Wikipedia

User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 37

< User talk:Moonriddengirl
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Moonriddengirl in topic Issue with member -- Weijiya
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40


Input needed

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Would value your input about this. GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Instead of forum shopping, which is considered disruptive, you could just open a WP:DR. Just sayin' :P -FASTILY (TALK) 09:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Deletion review would be the avenue to go. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Help?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
He only has one image left, and it's at PUF courtesy of User:Dpmuk. I spot checked his text contribs, and there doesn't seem to be a problem. If you think that Markshen has created a new account to avoid scrutiny or is operating two accounts, maybe list him at WP:SPI? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, can you tell me where the editable boilerplate messages are in the OTRS wiki? There seems to be no overview or index page for the bloody thing. Thanks in advance,  Sandstein  19:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. :) In fact, I tend to tuck stuff on my user page there that I may need to find later in fear that I never will again. (Currently only two, and "Category:Boilerplate messages in English" is one of them. You edit the template, change the status in the template to "modified", and they are usually implemented very quickly. I suppose they'd talk to you if they were unsure about your changes, but I haven't ever run into that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a person of note...

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Firstly, barnstars for your work. It's hard to understand a lot of it, and you seem to be very involved...

Secondly, I'm a standup comedian, and people are asking why I'm not listed on wikipedia whatsoever.

Just curious if you know how to add me to your online encyclopedia.

Thanks a lot. JpComedy (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC) John Powers www.johnjpowers.com


(talk page stalker) Wikipedia is not a social media site like facebook or myspace and we strongly discourage people writing autobiographical articles for several reasons. I suggest telling your fans they can write an article about you if they want. There is a possibility you do not pass our notability bar though, which generally requires coverage in independent reliable sources (which would be newspapers, magazines and some internet sites for your line of work). In all honesty, if you are just looking to improve your internet presence I suggest making a facebook page and waiting until somebody else creates a page about you here. Yoenit (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Yoenit. :) And thank you Mr. Powers. (By the way, I've removed your e-mail address. You do not want the spam that you can get from listing it on Wikipedia. :/) Yoenit's suggestion of allowing your fans to write it is a good idea. A few other things I would suggest: if you put a bio on your facebook page (or your website) that you think would meet our neutrality policy and verifiability (more about that in a minute), put a license statement on the page releasing the text under a copyleft license that can be imported to Wikipedia. This would allow anyone interested in creating a biography about you to use at least some of the language as building blocks. This would be a usable license:

The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).

In terms of verifiability, there are a few things that Wikipedia could use in a biography just because you say so--things like your date and place of birth are not likely to be disputed. Unless your career depends on your looking young. :) But Wikipedia's articles need to largely depend on reliable second hand sources, particularly if it's something related to what makes you notable. People don't usually put footnotes in their own biographies, but you might well want to include a list at your website of accessible online sources that talk about you and your career. Generally, newspaper or magazine articles are preferred here, as well as book references or notable industry websites that don't have an interest in promoting you. (For example, a venue advertising your appearance would not count as second hand, because they have an interest in people wanting to come see you.)
A good idea before doing any of this is having a read through Wikipedia:Notability (people). The more clearly you fit within those inclusion guidelines (and can prove it, with sources), the more likely your article is to successfully make it on Wikipedia. Most articles on people that are deleted on Wikipedia either did not meet that guideline (or didn't prove they did) or presented their subjects in a very biased manner (sometimes promotional; sometimes libelous).
If you do clearly meet those guidelines, you might also consider adding your name to this list. It's a forum for requesting articles. If you can at the same time link to an external biography such as described above, all the better. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


You rock, Moonriddengirl! Thanks for the tips. Hopefully someone will find me noteworthy...  : ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JpComedy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Massive copyvios

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hey MRG, could you provide some insights here. Also, if you could look into his image upload log, please help to tag or delete those dubious self-PD images. For that, I would give you a thousand kisses.   Thanks bunch. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

We may not see the same ones as dubious, but I can certainly help with the ones that are obviously an issue. No payment required. :D I've contributed there as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've tagged the obvious. See User talk:Groyn88#Copyright issues. If there are others of concern, you may want to list them at PUF. I've got to go to work, and I'm traveling next week, so I'm afraid I can't really evaluate the rest of them. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Ross Hauser

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I know that you were one of the people who flagged down the "Ross Hauser" article about a year ago. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I really wanted to write an article. I decided to try to take over the Ross Hauser article and try to get it cleaned up to unflag it. I tried my best, but it is still flagged. I completely understand if you don't want to do this, but I was wondering if you would work with me to help get it cleaned up. Or, even explain to me what to do from here, because I'm afraid I don't understand. Again, I understand if you are busy and don't want to.--Savethelastbook (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! I didn't actually flag "Ross Hauser"; I just addressed some copyright concerns with it, but I'm happy to talk to you about how the flags work and what to do about them. I'm afraid I don't have time to help work on the article at the moment. Lots going on. :)
A few general tips, first. I see that you are using the medical title "Dr" throughout the article. Wikipedia doesn't do this; we simply refer to subjects by their last names. (See WP:CREDENTIAL).
I also see that you're running into some trouble with citations, with markup like this:
{{cite url=http://www.bonemarrowprolotherapy.com/}}
That's not a working markup on Wikipedia. What you need is something more like this (with the fields filled in):
{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=25 June 2011}}
When placed right after the material it is sourcing, this will automatically populate the reference list below.
You will need to consider the reliability of sources. I see that you are using another Wikipedia article as a reference. I'm afraid that you can't do this, as we don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source. (No slur on ourselves; we don't consider any Wiki a reliable source, except to provide information about itself. :)) Reliable sources include things like newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and reliable industry websites that are not in any way affiliated with the subject. http://www.caringmedical.com/index.asp, http://www.bonemarrowprolotherapy.com/, and http://getprolo.com/hauser_illinois_prolotherapy.htm, for example, are affiliated with the subject, so they are not reliable sources for most claims about him. They are considered "primary sources". Most information in articles should be sourced to things that disinterested sources have said about the subject. When most of the information in the Ross Hauser article refers to reliable sources that are not affiliated with Hauser or his practice, the "primary sources" tag can be removed. (If you are in doubt about the quality of a source, the place to ask is WP:RSN. Most of the sources I see in the article that are not clearly primary sources are websites of medical commercial services related to the field—and these are not reliable sources either, I'm afraid; they are "self-published sources". See WP:SOURCES and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.
In terms of the notability tag, the thing to look at here is Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Notability. Resolving the last concern (sourcing) may help resolve this one; basically, if there are enough disinterested reliable sources taking about Hauser, then Hauser very likely meets notability guidelines. I would usually recommend starting with a search of Google news and Google scholar. The more people talking about Hauser and his work, the better.  :)
The final tag has to do with "conflict of interest" and is based on the fact that the person who placed the biography here evidently had a close association with Hauser and it is unknown whether the article is properly balanced. I've touched on one of the core content policies above--information must be verifiable to reliable sources--but there are two others that come into play here. Information must be neutral (properly balanced to reflect what those reliable sources say) and it cannot include original research. We are a tertiary source, so Wikipedia is not the place to present unpublished theories, facts or opinions. :) People who are close to a subject may have biases that they don't even recognize and may even inadvertently use articles to advance their own "inside" knowledge.
In theory, that tag can be removed by any editor who has no affiliation with the subject who has thoroughly reviewed it to make sure that coverage is balanced and sourced. In practice, I really recommend against it if you are a newer contributor, as my observation suggests that others are likely to be suspicious that you may be the "COI" editor returning under a new name. In that case, I would recommend that after you get the sourcing issues addressed (replacing the unreliable sources with reliable ones) and carefully evaluate it for neutrality you take it to the conflict of interest noticeboard and tell them you are a new contributor who has revised this article and want to know if the tag can be removed.
Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions. I may not have time to work on the article, but I am happy to offer you what advice I can. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something here?

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

File:Seriy.jpg - claims a CCA licence, says it is from [1] - I can't read Russian but the copyright symbol is on that page and the page with the photo: [2] - it's in an article I've taken to AfD because the subject seems non-notable (I'm being offered umpteen sites where the subject has posted or where his ebook can be downloaded, but clearly nothing notable). Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

public domain works over 100 years old

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

is it considered copyvio, when material is copied from Public domain, and out of copyright works like this "Journal of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society for the year ..., Volumes 27-28", published over 116 years ago? If we are allowed to copy them, can I strike them off my copyvio investigation?

on a separate note, this work was originally written by two russians over 100 years ago, the original Russian version is out of copyright, but this specific file was transalted very recently in 1992 in the The Australian National University, it is considered copyrighted right?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) It is not at all a copyvio to take content from a public domain source, and that one most certainly is. The best thing to do is probably to annotate the list--put a note under it saying, "Content copied from 1895 book [link]." Make sure that the article uses a proper attribution template, to comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. {{PD-old-text}} is a good, general purpose one for content like this.
As to your second question, yes, a new translation of a public domain work is likely to be copyrighted (unless, say, it's ineligible because of who the translator is or unless the translator releases it). We'd have to use the original and create a translation of our own or use a translation that is also copyright expired. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Carpathian Basin Rovas

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Two accounts doing major and numerous changes on Hungarian script related articles, and creating new ones. I'd like an independent check on this article which I think is copyvio from http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n4006.pdf Also, looking at the imgages uploaded by one of them to Commons, I've run into Rovas Atlas which seems to have copyvio from [3]. I haven't decided if an SPI is needed. Raised their edits at ANI but no one has responded. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks creative to me. I've tagged the images (which are commons) for {{npd}}. We need verification of identity. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Can I clarify that you think the articles are not copyvio from the pdfs? At least one of the accounts may be the author as he signed himself Gabor. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Steventrilmore.

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Please unblock User:Steventrilmore per [4]. It'd help her if you'd also just rename it to User:Elisabeth Röhm, and leave a message explaining COI, TALK, and V again. -- Jeandré, 2011-06-26t12:36z

I can't rename her, I'm afraid. She needs a bureaucrat for that. :/ I'll unblock her and leave a note at the bureaucrat's noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Somebody got to it first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for a second set of eyes

Latest comment: 13 years ago30 comments6 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl - could you please have a look at the spotchecks I posted here. The page has been refactored since and gotten a bit muddled, but I'm concerned because I found close paraphrasing on each article I looked at, and I only checked a single section of each article. This is a situation I fell into by happenstance, but now am being accused of incivility. So, I'd like to punt it to you, if you don't mind. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing about the original request (where the link points) that was in any way uncivil, taking time to pull the examples were much appreciated and helpful to try to work on the issue. Nor, were the comments about civility in later history of my talk page meant for TK. I've punted this to the VA project talk page.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deflecting to the VA project wont help, though you selective talk page blanking a refacturing of comments you didnt like might. Ceoil 23:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict

I sometimes have delay reaction - I just realized that you're working on copyright issues. If I could have a little of your time on a couple of questions that will help me directionally it would be very much appreciated!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
If you now have that level of self awarness, mind pulling the accusations of agression and civility. This is [5] just unacceptable. Ceoil 23:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) MRG, I am on this case. There are, indubitably, issues. Those issues comprise two parts:
  • certainly some close paraphrasing, as identified by Truthkeeper88 and accepted by CaroleHenson. The latter is struggling a little to understand the policies/guidelines but, if past experience is anything to go by, is prepared to learn.
  • an accusation of incivility which TK appears to think is directed at her but in fact, from the chronology, was aimed at Ceoil and his comments about me.
In other words, CaroleHenson was stepping in effectively as a bystander to a perceived incivility expressed on her own talk page by someone else and about someone else.
I really couldn't care less what Ceoil thinks of me. He is entitled to hold that opinion. It is, however, a slightly unfortunate opinion to express in these specific circumstances. TK has quite rightly raised some issues and I have been trying to adopt the more "user friendly" approach of providing examples rather than just referring to policy. What Ceoil has to do with this, and also some of the possibly blunt exchanges between CH and TK, is related to a certain history between the users. But the immediate point of contention relates to Ceoil. These people are never likely to get on. Stuff happens.
I favour trying to resolve this in a collaborative manner and by helping CH to understand the issues by example. As I say in the discussion, which I agree is somewhat messed up due to the unfortunate refactoring, there is an opportunity to educate here and myself & TK are singing off the same hymn sheet when it comes to the optimum method for doing things. As I also say, TK and myself are in a very small minority. Copyvios are common, plagiarism is frequent and close paraphrasing is rife. I am 100% certain that I have closely paraphrased in my own contributions. Sometimes it is extremely difficult not to do so. This does not excuse Ceoil's intervention and, while TK is correct, it would perhaps have been more helpful to provide some practical assistance. Initially, TK did not even provide examples and only did so after I prompted for them. The implication that "if I find the diffs then I will have to open a CCI" (paraphrase of TK comment) was not helpful.
We are dealing here with a user (CH) who has a track record of taking on board advice when it is presented in a manner which makes some sense to her, and who has also shown a long-term willingness to collaborate. Many, if not all, of the niggles which have existed between her, Ceoil and (to a lesser extent) TK relate to a specific situation regarding a proposed FA candidate. In my opinion, that discussion was equally flawed because it did have the appearance of bullying and a failure to explain. I am sure that neither TK nor Ceoil intended this, but they are vastly experienced editors and sometimes perhaps cannot see the wood for the trees when it comes to relatively new contributors. At the very least, there is a possibility that the project may lose someone with much potential (CH) due to some unfortunate situations regarding policy etc that have neither been explained well nor, in some cases, were even correct. For example, you and I both know that there are several "official" ways to provide a citation but the major spat between CH/Ceoil?TK was a direct consequence of the latter seeming to insist that in fact their way was the only way. I weighed in to point out that there were in fact other ways. Not saying that their way was wrong, but just that their language suggested it was "this or nothing" when in fact it is not.
Messy, very messy. But the issue is really regarding history, not close paraphrasing. I am tempted to suggest that TK and Ceoil stay away from CH's talk page unless they have a genuine policy issue to raise. In this instance, TK did but Ceoil just stuck a boot in there. It was silly, all the more so because to the best of my knowledge I have never edited a page to which Ceoil has contributed.
Please, let me work it through with CH. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Here is the whole thread btw, [6]...Modernist (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) Thanks, everybody, for such a complete background here. I've had a look at the thread. My thoughts here are that if Carole is willing to work on correcting paraphrase issues herself, that would be far preferable to starting a CCI. If Sitush is willing to help her work on it, we could certainly do a spotcheck later without the need for the formal process (unless, of course, there are remaining issues then). CCI is not meant to be any kind of disciplinary interaction, of course; the reason I would prefer to avoid it if possible is because there are sooo many of them pending and they are languishing forever. We have CCIs over a year old. :P
Dealing with these issues can be quite difficult. I appreciate your willingness to help out, Sitush.
I'll be happy to assist, too, if I can, but I am traveling this week and will not have much time for volunteerism. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict

