland myself, but Karl Tõnisson seems to include material previously published at [38]. Other articles that have been evaluated by me or by others have contained or have contained content published from various other sources: Buddhism in Russia contains text that was previously published at [39]; Palgyi Dorje of Lhalung was listed at the copyright problems board for a week before being deleted as a copy of [40]. Natalia S. Yakhontovia was deleted as a copyright concern due to duplication of [41]. Ja Lama used to contain text copied from [42], but it was already removed.

If you are associated with the source that published text and able to verify permission for it, please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. We do need verification of the license for text that has been previously published. If you do not have permission — and the diversity of sources suggests you probably don't for all of this text — you can't copy it onto Wikipedia. You have to write it completely in new language. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note that as part of the review after the above remained listed for 7 days, I have extended the deadline for deletion by one week due to this discussion. If you are willing and able to provide proper permission as indicated above, please do so within this timeframe, or consider rewriting the article from scratch in the temporary space. MLauba (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

---

As I understood the situation is not so positive.

Why?

Because I dont want to donate any of materials mentioned hier in our discussion, to wikipedia.--VanemTao (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the material will be deleted. If you wish to supply new articles on the subjects, please be sure that they are written entirely differently than the ones published before. I do need to point out to you that anything you write for Wikipedia is donated under precisely those terms: anyone else can use them anywhere, even for commercial gain, and change them however they like. But they can't claim that they wrote the text or took the photographs themselves, and they can't stop other people from using them, too. Whenever you click save, you are consenting to the following terms:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be

CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use

for details.

I'll go ahead and take care of the pending articles, since you've indicated you don't want to donate them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributor with a long history of copyright violations

Hi Moonriddengirl! :) I was investigating the contributions of the user

Point of Entry (Doctor Who audio). Do you think a CCI would be necessary here? Theleftorium

15:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, CCIs are intended for situations where a contributor can be shown to have violated copyright in a good many articles or images, and he or she has so many contributions that they can't be swiftly evaluated. I see warnings going back to August 2009 on copyright, and there's a lengthy list of contributions. So as much as I would like to say, "No, CCI is not appropriate here," since CCI has its plate very, very full already, I would think it probably is. Including the earlier notices, that's seven articles. I've found another at

Plot2}} at the article's talk page). Why don't you go ahead and request a CCI? Meanwhile, I'm going to investigate to see if a block is appropriate given earlier notices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the request soon. There's more articles at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Cumbersnatch&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects, by the way. Theleftorium 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean that was the number of articles created. I meant articles with identified problems. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. :) I've added the request now. Should the user not be notified? Theleftorium 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily, but optional in the case where he is blocked, as he now is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Willie Love

Another new article from me (it gives me a break from the copyvio stuff from to time). I hope it is OK. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. :) I also sometimes need a break from the copyvio stuff. Maybe I'll take a day for some article writing this week. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I fought WP & WP won

I've a question about plagiarism on WP that's bugged me for quite awhile. Nobody seems really troubled, but IMO it needs adressing. It appears many pages derived from DANFS (in particular, from what I've noticed, all the submarine pages), are verbatim copies. This is being defended as OK because they're not copyright. Except this suggests (& I agree) it's still plagiarism of somebody else's intellectual effort. Am I wrong? Maybe more important, can anything be done if I'm not? (BTW, I've added material from other sources where I encounter the pages, as much to correct DANFS POV & error; stil...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Plagiarism covers this issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Attribution of quoted text is what makes it not plagiarism. There is a specific attribution template for this purpose, {{DANFS}}. LeadSongDog come howl 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Attribution when it's verbatim? Forgive me if I think that's a weasel. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 08:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the template: "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships." What part of that do you find ambiguous? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Coming late to this party, but, yes, current consensus is that plagiarism is not an issue when attribution is provided, as through one of those templates or other acceptable means. Since plagiarism is considered[

WP:VPP or at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the answer was linked from the question. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#When_is_it_a_problem? is explicit that "using another's words as one's own is considered plagiarism" (my bold). Attribution makes it clear that the words are not one's own. LeadSongDog come howl 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being unclear. First, it's not the ambiguity that troubles me, it's the dishonesty. "includes text"? It's copied entire, in the cases I've seen. Second, "as one's own"? Somebody posted the page, copied from DANFS, without making clear the entire page was copied verbatim. Maybe it's splitting hairs to say that's "one's own". I nevertheless think it's wrong. Maybe not in conflict with WP guidelines, but wrong, in which case the guidelines should be changed. (I hold out no hope of that.) Perhaps, being a writer, I'm touchier than most on the issue. It also bothers me somebody quoting WP in good faith could get hammered, not knowing it's a verbatim copy (in the cases it still is). And, since Moon sugests raising the issue (& I think that's a good idea), do any here object to having this exchange copied to one or both of the above talk pages? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What you're missing is that PD text can be altered. While many PD-based articles are built quoting the source verbatim, that may change over time. And while I would fully support a best practice of making a note in the edit summary of the article when the PD material is added, I hold no illusions that only a tiny minority will be aware of that best practice. In a similar way, having better attribution templates where you can change a flag so that the wording can either read "includes text" or "includes all text" would also hinge upon the hope that when derivatives are made of the source text, the editor will change the flag.

Which would lead to debates about when to change the flag, but also be mostly ignored, given that attribution templates are, way too often, added manually by the copyright cleanup crew once they verify that the text is, indeed, based on a PD source. MLauba (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A "switchable" template would be better than an unclear one, IMO, if only because it would get changed. It might not be "instantaneous", but if experience is any guide, it'd be pretty quick. And as a "health warning", an unchanged one beats an unclear one: in effect, it'd say, "Don't quote verbatim or it's gonna bite you." Honestly, tho, that doesn't address the underlying issue: copying verbatim from DANFS (or anywhere) to begin with. Which (being unclear, as usual... :( ) I have a real problem with: not over copyvio (if public domain), but over the deeper issue. Just because I can copy Shakespeare entire doesn't mean I should. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that there is currently no policy that prevents quoting from a PD source verbatim, even in full, provided that the result fits all other content criteria. Should there be one? Frankly, I don't have a horse in this. That being said, your example is flawed: copying Shakespeare entire wouldn't make for an encyclopaedic article. That being said, chances are that he's being copied in full on wikisource. MLauba (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism would be the proper place for the discussion. I'm was not clear, uintil your most recent post, whether you're suggesting that guidelines should be changed to prevent copying the whole of a source, or that attribution templates should be changed to cover the cases where all of the text has been copied. I guess you've answered that question somewhat - you have a problem with both.

We can haggle about template text. FWIW, I take "includes text" to mean anything from "a little" to "some" to "most" to "all". I'm puzzled by the impression of an arbitrary judgement by you to exclude the last of these. But that strand pales into insignificance with the "should we allow copies at all" strand of your argument.

My take: copyright is (or once was) a bargain. Society provides criminal and civil protection for a period of time, in return for the protected thing entering the public domain at some time. And the point of the public domain is that the text can be reused. And so we, getting the point, reuse it, and provide an attribution (the wording of which is the subject of the other strand of the argument). By using that attribution we are signalling that this is not my work, or all my work. It builds on the work of others. That clears the moral point about giving credit where it is due. To recap: no legal issue because it is public domain. No moral issue because it is acknowledged. Subject to an acceptable acknowledgement, I'm plain not understanding what are the issues that would mitigate against use of PD text. And, for the record, not enjoying the implied accusations of dishonesty and wrongness.

Doubtless we can mull the issue some more at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism and leave MRG in peace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied to here, & replied there. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for my peace of mind

How do you handle precedence between an AfD and a CP listing when the AfD hasn't run its course? What I do is delete the article if there's no replacement text and close the AfD as moot. How do you deal with these? MLauba (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually go the other way around. :) My thought is that CP can be cleared by permission, but most matters raised at AfD cannot. I'm sure there are circumstances, though, where I'd just go ahead and close the AfD, especially if it looked like there would be no consensus to delete. At that point, copyright trumps, and there's no reason that an article can't be created clean. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. My own reasoning is that absent a rewrite or permission, the article will be deleted either way, so waiting on the AfD's conclusion is unfair to the keep arguments. If permission arrives and nothing is done to address the concerns of delete voters (I believe most of the OTRS personnel makes a point of reminding correspondents about the GNG, NPOV and promotional tone), the AfD will most certainly be restarted but without the origin of the text being a distraction to the debate.