Oh, Sitush, if you wouldn't mind - and that's ok directionally, that would be wonderful! I just felt bad for you getting slammed for trying to help out.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer that Moonriddengirl look. She is uninvolved. And I would suggest that Sitush, with whom I've barely interacted, but who has interacted extensively with Carole Henson, is ascribing motive where none exists. All I've read above is that I didn't provide examples - was unable to because either my internet slowed down or the wiki servers where I live. I've rectified that situation, and I'm more than happy to find more examples. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Quite honestly, this needs to go to CCI. I barely touched the tip of the iceberg. I will work up a report and submit to CCI. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
It can be worked on at CCI space, too, but, again, those can languish quite some time. The CCI I'm working on has been listed for over a year, and I hardly ever have any time to edit it. :/ But if you list it at CCI, probably User:MER-C will evaluate it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Given that the person who has requested to review the case has been disparaging me, I think it needs to be looked at by an uninvolved reviewer. I don't care how it's done, or who does it, but I do know that every page I've looked at has shown close paraphrasing problems. This is not my fault, and if I were really smart I'd drop it, which I guess make me not smart. As it happens, it's an issue I feel strongly about. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, if that (TK) doesn't sound like a lack of AGF ... It can be done, dusted and reviewd, I am sure, before CCI look at it. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
edit conflict, too: Where does this leave us? Sitush is offering to work with me - and ensure that the approaches are in synch with TK. But it sounds as if it's preferred this go to CCI. Is that what I'm hearing?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Sitush has no credibality on this. You have tried every trick under the book, from talk blanking, to refactoring, to appealoing to higher authorities while smearing us, note Sitush also dis this, that you might as well give up, and let a cold eye judge. 23:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It leaves us with a CCI and an offer of direct assistance. No big deal. If we take the personalities out of it. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

hypocrisy often? Ceoil 00:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok if we're left with CCI, which sounds like my next step is to back out of this topic until/unless anyone contacts me. Thanks for trying to help Sitush!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) x 2. For the record, regarding the unsigned, slightly incoherent msg from Ceoil which I conflicted with. I have not refactored or blanked anything on CH's talk page, now or ever before. Nor, to my knowledge, have I referred Ceoil to a "higher authority" ever before, nor smeared etc. This is getting silly. Back off. - Sitush (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
CH, the offer of help stands. You will gain something from it. I am not perfect. Neither are TK or Ceoil. The CCI will happen in due course if it is proposed, but things should be sorted by then. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, you are involved. An uninvolved editor needs to have a look. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I am no more involved than you. While we wait for CCI to do their stuff (which they are welcome to do) this thing can be done and dusted. Would you rather that the issues you have raised persist here for a year or so (and perhaps further issues are created in that interval due to a lack of appreciation of the subtleties of close paraphrasing) ... or sorted now and reviwed by CCI later? This is pathetic. Your attitude shows the extent to which you and Ceoil have a problem with the personality rather than the content. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

edit conflict

Ok, maybe we can start with the non-Van Gogh articles since that's were there's no contention - It was thoughtful of TK to get plenty of examples there, too. I made edits to Owl Woman. And, it may be the period when I tried to fix the refactoring (which I still don't understand what it means) and asked for 5-10 minutes to sort it out that there may have been some talk blanking (although I don't quite understand that term, either, but have a guess). If I did so, I apologize.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Its not an easily done and dusted matter Sitush, which you are failing to grasp. Insulting me does not adress the substance, that I didn't sign a post does not remove copyvio so please get real. Ceoil 00:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe we all need a break and come back to this tomorrow. What I'm proposing is that Sitush and I work on the non-Van Gogh examples, which then should give TK's desired effect of holding off for the CCI for the Van Gogh articles. And, if you all decide you'd like us to work on Van Gogh, then we can tackle it then. Actually, I might be forearmed enough to jump in once I'm better informed, if you'd like.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I have made a start on Owl Woman. It doesn't matter where we start, we need to go through the lot & this is as good a place as any at which to begin. It may not be an easy ride but we will see. At least something is being done and it is constructive. Apologies, MRG, for the interruption ;) - Sitush (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

outdent - Moonriddengirl, I apologize greatly for bringing this drama to your page. After looking at perhaps 20 pages with positive results, in fact I've decided not to make a CCI report. After the experiences with ItsLassieTime, scrubbing their pages, being harrassed, etc,., and now this drama, I think I'll just fade away quietly and allow this kind of thing to continue. If I'm to be made the scapegoat whenever I say something, it's very much not worth it in my opinion. Thanks, again, and sorry again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in talk conversation right now for obvious, historical and it seems ongoing reasons. I did send you a personal email, though, TK - and I'm sure no one thinks you need to be made a scapegoat, you were right to bring up the issue.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 
A Nice Cup of Tea...

Being in a lovely and very crowded cabin in the mountains at the moment (which, blessedly, offers wireless), I have not been able to review all of this at the various points of discussion. I'm sorry. :) But if I can just make a "statement of philosophy" here, it is very important to point out copyright issues. It is important for Wikipedia, for our reusers, for copyright holders (Why I think so.) Sometimes pointing out issues makes us unpopular. I've been subjected to plenty of personal attacks for it. (Frequently, I think, those who I've approached about problems feel "attacked" by my approach themselves.) Sometimes, after the initial dust settles, people can step back and recognize what's happened without the emotional baggage in the way. The person who gave me the most vile personal attack I've ever received over copyright cleanup later offered an olive branch. Another (nowhere near that bad) later gave me a barnstar, which I treasure. (It means we successfully moved past the issue and he ultimately found it productive.)

I'm sorry if there have been personal attacks associated with this. I hope that bad feelings don't linger. Personally, Truthseeker, I appreciate people who are wiling to make themselves unpopular by making sure this kind of thing is addressed. I also appreciate it when people who have inadvertently created problems in this area are willing to help clean them up by themselves and when others are willing to help them. We can't ask them to do so without assistance at all, because sometimes the issue relates to uncertainty the level of rewrite needed, but if we approach it as a fixable problem, I hope that we'll come out of this with good contributors intact and no lingering ill will. Cups of tea offered all around. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful post, for the tea, and most importantly for taking the time during a mountain vacation. It's very much appreciated. I'm sending an email to you that has nothing to do with this specific incident, but instead with my motivation for being a wikipedia editor, and necessarily will include personal detail I'd rather not have made public. Otherwise I'd post in full here. Thanks again. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Professional help

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

MRG, I need some professional help on Mundeshwari Temple. It's part of Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Thisthat2011. This revision is quite troublesome in terms of copyvios, but it has subsequently edited by others and has also gone on to the main page as DYK. Can you (or MER-C, VW, other tps) look at the derivative text aspect and see what ought to be done here? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a problem to me. :/ I've tagged it as a close paraphrase, which should automatically list it at CP. If it isn't revised adequately within a week, I may alter it myself if nobody else does. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, there were a couple more that I kicked up to the copyvio board as in addition to the copyvio from this particular CCI, there've been multiple other copyvio editions over a really long period of time. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 15:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Question: In the case of Ankapur‎ there appears to now be an OTRS ticket (5896023) from the source releasing it to a compatible license , but the source website says everything is copyright protected. In such cases, what's to be followed? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 16:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help with a speedy deleted page

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

I'm trying to userfy or get an emailed copy of my Michael D. Subrizi page that was deleted. You didn't delete it, but I like your name, so I chose you. Please help me if you can as I spent an hour on it and want to place the information on a personal webpage since it was rejected here. Thank you.

Nyctrucido (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC) NYCTRUCIDO

Userfied. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

grazie bella! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyctrucido (talk • contribs) 07:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Mind taking a look at this summary?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks MRG for your earlier comment and cup of tea (peach ginger is my favorite)!

Do you mind taking a look at Rule of Thumb, do you think this is a pretty apt approach and pointers? Anything else that's key that you'd add?

I would be happy to take a stab at making changes (in my user space) to the Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing page to make it a bit more user friendly for us newbies. Thanks! Hope you're enjoying your time at the mountain cabin!--CaroleHenson (talk) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Your Rule of Thumb looks like a good basic approach, but it's missing one of the most major points of recommendation that I use for working on Wikipedia: use multiple sources. Usually, scholarly advice for paraphrasing is based on the assumption that you are using one source, perhaps as a review article. Whenever possible, I use multiple sources, take notes of the facts from them and combine the facts from them into a new work.
As to the Close paraphrasing, please do. :) We'd like to make it as clear as possible to people.
Mountain cabin is beautiful and so quiet! At least when the family is not yet awake. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks I made the change. I'll copy the Close paraphrasing page to my workspace and work on it with the info so far - and then build upon it as I work with Sitush and continue my self-reviews. Then, let you know so that you, and of course anyone you wish, can take a look at it to see if you think it's helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

New Page Copyright Issue

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I was hoping to get some assistance with an article I am making. I originally wrote the article using lots of text from a source I believe to be public domain. VernoWhitney rightly deleted the page because I was not able to find anywhere that said the material was public domain, so I have been trying to rewrite the article using mostly my own language and only a few smaller quotes. VernoWhitney was helping my in the process, giving me feedback on several versions on the page I made on my talkpage. Unfortunately VernoWhitney has been missing for a little while and she had recommended you as someone I could get another opinion from. So I was hoping you could perhaps take a moment to review the article on my talk page and let me know if you think I have addressed most of the possible issues. If so, then I will actually create the page. The article can be found here. My discussion with VernoWhitney regarding the article can be found here. Thanks in advance for your time and assistance. It is much appreciated! Win.monroe (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm happy to help, although I'm traveling at the moment and have limited time. :)
The first thing I notice that may need more work: you have several quotations throughout the article that don't indicate their reason for being. When we have a hard time coming up with different ways to express facts, it can't be tempting to just use the original language and put it into quotation marks. But there's nothing transformative about that. You can certainly use their words, but we need consider with each quotation whether we have a good "fair use" reason (some of these are set out in the text portion at WP:NFC) for doing so.
Looking at one of these quotes, the first in the section on Content, I think perhaps we could put that in our own words, maybe something like this:

Between 2007 and 2009, the project collected data in the subject economies about laws that influenced women in the business world. The project did not study such areas as equal pay and affordable childcare, but focused on the ability of women to access government and public institutions; to access, manage and control property; to get and perform a job; to build credit; and to access justice through courts, as well as evaluating the impact of tax laws on women. The project posits that these six areas "have either a direct or indirect impact on the ability of women to get jobs or engage in business activities and become entrepreneurs”.[4] In some cases, where difference was found, the difference was plainly encoded in the law or regulation, while in others there were differences arising from women's typical social, economic or cultural position.

That's right off the top of my head and may not be the most eloquent construction. :) You'll note that where I placed the quote, I explicitly used it to attribute a point of view to the project. I do not present the material for its own sake--as fact--but as an indicator of what the project believes.
I would recommend that you take a look at the document, particularly the quotes, and ask yourself if they are being used transformatively. If not, see if you can tweak them a bit, and I'll be happy to take a look later. (By the way, Wikipedia's text is not public domain, either, (although you can liberally reuse it if you attribute it: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia) but you are completely welcome to anything I've written in my example without the need to attribute it if you find it useful.) Please drop me a note in a few days to remind me; otherwise, I'm afraid I may overlook it in the after-travel sorting out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I reduced the quotes in the content section, as you recommended, although I shortened and edited the language you suggested for the rest of that section. Now the only other quote is one that is a presentation of the project's stated objective, which seems appropriate with respect to the attributing-a-view-point criterion. Additionally, as VernoWhitney suggested, I added some third party citations to address notability. Do you think its ready to be made into a page or are there any other concerns I am overlooking? Thanks again for all your help! Win.monroe (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Towagner

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I think you banned sanctioned this user, but he......'s back, deleting text. Has he been allowed to return? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I don't know. Do you know under what name he was banned or blocked? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
"13:04, 9 December 2010 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "User talk:Towagner" ‎(Mass removal of pages added by Accotink2; G5; serial copyright infringer)" Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW: I am not trying to be vindictive. I got the above message when I tried to welcome the user on his talk page, so I just wanted to check with you. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see! Thanks for clearing that up. :) It wasn't Towagner who was banned; it's Accotink, who created that talk page. The talk page was deleted automatically as part of a special script which deleted all the pages he created. So far as I know, Towagner is an editor in good standing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Naan Mahaan Alla psoter 2.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Naan Mahaan Alla psoter 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that User:Beetstra removed the image from the film article because the FUR had the disambiguation page listed rather than the actual article page and the bot did the rest. Have now restored the image to the article and updated the FUR. Dpmuk (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :) No reason to delete it now only to have it reuploaded later when it's reparable by changing the FUR link. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Draft of Close Paraphrasing changes

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, When you have a bit of time, I have finished drafting User:CaroleHenson/Edited version of Close Paraphrasing. When you have a chance, do you mind taking a look at it to see what you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I certainly will, although I probably won't get to look at it today. You might also want to mention it at the talk page of that essay, unless you're looking for preliminary feedback from me (and/or talk page stalkers) first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I'd be happy to do that - and have some specific comments\questions I'll add there, too. I hope you've been enjoying the mountains with your family! I'm live in the foothills of mountains, so I can definitely appreciate how restorative that can be.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. They're gorgeous. :) And s'mores! I've only ever had them in the microwave before. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Yum!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, So far anyway, no one has commented on the page. Do you mind giving me a {{tb}} when you have a chance, at your convenience, to take a peak? Thanks so much for your guidance so far! It has helped!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That Ticket about PR images

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Do you remember that old otrs ticket about some Puerto Rican images, that came out to be invalid (or partially invalid)? What would be the status of File:SS Euripides Rubio jpg.jpg? I believe it uses that ticket, but it lacks a licensing tag.

I'm trying to tag it as such but some funny editor is reverting it, and making fun of the licensing (by creating a template just for that image).

I'm not in the mood to deal with that kind of person right now, so I believe you would know what to do with this image. Thanks, --damiens.rf 13:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's wrong in all kinds of ways. First, the OTRS ticket being referred to was not placed by an OTRS agent for good reason: it was not accepted. It's not even the letter that we dealt with before. Second, as we know, the Wikimedia Foundation's attorney has said we cannot use the letter which they evidently think it is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Admin's Barnstar
For some of the grossly interesting things in life, here's a barnstar for you. Oh, did I mentioned that there's a new feature here???   Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 18:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Whoot! Thank you. :D I promise that when my contract ends, I'll put my shoulder back into the harness full force. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Close Paraphrase

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I need some input on what extent close paraphrasing is consider "OK". I may be wrong on this, but I think I am right... :) relevant discussion. This is the edit with the content; it's lifted mostly from the NYT article with some changes - and my concern is that there is several sentences of it. I don't mean to break Mac's balls over this but he's done it a couple of times and we can't agree whether it is a problem or not (good faith disagreement). You emminent opinion would be much appreciated :) --Errant (chat!) 20:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Close Paraphrasing article

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at User talk:CaroleHenson/Edited version of Close Paraphrasing.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, Carole. I'll try to get to it a bit later today. I'm cranking out copyright cleanup this morning. :) We've got quite a backlog! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, my - good luck with that! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Triple J Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I was very intrigued when you said that this article is more creative than factual, and that that causes a copyright problem. I tried to look at the ticket, but my log-in details didn't work. Could you suggest some further reading, please? I just thought that copyright was basically plagiarism. It's interesting to know that it's not that simple. I've been told more than once that you're a copyright expert on Wikipedia, so I'd appreciate some guidance. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I consider myself more experienced than expert; I learn more stuff every day. It's only been a few months, for instance, since I started seeking clarification on issues regarding lists, which are highly complex.
In brief, copyright and plagiarism are potentially related but conceptually very different things. Plagiarism is taking somebody's work (words, ideas, facts, etc.) without credit. It's a social/ethical concept. Copyright infringement is using too much of somebody's creative expression without permission. It's a legal concept. These can run hand-in-hand, but they don't always. You can openly acknowledge what you're copying, for instance, which eliminates plagiarism concerns, but still infringe copyright if the work you are appropriating is under copyright protection and you use too much of it without fair use defense. (A slightly more indepth overview of copyright on Wikipedia is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/August 2010/Editorials and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/September 2010/Editorials.)
Creativity in lists is complex--quite the headache. :/ I've seen questions raised about them over and over again for years. In March (AIR) of last year, I wrote to one of our attorneys to ask for some assistance, and current practice is largely based on her recommendations. Basically, since copyright covers creative expression, facts cannot be copyrighted--but even a compilation of facts can have copyright protection if its organization or presentation is creative. Opinions can be copyrighted, and even expert approximations can be copyrighted if the way they are derived is creative. There's a little more about all of that at User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. Sooner or later, I want to get that essay into shape for moving into project space, but I'm held up by the fact that we haven't really reached a strong recommendation of how to handle creative lists.
Beyond that, if you've got specific questions or areas that interest you, please feel free to explain further. I'm happy to answer as I can or offer further reading. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks for such an informative reply. I guess that I used the word plagiarism too loosely. I meant copy-and-paste. My idea of copyright problems were when someone would copy-and-paste someone else's work. Even if they did reference the original author. I'll take a look at the links that you gave, and see how I get on. Would I be right to say that stating what the top 100 is, is not a copyright issue; it's a statement of fact. While presenting it in a countdown top 100 list, like some other copyrighted source, is a copyright issue because you're using the idea of someone else to present the facts in that manner? — Fly by Night (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. :) Copy-paste vios are just a small part of what we encounter with copyright issues. For the most extreme example, consider translations. If you take a contemporary novel published, say, in Japanese and translate it, you will not have a single character of the original intact; the Japanese text will have been completely replaced with English. But it's still a copyvio, if you don't have permission from the copyright owner.
In this case, the issue is actually that the "hottest" list is not derived from fact (say, by sales) but rather by opinion. One of the things I asked our attorney about when I approached her was whether survey lists are exempted, but she said not, because the surveyors set the parameters. She advised that we need to use them under fair use principles, unless we get permission.
I'm hoping that Tyler will be able to get permission. ABC gave permission for most of their earlier lists, so I don't see why they wouldn't. With any luck, they'll just put them under a blanket release and spare us all this problem in 2012. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I can imagine that copy-vios are. But it's probably clear by now that I'm very inexperienced when it comes to copyright issues. If the article doesn't have a flashing neon graphic saying "I am a copyright infringement" then I might well miss it. Well, I'm not that bad, but you get my point. Thanks a lot for your Stirling advice. This might not be the last you hear from me… Take care :-) — Fly by Night (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

RevDel of some copyvio material

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl! Can you RevDel some of the history of Cherry Martinez due to copyvio? Pretty much everthing prior to the most recent redirect is copyrighted material. Thanks! Singularity42 (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You bet.:) Done! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dudemanfellabra

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! If you have time, can you have a look at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Dudemanfellabra? User:Ryan Vesey doesn't think the examples contain "substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure", but I disagree with that. Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:SS Euripides Rubio jpg.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for letting me know. The thing is that Puerto Rico Sec. of State, K. McClintock, stated that those images were PD and the reason why. That e-mail was forwarded to OTRS, however, I will accept what ever is decided. Thnak you once more. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi MRG. Just a quick question because I've searched high and low but can't locate the answer: What is our ruling on a new article, Archobarzane, that is the creator's direct and complete translation of an article dated 1871 reproduced on a not very reliable website? The website is used as the referenced source. Thanks in advance for your help. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If the author is interested in translating any more of these from this or similar compendia, perhaps they can be introduced to WikiSource as a way of doing this more clearly and verifiably? --Fæ (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Vermina by the same editor is just a paraphrase of a presumably out of copyright book here [7]. Ironically it says Vermina is the last king but Archobarzane's article has him as king after Vermina. In any case the name is not the way it's spelled in English (probably because he's relying on a translation0, the English versionof the name is Ariobarzanes which gives us some sources in English [8] so copyvio aside the article needs to be moved and disambiguated as there are other kings by that name. Dougweller (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough, AWB and cv-unsure tags

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Thought you might be interested in edits like [9] by Rich Farmbrough. As far as I can see these changes have never been discussed in the normal copyright places and personally, I think they are a bad idea. Have raised with Rich here. There's also been quite a lot of changes to the template, again without discussion. Would also be interested in any tps views. Dpmuk (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has largely moved to Template talk:cv-unsure. Dpmuk (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Saw this via the copyclean project before I got here and have weighed in. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

CC-BY 2.5 okay?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Quick question: our article Webometrics Ranking of World Universities contains partial copies of that website's rankings (top 50 for the current year, top 10 for older rankings). As I just learned in WP:ANI#Hottest 100 Australian Albums Of All Time, such rankings are copyrighted. I checked up on their website, and at the very bottom, they have a link to a CC-BY 2.5 license (this one). Is that sufficient for our purposes? If so I can find the relevant template and add it to the bottom of our page; if not, I can remove all of the rankings until such time as the company wants to give us the relevant permissions. Thanks for the help. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) CC-BY 2.5 is compatible, so I'd say you are good to reproduce the lists.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! I've bookmarked the FAQ page for future use, so perhaps that will help me figure the stuff out myself in the future :). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Earth Screen Shot

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is it okay to upload a Google Earth screen shot, in particular this one, under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License? The screen shot clearly displays Image © 2010 DigitalGlobe, © 2010 Mapabc.com, © 2010 Kingway Ltd., © 2010 Google. My first hunch would be "No of course not." But then, given that the Copyrights are displayed I am a bit like "Hmmm, well, I'm not too sure." But in the end, I come to the conclusion that "I haven't got a bloody clue!" What do you think? — Fly by Night (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Judging by the permissions, I'd say no. There is no clear public domain or CC-license. Most appears to fall under a conservative fair-use. I tagged that image for delayed speedy deletion but I assume it should be deleted sooner.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Good link, NortyNort. :) I'd agree. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank U

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for the advice. It is really a good one and is therefore well taken. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hema Malini article

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

User Shshshsh has been reverting the information regarding Hema's popular association with Rajesh Khanna for no specific reason. References have been provided and even the hit films( commercially successful) of the pair have been provided. http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Hema_Malini&action=historysubmit&diff=437837889&oldid=437812542 is the proof that Shshs is engaging in edit war. he claims citwf is not a relaible source thats shocking as its widely accepted website.Please help. Rajesh Khanna has done 15 films with Hema and their films were not successful from 1975-79, but post mairrage of Hema, they had many succcessful films.Paglakahinka (talk) 11:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I must admit that citwf doesn't look like a great source to me, either. It appears to be the work of a single person, and what qualifications that person has are moot. Suggest that you ask for opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion, Sitush. :) Thanks. Paglakahinka, verifying the reliability of the source would be helped by locating other reliable sources that use it or talk positively about it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

On Neil Weste, the first revision is a copyvio, but subsequently other editors cleaned it up and completely rewrote it. This is a small case, but in cases like this, how do we handle the revdels? I ask because the relevant CCI (Bugnot) likely consists primarily of this scenario in all new page creations. BTW, we almost EC'd on that SPI -- I had been meaning to do it since yesterday and just went to the page when I saw your edit! cheers —SpacemanSpiff 12:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Revdels are a judgment call, imo. The most important thing is getting the content out of publication now. If it looks like that the content could be restored (accidentally or intentionally), I am more likely to revdelete. With that one, restoration is really unlikely. People aren't likely to revert back to it. :) (With the SPI, GMTA.) :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense, I normally do revdel when there's just too much content or if there's higher than normal chance of reversion. In the case of the Bugnot CCI there appears to be. Take a look at Hasan Ali Khan (which I went to through the Thisthat2011 CCI and ended up creating the Bugnot CCI) and Dawood Ibrahim. It appears that Bigtimepeace spent a lot of time cleaning up the article and educating the contributor in 2009, but most of those copyvios have been subsequently reintroduced (and added to of course!), the former is so much of a mess that I'm inclined to think that deleting it and recreating a stub and adding all the original sources to the talk page is a more productive use of editor time. Cleaning up those two pages is clearly beyond my pay grade, so I took them to the board and NortyNort has been working on them. Also, I had a question for you earlier (that I guess Miszabot archived before you replied): When we receive an OTRS ticket (e.g. Ankapur) which is in conflict with what the source website says (and has always said), which takes precedence? I'm guessing that the email was received from the same domain and all those formal issues are taken care of. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that! If I ever don't reply, please feel free to poke at me until I do. :) Even if my reply is going to be "Sorry; can't help you", I'll never intentionally ignore a question. (So long as you aren't cursing at me when you ask it. :D)
OTRS correspondence trumps. One of the reasons we make OTRS available is that not everybody wants to put a general release on their website, and they don't have to. They retain copyright of their content and can publish it elsewhere under any license they like, so long as their license here is correct. Sometimes this is pointless, but occasionally they will modify the content before placing it here, so not all the content on the original website is released. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't thought of that angle at all. —SpacemanSpiff 12:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Eminem US sales

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

sry if I made a mistake. I took the information from the discogrphy article and counted 4mio+10mio+10mio+4mio+2mio+4mio+2mio+1mio=37mio copies (including 8 mile soundtrack, Curtain Call and and the Re-Up) these sales are all sourced.

Ich901 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Ich901

Email

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

–xenotalk 13:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

More Gwen Shamblin

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The material you removed has been readded with an explanation that the material has been released at the webpage. The bottom of the webpage now has a note that reads:

The text and photos on this page of this website are available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License.

The way I see it, such extensive quotations, and sourcing so much of the article to a clearly pro-Shamblin website still presents serious problems. How do you see this issue? LHM 17:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's likely to contribute to the COI, which I see we've had with us for quite some time. :/ I've given him a heads up that the content may be evaluated for those issues; have you considered running this past WP:COIN to get further opinions? I usually try not to mix my copyright hat with other work, and the volunteers there have been great at helping out in the past with those kinds of issues. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Before the last couple of weeks, I hadn't spent much (if any) time at the various noticeboards, so I've never dealt with the COI one. I may raise this issue there, though, and see what they think. Thanks, LHM 21:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom and security

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, it seems that you are the person to talk with about ArbCom-WMF-Community issues. I have a few concerns or ideas:

  1. ArbCom needs to get out of the business of handling emergencies, suicide prevention, sexual predators, mentally ill editors, crimes, hacking, real world harassment, etc. These serious issues require sensitivity, legal input, and confidentiality. These matters should be deal with in a secure office environment. Spreading such information among a number of volunteers (e.g. 18 ArbCom members) to their personal computers and personal spaces is not secure. It is also exposing them to legal liabilities and risks, and might even result in attempts to blackmail or harass them.
  2. ArbCom needs to get rid of the confidential info they are now holding related to past incidents of the above nature.
  3. Checkusers have access to confidential information that may be regulated in some jurisdictions. We need to ensure that information is dealt with properly and that somebody understands what the legal obligations are and follows them.

Please let me know your thoughts. Jehochman Talk 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm actually kind of the go-between, to make sure that the right person responds. :) If you don't mind, I'd like to move this to my "staff" talk page, to make it easier to separate my volunteer/contractor tasks. I'd love to work on this further with you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure. Move away... Jehochman Talk 13:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Done, and preliminary reply. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films in overseas markets

Hi, I raised the copyright issue on this article talk page over a week ago with no replies. As per other mass use of numbers from boxofficeindia.com, the full reproduction of these lists appears a copyvio against advice already received. In this case there might be grounds to argue that overseas income might be based on independently accountable figures rather than expert estimates. Unfortunately as only boxofficeindia appears as a source we might still need to take down the tables of ranked figures until alternatives are identified (if they exist). I would appreciate your critical eye. Cheers, Fæ (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you know if they identify the source of their information anywhere? Boy, I hope Shahid can get them to release under CC-By-SA. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
No, I did trawl through the website a while ago but haven't re-analysed it. As Shahid appears to be giving this a go I'm leaving it for the moment. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films

Hey, okay then - I did it. I put a copyright tag on the page and started a discussion. I would appreciate yout help on whatever must happen next. Shahid • Talk2me 07:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I have responded on the article talk page, this is an entirely different scenario. --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, a few days ago I sent a mail to an admin from boxofficeindia. I asked him to give us a permission to use their numbers freely. The response I got from the site's admin, Harminder, is, "It's fine to use the data on the site as long as credit is given." I believe it's not enough. What should I actually ask him to do if they have no problem with that? Shahid • Talk2me 11:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Copyright_concerns