Indeed, the challenge I see is if I let the discussion run its course when no permission is forthcoming, any attempts to fix some of the issues short of a full rewrite will end up creating an unauthorized derivative that may be enough to close as no consensus but in reality still has to go on copyright grounds.

Hence my stance on this. MLauba (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

True. If I saw one trending towards keep, I might handle it differently. I don't really have a uniform approach to this; it varies by situation. For instance, I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HP ServiceGuard. I did not close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandos chamber choir or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Managed digital allowance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Polar Bears

Hello. The picture that you sent me a link to is mine. I took it. It is part of an unpublished work on cemetery sculpture. The other link that you sent, (Ticket:2010011610025557) seems to take me nowhere, tho it might just be me. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of my pictures were scanned by me from negatives and in doing that it is easy to reverse the image. I looked at your links and pulled out a White Chapel Cemetery pamphlet that I have and it's pretty clear to me that I did indeed flip the negative. Is this something that you can fix or should I take a stab at it? A note about my wikipedia experience. Yes, I have done a fair amount of it but I have pretty carefully avoided the behind-the-scenes stuff such as

OTRS system, which I am hearing about for the first time. While I am at it one little thing that I am sort of proud of shows up here [43]. "Vanity of, vanities, all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 1:2 Carptrash (talk

) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've flipped it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Shorter version: thanks! :D Longer version at User talk:Carptrash. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Apropos, I'm on a new machine sans most software. I thought I'd at long last try the GIMP. So far so good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And when you do reply to the person who pointed out the problem (flipped negative) please let her (?) know that the editor who posted the error is grateful for her pointing it out and perhaps mention that this is another good example of why wikipedia keeps getting better. Carptrash (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

About The A.X.E. Project article

Hello,

Allow me to introduce myself - My name is Georgi Georgiev and I'm bassist and lead vocal of The A.X.E. Project band. I've noticed that our information article is deleted due to copyright(?) problems. As a offcial representative of the band I can assure you that we have all copyright needed to publish information about the band. We own the myspace profile you are citing as copyright problem! Actually the Wiki article is much older than the myspace so I cannot see the problem you are talking about! The same information about history of the band is posted everywhere in the net! May be the article need some update, but clearly DOESN'T have copyright issues. The same information about the band is posted also on [44]! My opinon is that the article doesn't hurt anyone and has just informational purpouse. If you need an offcial written permission from the band's management, please don't hesitate to contact us!

Best regards, The A.X.E. Project Bulgaria e-mail: [email protected] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.84.194 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(

WP:PERMISSION, and the onus is, I'm afraid, on you to do so. Nobody will e-mail you back. MLauba (talk

) 10:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably needs a quick review

Dead passive (talk · contribs) - came up through today's listing, had a cursory glance at another article he created and there was, again, a foundational issue. Fortunately his contrib list is short, so this does probably not warrant a CCI - unless there's stuff on other projects. MLauba (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll have a look at him today. In addition to the outstanding CCIs, I'm working through some older issues above caused by a misunderstanding of Canadian copyright law. Good thing I've got you pitching in on CP. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The bad news is that there are two entries I'm leaving to you: the Malay CCI (but if you can give me more details on the source I'll be happy to delete), and then there's UBS AG, for which I'd rather not take any administrative actions. MLauba (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That being said, the SCV listing is clear already ;) MLauba (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! I'll handle the outstanding. I don't know the source of the Malaysian Road Transport Department article. It's tagged under the "presumptive cleanup" provision of Copyright Violations. I'm pretty sure, though, that non-free material entered here. I did use the wrong tag, though, as it shouldn't be deleted, but restored to the last likely clean. The contributor who placed this text does some amazing work with tedious material, but has an unfortunate habit of pasting text from official sources. In spite of all the problems when the CCI was opened, I recently discovered he had just continued copying content. I recently gave him a 72 hour block, which I hope will convince him he must stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cloister (horse): Y Tagged and blanked.
• Ely, Cardiff: ? Don't find any matches that aren't wiki mirrors.
• Acilius sulcatus: N Little creative content.
• Joe Erskine (Welsh boxer): N Ditto.

Okay, so I found one issue and one that seems iffy, along with two that I think are almost certainly clear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Came across this on vandal patrol

This editor is adding copyright material into articles I think. It was a direct take from that article bonespurs.com. I have reverted and left a message in the edit summary only. I am still learning about this so I want to make sure I am correct with what I am thinking. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you would check to make sure I am correct about this. You can look at User:Health123. He seems new but promoting. Thanks as always for checking me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Soon as I finish dealing with this

OTRS ticket I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're quite correct about this. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. Something like this is unlikely to be handled at AIV, since it needs more careful review, but I have blocked the contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks no rush. So far I haven't been reverted. :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Between the named account and the IP, this contributor has added this content/spammed this website multiple times over the span of more than a year in that article and Calcaneal spur. Good catch! I don't think an immediate reversion is likely. The pattern seems more to suggest s/he will be back in a couple of months. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, glad to help. I am still learning but I am trying to help when I can with things like this and BLP vandalism. Thanks for being so prompt. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Article on Mooji

Hi, Moonriddengirl, I browsed through numerous pages but still do not know why you deleted my article on "Mooji". I suspect you might think he is not a noteworthy person. As far as I know he was compared with the Dalai Lama as concerns the holiness of his appearance. Can I convince you to accept the article? I somewhat puzzled author Have a great day Shokananda Shokananda (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article was not reviewed for notability concerns, but for copyright reasons. See User talk:Muxand, which I presume to have been your username at one point if it was your article.

The article began with content copied from [45] and in spite of some changes remained an unusable unauthorized derivative work of that source. For one example, the source says:

In late 1993, Mooji travelled to India. He had a desire to visit Dakshineswar in Calcutta where Sri Ramakrishna, the great Bengali Saint, had lived and taught. The words and life of Ramakrishna were a source of inspiration and encouragement to Mooji in the early years of his spiritual development. He loved the Saint deeply but as fate would determine, he would not go to Calcutta. While in Rishikesh, a holy place at the foothills of the Himalayas, he was to have another propitious encounter; this time with three devotees of the great advaita Master Sri Harilal Poonja, known to his many devotees as Papaji. Their persistent invitation to Mooji to travel with them to meet the Master made a deep impression on him. Still he delayed the prospect of meeting Papaji for two whole weeks, choosing first to visit Varanasi, the holy city.

This content was entirely replicated within the article, as was other text taken or very closely following on that source.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be

permission is provided

, we can use the original text with proper attribution.

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Food Power Deletion

The reason I made revisions to this article, was to further support education without personal viewpoints regarding it. The article listed information based upon an opinion, not fact, and I did my part as an intelligent person to correct it. MS Psychology Cambridge University: BS Sociology George Washington University. Any further questions, email me: [email protected]

Sincerely, Kevin Taylor Coleridge Ombudsman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.2.44 (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not highly intelligent for presenting a speculative addition to a factual article. Pointing out criticisms directed out at the United States is against the point of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.2.44 (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair

Hi, I have edited the above linked article today and became suspicious about its partly unusual phrasing. I've searched in Google a little bit and found a copyright violation of http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=55# (the section about the Earl of Aberdeen). The text was inserted in several edits, which began here [46]. The respective contributor was

WP:GROUPNAME (see http://www.tickledpinkinc.com). Because of the rather long time since the copyright violation and the many edits since then, I'm unsure whether it would be better to revert the article to the version before the violation or to remove the affected text simply. By the way I have User talk:Craigy144 on my watchlist and have noticed your messages there ... what should explain how I found my way to you :-) Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~

18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Copyright concerns seem to go back a bit further than that. :) I've blanked the article while seeking clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not checked thus far ... ;) Thanks for taking it over and your efforts. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, actually I think I created a bunch of Governor General articles by copying the biographies on the website. I must have assumed that as a government work they were all public domain (apparently this is true for the US, but probably not for Canada). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles Monck, 4th Viscount Monck was also copied from there, and presumably all of the ones that didn't exist yet when I was making them. I'll have to go back and check. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, still needing to be checked against [47] are

John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, Vere Ponsonby, 9th Earl of Bessborough, Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon, Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy, Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, Albert Grey, 4th Earl Grey, Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 4th Earl of Minto, Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby, Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne, John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll & Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll get there eventually...I haven't really edited anything substantial, as you can see. What do we do anyway? Just delete them? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten Charles Monck, 4th Viscount Monck. Is it okay now? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Chacksfield