Hi,

As you have been named, could you chip in on this discussion to confirm that you did advise to blank the article as stated in the discussion? As stated there I do not think this is a comparable case as the estimates are calculated and explained rather than expert estimates with an undisclosed process and we have no legal advice that currently applies or any external complaint. Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I corrected myself on the talk page. I explained that you did not "advise" but rather guided me on how to handle this issue. Shahid • Talk2me 09:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to draw your attention to this new page on boxofficeindia. I think it presents several points which were missing before, and maybe they change the situation now? Shahid • Talk2me 10:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First, I've gathered these all together because they're all kind of related, and I wanted to be able to review and respond to them in aggregate (where they seemed clearly connected.)
I've weighed in at the discussion at Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Copyright_concerns to confirm that I did recommend that handling if you could verify that the lists were creative. I've also asked a question about the handling.
With Box Office India, you get great appreciation from me for your willingness to approach them. :) If they will be willing to license the content under CC-By-SA (which does meet their requirement of attribution), then all the copyright issues with them would go away. (See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries; if you can let them know that if they are willing to license the content accordingly, attribution is required, they may be willing. Make sure that their e-mail address is clearly connected to their website, and we can forward that to OTRS for handling.)
In terms of their new page, here's what worries me: "The daily totals are compiled via daily total samples be it theatre totals or circuit totals which are compared with other films of similar nature to come out with a daily total." Compared with other films of similar nature? Who decides what films have a similar nature, and how are these totals compared? What difference does that comparison make in the daily totals? Then there's the following, for a couple of more examples: "A circuit total is formed by adding the collections of theatres and the ones which are not available an estimate is given using a film which performed similarly in the circuit"; "All the circuits are separated and the prevailing entertainment tax rate of the state is applied where it is likely to be paid". All of this is very vague, and it seems to be far more subjective than fact-based formula. :/
I really hope that they're willing to do a CC-By-SA license. Can you follow up with them about that? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I definitely can. Right now I'm waiting for a second response from them. At first they said "It's fine to use the data on the site as long as credit is given", so I think they would not have any problem to publish the release on their website or send a mail to the Wikimedia Foundation. That's what I asked them for in my last mail. :) Thanks again, Shahid • Talk2me 16:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely thank you for this kind message. Yes, it was a bit upsetting that people did not assume good faith on my part, but then again I could sympathise with and understand what they felt because I too was obviously not very happy with the previous case (the existence of which probably made me look even worse in their eyes, as they thought I had done this out of spite). Anyway, as for the CC-By-SA permission, I am currently still waiting for their response and like yourself I'm crossing my fingers in hope they do agree to help us. When I get their mail, I'll let you know. Thank you once again for your willingness and support, it's highly appreciated. Regards, Shahid • Talk2me 13:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I'm still waiting for their reply. The first time I messaged them I got a reply after four days. Now it's been 5 days since I sent them the second request. I thought I should resend but I don't want to badger them so it's probably better to wait another day or two. Shahid • Talk2me 06:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Would appreciate your imput on this

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

possible unfree files and hope this isn't considered lobbying. I try to document my uploads well but fail to see how a photographer's mark can be considered a copyright without a copyright mark for such. We hope (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is out of my area, so there could may well be a consideration here that I don't know (such as court precedent), but I'm with you. As Copyright Notice sets out, visually perceptible copies required three elements for a proper mark: name of the copyright owner, year of publication and the copyright symbol. The year can be omitted under certain circumstances, but I don't see anything that makes the copyright symbol optional, and I don't see a copyright symbol in the original, uncropped image. I guess there's a possibility that the studio cropped it inadvertently, since the mark seems to disappear under the text. I'll see if I can flag down a friendly Commons admin for comment here. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't answer definitively here. Moonriddengirl makes a good case, but I would be inclined to err on the side of caution and call an obvious credit a copyright notice. I mean this in the same way that, for instance, this article contains credits AP and Getty for two of the images used, but nowhere does it explicitly say that the images are copyrighted. I do, however, appreciate that this is a somewhat different case. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful. J Milburn (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My thanks to you both. We hope (talk) 17:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I don't have a definite answer, either. If I were you, I would note the gov document and raise the question at the discussion for community feedback. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
After I post here and on some others' talk pages, I'll be leaving. The issue isn't over the Gleason photo. Had worked on trying to do something about the NFUR images over the holiday weekend--did perhaps close to 1,000 of them. Have tried to keep the non free backlog up for some time. When you add the proper FURs to try to make things right after the file shows up at backlog because it's been removed from the page for NFUR, you fix the situation and then you see the image(s) in backlog once more because they've been removed from the page due to "not having rationales", not because there's overuse of NFCC, you get very discouraged. Have tried not to get involved with the controversies re: NFCC enforcement, but it seems to me that it's everywhere and you're involved in it whether you want to be or not. We hope (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm so sorry to hear that. :( This is a huge issue, and the community needs to settle it as quickly as possible. I think we can ill-afford to lose you, and I really hope you'll change your mind. Even if you don't want to wade into helping fix this community-wide problem (which I understand), I think that "best possible outcome" includes your continued presence when it's over. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Lists of Bollywood films by year

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi,

In follow-up to what has been going on at Bollywood films of 2011 there are all the other pages listed in Category:Lists of Bollywood films by year which rely on BOI for a ranked list of films by estimated box office income. I'm wondering if the best approach would be to add the same comment to all article talk pages to highlight the issue and then after a couple of days (or a week?) for comment, blanket delete all the relevant tables of estimates. If you think there's any possibility of rethinking or limiting the copyright interpretation, we might want to run a wider RFC, or some such, first as this affects quite a few articles and it would be better to get a visible consensus within the Bollywood film community. Cheers Fæ (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oi. I hope User:Shshshsh will manage to get permission. That way, it's all copyright free and everybody goes home happy. I see so far that the response I've gotten to the question is what I expected; none. :/ If there's still none by weekend, I plan to broaden the question by leaving notes at other fora asking for participation. Let's give it a few days to see what User:Shshshsh has to say about the permission question; I've asked him at his talk page, and then proceed with your plan. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
No worries. I'll come back to this area next week unless I see something kicking off. Cheers --Fæ (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Vrghs jacob again

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

MRG, last time we had a chat on this I checked with JPGordon and he still held that collateral damage would be high. Now, Indian Youth Congress has some troubling copyvios, I've noticed that the page is a mirror at a group on the official site but that could be jacob adding it at both locations (on a Commons discussion he said he was going to represent the party in Parliament and to check with Parliament on the copyright of some image), but it's also got text from [10] and [11]. Likely more, I need to dig deeper (most of the content on our article is since March 10 this year, what do you think? I've protected in the meantime to avoid any further additions (he's pretty much the only editor). cheers —SpacemanSpiff 17:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We have a serial copyright infringer who was violating copyright with sock puppets even while appealing his block on his user talk page. I think the only option we have, unless he has narrowed his IP range, is to modify WP:RBI to implement semi-protection on articles he frequents. Since you've identified copyright problems in the article, I've reverted it to the last prior to his intervention. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Advice, please?

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi MRG--

Look at this, and now look at this. I have no doubt that the "kernel of thought" (or later "pollen of thought") in our article comes from the same book. What to do? Drmies (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We have two options in a case like this: blank it or rewrite it immediately. Since that book is a later edition, there's no doubt which came first, and what we have is a derivative work.:/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
(You seem to be on the "rewrite it immediately" path, so I'll leave you to it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC))
Well, should I continue the rewrite to where (most of) the original content is either properly sourced or deleted? And does one then delete the history, or do we leave it be? One of the problems (see Google link above) is that I don't have access to those sources, at least not in their entirety, so I'm not completely sure. You saw, I assume, in my edit summaries what I was trying to do, but I'm sort of guessing... For instance, the sentence starting "the running style adds phrase" was there originally, and it sounds literary (flowery) enough to be either paraphrase or quote. The sentence with Hecataeus in it was also there already--I could of course delete it, since it's not verified. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I removed everything that may be contaminated. What's next--delete the history until my last edit? Drastic! Drmies (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Haha, if you deleted the history, would it qualify for DYK? Drmies (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a few DYKs post-copyright cleanup, but those have all been for complete rewrites. :D (Not that this isn't pretty close to that!) I don't know that a history deletion is needed, since I think the odds of the older version being returned are unlikely. By the way, I did a bit of tweaking solely because of the prior misuse of Harmon's text. I wanted to be absolutely sure that any quotes we used were transformative and that he received intext attribution for his ideas. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not at you

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No that was directed at the people supporting Delta. More than once they've claimed there is a double standard, but the reality is that they're trying to push one in favor of Delta. We'd accepted the content was to be sub-paged, but then Delta comes out and makes this proposal in main space, and they argue to keep it there. Tuck the ban discussions away and leave his proposal out there.--Crossmr (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 

This is the first time I've seen this love feature, and who better to show appreciation for than you? Gj, keep up the great work!

AerobicFox (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Cute! Thank you very much. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

sent you a message

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Moonriddengirl. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Doug.(talk • contribs) 14:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

David A. Huffman

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, I just found a copyright problem with David A. Huffman#Biography compared with http://www.computer.org/portal/web/awards/huffman. But looking at the history of this wikipedia article this could be a backwardscopy problem. I have no experience how I can check this. This is also the reason I have not tagged this article yet. Can you help? -- SchreyP (messages) 21:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll be happy to take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Evidence suggests backwards copy is right here. What I do is look at the history of the development of the article for signs that content has evolved away from the external site or towards it. Obviously, it's less likely that content was pasted here without minimal or even larger changes that were later changed back...especially by multiple people. :)
First point of evidence I encounter is this; the external site uses the later form. Then there's this one and this one. We're safe with regards to that site, I think. But I'm not entirely sure that the foundational edit wasn't copied from somewhere. I'm going to see if I can find something. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sadly, the article is a copyvio. Sigh. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, thanks for the confirmation. I missed also the talk entry suggesting the copyvio. I'll better scan the talk page next time. Sad that also so many people will loose attribution. Is it ok to start already new content under /Temp, now we have still access to the old version, or is this too soon? And can this be merged with the existing article to have maximum attribution? -- SchreyP (messages) 05:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, it would be great to start that. :) It's very unlikely that we're going to get permission for the sources. You'll need to be careful if using any old content to avoid using anything by the article's creator, since we know that he copied and pasted from at least two sources (one of which I can only see in snippet). But if you copy anything over from other editors, there are two options: first, put a note on the talk page saying that you have, so that the admin who closes the listing knows that a history merge and revision deletion are necessary. Second, you can attribute line by line. I used to do this in the days before revision deletion sometimes. I would look at an edit, see useful content added by (say) User:BobJones, and I'd copy it all over in one edit, with an edit summary that says, "Content contributed by User:BobJones". If you do that, the rewrite will replace the original. There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. With the first approach, the contribution remains in the "contribution list" of the contributor, but nobody knows exactly what the contributor did. With the second approach, people can see exactly what the contributor did, but it won't show up in his contribution list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I made a little investigation (in Excel) of all edits of the article history to see who contributed content (sometimes important small edits), who only format, or who just rubbish. With this I can prepare the rewrite. But before I do, I need still a clarification on the first option you gave: a refdel would already be needed on the first edit and some in between, because of the copyvio's. How does this impact the left-over revisions, since the baseline of (copyvio) text is removed? What is the result in final text if you do a refdel? I don't understand. If this is clear I might go for option one, otherwise I like to go for option two - rewrite + extra valuable edits of good faith editors, giving them credit in the edit summary. -- SchreyP (messages) 21:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This is what an article looks like after revision deletion: [12]. Every edit is still in the history, but only administrators can access the ones that are deleted. People can see that User:Soandso contributed content on this or that date, but they have no idea what that content was. It shows up in their contribution lists like this.(That particularly user, by the way, was part of the problem, but obviously the revision deleted edits look the same regardless.) The final text looks just the same, but instead of having a detailed record of who added which bit of text, we simply have an undistinguished list.

One of the advantages to having a detailed record is that if we run into problems with text later, we can more easily determine who put it there. There have been cases where I've cleaned up a copyvio in an article only to find out that there was another one, placed by a different contributor. This is particularly likely in articles that appeal to age groups or cultures that are not as familiar with handling copyrighted content the Wikipedia way.

Does that help? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi thanks Moonriddengirl, this helps :) Than I can use option one: It allows me to rewrite the sections you deleted. I don't have to separately include contributions of former editors, they have their attribution already with earlier edits. I will prepare a list of revisions that I think are copyvio and need to be deleted (not only the first one). And an admin in the end can merge the two parts. I hope to be ready in a few days. -- SchreyP (messages) 17:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A question about where to direct a question

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

MRG I'm vaguely aware that there are some initiatives to look at editor behavior/new editor experiences, or something along that line. I don't recall who is running the initiative, but I bet you'll know. I have an observation/question I'd like to share, so my main question is - do you know who I'm talking about so I can contact them?

I pose my question below, as I hope you will find it interesting as well:

Why do editors who ask for feedback not respond?


Relatively new editors often struggle when starting to create a new page. One option is for them to work on a draft, then ask for feedback at Requests for feedback.

As a community, we do a horrendous job of responding to them. More detailed stats would be good, but I'll give you a snapshot; the current page contains approximately 64 requests, between 3 July and 7 July. I count 12 responses, so 52, or over 80% of requests have been ignored. This is unacceptable, and must be addressed. However, that is the warmup, not my question.

I've been mulling over how to improve the hit rate, and also noting that I have been active in this area, but go through periods of non-activity. I tried to figure out why I have to force myself to contribute, when I made an observation: almost no one receiving feedback even acknowledges it. Of the twelve instances where some feedback has been provided only one editor responded. That means, in this sample, over 90% of editors receiving feedback do not even acknowledge it.

This is, admittedly, too small a sample to draw too strong a conclusion. In fact, it was probably the starkness of this example that caused me to comment, but I can say with some assurance that it is quite common for editors to ask for feedback, get feedback, and never be heard from again. (I can't speak for others, but it is my practice to leave a talkback, on the assumption that new editors might not know how to watchlist the page, just in case you were wondering is they simply didn't know).

I am mulling over ideas on how to improve the hit rate of providing feedback, but if I achieve some success initially, and editors continue not to respond to feedback, it will die off. So my question, at long last, is why is it that an editor can go to the effort of creating a draft article, post and request feedback, then do nothing? It perplexes me, and if I knew what was going on, it would help.

--SPhilbrickT 13:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) There's a lot of work being done in this direction; it's a major focus of the 2011 Summer of Research. I'm not sure of anybody working on a question like that, though. :/ I'll see if I can find out anything.
I am familiar with the phenomenon, though. Until I burned out on it, I used to do a lot of work at Wikipedia:Drawing board, and frequently the people who left questions there did not come back. Some of them may lose interest, particularly if feedback is not what they want to hear. Some of them may not quite understand that it is a human interaction; that is, they may not see it as a dialogue so much as it is a kind of FAQ. I think this is particularly true for those who aren't familiar with online social environments that use threading. :) But these are just my guesses. Maybe we could talk about it at WP:VPM or something like that? And in the meantime, I'll see if anybody is working on this angle. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Just to be clear, I wasn't expecting that anyone had addressed his specific question, I just wanted to know who was doing the general work, so I could try to persuade them to look into it.
Your comment about Drawing board is discouraging. I was hoping that there might be some structural issue with the Feed site that could be identified - if you had the same issue with a differently organized board, it hints that the problems are different and less easy to resolve.
I'll check out the Summer of Research, and put something together for VPM. Thanks again.--SPhilbrickT 14:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Juve10

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I had enough patience on this user. Yes, i made some "strong" language to request him to clean up his old mess but he did not response to do so. His article full of gossip and even hoax. He may think wrote a good story for his favourite team's youth product may help but it isn't. He wrote he made 12 (first team) appearances for Canavese but in fact he only played 4 times in the league (the external link of the article and this one could prove). For Raffaele Ioime he even wrote he left the club in mid-season but it doesn't. Too many hoax i started to think is he doing these in good faith. When i request him to correct his old hoax/joke/serious mistake/many un-cited fact but no reply (he did said do it myself), could i request a temporary ban?

More old mess likes:

Only some were my mis-understanding by me such as Mirco Antenucci. Would you likes to explain to him how to write a good article and did use bad source likes www.transfermarket.co.uk/ (it is a COMMUNITY site, no admin to check the information submitted by community, full of hoax) I don't understand he intend to remain to wikipedia by giving new edit but did not wish to upgrade his old mess. Even his newer edit is sometimes violate NPOV whosaid he played very good in the second Catania match? He still did not wish to correct his tone for Catania player. Almost all Catania were impressive. Matthew_hk tc 02:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Matthew. First, I'm afraid I can't ban or block anybody unless they are clearly in the policy at Wikipedia:Block. The newest edit I see you linking above is from February 2011; most of them are considerably older than that. :) To demonstrate that a contributor is "disruptive", you would probably need to be able to show not only a history of problems, but multiple current problems, and an effort to talk to him about them. (I don't know if he would have corrected Giorgio Merlano on your request today or not; you had cleaned it up before he showed any activity on Wikipedia. The edit he made to the article that disturbs you is almost a year old.)
This contributor is only 17, and it's possible that he is improving his practices as he goes. I see looking at his talk page history that he was not properly welcomed when he started with us in 2008. (I'm kind of impressed that he stuck with us; he had a rocky start.) I'll certainly be happy to drop him a note about good editing practices. But if he keeps adding content that bothers you (not if you're still finding older ones, but if he's actively doing it moving forward), the best thing that you can do is pursue Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, trying to talk to him and getting other members of the community involved.
One of the biggest challenges facing Wikipedia right now is the decline in editors. In my opinion, good faith editors are gold. (This is one of the reasons I supported giving you a second chance a while back. :)) Even if they have problems that need to be overcome, we want to do everything we can to keep them on board. Unless somebody proves that they aren't "good faith" editors after all, or unless they just can't get it, we want to eliminate the issues, not the contributor.
Anyway, I'll talk to him about best practices. If you see new problems, I'll try to help you find a forum to get assistance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Earwig

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi

I have tried the Earwig page to identify copyvio but it came up with "no results", even though I have already identified 2 probable copyvios/cutpastes. Although the page mentions Cvcheck, there does not appear to be a link to it?

Is there another tool we can use, besides Corensearchbot/Earwig?

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :D Earwig is great, but it has its limitations. When text raises enough red flags for me, I'll always double check if I get no hits. I will usually do this manually, but will sometimes run it through the Plagiarism checker. This nifty little tool does have limitations, though, including that you have to strip footnotes to get an accurate result. It's not very distinguishing, and the [2] at the end of a sentence is enough to convince it there's no match. Sometimes I just run it manually, particularly because no tool or mechanical detector that I know of will check google books.
Which page mentions Cvcheck? With my horrible memory, I'm not entirely sure. :) Wikipedia:Proposed_tools/Cvcheck resulted in the duplication detector. That's a great little tool when you know the source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't save a bookmark and after spending ten minutes going through my browser history I still cannot find it! It was one that had a section for resources, though not from the main copyvio pages it seems.
Thanks for the info, I have been using a manual search followed by the DuplicationDetector, so I guess that's the best option at the moment. I will use corenbot as well I think to try and initially find them, it took me hours to copy edit over the course of which I identified five or six in that one article - I thought the writing was too specific and in too many style blocks, I hate being right sometimes! Around 33% of the article was cutandpaste copyvios - hopefully it will be removed by tonight otherwise I guess I am going to have to start putting notices on the article... Chaosdruid (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Juve10

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the message and belated welcome. I appreciate it! Juve10 (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot on CCI

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I don't know if this was discussed before (and perhaps rejected) but couldn't find any discussions through search. Wouldn't it be helpful to have CorenBot or a modified version of it help with CCIs? The contribution surveyor already lists individual diffs, so if the BOT could look at those diffs and perform a search and list possible sources against the same entry in CCI that would be extremely helpful to CCI workers. I can see one problem that since most of these are older articles the bot is more likely to pick up mirrors, but we could always add mirrors to a list of exclusions as it progresses. I'm not technically savvy to actually do anything related to bots, but this would be very helpful and save at least 20-30% of time taken per article. Question is for you and TPSes. —SpacemanSpiff 09:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be very helpful, I think, if it is technically feasible. I don't know if it is. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree it would be and it's something I started to look into before I got bogged down with finishing my PhD. One problem I did encounter when I was looking was that Google appear to have changed the service they offer and my reading of the new T&Cs don't allow this sort of tool and I suspect the current tools use an old service which you can no longer join. Not mentioned this to any of the current bot owners so I may be barking up the wrong tree. Dpmuk (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I think somebody once said that Earwig and Corensearchbot use Yahoo? I'm not sure, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Naive question: If Corensearchbot is on the "old service", could this be grandfathered in? Also, MRG, I don't know who the bot operators are, so maybe you could ask them to chime in here? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The bot operators are User:Coren and User:The Earwig. :) Plus User:VernoWhitney. Coren is busy enough with Arb stuff that I would really recommend taking any questions to him. User:The Earwig is not very active lately, but I can ask him to stop by. User:VernoWhitney would probably be great for this, but, alas, Verno has not been with us for a while. :( I'll mention it to the latter two, though. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, I was hoping to get the help of a bot on the Bugnot and Thisthat2011 CCIs as they are more straightforward (in activity, not time) than other CCI's, but I guess I'll have to wait for either one of them to get back :) cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 13:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys. CorenSearchBot uses Yahoo (see its BRFA – I doubt this has changed), because Google had already changed their TOS by the time Coren was writing the bot. EarwigBot also used Yahoo, but with a different algorithm. Having run EarwigBot's copyvio task for about two years (May '09 to April '11) before I stopped it for a not-yet-finished code rewrite, I can say that their search results are pretty good at catching the bulk of violations. A whitelist is really easy to implement (EarwigBot used one updated from Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks) and can weed out nearly all mirrors. Most false-positives are due to tricky-to-catch quotes and the like. — The Earwig (talk) 19:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I think I was actually referring to Yahoo changing their T&Cs (it's been a while since I looked at it). Having looked at it briefly again (and jogged my memory), CorenSearchBot appears to use this which is now depreceated. The replacement appears to be this and from my reading of that services T&Cs something like CorenSearchBot isn't allowed as it does not have a human actually doing the searching. Am I missing something? Dpmuk (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting – I didn't know about this. I did a test using my current AppID (via the URL my bot uses) and I did get correct search results, however. Not sure if I'm missing something as well, or the service is merely deprecated and Yahoo hasn't disabled it technically yet. — The Earwig (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Another (naive) question: What if instead of a bot this were to be a script? Either as (1) a part of the contribution surveyor or (2) as a script that can be run on different sections of CCI pages by a human. Would that have any impact on the licensing agreement? and/or would it be easier to create? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 10:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

CP bot problems

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It would appear we have quite a serious problem with bots no longer listing things at WP:CP, please see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Bot problems for more. Dpmuk (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoops...

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry! J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Happens. :D At least you didn't revert a human contributor; I did that once at User talk:J.delanoy. (Didn't even realize what I'd done until much later.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiAlpha

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that on pages taken from us, such as this, WikiAlpha are properly referring at the head of the page to CC-BY-SA; but at the foot of the page, and on their main page, it still says "Content is available under Public Domain." I have left a note for Wootfarm (talk · contribs), who seems to be an admin there, to say that I think that is misleading and should be something like "Content is available under Public Domain unless otherwise stated at the head of the page". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Good observations, and that sounds like a good suggestion. We have a lot of mirrors; not that many of them take steps to comply with license if they didn't start off that way. That these guys were willing to take the steps suggests to me that they'll probably work with us. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible issues with my work

Latest comment: 13 years ago18 comments2 people in discussion

Would you mind taking a look over Stockade Building System and Trawscoed fort? In my earlier days on Wikipedia, I had accidentally closely paraphrased my sources in an effort to avoid original research. I had tried to clean them all up in early January, so would you mind telling me if they are still too close to the cited sources? (Note that I did not plagiarize content from other sources, so you wouldn't have to scour the web for plagiarism.) Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I will. :) On it now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I might not get to finish it now. :D But I just stopped back to note that I might not get to review everything; for instance, I can't access this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :) I have access to all those cool sources because of my university. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

My initial impression of Trawscoed fort based on the sources that I can see is not too bad. :) You use lots of intext attribution for the Hopewell report, and even so I don't think that one's too close. I did kind of feel uneasy about the amount of similarity to this source in the lead. Let me be clear that it's nothing I would tag an article for(not even with {{close paraphrasing}}), but specifically beginning with "It was first built...." and running through it does seem to follow pretty closely. My uneasiness peaks at the following: "is an auxiliary fort overlooking the place where the Roman road from Pen-Ilwyn to Llanio crosses the river Ystwyth." The source says, "is an auxillary fort overlooking the point where the Roman road between Llanio and Pen-llwyn crosses the River Ystwyth". That kind of sentence is a pain in the neck to rewrite and since the language is pretty straightforward we can follow closely in that kind of thing, but since the sentences around it seem also heavily to draw on that source, I think it's probably worth the effort. (Mind you, I am conservative in this respect.) What I would do if I encountered this in an article is just restructure it a bit myself, maybe like this:

The fort was built to house auxiliary units in the 70s AD and remained in use, although not continuously, for about 50 years. It was strategically placed to overlook the bridge over the river Ystwyth on the Roman road connecting Pen-Ilwyn and Llanio. The site has been extensively studied since 1959, when aerial photography first identified it as a series of patchmarks covering an area of around 20,000 square metres (2 ha), and efforts have been made to preserve it from damage caused by invasive plant species.

That's totally off the top of my head, mind you. :) (If you like any of that text, you're free to use it; no attribution required. :)) Basically, I'd try to collect the information and put it out there in slightly different ways. I'll probably take a look at the other one tomorrow. It's been a long day, and I'm a bit wiped out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I was afraid I was going to have to go back through all of my articles with a fine-toothed comb searching for possible close paraphrasing to rewrite. It's good to know that some similarities are not an issue. :) Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Mind taking a look over the second one, Crusher (robot)? Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the bump; I kind of lost sight of this. :) I will, yes, happily take a look at it, but it won't be today. I'll try to remember to do it Saturday (maybe later in the day; I have Stuff going on Saturday morning), but if I don't, please bump me again, so I do it Sunday. Weekends are best for me for this kind of work at the moment. I'll {{tb}} you when I've done it, so you don't have to keep checking. If you don't get a TB, you'll know I need a nudge. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for being willing to look over my work! I will confess that I have been eying an RFA for awhile (to work as an antivandal/troll sysop), and I wanted to ensure that the issues I had inadvertently created in the past were fully gone. However, this isn't just an attempt to pass RFA, as I would have done this even if I wanted nothing to do with being a sysop, as copyright issues are important to me. (When I created the close paraphrase 8 months ago, it was not out of maliciousness; rather, I had been trying to follow WP:NOR.) The reason I asked now was after seeing a candidate shot down for inadvertent paraphrasing of sources, it brought the issues of the past back into my mind, so I just wanted to ensure they are truly in the past. Thanks again! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the diplomatic bump. :D I've got you on my to-do list for first thing in the morning (after whatever messages to answer). Then WP:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I don't see issues with the sources I can see, but unfortunately I can't figure out how to get into the actual patent language. All I find is the abstract. :) Can you provide me with a direct link to the description of the process being patented? If not, can you tell me how to get into it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The external link at the bottom of the page is a link to the actual patent language. Cheers, and thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah. I've reviewed, and the rewrite seems sufficient to me. Just from my curiosity, though, why is that under ELs and not listed as a source? I might be inclined to add it at the relevant reliable source, maybe saying, "Full text of patent viewable [link here]" That will allow people reviewing the sources you've used to actually verify the text. :) (Just my thought: can't say others would agree.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the review! I added the link as an addendum to the reference noting that it contains the full text of the patent. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for your patience, and good luck with your RfA! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the well-wishes! I'm unlikely to run until my current FA candidate (Cirrus cloud) passes, though! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  The Special Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) for being willing to look over the messes I've created and tried to clean up! Thank you very much! Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! That's very kind of you. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Help!

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Margaret, can you help me recover access to my talk page? 82.35.193.46 (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Your talk page is not blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This article has had a complete rewrite by a couple of SPAs. My first concerns were the lack of any inline citations and what I consider a pov approach, but I've found [13] - looks as though most of the article is copyvio. I've edited the article before and was about to express my concerns about the content, but now I'd appreciate it if someone would deal with the apparent copyvio. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Given the username, the odds are very good that the author of that content placed it here himself. I've removed for now (but not revdeleted for that version) and told him how to verify. In the meantime, I would strongly recommend you talk to him about sourcing requirements. I alluded to issues with the content in my note about verification. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow, talk about speed! Thanks. Yes, I'll talk to him. Dougweller (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson site

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I'm new to wiki, but am working with someone who has more experience. I'll contact them for further advice as well.

I wrote the original article posted on Dandavats.com article at http://www.dandavats.com/?p=9445. It sounds like the easiest thing I could do is get the disclaimer posted on the article's web page, on Dandavats.com.

Sorry for sounding clueless, but could you resend me the specific statement I need to request their site's administrators to post on that site? I assume it needs to be with the article - any place in particular (top, bottom, etc) considered most desirable?

In the meantime, can I still work on posting the bibliography? That seems like a pretty universal thing that wouldn't be subjected to copyright infringement - but I would defer to your perspectives.

Thanks,

sdmuni108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson site

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I'm new to wiki, but am working with someone who has more experience. I'll contact them for further advice as well.

I wrote the original article posted on Dandavats.com article at http://www.dandavats.com/?p=9445. It sounds like the easiest thing I could do is get the disclaimer posted on the article website, on Dandavats.com.

Sorry for sounding clueless, but could you resent me the specific statement I need to request them to post on that site? I assume it needs to be with the article - any place in particular (top, bottom, etc) most desirable?

In the meantime, can I still work on posting the bibliography? That seems like a pretty universal thing that wouldn't be subjected to copyright infringement - but I would defer to your perspectives.