I inadvertently missed your 7-day deadline - I am currently working on a total rewrite of this article. When it is completed I would appreciate a look at the deleted version, to check for non-contentious items such as discography and any refs that I have missed. Should be completed tomorrow. In the meantime I have put a stub article in place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll pull them up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a tiny bit back in and, since you said you wanted a look at it, mailed you the deleted version. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

New articles

New Wiki articles created by me include – Bonnie Lee, Silas Hogan and Son Bonds. I know I'm continually treading on thin ice, and there are probably better things you / we could / should be doing - but I do not know who else to ask if these are within the copyvio standards ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Derek. You're very welcome here. :) I tend to stay pretty busy, but I prioritize actual human conversation, and I'm more than happy to take a look. Once I've had enough coffee to engage my critical thinking skills, I'll read through them. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

All awake now. :) I see no issues in Bonnie Lee and am moving on with the list. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you. :) We've run into some technical issues with the CCI program, and I'm talking to the programmer. I can't do the sustained attention thing until we've wrapped our chat. Once we do, I'll hit Silas Hogan. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, back at it. I don't see any problems with Silas Hogan. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Son Bonds doesn't seem to have any issues, either. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time. Much appreciated.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons licence

Is this Creative Commons licence acceptable to Wikipedia? I can't seem to find a tag for this even in the non-free CC licences. I asked User:Skier Dude but he seems to be offline for the lasr few days. ww2censor (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, I'd say no. It's great when it's used by the copyright holder to release content into public domain, but this one worries me: "(a) certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the work of authorship identified is in the public domain of the country from which the work is published". Basically, anybody could upload content under that license. :) ("Well, I thought that Avatar was public domain in the US!" :D) If they are the copyright holder, they can simply release it under an allowable license or into public domain themselves. If they are not, they can verify public domain by giving details of original publication or otherwise explaining why the content is not copyrightable, and the license is completely immaterial. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That was basically what I thought. Who else can I ask? ww2censor (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it for an image? If so, you might seek another opinion at

WP:MCQ. If there's a specific image (or otherwise) in question, I'd be happy to weigh in there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

query

Hello Moonriddengirl,

Would you be kind enough to look at what I believe is User Chhe

Malke2010

19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm in the middle of revising an article for copyright concerns (kind of slow one, since I'm having to educate myself on the topic :P), but will come take a look as soon as I can. You know that given our previous correspondence, I cannot take action as an administrator, but I will certainly suggest possible approaches for you based on what I observe. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well aware. I wanted your opinion. I'm thinking of the AN/I board but don't want to if it won't fix things.

Malke2010

19:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I feel its neccessary to provide some clarification. You blocked Malke 2010 on September 6, 2009 after she was reported by Jusdafax for making legal threats against me and for continuing disruptive editing on the Karl Rove page. After this blew over Malke 2010 left the page for a while and then returned and made precisely the same removal of content (POV pushing) that she had been blocked for previously. The same exact paragraph removed. I then undid it again and she made a whole host of uncivil comments to me. She has already started an ANI against me trying to get me blocked back when I undid her POV edits at the Karl Rove page. In the ANI she claimed I violated 3RR, but it was clearly and blatantly untrue. The ANI didn't go anywhere since it was clearly ridiculous and Malke 2010 was warned for being uncivil, but nothing came about with regards to her subsequent removal of content. After the ANI didn't work out she started a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alert on me hoping to try to get me blocked again. It again quickly fell apart since I didn't say anything even remotely uncivil to her and Malke 2010 was again was warned for her incivility. She was subsequently taken in as a mentor by TheJadeFalcon after this incident in hopes that she could teach him how to behave properly on wikipedia. This fell apart though and TheJadeFalcon removed his offer of mentorship for some reason. Don't know why, but I'm guessing it was due to some strongly worded POV she was adding to other articles. At this point my dealings with Malke 2010 had only invovled the Karl Rove page, but its true that I began watching her edits after this to make sure they weren't blatantly POV pushing. Some of them weren't in which case I didn't say anything and didn't contribute to the article in anyway. Several others that were POV pushing I didn't touch since it began to start conflicts with other editors on other pages and I assumed they could handle it. I didn't get involved. But there were two so far that struck me as blatantly POV pushing and/or unconstructive that weren't being repaired, which I intern undid and started talking about it on the talk page. I was in no way uncivil towards her. And my discussion clearly dealt with the edit she made. I am not hounding her as she puts it. I'm not being annoying and my concerns are warranted. I think this is another ridiculous attempt by Malke 2010 to avoid discussing the particular issues of a particular edit she made and a way for her to get back at me for originally reporting her to ANI on August 19, 2009 in which she was blocked. I think she wants revenge. I should also mention that I'm not the only user she has started nonsense ANI and Wiqiquette reports on. I know she did it to Jusdafax and a couple other users so far as well if I remember correctly.Chhe (talk) 20:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Good timing, as I was just beginning to look over the diffs. As I told Malke, I am not in any way operating as an admin here. I've spoken with Malke several times about various issues on Wikipedia with the goal of helping integrate well with the community in building the neutral encyclopedia we all want. (Oh, how much easier it would be if we could all agree on what that is.) It's generally better to avoid referring to another contributor's actions as "ridiculous" or "nonsense", since most of us don't respond well to that kind of thing. :) I understand that you have a very different perspective on this than Malke. I know a little bit of the background, having been a bystander when TheJadeFalcon withdrew (I don't think for POV reasons). If you don't mind, please give me a minute to review the diffs so I can catch up. I type quickly, but I like to reflect thoroughly before speaking. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've looked over the diffs. Malke, I can certainly understand your objection to this. Being singled out by name in the section header does seem unnecessarily to focus attention on the who and less the why. Chhe, I'm not suggesting it was by any means a

personal attack

, but I think it's better except on noticeboards to avoid singling people out in a critical way in the subject line, which is highly visible and potentially prejudicial. Subject lines like "Excellent rewrite on this article, Editor57!" are unlikely to be a problem for anybody. :) Subject lines that describe the problem ("inclusion of information on Brown's position on gay marriage", for instance) are generally more helpful to building neutral consensus anyway, since others coming on a section entitled "Removal of Content by Malke 2010" may be unconsciously biased by it. It seems unnecessarily adversarial.

I don't see anything objectionable here, however. I don't think there's pattern enough to suggest "hounding" or reason to suspect Malke is out for revenge. I suspect that the problem is the same problem that likely flared up in the first place: you two evidently share interest in some topics about which you hold very different perspectives. If you show up in articles that are atypical for you, Malke might understandably worry that you are doing it to make life difficult.

Good communication could go a long way here. I'm not sure that the advice I'd offer will be welcome by either of you or if it is even practicable, but I would really recommend you both put aside the history between you and focus going forward solely on the issues. Ignore the editor it is coming from, and just respond to the content concerns. And if that doesn't work, I'd recommend Wikipedia:Mediation. I don't think any other forum is currently appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Thank you. As always, I welcome your advice. I have tried to ignore and focus on the issues, but he's cropped up again on Scott Brown. He cropped on Reagan. He doesn't have any history of going to these pages, never made a single edit. He's only reverted me. Please note, too, that Chhe has changed the story on my block several times. Now he's claiming I made legal threats against him, which is not true, and as you were involved in my block last time, you are well aware. Chhe is clearly following me. He seems to have no interest other than to be disruptive, call attention to me, etc., and as I suspected he would, he has followed me here. I don't want anything to do with him as I believe he is strident and not committed to the growth of the encyclopedia. He attempts to engage me in circular arguments that end up

Malke2010

21:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't worry about that. I finished what I was doing, and I'm happy to help if I can. I'm not sure I can here. I don't know if mediation would stand any chance of success, but I don't believe that any other forum is currently appropriate. Even if he doesn't think my advice is practical, I think that it could still benefit you. Try responding to him as if you have no idea who he is, focusing on the issues. And if you continue to feel attacked, I'd work my way up the dispute resolution chain. Mediation will only work if both of you are willing to accept it, but if it fails there's always

WP:RFC (I shudder to bring it up). I wouldn't recommend ANI for you or anybody unless you have very strong evidence. My experience suggests it is far more likely to generate more drama than long-term solutions when it comes to these kinds of disputes unless the circumstances are very clear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, yes, more drama. I agree re: mediation as correct forum. Just been looking up the differences on the noticeboards, that sort of thing. For now, I'm happy with your advice as to responding in future. Thank you. :) Think I'll have a glass of wine with dinner tonight! I tip my glass to you.