We will also be posting inline citations as posted on the Dandavats.com article - we also have quite a few more we can cull from previous drafts of the essay.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Riding School

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry, me again. Just don't know whether to tag this or not. Someone stuck in a huge chunk of stuff copied from here or some mirror thereof, then removed it again. So it's not in the article, but it is in the history & previous versions. Is that a concern, or should I be worried only by what is currently visible? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) The prime consideration is what's visible now. With copyvios in history, I always ask myself two questions: (1) how much information will be lost if we rev-delete, and (2) how much risk is there of restoration if we don't? It's a balancing act between the two. In this case, (1) is so low that, with content as extensive as that, there's no reason not to rev delete--all that's lost is the two edits which were already reverted. If there were less content, I might not bother. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Back on the horse but at a trot

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  Thank you
For your kind words. Am going to try it again, trying this time not to work at anything to the point of burn-out.
We hope (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! And I am delighted to hear that you have reconsidered. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Keechaka Vadham

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I'll remove the entire plot section. It's really difficult to produce the synopsis of such films. I don't think those films are available on the internet. I'll try to include some other section and expand the article. Thanks! --Commander (Ping Me) 05:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

david alan walker frs emeritus professor

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello

You have deleted my father David Alan Walker FRS

His field is photosynthesis

I can only imagine that this is a mistake

Please can you explain why

and please can you contact me so that we can work out how to reinstate him

He is nearing the end of his life and it would be a great comfort to him to see his name on Wikipedia


I can refer you to numerous publications that can verify his status

I think my brother Richard Walker may have contacted you about this some time ago


very many thanks

Marney Walker

<email address redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.137.110 (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Marney. I saw your message when I visited Moonriddengirl's talk page. Unfortunately, the article was deleted because the person who had created it had committed multiple copyright violations, and as such all their articles were deleted. It had nothing to do with the actual subject of the article. I have re-written the article as a basic stub, and will expand over the coming days. You'll find it at David Alan Walker. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Need Help!

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. There is this unknown IP user User:188.222.139.134 and User:Angelaaliyah, who keeps vandalizing the following pages Vaidehi, Kehta Hai Dil, and Kya Hadsaa Kya Haqeeqat. He/she keeps removing the logo images and the television actress Pallavi Kulkarni's name from the following pages. I guess the person probably hates this actor. Can you please help. By the way, the edits done by this user have been reverted several times. Please help. Thank you! Survir (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Survir. :) I've left the named account a caution about deleting content without edit summaries. If she keeps it up, further action may be necessary under Wikipedia:Vandalism. But please be sure to clearly explain (preferably politely) to contributors what they are doing wrong. This one may be intentionally disrupting, if she is removing correct information without good reason, but we have to assume that she's meaning well until she has a chance to prove that she isn't. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
This user has vandalized all three articles again. This is the main IP address User:188.222.139.134, can you please block him/her from further edits. Thank you!Survir (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcoming

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Great to see you still at it. :D Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Richard L. Thompson (11 July)

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl,

The organizers for the "Dandavats.com" website where I originally posted the Richard L. Thompson article just placed the copyright disclaimer, as we discussed. Hopefully I got it right, as per your suggestion!!

It can be found at the bottom of the page, at:

http://www.dandavats.com/?p=9445

I'm also currently serving as the archivist for Thompson's material. As mentioned, we have dozens, if not hundreds of research citations ready to go. Everything in that original research article can be cross referenced, much of it multiple times.

The hold up is rather time and my own lack of familiarity with the appropriate wiki skills. I'm hoping to have proper inline citations included by the end of next weekend - it should be doable. (That Dandavat's page has a downloadable version of the article that contains over 30.)

I'm scheduled to get together with my "partner in crime" on Sunday! So hopefully we will get things nearly up to standard by then.

I'm not yet quite clear how to communicate on the open discussion for the site - I guess its called the "talk" feature. Fortunately, I seem to have figured out how to do the email!

Any suggestions, advice you might have are most welcome. Thanks for the previous advice, of course, and for anything you might like to add to that.

Sincerely,

sdmuni108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sdmuni108 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

Best I can figure it was restored, then deleted again, so no chance to work on it - as per my limited experience. Hopefully this weekend we can pick things up. Do have plenty of citations - hundreds! Hopefully I'll get a primer on how to communicate in these forums too.

Could the bibliography get restored? As discussed, that is universal, and would be nice to keep working on it in the meantime.

thanks,

Sdmuni108 (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Need Help

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl. This user has vandalized all three articles again as of July 16, 2011. This is the main IP address User:188.222.139.134, can you please block him/her from further edits. Thank you!Survir (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Survir (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Tony Anthony (evangelist)

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I note you had a role in deleting this page. I'm currently trying to put together a picture of the claims made by Anthony which may be fraudulent. If you can help in any way, please respond on my talk page, thanks! EutychusFr (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      - Thanks a lot, all details gratefully received EutychusFr (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Question.

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I've encountered an article where many of the paragraphs are composed of sentences taken verbatim (or with minor word swaps) from seperate sources. Each sentance is cited but there is no indication that the text is not original( quotation marks, etc). The editors justification: "...the material in question was not a direct quote but rather, was a précis. As such, it is not necessary to apply quotation marks around the material in question. The reason we have the original quotes in the references is because this is a contentious article and we want to ensure that the material within the article is properly verifiable." I'm not sure this holds water. Can you offer any guidance? Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. To comply with copyright policy, content on Wikipedia must be written in "our own words", not closely paraphrasing its sources except for (a) clearly marked brief quotations (if source is free or non-free) or (b) content from public domain or compatibly licensed sources, which must be fully attributed in compliance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. In a case such as you describe, much would depend on the copyright status of the sources. If the sources are under copyright and are not compatibly licensed, we can't construct articles by minimally altering source material in the way you describe.
Just for clarity, I'll note that I have not looked at the article in question and don't know what editor(s) you're talking about. I am responding purely in regards to standard Wikipedia practice.
If you believe that content follows too closely on its sources, and these sources are not free, you have two options. You can tag the article {{close paraphrase}}. Please provide examples at the talk page of problematic content. Assuming we've got a bot working at the moment, a bot will list it for review at the copyright problems board. If you think the close following is too close, you can blank the material with {{copyvio}} and list it at WP:CP for evaluation by either a copyright clerk or an admin. (The latter action is likely to be seen as provocative if contributor(s) are already disagreeing, but it's important to be careful with copyright. The listing period at CP is 5-7 days when we're on time, and this allows all parties to explain why they do or do not think the material is a problem at the talk page of the article.)
If the sources are free (pd or compatibly licensed) and it follows too closely, there are other options. Let me know if that's the case, and I'll go into those. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to clutter up your talk page but would you mind looking at a couple of examples? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I can, but I may not have time to do it today. :) I'm finding that on week days, I generally have time to keep up with my talk page, but not copyright issues. I try to catch up on weekends, although I'm traveling this weekend and might be a bit challenged. If I can't look today, I'll try to look as soon as time permits. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Examples

The Wikipedia article in question: Militant atheism

Source: Militant atheists also believed that science disproved religion because God remained unseen, his miracles were never subject to empirical verification, and certain religious stories were scientifically inconceivable.
Wikipe: Militant atheists also believed science disproved religion because God remained unseen, his miracles were never subject to empirical verification, and certain religious stories were scientifically inconceivable.
Paul Froese (2008). The Plot to Kill God: findings from the Soviet experiment in Secularization. University of California Press. Retrieved 2007–10–18. Militant atheists also believed science disproved religion because God remained unseen, his miracles were never subject to empirical verification, and certain religious stories were scientifically inconceivable. Following World War II and after the dissolution of the League of Militant Atheists, Soviet officials started a campaign to produce natural-scientific arguments against belief in God. For instance, Soviet scientists placed holy water under a microscope to prove that it had no special properties, and the corpses of saints were exhumed to demonstrate that they too were subject to corruption. These activities indicated that atheist propgandists held a very literal interpretation of religious language; for them, holy water and the bodies of saints were expected to hold some physical sign of their divinity. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Source: There were more than fifty thousand Orthodox priests before the Russian Revolution, and by mid-1939, there were no more than three to four hundred clergy.
Wikipe: Before the Russian Revolution, there were more than fifty thousand Russian Orthodox clergymen, by 1939, there were no more than three to four hundred clerical positions left.
Paul Froese. The Plot to Kill God: findings from the Soviet experiment in Secularization. University of California Press. Retrieved 2007–10–18. There were more than fifty thousand Orthodox priests before the Russian Revolution, and by mid-1939, there were no more than three to four hundred clergy. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Source: What stands out in these syllabi, in addition to the antireligious substance of each course, is the way in which the curriculum appears to ignore the objective, applied, and experimental essence of science.
Wikipe: In addition to the antireligious substance of each course, the curriculum from the universities in the Soviet Union presented scientific findings correct or incorrect based on their supposed ideological positions, not on the objective, applied, and experimental essence of science.
Paul Froese. The Plot to Kill God: findings from the Soviet experiment in Secularization. University of California Press. Retrieved 2007–10–18. Militant atheists also believed that science disproved religion because God remained unseen, his miracles were never subject to empirical verification, and certain religious stories were inconceivable. The course syllabi from the atheist universities of the Soviet Union indicate how the topic of atheism was presented as a historically logical outcome of scientific development; Soviet college students chose from the following course selections: Physics...Chemistry...Geology...Mathematics...Biology...Medicine...What stands out in these syllabi, in addition to the antireligious substance of each course, is the way in which the curriculum appears to ignore the objective, applied, and experimental essence of science. Instead, scientific findings are presented as correct or incorrect based on their supposed ideological positions. Religion is presented as the historic cofounder of scientific advancement, with atheism providing the phislosophical framework from which to conduct accurate science. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Source: The number of those who died for the faith is innumerable: in the year 1922 alone, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns
Wikipe: In the year 1922 alone, under the militant atheistic system, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns were martyred for their faith.
John Meyendorff. Witness to the World. St Vladimir's Seminary Press. Retrieved 2007–10–18. After having been the state religion for centuries both in Russian and in almost all the countries of Europe, Christianity suddenly was confronted with a militant atheistic system claiming to regulate not only the material, but also the spiritual life of man. The number of those who died for the faith is innumerable: in the year 1922 alone, 2691 secular priests, 1962 monks and 3447 nuns (N. Struve, Christians in Russia, Harvill Press, London, 1967, p. 38). {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, of the samples you have here, I believe that the first two are clear problems. That content needs to be rewritten or turned into quotes to comply with the policy at WP:NFCC, which says "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks, <blockquote>, or a similar method." Footnote alone is insufficient. The third one should be revised to further separate it from the source, but is not in the same category of problem. The final one does not seem to me to be a problem, so long as the sentence is properly cited; the information is not copyrighted, and the only duplicate run of text is "In the year 1992 alone." Can I take a moment to be amused that Meyendorff writes "the number is innumerable" and then numerates them? I love that. :) That said, it's a pretty grim subject, so I feel guilty for being delighted by Meyendorff's self-contradiction. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Bakhmull

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Dear Moonriddengirl, I acknowledge the receipt of your letter Radobark (talk) dt.10 July 2011 (UTC).

Extended content

I have to verify that the only (sole) author of the dog breed called BAKHMULL (tazi), an aboriginal afghan hound (or: sighthound=tazi) is me, Natalia Gherasiova ( in Russian: Наталия Герасёва). I have been working with this ancient, rare, unique breed breed since 1982. My website has existed since 1992 www.bakhmull.com as well as my domain BAKHMULL (in Russia it is Бакхмуль.РФ) belongs only to me since 1992 my email is: radobark@gmail.com. I am the author of two officially adopted standards for this breed of 1985 and 1997 in Russia first for the Aboriginal Afghan Hound and second for Bakhmull, an aboriginal afghan hound (sighthound). I am the author of over 60 articles in magazines both in Russian and English, publications in books, TV shows, etc. (Afghan Hounds (The World of Dogs) Race L., publisher Kingdom Books, PO Box 15, Waterlooville PO7 6BQ, 1999, England, 240 pages http://www.bakhmull.com/afghanhounds.htm)

http://www.bakhmull.com/stat4.htm http://www.bakhmull.com/stat5.htm http://www.bakhmull.com/zshizn.htm http://www.bakhmull.com/stakom.htm http://www.bakhmull.com/encyclopedia1.htm http://www.bakhmull.com/ohotasbakhmulyami.htm


Representatives of France, USA (http://sloughi.tripod.com/sloughiworld/INDIGENOUSLOPEAREDSIGHTHOUNDSFROMCENTRALAFRICATOCHINA.pdf, p 4, 9),Great Britain, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway addressed for permission to me as an author of this dog breed and articles on it , because they wanted to place some information about bakhmulls in Wikipedia and other sources. I also participated in world forums (tazy forum) where all lovers and fans of oriental sighthounds participated in English. They called me the Teacher and treated me with great respect. So my copyright is fixed and cannot cause any doubt. Scientists in the USA and Sweden , the only two places on the Earth, where the origin of the first dog appearance is being carried out, refer to my explorations and even give their acknowledgments to me. That’s why I do references to my site in links ( which you think isn’t mine and I allegedly stole my ideas from my own mind) – a curious situation, isn’t it? Shall I ask Natalia Gherasiova for permission to publish an article about bakhmulls? I send you a version in other words about BAKHMULL, which I hope won’t cause any doubt after this letter. I’d also like you to add four more images of Bakhmull.

Natalia Gherasiova Sincerely yours, Natalia Gherasiova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radobark (talk • contribs) 11:05, 12 July 2011

Thank you very much. It's not to me that you need to verify your connection to the website, though. You can either follow the directions at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries or place a notice on your website licensing the content appropriately there. A usable license might be as follows:
The text of this website [or page, if you are specifically releasing one section] is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
If you follow the directions at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, a member of the e-mail volunteer response team will restore the content after your permission is received (please be sure to tell them the exact name of the article). If you've already sent the text you left here to them, they should respond soon. If you place the release on your website, give me a link to it, and I can restore the content directly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl, I am sending you a copy of permission for my article about bakhmull, which has just been sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. Is it all right?
Extended content
I hereby affirm that I, Natalia Gherasiova the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bakhmull
I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me.
I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.
Natalia Gherasiova
Web-site: www.bakhmull.com
The copyright-holder
13 July, 2011
I also reguest you to load four more images of bakhmull
http://www.bakhmull.com/photos/392.jpg (Name the file "Zardin-el-Bark")
http://www.bakhmull.com/photos/337.jpg (Name the file "Christopher-el-Bark")
http://www.bakhmull.com/photos/90.JPG (Name the file "Head_of_bakhmull_Christopher")
http://www.bakhmull.com/photos/58.JPG (Name the file "Natalia_Gherasiova_with_her_bakhmulls_and_hare")


Natalia Gherasiova
Sincerely yours, Natalia Gherasiova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radobark, 13 July 2011 (talk • contribs)
It was perfectly proper, thank you. :) As you probably can see, the article has been restored.
I'm afraid that uploading images is not my area. However, it's a pretty simple process; we have an upload Wizard that will help you at Commons:Special:UploadWizard. It should guide you through the process, step by step. Once you've uploaded them, I can help you if you need assistance putting them in the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, It was recommended at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history that I contact you about copyright concerns in the Anglo-Zulu War.

Doing some recent edits I checked the talk page and found some editors had cut & paste concerns about a section. I followed the link: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/jan2009/anglo-zulu-war.html to an online article by David Blair. Comparing the two side by side I found numerous nearly identical paragraphs and sections in both with only some minor changes by wiki editors. For just a single example of many:

2011 Wiki lede: "The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Kingdom. From complex beginnings, the war is notable for several particularly bloody battles, as well as for being a landmark in the timeline of colonialism in the region. The war ended the Zulu nation's independence."

2006 David Blair:"The Anglo-Zulu War was fought in 1879 between the British Empire and the Zulu Empire. From complex beginnings, the war is notable for several particularly bloody battles, as well as for being a landmark in the timeline of colonialism in the region. The war ended the Zulu nation's independence."

Early February 2007 seems to be when the Blair piece supplanted the early wiki article. Perhaps you can look into it and recommend what action if any to take. Thanks for your time. Tttom1 (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

There is evidence that the website may be copying the WP, going over a paragraph on the website I found it has a citation needed tag in brackets.Tttom1 (talk) 04:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I agree with the backwards copy. The earliest and only archive I can see of that website is February 2, 2009. Our copy of the article at that time is nearly similar. It appears the first part of that webpage was written by the author and the rest (after the line break) copied from Wikipedia in early 2009.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this by, Tttom1. Happy to take a look. :D And thanks for looking into it, NortyNort. I'd agree with the backwards copyvio, and I add that the essay is dated November 13, 2006. Running the "duplication detector" tool to compare our article to the essay as of November 2004 shows much of the content was in our article two years before the essay was written. There were similarities as early as the first edit.
What did concern me, though, was that first edit. :) What we have is a text dump from somewhere. Fortunately, it's PD. That was taken from the 1911 EB. (I'll attribute after finishing up, if there's any text left.)
This is the edit that seals the backwards copyvio deal: [14]. You can see that some of the content in our article before the merge is in the external source. "On the 29th a column, under Lord Chelmsford, consisting of 3400 Europeans and 2300 natives, marched to the relief of Eshowe, entrenched camps being formed each night." The next section merged into the article on that date (21 March 2004) begins "Chelmford told Sir Evelyn Wood's troops (Staffordshire Volunteers and Boers)..." This is in the external source, too, but this content was originally added here. It's highly unlikely that we would have copied from that guy piecemeal into two different articles and then brought it together into a coherent whole. :)
It's really strange that the guy dated the essay November 2006 when it's quite obvious that he didn't actually produce it then; the awkward but more neutral construction "It is believed that..." introduced in December 2006 is incorporated into that source. The 2009 date NortyNort identifies might well be the point of copying. I'm not going to take the time to try to verify this. :) I'll tag the article accordingly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's comments like these that make me realize I haven't arrived.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, more friendly sarcasm than anything. I wasn't as thorough as you were in examining the article and source.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, okay. :D Your conclusions were the same as mine, though. I tend to want careful documentation of reverse infringement before placing the tag. Smoking guns make me happy in that regard because they reassure me that I am not contributing to infringement. :) Ethical and legal concerns encourage me to be careful with that. :D If I ever wind up in court, I want to be able to demonstrate "due diligence". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
This is true and I agree. It's amazing sometimes how intriguing an article's page history can be. Lot's of twists and turns at times. I have looked at some that max out my browser's tabs.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Am I correct in understanding then that there is no copyvio and the view here is the Blair piece is copied from WP while much of the WP piece uses unattributed/uncited sections of EB 1911?Tttom1 (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
That's right. :) I've put in general attribution at the bottom of the page (top of the ref section), but I did not check to see which content remained from that source, beyond verifying through the Duplication Detector tool that some does. It seems very likely that some of the "citation needed" tags can legitimately be replaced with reference to that article. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much to all for your expert and timely help.Tttom1 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Periodic sentence

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Longest sentence I've ever added to Wikipedia. Is there an award for that? Drmies (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Your new project page

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've only just seen it since yesterday, and I really like this new proposal that you made. I am interested about becoming a copyright clerk, and have nominated myself to become one at the appropriate page. Minima© (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Awesome! When I'm in volunteer mode, I'd love to take a look at it. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm? I didn't know that you had another account that signed in to the WMF. I thought I have never seen Maggie Dennis before, but I realize that it is the same account as Moonriddengirl! Minima© (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I should be aware of the potential confusion that can cause. :) I am currently switching "hats" between my volunteer and contractor roles, but occasionally try to answer questions on my talk page when I'm at "work". Sometimes I'm too lazy to log out and back in again. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I'd better make myself more clear here: I won't be doing sustained volunteer mode until the weekend, but this is top on my mental list. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
  The Moonridden Award
Because you help people. Asav (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! That's very kind of you, particularly because you do, too. :D Perfect picture. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted this edit as an IP was vandalizing your page. Take care and best, AJona1992 (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You beat me to the revert, AJona. I blocked the IP and protected another page they vandalized. It looks like they're still bitter over a two- or three-year-old dispute over a school. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ouch, well I'm glad that I can help. Hopefully s/he doesn't do it again. Take care, AJona1992 (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem, and they shouldn't do it again – at least not in the next 31 hours. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! I very much appreciate your keeping an eye out. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Rossi101

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking at the Banglapedia CCI because I saw that Wizardman had been making some contributions to it, and when I looked at one of the articles I had previously blanked, Architecture of Bangladesh, I noticed that the copyvio had been re-added by User:Rossi101. You have previously warned this editor but this copyvio was added after the warning. He's also received a few CSB notices and warnings since then. I think a block is necessary, but what durations should it have? Theleftorium (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) When a contributor does not contribute on a daily basis, as this one does not, I will usually begin with a block of at least several days duration, to as much as a week or two. Since he's been contributing heavily lately, I might start with 72 hours. I use User:Moonriddengirl/cblock as my block notice specifically, since it gives him something to read. I think this is important, because the next block should be indefinite. If he contributed more sporadically, I'd recommend indefinite now, because we have to have some assurance that he gets the point. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah, of course, I see! Blocked him for 72 hours. Will keep an eye on his contributions after the block. :) Theleftorium (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Mallian Campaign

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi are you able to check Mallian Campaign for a copyvio or plagiarism. I have done a search on Google with parts of the text and nothing comes back. But as you will see from the archaic language used there may be cause for concern. The editor is a newcomer who I BELIEVE is acting in good faith. Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"as was his wont"? I can see why you'd think so. :) I've gone back to the first edit of the article, as that is often the best place to check for copyvios of this sort. Some contributors paste material in and then modify it as they go. (The next place to check would be large additions after that.) I've done a spot check around the article, and I don't find any text matches. The source he is using in that edit is PD ([15]) (which would eliminate copyvio but not necessarily plagiarism), but I haven't been able to find any text matches. (Even as little a search as "no mood" found only one so-called match). My impression here is that we have a contributor who probably has a natural ear for language who is perhaps unconsciously imitating the cadence of the source he read, but somewhat imperfectly. There's a lot of redundancy in language that I doubt we'd have gotten from Dodge: "had decided to trade hostages/decided to combine their forces"; "raced out to prevent the junction/raced down to the area of concern"; "it was to this effect that he made a speedy campaign /was to this effect that he set about a sophisticated campaign". Added to the heavy use of "allegedly" (which word does not appear in Dodge at all), I think we have a retelling. :)
I'd really like to see some page numbers, though. When I look at content like this, I can exclude copying through google search, since the whole book is online ([16]), but I can't verify facts. For instance, there are 12 matches for the word ladders; not a single one of them seems to match up the events described under "Siege of the Multanese Citadel". But there's not a single match in the book for the word "Multan" (into which city, evidently, the Indians fled, and I've scanned through all 12 uses of the word "ladders" and found no incident matching the dramatic story told there. The incident is recounted in this PD source. I'm not at all sure he's accurately citing his sources. (Just to make clear, I did a spot check in Google books in general, but did not find matches to any other book, either. He doesn't seem to have used the Dodge book to source this section, at least, but I don't find copyvio from anywhere else.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for checking Jim Sweeney (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. :/ I've glanced at the article, and he's sourcing the information to pages on the book that it turns out are not published in Google. Because the list item on the Table of Contents is at page 343 and the list of illustrations only goes up to page 348, I assumed that page 352 (the last Google has) was the last. The "about" description of the book ([17]) says the book has 692 pages, though. (Can't imagine why the table of contents doesn't list anything later than 343.) If that's true and the page numbers he's citing are the ones he's using, I can't verify that he isn't closely paraphrasing after all. The thing to do might be to ask him to transcribe a few sentences from the source? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Will just keep a watch for now, until the page numbers asked for are filled in. Then I will be able to do a more thorough check. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just in case you don't notice, after your cleanup of Hasan Ali Khan, an old account which has previously complained about stub-ifying[18] is back to editing the article. Jesanj (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted and left a note to the user, but when I run across another messy article like that, is there a place I can go to request a fresh start as a stub? One I have in mind is Randy Evans as it is largely unsourced promotion, IMO. For kicks, briefly scan the original. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. :) There is not really a place to request that; while we routinely do it in copyright work, I think most other disputes are left to interested contributors to work out. If you think an article is unsalvageable, for instance, you might stub it yourself. Before doing that, though, I'd strongly recommend tagging the problems you have and broadcasting your intentions in advance. If people object, you can go through dispute resolution processes instead to fix the problems.
Thanks for explaining the sourcing needs on that BLP to the contributor. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Good news re boxofficeindia

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Got the following mail:

"Hi Shahid, I can't put it up on site as it would look odd but give me an email where I can send the permission."

Which mail is this? :) Shahid • Talk2me 13:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness! You would be such the hero!! :) (Actually, you're pretty heroic just for trying for it. :D) The e-mail address is permissions-en wikimedia.org. Please ask them to use Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and let me know if you find out that they've sent the letter. It's a complex ticket, and I'd love to help out with it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned you on a talk thread

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You may be interested in the thread at Talk:2011_land_acquisition_protests_in_Uttar_Pradesh#Synthesis, with regard to the close paraphrasing issue. Disclaimer: I and some others have been having all sorts of disagreements with the contributor over the last few days at Talk:Kurmi and elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like the close paraphrasing question has been resolved. If clarity is needed there at any point, please let me know. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Sorry, I got carried away & omitted to update you. I've been having all sorts of issues with the user in question & rather thought that it would blow up yet again. - Sitush (talk) 07:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Kumarapuram massacre

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am re doing this article after many years and felt it needed additional information. So I took basic information from Madhu church shelling which was also contributed by me and began using the background information section in Kumarapuram massacre. The first edit was a copy paste diff. Please look at it now and see, whther I have made enough change to it. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) There should be absolutely no problem with this content as a result of copying it from one Wikipedia article to another when you are the only contributor to it. I've looked at Madhu church shelling, and that passage was substantially unchanged from the day you created it. Since you own the copyright, you can do whatever you like with it, including putting it into other articles.
This would only be complicated, as you obviously know, if somebody else had substantially changed the content. Even then, you can still use the text in another article. All you'd have to do would be to put something like this in the edit summary: "Content copied from [[Madhu church shelling]], which see for attribution." As long as you give credit to Wikipedia's authors, you can reuse their stuff. That's part of our overall plan. :)
It's possible, though, that I'm misunderstanding your question and that what you mean is that the first edit was a copy paste of another source, outside of Wikipedia? If that's the case, I'd need to know which source to compare them. It certainly doesn't seem to copy content from the source that is cited. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, you understood my question very well. Regards Kanatonian (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Compatibility (or lack thereof) between CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I posted these comments, but afterwards I thought I should check with someone more knowledgable in the area (i.e. you) to confirm. Am I right that work licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA is not compatible with Wikipedia's CC-BY-SA license? Singularity42 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(stalker) You are 100% correct, which is why we don't allow people to upload CC-BY-NC-SA pictures from Flickr to Commons. I think it is because of the Share-Alike clause, meaning that we would have to release the information (or image) under the same or a similar license. Since we allow commercial works to use anything they want (pretty much), the SA clause would be violated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Crisco 1492! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help re: image, please.

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Would love to be able to use this as a free image:

auction archived
photo front archived
photo back archived

The auction says the photo was taken by Doug McKenzie and claims his photographer's mark is on the photo back. I don't see anything that looks like an ID mark-see notes re: when and where it was taken and those in the photo.

Similar photos are found at:

Perry Como: A Biography and Complete Career Record page 145 No credit for the photo given.
similar shot #1 No credit.
similar shot #2 No credit.

Know the November 1974 date and where it was taken are correct and that it appears all photos were taken by the same photographer, but see nothing definite re: Doug McKenzie being that person. Is it possible to use this as a free image, and if so, what would the license be since it was taken in the UK?

Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

(stalker) Considering that none of the sources show the original's back, it would be rather difficult to be certain. This is not very different than [the second page, so I'd be careful when considering them as separate. The biography is not very good at sourcing its images (most of them are unsourced), so I would not consider the lack of sourcing to indicate a lack of knowledge of the photographer's name. To be safe, I'd suggest not using it under a free license. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help--much as I'd like to use the photo, I don't want to put another non-free in the article, so will have to pass on it. We hope (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Please accept my thanks, too, Crisco 1492. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

David A. Huffman update

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, the current version of Talk:David A. Huffman/Temp is good enough to be merged with the old article. I left some more notes and questions on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 July 5, including a potential new copyvio in articles history. Can you have a look? -- SchreyP (messages) 21:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Doing so right now, since otherwise it will get lost in the week's work. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  Done :D Hearty thanks to you, SchreyP, expressed more effusively at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you Moonriddengirl for your guidance and motivation in solving the copyvio problem of David A. Huffman -- SchreyP (messages) 19:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You and WikiAlpha

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

See User talk:28bytes#I want to comment at ANI. You have to explain this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Goodness me, ever tried assuming a little good faith? MRG's involvement there was in the early stages where WikiAlpha seemed like just another "deleted articles" mirror, they seemed open to dialogue over the licensing issues etc. Demanding an explanation from someone who is almost certainly far more qualified to know about the legal issues of copyright/attribution and community trust than you are isn't particularly good manners ;). Instead of jumping in, with half the story, on a witch hunt, perhaps a polite note asking for clarification would have been nicer? no? I am sure M can fight her own battles :) but I've seen your "concerns" in two places already this morning and you need to think/research a little before you leap. --Errant (chat!) 07:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Jasper, we've been over a very similar area before.[19] C'mon man, I'm disappointed that we're still dealing with issues like this. Take my advice from that diff: "Being welcoming and friendly right off the bat tends to illicit more positive responses than negative." Trust me, it will serve you well, even with experienced users. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In accordance with Terms of Use, text developed by any member of the Wikimedia community must be attributed in one of the following fashions:

a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors.