Malke2010

22:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want me to be honest I'd have to say that the advice isn't very practical. The concern that the section title might bias people seems rather insulting. I don't think people are that stupid that they are totally won over to someones arguments by reading the section title. The section title I wrote wasn't even made with that intent anyway. It was written quickly by me to simply inform other editors of a series of edits and undues that took place so that a discussion could take place about that. That isn't to say that there aren't many section titles that could have been chosen to describe that. But, the one I chose was the first that popped into my head and was no better than any others that didn't mention Malke 2010 by name.

Keep in mind though, I realize that now everytime I mention Malke 2010 in any section title she is going to go nuts. So I have no problem not doing so in the future to help avoid this. My only point is that there is nothing wrong in doing so on its own merits.

Also, the main reason why I say that your advice isn't very practical is because I don't think this will end Malke 2010's attempts to get me blocked for some madeup reason. Whenever a difference of opinion emmerges Malke 2010 immediately begins admin hunting instead of discussing the issue and trying to wait for other users input or start an RFC. I think eventually she will be successful as many admins don't thoroughly enough review the issues and past edits in my opinion. P.S. I have alot of evidence that indicates that Malke 2010 is out for revenge. If you are genuinely interested I could provide you with the diffs.Chhe (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Unconscious bias is a real concern. My advice is consistent with the advice given at

WP:3O

, where listers are forbidden even to sign their username to avoid unconsciously biasing responders in favor of the individual making the report. Signed reports are routinely removed.

However, if you think that unconscious bias is not a valid issue, then I trust you will consider that singling out an editor by name in a subject line may not be consistent with policy at

WP:COIN

, for instance.)

If you don't think clear, civil communication — with attempted mediation, if necessary — will help de-escalate the situation between the two of you, then you may wish to think of it this way: clear, civil communication with visible efforts at dispute resolution will go a long way to avoiding the outcome you fear. It would give evidence that the problem is not you. And this is no more or less than I've told Malke on a number of occasions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

John H Abeles

Thanks for being wise about moving the COI issues of this article over to the COIN board, to avoid any appearance of COI yourself. heh. But one thing I did notice was that over at the talk page of the article, the ORTS number is missing, you might want to fix that. Keep up the great work. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I had put the parameter in caps (OTRS), and I can't. Fixed. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. :) Tiggerjay (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Vietnamese Poetry

Would you mind taking a look at the above article? I came across it at

talk

) 03:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no doubt that there's an attribution issue. At Wikipedia:Peer review/Vietnamese Poetry/archive1, s/he says, "I want to improve this translation of mine, directly from the Vietnamese poetry page." What Vietnamese poetry page? There's no mention of it in the article's talk page or edit summaries. I've run the article through every detector I have and not found any matches whatsoever. I'll ask for clarification about the source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Literally, the Vietnamese "poetry" page, I believe. It's an unattributed interwiki translation. Once I've verified, I'll help with attribution and we can begin looking into other issues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much - you're such a wonderful editor! By the way, I'm in awe of your posts. They are always so clear and precise.

talk

) 17:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Why, how kind. :) Thank you. I try, but I sometimes forget that people I'm talking to may not be familiar with the policies & guidelines I work with and so take shortcuts I shouldn't. Conversely, I have also overexplained. Tough balance! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Anna Vissi

There are articles about Anna Vissi, her albums and singles and her discography and I have many sources to add in these articles but I can't. Why I can't add anything? Thanks about your help, in advance. —Preceding Teo628957 comment added by Teo628957 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Those articles were subject to a pretty extensive vandalism campaign, and as a result they are currently "semi-protected." Registered contributors can add to those articles after they have passed a certain threshold of participation on Wikipedia. Once your account is "autoconfirmed" (see Wikipedia:User access levels#Autoconfirmed users), you will be very welcome to contribute to those articles. The quickest way to get autoconfirmed is to contribute constructively to articles that are open to you while you are logged in. I can't say specifically when you will reach that status because it depends on factors about your account that I can't know, but if you test periodically I'm sure you'll be able to access them soon. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much about your answer. I will do my best. Teo628957

You have to be logged in, though, for your edits to count. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Just curious

What's the copyright problem here? It doesn't seem to be copied from the cited sources, or any others I can find. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) The text "Upon the childÂ’s birth, the surrogate mother gives up all rights and responsibilities to the child." is copied almost verbatim from the cited source ([53]). The rest of the sentence was removed really for three reasons: it would have been just hanging there otherwise, Wiktionary is not a reliable source (for the same reason Wikipedia isn't), and I didn't find support for the information at the link. Ordinarily, with a bit that short, I'd have rewritten, but I came upon it in reviewing a CCI and was moving rather quickly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. I agree on all counts. Just wanted to make sure before I put a new version back in its place. Thanks for the quick reply! Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

use of marks

MRG, I'm a little confused about which way you are using the checks and Xs of the Cragie copyvio investigation. [54]; I gather the checks there meant you found copyvio and dealt with it and the Xs mean there wasn't any? But then what do you mean as "reverting", for, say Donald Rumsfeld, where I do not see he contributed at all. (or did you oversight)?

In the section 1 above "DNB and copyright issues" -Tagishsimon seems to be using them in this way, but in the section "Probably needs a quick review" you seem to be using it the opposite way.

I'm trying to follow and perhaps learn the process--partly so I can rewrite some of these, at least as stubs. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry my notes there weren't really clear. I mean there was no copyright violation because he was only reverting vandalism. Although that was only an assumption: the program had used to list articles without links when the only action taken was reverting, and when it listed that one without links, I presumed that to be the case. I'll go take a look in case there's a new bug, and I'll clarify those notes.

Yes, I use "x" for no violation and "y" for violations found. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems so. Good to know it's not a new bug. :) I'll go clarify what I mean by "reverting." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And done. And, please, let me respond enthusiastically to the idea of your learning the process. You would be very welcome. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to start rewriting at least to stubs some of the historical ones--to mark that I have done so and removed the copyvio, what do I do: strikethrough and place a checkmark? Normally, in rewriting copyvio , say of a company web page, I don't delete from the history, just replace it because nobody is likely to complain; in this case, where it's a direct and almost complete copy from a reference database, do you advise actually deleting the copyvio revisions? DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Usually, I'd do a checkmark and just write the action taken next to it. If you place a check or cross, others will know it's been handled.

The downside of not deleting from history is that we run the risk of inadvertent restoration later. I've seen some copyvio admins who never delete and some who always do. I'm a bit inconsistent; it depends on what I think the likeliness is that the text will be reproduced. Certainly, we're less likely to run into issues of contributory infringement if the material is replaced. If material is foundational, I always delete it. If it is recent and extensive, I usually do, too. If it was introduced a while ago, I don't always...especially on a CCI, for the sole reason that we have about 15 of these open, with thousands of articles waiting review, and I'm trying to keep them from getting hopelessly out of hand.

If you don't delete it from history, {{cclean}} on the talk page can be helpful. It has an optional parameter for the source. If you haven't identified a source but are presumptively rewriting, there's {{CCI}}. It has an optional parameter for the username (or the code; if a contributor seems to be using a "real" name, I've started substituting the date it was opened) which I think is a good idea, to help contributors figure out where problems came in.

And let me say again how delighted I am that you're interested in pitching in. :) Whoot. We need all the help we can get! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

More Doctor Who copyvios

I am finding more and more Doctor Who copyvios everywhere I look (none of which were added by Rmdbutler or Cumbersnatch). Here's just a few I found in the {{

Autonomy (Doctor Who), The Eyeless, and The Krillitane Storm, for example). This whole thing is obviously a big problem, but I don't know what should be done here. What do you think? Theleftorium

15:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this is one of the biggest copyvio problems we have on Wikipedia and one of the hardest to control. I've cleaned so many articles related to tv shows and books that it's not even funny. :( The best thing we can do is keep spreading the word. I see you've given User:Badwolftv a warning. I'll take a look at his behavior and see if more is currently justified. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Speaking of the persistence of the problem, note this earlier edit in one of those articles: [55]. As to Badwolftv, if you see him do it again, please let me know. I don't know that a block is appropriate at this point, but if it happens again there's no doubt. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll keep an eye open. Thanks for taking a look. Once the Rmdbutler case is finished I'll investigate the other articles with my detective magnifying glass. :) Theleftorium 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User VanemTao

Hi! A great deal of pictures uploaded by him are really violating copyright laws. Still...some of these pictures are made by him, so I gave him time to mark these self-made pictures. Unfortunately he hasn't done this. I think I will began deleting these files in few days. It will be huge work, because he is uploaded thousands of pictures.--

talk

) 19:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (More complete response at your Estonian talk page. :D) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anniston

Hmmm. I didn't necessarily write that page, as I only copied it from the municipal airport page. I'm willing to fix it though.

talk

) 19:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I just cleaned it up now. I actually stopped doing stuff like that over two years ago when I was threatened by a longer block for copyright violations. I regularly use the page that the stuff was copied from, so I know that the information is quite useful. I know not to copy things in directly as that, so I think someone else was new to it all and thought that that might be acceptable. I now try to use that "copied from..." template, but at the time, I don't think I was aware of doing that at the time. If worse comes to worse, we can just strip the article to the bones and work from there.

talk

) 19:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

While I'm here, do you think the Abandoned Airfields site is noteworthy enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? I've pondered making one because it is basically an encyclopedia of old airports, something which I have never been able to find elsewhere. What do you think, because I'll create one if you think it might be noteworthy enough.

talk

) 20:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I trust your judgment. I just read the template that said "don't removed until the issue is resolved."

talk

) 21:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management

Could you help me re-stub this page ? I think it was split from the page

Catholic sex abuse cases, which had copyright issues, but most editors were not able to detect this. What I would like to do is to re-create the page, but without any references to this link. [56] You seem to be apt at correcting copyright problems, so I thought you could help me out with this. ADM (talk

) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. What kind of help did you have in mind? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Look up the parts of the entry that seem too close to this [57], and either delete them or reformulate them, and then restore the page without any copyright issues. I do not have a sysop status, so I cannot really do this without some sort of extra help. ADM (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I really don't have time. We have literally thousands of current copyright concerns waiting for review at

WP:CCI. That article was fairly long. What you're talking about there is a bit of a time investment for an article that isn't even here anymore and was speedily deleted moreover as spam. If you want me to pull up the references that were used or something like that, I'd be happy to help. That said, a glance at the history suggests that the worst of copyright violations were added after you split off the material. I'm not sure that there were any in the content you split. I'd be happy to restore that to you, for additional review for copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

21:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, could you do that ? It would probably be a positive thing if it were found that the original version did not contain any copyright problems. ADM (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. It's userfied as it was before that other contributor started pasting content at

User:ADM/NLRCM. There does, however, seem to be a copyright problem in the center paragraph, as it quotes from somebody without identifying its source. The first and final paragraphs should be fine. I suspect that the contributor who pasted content into it was affiliated based on username. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do with that. ADM (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Anniston Air Force Base

I've downloaded the text of this article to a notepad on my PC. What this article needs is a complete rewrite to eliminate any vestiges of copyvio. Although the history itself is not copyrightable, blocks of text can be and a rewrite of the article can address this. Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The article will be revisted after about a week, since I relisted it to notify you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for unblocking me and for your diligence in investigating the matter even further. I just left

WP:SPLIT issues every once in a while and see where I can help out. Again, thank you and happy editing~ 152.16.59.102 (talk

) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you ever find yourself with huge chunks of time on your hands.... :D Happy editing to you, too. Glad I managed the unblock all right. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hating Monday Mornings?

DrNegative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) might require a close look. MLauba (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, joy. I had a conversation with him at Talk:The Lion King in March 2009, at which point he claimed ignorance of policy. It seems that the content he added to Dante's Peak predates that, so maybe he stopped then. I'm on day two of a migraine, which severely limits my clarity of thought (not sure which is worse, the migraine or the medication :P). I'll try to revisit this one later today if I become more fully functional. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Honeycombs

This article has been subjected to more opinionated and potentially libelous edits, which I have reverted. I have also taken the liberty of posting a message on the user's talk page - not for the first time. If view of your involvement previously, I though I should draw this to your attention. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 10:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty out there. :/ Thanks for taking care of it. I see that the user has received a final warning. If he violates policy in the article again, I'll block him. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary of National Biography and copyright issues

Another one of these (I raised the matter on the Copyright Problems page a little while ago, and you added a reply) is

Alexander Ludovic Duff. The biography from the DNB was published 1949, so the {{DNB}} template is again misleading; this was again created by User:Craigy144. A further one that came to light was Vera Cuningham, started in 2007 by User:Talskiddy. I'm working down a list of hundreds of uses of {{DNB}}, and these are just a by-product; I have only done about 25% so far. Do you have access to the ODNB website? Typically the paraphrase is so close - more like a copy edit for length - that there are whole sentences in common (or close). Charles Matthews (talk

) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for finding the problem. Sadly, I do not have access to the website, but I know a contributor who does, so I was able to verify via him that at least two of the articles were problems. :) I've relisted the three artilces you mentioned to

WP:CCI

, as it seems like it may be necessary.

What would be tremendously helpful is if you could blank any articles you find that are problems with the {{copyvio}}. I would probably say something like {{subst:copyvio|url=DNB, see talk}} and then put a note on the talk page with an example of two of duplication or unusable close paraphrasing. Since the source is not accessible to me or, so far as I know, the other admins who handle copyright work, that would help process them.

Do you know any other users who have access to ODNB who may be able and willing to help with copyright comparison? Wikipedia:Copyright violations permits presumptive removal after multiple infringements have been verified (I would put the threshhold somewhere around 7 major issues, but that's my personal barometer), but it's obviously far better to check where possible to avoid collateral damage. I hate having to delete material when other contributors have also put their efforts into an article, because I can well imagine how disheartening it would be to experience that. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon should be able to help, User:Dsp13 might be able to. These are editors already involved in the DNB project here. In fact any UK-based editor is able to read the ODNB site for free, through the local library. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great. I'll alert them to this conversation in case they are interested in helping. In addition to your three, I have tagged

Frances Anne Vane, Marchioness of Londonderry, as it seems from the limited views available at googlebooks to be a problem, too. It would be helpful to know if there are more problems in his created articles, anyway, before request a CCI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Magnus Manske's tool CatScan 2.0 to find C20th deaths with the DNB template - I haven't checked them at all:

• David George Ritchie, Arthur Hobhouse, 1st Baron Hobhouse, Lionel Sackville-West, 2nd Baron Sackville, Auckland Colvin, Walter Mytton Colvin, Edward Woods (engineer), Henry Augustus Smyth, Elizabeth Missing Sewell, Edmund Hobhouse (1900s deaths)
• Alexander Ludovic Duff, Arthur Henry Hardinge
  (1930s)
• Thomas Legh, 2nd Baron Newton (1940s);
• Matthew Smith (artist), Vera Cuningham, Reginald Hoare (1950s)
• Sir Percy Loraine, 12th Baronet
  (1960s)
• John Pudney (1970s). Dsp13 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neat tool! Impressively comprehensive! :O Can you (that would be the plural you :)) check them against the ODNB to see if there are issues? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems clearcut - the first lot (Ritchie ... Edmund Hobhouse) are all OK in the sense that there is an article from the 1912 DNB about them, so there is no reason there has to be a copyright issue. The rest include two I had found already (Duff, Cuningham), and given that DNB biographies are always posthumous, there is something wrong in each case. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably should take this page off my watchlist. :) I have ODNB access and the Hardinge article I checked is a word-for-word copy. The DNB copyright appears to be 2004, could someone verify that so I can be sure I'm reading it right? I'll put a notice on the article when I get back from lunch if someone hasn't already done it. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You should? :/ (sigh) I'm not that familiar with the DNB, but from the above I presume that Hardinge must be copyrighted. However, I'll wait for verification...and keep meticulously and painfully combing through

Catholic sex abuse cases for copying. Thanks, both of you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the same two editors as previously mentioned, from 2007 and 2008. (I started John Pudney myself, so I presume the problem was introduced by Talskiddy round then.) Charles Matthews (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can lend some time to this problem on Monday night, should it still exist then. Charles alerted me to an issue with Elias of Dereham, where I inadvertently inserted some 1993 text thinking it was the typical pre-1900 text one normally finds in ODNB's DNB archive. I've reverted that article back to its 01:41, 21 November 2007 state thus removing that copyvio from the displayed article: clearly the copyvio is still in the history. Apologies for that :( Meanwhile, best wishes for the new year to you & Charles, MRG; he'll want to know that I will return to the one true DNB fold shortly, when I've got the last 1,000 or so UK articles that need geocoding, geocoded. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See, now I'm feeling guilty, hence:

• David George Ritchie - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by E. S. Haldane .
• Arthur Hobhouse, 1st Baron Hobhouse - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by C. E. A. Bedwell
• Lionel Sackville-West, 2nd Baron Sackville - N Copyvio of http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/35902 - now marked as such
• Auckland Colvin - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by F. H. Brown
• Walter Mytton Colvin - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by F. H. Brown
• Edward Woods (engineer) - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by W. F. Spear
• Henry Augustus Smyth - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by R. H. Vetch
• Elizabeth Missing Sewell - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by Elizabeth Lee
• Edmund Hobhouse - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by A. R. Buckland
• Henry Jenner - Y Look like facts sourced to but no copyvio from ODNB.
• Alexander Ludovic Duff
  - N - has already been marked as a copyvio, and indeed is :(
• Arthur Henry Hardinge - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has been marked as such by me.
• Thomas Legh, 2nd Baron Newton - Y - looks like an honest sourcing to ODNB - no obvious copyvio
• Matthew Smith (artist) - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has already been marked as such
• Vera Cuningham - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has already been marked as such
• Reginald Hoare - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has been marked as such by me.
• Sir Percy Loraine, 12th Baronet
  - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has been marked as such by me.
• John Pudney - ??? - Is far from a complete copyvio. I can find one sentence which is word for word with ODNB, but there seems to have been a fair bit or rewrite. I'll look at this again on Monday.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that saves me some reporting time, Jenner to Cuningham on that list are my results too. Two blankies for each of the previously mentioned editors. One single-paragraph vio I chopped up and sourced directly. One mistaken set of footnoting by User:Tryde sourcing {{DNB}} for someone who dies much later. That's all I managed. Is this the whole set of concerns or has a cloud been cast on a wider range of edits? Franamax (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all, and sorry for pulling you away from your project, Tagishsimon. :) I really appreciate the time you guys put into this. The Catholic sex abuse cases article ate three hours of my life yesterday, and I'm only about half way through. (I'm going to have to notify the project today; that's an unworkable pace, obviously.) From what I've seen, User:Craigy144 may need additional evaluation, as it seems that he's done this multiple times. Inadvertent errors happen, but when they happen over and over again it's good to check for problems with other sources. I'll take a look at some of the other articles he's created. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be a while before I get all through the list by template that set these off. I'm reasonably confident now that I'm up to speed with how to handle an ODNB copy when I find it. It looks like the Craigy144 creations need to be deleted and stubbed: it's mostly that straightforward. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So the ODNB side of things is in good and capable hands? Should I get access to it at some point, I'll be happy to help with review but am very limited in what I can do at the moment. I depend on snippets at google books. :/ I have not yet found problems with Craigy144's other creations, though I've spot-checked. It may be that this is the only source he's infringed. I'll poke some more when I have time just in case. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up As the first batch came up today and Craigy144 has not responded to the warnings, I have blocked him and opened an ANI thread:

WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Notification and review request of block of User:Craigy144 for copyright violations. MLauba (talk

) 13:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that rather heavy-handed? There is no recent issue, in fact no recent edits. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've weighed in at that ANI thread. I don't think the block is heavy handed, given that he was notified of copyright concerns in Reader Bullard specifically a full year before you asked him about it and evidently took no action. If he has ignored copyright concerns in the past, we can't be sure he will not continue to ignore them in the future. Meanwhile, Wikipedia is drowning in copyvios. We have fourteen open CCIs and more in the pipeline it seems every week. Very disheartening. :( --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an on-going pattern not only of copyvios but also of ignoring the issues. The block is to prevent further damage, until the concerns are acknowledged and addressed, and hence preventative in nature. MLauba (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented further on AN/I. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you perhaps fail to notice an edit conflict? :) I don't see it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I was suggesting emailing the editor to check if there is a reason for the lack of response. Matters have moved on. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So they have. There may be a good reason for this, but indef blocks can be lifted at any time. Admin status is a bit harder to regain, typically, but arbcom haven't done anything about that yet and may not. That said, circumstances here do not look good. :/ (The edit conflict possibility occurred to me because just a few minutes earlier I wrote "I've weighed in at that ANI thread" believing I had...but because of an EC, I had not. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this is going to be complex. I believe that

Hilgrove Turner may infringe on the revised ODNB, as it deviates significantly from the public domain one I've been able to access. Any of you gentlemen care to take a look? If this is the case, cleaning up after him could be substantially more difficult, as we can't presume anything he's taken from the ODNB is free, no matter the age. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This business is still running, with User:Talskiddy (another coming to light yesterday). Could you have a word with this editor? The second message I left ... wasn't taken very seriously. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Me!

Hi MRG, long time, no speak! Was wondering if you copuld lend me a hand: Ive tried to tidy up my talk page and archives, and started by renaming my archives (I want to sort them in to years) this has meant I had to create a new archive page - User talk:Bleaney/Archive 2009. The problem is this new archive isn't showing up in the archive box of my current talk page. Also the archive box still lists my archives under their old names. Can you help? Bleaney (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try. :) I'll have to see if archive boxes support years. Once I wrap what I'm in the middle of doing, I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All right. If you don't use the default number system, you have to have an archivelist. I've created one for you at User talk:Bleaney/archivelist. Whatever is on that list will be in your box. I wasn't sure you wanted it set up, so I have used "Archive 2007" for the first and simply the year for 2008, 2009. You'll have to manually add subsequent years. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much MRG, you have saved my wikilife again! Bleaney (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

New sockpuppet for Davesmith33 (and 35, now 36)

Davesmith35 who you banned the other day, is back on the article with a new sockpuppet, Davesmith36. I'm not sure what the procedure is for dealing with it, but thought a heads up was in order. Drmargi (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Blocked. I think I'll speak to a checkuser to see if we can address the underlying IP. Meanwhile, please feel free to let me know if you see more or to report them at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whew! Too bad you're so slow!  ;-). Thank you. This is a real problem child from about 18 months ago who's just reappeared. If history is any indication, he/she will continue to press the issue with a series of socks, so the attention to the underlying IP is probably for the best. I wouldn't be surprised if he/she has moved or changed ISP, and gotten around a block to another IP. Drmargi (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's any help an IP made a very similar edit[58] yesterday just after Davesmith35. It's a PlusNet IP, not sure how static they are now. I think we're all wanting to waste as little as possible time after dealing with this at length twice now (he returned as a "reformed" sock 18 months ago after being blocked for the same issue back in 2007). Thanks! Halsteadk (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that. I've asked a SPI clerk for suggestions and will follow through. I'll let him know about that IP and this conversation. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd forgotten about that one stray anon IP edit -- good catch Halsteadk. I wasn't around in 2007, and didn't realize there was a third incident then. Clearly, we're dealing with someone who might charitably be described as having issues. Drmargi (talk) 20:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Evidently, the IP is inconsistent. If the socking continues, we can semi certain articles, which will at least require the patience to autoconfirm and thus may discourage continuing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

• BLP madness: BLP deletions cause uproar

• Births and deaths: Wikipedia biographies in the 20th century

• News and notes: Biographies galore, Wikinews competition, and more

• In the news: Wikipedia the disruptor?

• WikiProject report: Writers wanted! The Wikiproject Novels interviews

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What's going on in this category

Do you know why the category Category:Wikipedia files that transclude the Non-free media rationale template with no Purpose specified, which I review daily, has suddenly increased from 30-60 entries, which I can keep under control, to an unmanageable 3,500+? I cannot see any reason for the increase, as random images don't seem to have been edited recently but they all do seem to be missing the purpose in the fair-use rationale. The category itself was last edited in July 2009. Quite odd indeed. ww2censor (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(

logo fur}} has been edited on the 19th, it was apparently not working before. I'm going to assume that this is the reason for your sudden increase. MLauba (talk

) 08:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoa! I wonder if we can recruit people to help out there? I say it tentatively, because I recently tried to recruit people to help out at

WP:NFCR to the expected crickets. It seems like Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media might pitch in. I'll check it out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

14:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Have done. Wonder if there's a bot we could get to pitch in? If the Logo is in the infobox, that ought to be an easy repair. I toss this idea out but will not pursue that one myself, since botland is strange and vaguely threatening. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some stats for you

Hey. :-) Was just going through an online ethics course and ran across this little statistic relevant to close paraphrasing that I thought you might enjoy:

"In the absence of clear direction from faculty, most students have concluded that "cut and paste" plagiarism — using a sentence or two (or more) from different sources on the Internet and weaving this information together into a paper without appropriate citation — is not a serious issue. While 10% of students admitted to engaging in such behavior in 1999, this rose to 41% in a 2001 survey with the majority of students (68%) suggesting this was not a serious issue."

(Originally excerpted from Donald McCabe, Center for Academic Integrity, Duke University, but original source appears to have been lost, ironically enough). On a related note, I also found a source that describes what they call "patch writing" (close paraphrasing) as "a transition to language independence" for non-native speakers who "feel they cannot improve upon what has already been written."[59] The latter is a good read if you're trying to get insight into why non-native speakers often plagiarize - it gives some good examples of expectations of plagiarism/cheating in many cultures. Dcoetzee 11:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good morning! :) I know why some non-native speakers do so, at least many of the ones I run into on Wikipedia. :) I'm having to work right now to keep one such article from returning to its previous state as a pastiche of paragraphs copied from various sources. If you care passionately about something, you want to share information about it. But it takes good skill in a language to be able to transform facts into your own copyright. It must just be awfully tempting to copy sentences or paragraphs here and there and move them to Wikipedia, especially if you don't see the harm. Anyway, I've read a little bit about the situation in Japan, but will take a look. I'm always interested to see how difficult cultures handle these matters, particularly valuable when you work in a "melting pot" (ooh! buzzword!) of people from all over. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Half-hour hack contribution surveyor

I decided to hack together my own contribution surveyor. Results are at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Rmdbutler. It eschews some functionality (especially counting the number of bytes added in a revision) in return for speed. This assumes, of course, the contributor knows how to use the minor edit feature. Edits are numbered chronologically with 0 being the most recent.

I tested it on Aiman abmajid, it took 160 seconds (60% of which were API queries). MER-C 05:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Great! I suspect it will be better used at briefer ones, though. I only check edits of at least 100 bytes (often 2), and it would take forever to go through Aiman if we had to look at diffs like [60] from the scan of Rmdbutler. :D Wish I knew how to do this stuff and could help. :/

Do you want me to e-mail you the last version of the program Derek sent me? I'd be happy to. It isn't exactly fast; it took a couple of hours to do Craigy144, but, then, the Craigy144 CCI is a bit of a beast. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I suppose I can do the diff links, but that's precisely why the other contribution surveyor is so slow (1 major edit == 1 API request at best). I can probably turn hours into minutes, but the programming is rather messy. MER-C 03:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arturo Sanchez-Azofeifa image permissions presented

Hello Moonriddengirl. I am replying to you per your request to let you know that I have updated copyright indications as you suggested and updated the source file to release copyright coverage (e.g. - removed all rights reserved language). Thank you for your excellent work. FlyingCannuck (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Responded at Commons. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The image still has the speedy deletion tag. Does that go away on its own? 129.128.66.17 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. No, I removed it. It's not showing for me. Perhaps you need to refresh the page? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I took your suggestion and refreshed several times, but the notice still lives on, resident at the main page for Dr. Sanchez-Azofeifa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arturo_Sanchez-Azofeifa. Doing a little research, I noticed code - Image:Arturo_Sanchez-Azofeifa.jpg|frame|Arturo Sanchez-Azofeifa deletable image-caption|28 January 2010. Am I allowed to remove this code now? FlyingCannuck (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that code! I'm sorry; I forgot about that code. I thought you meant the tag on the image itself. Yes, you are very welcome to remove that code. Sorry for not realizing what you meant! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible

COPYVIO at List of Love Hina characters

Hi Moonriddengirl! I have a possible

copyright violation that I was hoping you could take a look at for me since you have so much more expertise in this area.

With this edit, IP editor 65.32.65.95 inserted material into List of Love Hina characters that can also be found here. I reverted this edit and placed a {{Uw-copyright}} warning on his/her anonymous talk page with these edits.

Since then, the IP editor has reverted my edits and continues to add much the same material. I was hoping you might cast your more expert eye on the situation. Thanks! — SpikeToronto

05:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Happy to pitch in. I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. The last edit by the IP was evidently okay from a copyright standpoint. He was attempting to move a section that had previously been published in the article. He removed it first here (at the same time he pasted in the other content) with a note saying "I made these changes because mutsumi otohime was never a resident of hinata house. she stayed there but ended up living off site across the street". Evidently, he didn't notice that you had restored that text and was trying to put it back himself in a different section, as here he says, "i added this to put mutsumi who is a very important character back onto the list because i previously deleted her from residents. It is exactly as it was before just moved"

I don't know which section she belongs in, so I just removed his redundant edit. That one section seems to have been a copyright issue, but the new material has been in the article for a while. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That’s kind of what I thought too. All of his/her other edits I could not track down elsewhere, only the one that I removed and warned him/her for. But, I wanted a fresh pair of eyes to make sure that I could leave the article as is, since it is not an article I am ever likely to go back to again. Anime is not my bailiwick, as they say. Thanks so much for your efforts! I really appreciate it. — SpikeToronto 22:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for your diffs, it made the his/her edits clearer. — SpikeToronto 22:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for following up on it. Stuff like that is much harder to clean up if we let it spread through the internet. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Platform tennis

why was the platform tennis page deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.26.177 (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It was unusable under our

copyrights policy. See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 25 for more information. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Other article

Jaffna kingdom, had a section of which the main article was Aryacakravarti dynasty, but I wrote the articles before understanding how to link them properly. If you read the section of Jaffna kingdom that derives from Aryacakravarti dynasty, it is very difficult to make the connection, so I am attempting to make it flow better. Taprobanus (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It is fixed now :)) I think .Taprobanus (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Monica Maimone

Sorry for disturb, but I really don't know what I need to do for this page that I wrote. It's sure similar to the text in the site http://www.studiofesti.com/artisti-studio-festi.html but because the information are the same and all is of public demain. I sent also a mail giving the permission and writing that my name Guido Belli is beetween the collaborators of Studio Festi, as you can see on the site... I wrote also many references to the works that Monica Maimone did... If you can help me I thank you very much... --Guido Bellix (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Replying at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Merv Leitch

Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry, I'm not particularly familiar with navigating Wikipedia so I don't/didn't know about the "e-mail this user" feature - and I am probably doing something wrong, but I don't see it enabled as you've indicated. I'll look again. And I've read the "E-mailing users" page, and will again, but I don't see it.

Frankly, perhaps regular users of Wikipedia have figured all this out, but this is frustrating to me as an occasional user - there should be a simpler and more direct way for people to contact the author with comments etc. Like a very prominent "contact the author" button on the page. I'm also somewhat annoyed that whoever authored this article hasn't been tracking it and replied in some way to me.

And I don't know if it's the same person/organization doing all these, but I noted another one's popped up respecting a friend (who's alive), who was a fellow Cabinet Minister at the time my father was, and noted the page's existence for him (of which he was unaware). I take your/Wikipedia's point about discouraging family members from creating pages for "conflict of interest" purposes, but I would have thought it at least courtesy for the author to have tried to contact the *living* people s/he was going to create pages about to let them know. I cannot of course claim to be objective about my father, but given what I understand to be Wikipedia's aim of "objective" information, there's one glaring error in that which is highly subjective and would be laughed at by anyone familiar with the times. I'd rather get in contact with the author to discuss rather than just go ahead and edit, since I'd like to find out what prompted him/her to do it in the first place

But thank you again for your attempts to help.

Jazzhed (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Happiness

I just got back from Chattacon, a science fiction convention: happiness; to my wife and child: more happiness. Thanx. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ramblin' Thomas

Could you just check this one for me - it hatched today. Like most eggs, it will keep for a week or two if you are busy. Thank you,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Derek. It doesn't need to wait; I've checked it against AMG, and it seems fine. I also ran it through my mechanical detector just to be thorough, and it didn't pick up anything either. Interesting fellow. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bless you, Moonie - well, I don't know what else to call you. Thanks, I am still trying to be good, and need a break at times from that copyvio idiot. I have said this before, probably to you, but the history of early American blues personnel is almost always fascinating, even if you have little interest in the music per se. Sleep well.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User images

Aelistas23 keeps uploading unsourced and unlicenced images that are obviously not his and has now started reuploading the same images of current football players with a US-100 year PD copyright tag. I tagged all the untagged images and am now tired, besides which it seems like a waste for time. RfC, admin block or another warning? ww2censor (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Block block block. :) And thank you for following through with them! I've blocked for 72 hours. One more image vio out of him, and I think an indefinite block is the next step. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, & thanks for the barnstar too. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation?

Gotta rush, would you look at [61]? Thanks.

talk

) 12:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, most definitely. I'll take care of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we had a fascinating time watching a cinema live broadcast of a London play by Terry Pratchett.

talk

) 20:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

email

check email.

Malke2010

01:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Johnyettaw

Hi, you left some good advice on the subject talk page. The user is someone who is trying to edit his own BLP and the article about the incident he was involved in. I saw the problem on the BLP noticeboard, and I have been trying to put a stop to an edit war on these articles. If you have time, please review and comment on what I have told him so far.Jarhed (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I will come take a look and see if I can offer any further input a bit later today when I'm fully awake. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've read over your messages, but before I wade further wanted to make sure that there's not something going on that I'm unaware of, based on your reference to "edit war." So far as I can see, Johnyettaw has not edited any article since January 12th.

John Yettaw

has not been edited by anyone since January 15th. The user hasn't edited the talk page of his biography for over a week, and it's a week today since he's edited the talk page of the incident article. To an outsider (and I am, I haven't even read either article), there doesn't seem to be an edit war, but, again, I'm sure if there's something going on that I'm unaware of. :)

I've read over your conversation to him on his talk page. While I might have clarified to him at some point that talk pages are public and anyone may contribute (if he's thinking of them like e-mail, then your answering notes to him may have been a bit disconcerting!), I think this comment is especially good: "As I told you before, if you list your concerns, I will examine the sources and ensure that the article follows them scrupulously, and I will contest any source that is weak." That's exactly what we should be doing. That said, I am confused by the following, both left on the 24th: "I want to persuade you to STOP EDITING YOUR ARTICLES." and "I have no desire to edit your incident article while you are still active on it. Please let me know if you will do as I ask and stay away from that article so that I can stop wasting my time." Are you asking him to promise not to edit them? Because as I noted above, not only is he not editing them, but nobody else is either. It seems that he stopped editing his articles almost two weeks ago. There's nothing much that can be done if he hasn't specific his concerns, but currently COI editing doesn't seem to be an issue. :)

Just as an aside, my note to him was not a template, but just a quick personal recommendation. Another contributor had asked me if I could communicate to him, since he seemed agitated. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

According to what you say at

WP:BLP1E. There is one voiced concern that such a redirect would violate the consensus at the AfD, but this is not an issue. There was no consensus at the AfD; it closed as "no consensus" with default to keep. A redirect is not a violation of that. Nothing is deleted in a redirect. There have been no objections to your last proposal. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My main concern was that he appeared to think I was pestering him, and I wanted another editor to see if that was true. He hasn't edited the articles, but he has been posting lengthy posts on the talk pages, and I don't want to work on the articles if he continues to do that. Thank you for taking the time on this.Jarhed (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl. Thank you for the message. In the incentive article it mentions that I flew to LA to discuss things with me ex-wife. My knowledge of this supersedes anything in print. I did not fly to LA to visit my ex-wife. I don't have a "source" - I know what I did. As far as

I wrote something to Jarhed that I deleted... I realized this is your site - I am not catching on to Wikipedia very well. I know there is no such thing as deletes... so I am going to repost my message to an apology to you - I saw Jarhed's message and I posted a response in the wrong forum again. Please forgive me.

Jarhed if you have to ask someone concerning your own behavior - "My main concern was that he appeared to think I was pestering him, and I wanted another editor to see if that was true" then perhaps you might need to engage in some inner reflection. Is the "incident" talkpage (or what ever it is called) yours?... is the johnyettaw talkpage yours? If I have posted anything lengthy on your talkpage... this is new to me... I wrote one to justmeherenow... and one to you on the same page (I thought)... but I don't remember going to your talkpage and writing any thing too long. How many lengthy posts were there? And how long ago was it? Here are two terms for your to consider Moot Issue... and Move On. Stop criticizing me. I have been polite to you - Get off my back... I know I am not Wiki-Perfect enough for you. JohnYettaw (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, I had sent you a thank you and again Jarhed had to post a comment... this time it was to inform me concerning your motives for sending me the message. This and all of his messages resemble inappropriate interjection... or in other words... nagging. Sorry for posting in all the wrong places. JohnYettaw (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, for what it's worth, and as unhelpful as it may be of me to make this comment, having read

Suu Kyi trespasser incidents, noting that since 12th January you have confined yourself to the talk pages. Finally, perhaps most for Mr. Yettaw's benefit, it is worth stating that wikipedia aims to disseminate information that it can reference to an external secondary source. Where there is a variance between an unreferenced truth and a well referenced falsehood, wikipedia will always choose the latter. best wishes to all of you. --Tagishsimon (talk)

02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi and thanks again. I got involved in this issue only because I saw it on the BLP noticeboard. The Yettaw BLP looked like an attack on Yettaw to me and I wanted to put a stop to that, no question. I was trying to engage Yettaw on his homepage but he didn't appear to know where it was. I am pretty sure that the attacks on him have stopped, and so now I am done. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 07:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss for what to say here and am tempted to just go, "Well, that's resolved then" and duck out. :D

Jarhed, it's obvious to me that you intended to assist, but if I were you I would consider carefully what Tagishsimon says. I always consider carefully what Tagishsimon says. :) I have not read the talk page of either article except for a very small bit, but there are a couple of points on the user talk that would have at least baffled me if I were receiving them, especially with regards to the request not to edit articles had I not edited either the articles or the talk pages for a week or more. In any case, I think that disengagement is a good idea especially if the situation has calmed down. Having worked BLPN myself on a number of occasions (at one point fairly heavily), I would just as a general recommendation say that if you're trying to help but a contributor's approach does not seem to mesh with yours, you can always note at BLPN that you're stepping off and let somebody else take over who may be better able to communicate with that contributor. I've done that on at least one occasion; there are probably others I'm not currently recalling.

WP:BLPN

(you are welcome to open a section to discuss it there yourself). He's also right that Wikipedia in general is very vested in sources. And you do not need to apologize for responding at any necessary length here, although I am very grateful to you for the instinct to keep my talk page somewhat focused. :)

Tagishsimon, thanks for weighing in. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To Moonriddengirl (and Tagishsimon), I appreciate your comments. Thank you. I am going to be interviewed and I will have an opportunity to address some - of not most - of the misinformation perpetuated in the "tresspasser incidents" article. There is something that is important that needs to be addressed: Propaganda was spread in the media. I never testified in Court nor anywhere that "God Spoke" to me. Nor did I declare that I was on a "Mission From God"... this was propaganda. My English hand written statements were then re-written (typed) in Burmese language and my statements were altered and the my signature was affixed (forged... photo-copied) onto each Burmese document relative to each hand-written statements.

Intelligence reports will surface (I have no doubt) some (safer) day which will reveal that sensitive "encrypted" information was emailed/leaked by a Burmese Military/Intelligence officer to an expatriate (former Intellignece) residing somewhere in Asia detailing training missions with entrance/exit routing through Inya lake.. into the compound... and into the house to murder Aung San Suu Kyi - as a means of instigating outrage and International intervention (as a means to accomplish a coup). Time is on my side that this information will surface - most likely when Burma is democratically stable.

I made be scum to a lot of people... but the rear of the compound it sealed off - isn't it. And... International attention as been revitalized concerning the autrocities with Ethnic cleansing and politically-motivated false imprisionment. There is an over-all increase in Global awareness and support.

I made it to the compound (on record) twice. I know more about what happened concerning the "trespasser incidents' than all of the journalists in the world - combined. I know what I did and did not tell my children... or any former family member by marriage. In the Newsweek "Tramp" article it mentioned that I had recieved Chinese and Burma State secrets... but it does not mention where or by whom I received any (alleged) information.

My research involves coping skills as a means of countering aspects of torture as indentified by issues relative to Complex - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD). My dissertation is centered on: "Forgiveness as a Means of Emotional Resilience: Coping Skills for Survivors of Torture. The book I am writing is a not-for-profit project... with proceeds in support of Humanitarian Relief efforts. The not-for-profit aspect has been a 40 year goal/dream. Details of the training mission to enter Inya Lake was suppressed and not revealed in Court... the Court/Intelligence sought only to discredit me by speading Propaganda to the International media... with point-blank negative help of my Burmese Attorney... And the US media and readership bought into it hook-lie-and-libel. Thanks for your encouragement to discuss some of my experiences... and to ease my mind about word-count-length when finding the to share things not find in print or rumor. JohnYettaw (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I have not read either article, so don't know the circumstances you discuss, but I can certainly understand that it would be distressing to have misinformation spread about your actions and testimony. I'm glad that you will have the opportunity to set the record straight. Once that interview appears in print, you might want to note it at the articles' talk pages or, if those are not much frequented, at

WP:BLPN so that other contributors can at least incorporate the new perspective. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

14:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. JohnYettaw (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Halley1988 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Northway 1963, p. 77.
3. ^ Northway 1963, p. 89.