Hyperlinking to the page is not helpful when the page has been deleted, and there is no alternative, stable copy including the history of the document; therefore, a list of all authors, obtained by copying the "history" of the article is the only alternative for reusers. (I've linked to "history" because your note above that I'm offering to "provide copies of deleted articles" is inaccurate enough to suggest that you're not familiar with what a "history" is and thus drew that conclusion from my offer to "resurrect any histories" they needed.) Providing them the history ensures that Wikipedia's contributors get the attribution they are legally due for any content which they reproduce; the fact that they indicated willingness to do this makes them better by far than most of the websites listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors.

You see this? This is the kind of thing I did for WikiAlpha and what I volunteered to do more of in the link that troubles you.

That said, I routinely offer to provide copies of articles deleted to people, too (barring the kind of policy violations that prohibit it) and would provide them to WikiAlpha contributors as well, so long as they're contributors in good standing on Wikipedia. The very last category on my page announces that I am among "Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles" There's 157 of us, which could make for a much larger ANI discussion. :)

You're welcome to bring my comment up at ANI (although I guess you're under some kind of mentorship or wouldn't have asked for permission), if you don't think my willingness to help them correct attribution issues was visible enough at the last one. I see they're talking about attribution issues with them again within this thread. What I've done with them is completely transparent, and I am quite confident entirely above board. You can see the genesis of my involvement at the village pump, where I very publicly announced my intention to help them in exactly the way I did.

If you have any lingering confusions about any of this, you're welcome to ask more questions.

Meanwhile, I'll be dropping some recommendations for complying with WP:CIVIL in evaluating things that concern you at your talk page, since it's a different subject. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, thank you for your thorough explanation to Jasper. I am sorry that he phrased his concerns as a demand that you explain yourself, and that I wasn't online to explain your work to him prior to him opining on it here and on Jimbo's talk page. Hopefully your helpful AGF reminder to him on his talk page will help prevent this sort of this in the future. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem at all. :) I'm always happy to explain my action, but I do think it's important that Jasper phrase his concerns correctly. I'm not given to drama myself, but coming out swinging can be disruptive. "In bad faith" might certainly be taken as fighting words. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A vent was all that is, sorry for that rant.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
As I recently commented at Jimbo's page, I think it is absolutely appropriate - and perhaps necessary - to provide attribution histories to whomever is interested, regardless of the article and regardless of the third party, because otherwise Wikipedia might no longer be truly free content. You deserve general thanks for being helpful. Wnt (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. :) I think your idea there is an interesting one. And thank you, Jasper Deng, for the apology. If you feel a vent coming on, it may be best to walk it off first. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Quick question...

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Now, I don't use WikiAlpha, (I never really have, since the articles I read are most likely not to be deleted) but I just wish to know how you manage to get the pages that you have on WikiAlpha there. Do you use the Special:Export page? Do you simply copy the text off here, and paste it to WikiAlpha? Also, I think it would be best to attempt to have all extensions that Wikipedia has installed to be added to WikiAlpha, even though a few may not be possible to add. Not to make it more like a mirror, but simply to make sure that any page content you legally have there is going to show up correctly. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know how they're doing it. I'm not involved with WikiAlpha beyond supplying them some attribution histories for content they had already exported. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Well in that case, sorry if I was doing anything wrong by asking this. P.s. For some odd reason, I feel like wanting to {{trout}} you. (I've already trouted one admin, but that admin had the {{troutme}} thing on their user page) LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You didn't do anything wrong by asking. :) I just don't know the answer. (Sorry for replying from my work account; I don't want to take the time to log out and back in again.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I can probably answer this question. It appears WikiAlpha uses a bot to pull articles currently listed at AfD. The bot copies the wikitext and pastes it into a new article on their site. Copied articles are placed in a special Deleted: namespace, where they're cleaned up (mainly in the form of removing unused templates) before moving them to the main namespace, and edited further as necessary. (I'm not affiliated with WikiAlpha, this is all based on my observations during the initial licensing dispute.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Good observations. :) Thanks for explaining the process. I'm afraid I went at it only with an eye to help attribute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Something funny...

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Nothing is more fun than removing the {{user recall}} template use tag from a user page of someone who both does not, and never has had administrator as one of their usergroups. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I did, in fact, check the "all user logs" page for user rights change. LikeLakers2 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
That is pretty odd. :) People sometimes create their own userpages by copying material from somebody else's. I wonder if that's what happened there? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Guess what? I found a page that has userboxes like that. Compare User:SpacemanSpiff to User:Ajayville, and you'll see what I mean. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, it was copied from my page, including the Userbox that Drmies added when he passed one of my GA candidates! —SpacemanSpiff 18:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And no, I'm not trying to get him banned, but if what he did requires a ban, then so be it. I just figured I'd share a little piece of something I did today. LikeLakers2 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it doesn't require a ban. :) It's peculiar, but not forbidden. (Although copying text from somebody else's page without permission is a licensing issue and generally seems to be regarded as rude.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion needed!

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, i was advised to consult you on a particular matter. I request you to provide your opinions here. Thank you. Joyson Noel Holla at me! 18:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Regard to vandalism...

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir again. Sorry for giving you trouble, but the following IP user User:188.222.139.134 has keep vandalizing the following articles again and again, Vaidehi, Kya Hadsaa Kya Haqeeqat, Kehta Hai Dil, and Pallavi Kulkarni. His/her edits have been reverted several times, but he/she keeps blanking content. Several users have tried explaining to him/her under talk page but I think it is no use. Can you please block him/her. The IP address is User:188.222.139.134. Thank you!Survir (talk) 23:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Survir. :) It seems like User:Materialscientist got to it before I got the message. He's blocked them for a week. Hopefully, they'll get the message. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Clerks.
Message added 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have made a response over there. Minima© (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for input

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, long time no see. I was wondering if you would be interested in giving an opinion regarding the copyright status of File:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg, which is currently being nominated for Featured Picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. The copyright status and has been a concern for a while, since the first nomination at least. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I have offered input, but nothing definitive I'm afraid. The input I have comes from an essay published at multiple points that indicates that the lapsing into PD of the black and white photograph of a painting does not place the original in PD, but there is no authority cited for it. It was written by an IP lawyer, but before he had completed his education. Complex. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help; based on the file's talk page, this debate has raged for 5 years or so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure if you're watching the page, so I'll just let you know that there is a reply at the nominations page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I've added a response there, but I'll just expand here that I don't have a strong opinion on this, I'm afraid. :/ This is one of those situations that, until tested by a court, we may just not know how the court will stand on it. If something like this came up at WP:CP (and it wouldn't, because I got images removed from that board a long time ago in part because they are far from my strong point), I would take it to WT:C to gather consensus and handle it according to that. I don't think that this is one that our lawyers could even answer clearly, unless they could find precedent or current expert opinion, but I can ask them, if you like. (I kind of think that User:Clindberg would have found precedent if it existed; I don't always agree with his conclusions on copyright, but I have a strong respect for his knowledge and research skills. :)) That said, if I encountered this situation as an editor without any knowledge of the particulars, I would not nominate that image for copyright review...not unless I myself had stumbled upon precedent or current expert opinion. :) It's just too nebulous a situation for me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thank you very much. Thank God I didn't follow through with my childhood plans to become a lawyer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Me, too! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is an interesting story on plagiarism in "Brief news". Eeek.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow! It's really interesting to me the way different cultures handle plagiarism. Germany obviously takes it pretty seriously. :) But there are some countries where copying from Wikipedia without attribution seems like no big deal; I've seen government websites do it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Selangor Turf Club

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi MRG, my go-to copyrightgirl, will you please have a look at the history of the article for this illustrious club and tell me if I went about it correctly? You know this tool (and only this one) is somewhat new to me. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just about. :) You forgot the first one, where the copyvio entered. (I took care of it.) Otherwise, spot on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Ooops--thanks for setting me straight. There must have been something wrong with my eyes anyway, since I didn't draw the connection between the now-blocked editor's account and the name of the article. Good thing this is a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Good think we have rev-deletion now! I would never have expected this to be a repeating problem when it was first cleaned up. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio Eddie Anderson (comedian)

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I started working with the article yesterday--was continuing to add information and refs when I hit the "minefield". Quite a bit of this has been copied and pasted from Hollywood Walk of Fame-Eddie Anderson. Do I need to tag this, etc., or can I just start removing/rewriting the sections in violation? Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The damage goes back to 2006 dif and continued in 2007 from separate sources dif. We hope (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Have removed & rewritten the copyvio sections. We hope (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sorry for my delay in response; I often find I don't make my hoped-for "afternoon check in". I should update my hours to reflect that.
In terms of the approach you took, it is absolutely fine for handling a copyvio you encounter. You have the option when you encounter a copyright problem to tag it or to simply fix it. I am inclined to tag when I think that permission may be plausible or that there could be reason to believe that the content was placed by the copyright holder. I am also inclined to tag it when I think that the article is likely to be contentious (and the content can't simply be removed), because as the admin who has traditionally handled the bulk of text copyvios I need to stay uninvolved. If I rewrite Article that nobody can agree on and then delete the older versions, people are likely to perceive me as using my tools to promote a POV. If somebody else rewrites it, I have no perceived conflict in replacing the copyvio version with it. If people complain it isn't neutral, I sympathize and tell them to {{Sofixit}}. :D
Another time when the tag may be a better choice is when the copyrighted content has become so embedded in the article that there is no chance of fixing it without rewriting it completely and you are not able to rewrite it completely.
That said, in this case, I think we have a "backwards copy" situation. It always raises a red flag for me when content from one source seems to be added over a span of time by two different editors, as you note seems to be the case above. Here there is other evidence of natural evolution. The external site includes the middle name; this was added to our article in 2007 by another contributor, while the next day somebody else corrected his first name. Later that year, somebody else added the reference to the racehorse, here, although it was not yet in the lead as it would come to be later (and as it is in the source). (That was changed at the end of 2008 by another contributor]. Tell-tale evidence that this was not copied; somebody else later corrected the description of the horse as "who". :) It looks as though that website copied our lead paragraph in its entirety at some point after December 2008 and used the rest of the article heavily in composing their own text. I'll go ahead and place the tag at the talk page noting the situation.
When you aren't sure who had it first, rewriting is always appropriate, in accordance with our copyright policy. Better safe than sorry. :) And, of course, there's no reason to restore the content as it was if you are happy with your changes (although you *can* do so). Just a natural part of article evolution. :D
Thanks for your diligence with the issue! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
And thank you for your input! Believe it or not, have found a newspaper photo of him with the horse. :D We hope (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Great idea the new wikilove option. Hopefully it will see more praise and less belligerence on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. :) I think it was a great idea Ryan had, and I've used it several times myself. :D While I sometimes use standard barnstars (especially the copyright one), I do like to make up my own. I'm glad that it's been fixed to let you use your own images. Anyway, I'll pass along your praise; I'm sure it'll be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Oil mafia of Maharashtra -- been close to a month and the date page has been archived but the article hasn't been addressed yet. It's from a CCI; I'll be off for a few days so I might not be able to reply quickly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh! I guess we still don't have a functioning bot that relists articles that are inadvertently closed without handling. :( I need to look into that, but when on earth am I going to get the time? :P (Moonriddengirl grumbles). Looking at the article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio John Fritz Medal repaired

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Moonriddengirl, I found and repaired the copyvio in article John Fritz Medal. It is ready to be moved back to main article space, including history merge. More details on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 July 19. -- SchreyP (messages) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Just as a tip for the future, it's probably a good idea to note at the copyright problems board when there is a second source as in this case. It's still early for me, but I was confused until I reviewed the talk page as to the problem with the earlier edits. :D I appreciate your careful evaluation there. It would have been easy to revert the latest copyvio and miss the original! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Outing, privacy issues, office deletions

Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

Hello !Some time ago the article about this heraldic artist has been vandalized in numerous ways and reverted to the least preferable version before it was 'frozen' .Now, I believe it's pausing in the 'legal queue'- the term I honestly don't understand .As one of the editors I demanded administrators to review past versions of the article to determine who and how violated Wiki policy on biographies of living persons.Unfortunately,administrators who are not specialists in the field will not be able to decide on what is truth and what is not. It's very unfortunate that false information instead of being removed immediately stays on page open to the readers.Additionally ,the photo files cause copyright concern, as they have been clearly taken from the Facebook pages. It's the second time the article is about to be deleted ,as the person who started it at first for some unknown reason demanded to delete it ,with no regard for the work done by other editors who contributed time and efforts to develop and resource it properly. I'll be grateful for a moment of your attention payed to this issue .Werbena (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) If you're talking about a picture other than here, please link to it. If you mean that one, it's okay. Facebook routinely and openly copies Wikipedia; it says on that page "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
"Legal queue" refers to a division of the volunteer response team where issues are evaluated by volunteer or Wikimedia Foundation staff specialists in legal issues. It was locked to give them time to look at a letter that WMF received to determine if they needed to take any action. I believe that the letter has been pushed back prior to its review for handling in the regular division of the e-mail response on request of the initial agent. I am not the member of the volunteer response team working on the issue, but only applied protection for the duration of the legal review. (Sorry if this is confusing; if you're not familiar with the work of the e-mail volunteer response team, it might be harder to follow.)
Articles are not deleted on demand without compelling reason; the first time the article was deleted because the community held a discussion and agreed that it did not belong: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stewart Jamieson. The person who requested the deletion was not the creator of the article, although I don't know if the article's creator also encouraged deletion without reading back in the history. It's really not important, though; what matters is how the community responds to the request.:) The community in this case evidently did not feel that sourcing that had been located was sufficient and no additional sources were found sufficient to satisfy concerns. If the article is to be deleted again (I don't see an active request), it would have to be in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your time.The recorded content of discussion held by the community prior the first deletion of the article in October explains why did it happened.Unfortunately, only one of the editing administrators XANDERLIPTAK was held responsible for deletion and additionally again falsely accused of vandalizing the new version.It's regrettable that the heraldic community is loosing an active editor who was capable to understand both -heraldry and Wikipedia's policy.The rumor has it that he was removed from the circle of editors.
The source of my concern are not pictures from the Wikipedia ,the free encyclopedia being used somewhere else , but the pictures from pages on Facebook submitted to Wikipedia ,as I believe it happened in case at least these two [File:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:76652_1677843787488_1279290793_1824387_1031840_n.jpg] and [File:http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/File:165115_1766049632579_1279290793_2008032_2276894_n.jpg]

Werbena (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear; what I need is the link to the images as they are published elsewhere. Can you link to the images on Facebook, other than in the one copied from Wikipedia?
User:Xanderliptak was not an administrator (if you want to know who is, see Wikipedia:List of administrators). He is indeed unwelcome on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, but it's nothing to do with this. Very kind of you to concern yourself with his reputation, but this article will not make much difference there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm well aware of this editor's reputation :),but I still believe that it is my moral obligation to react whenever I feel the accusations may be unfair.User:Dave Pritchard is listed as one of possible Xanderliptak sock puppets.As to my best knowledge Mr David Pritchard is an active member of the American Heraldry Society and I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally was taking part in editing articles on Wikipedia .An assumption that User:Xanderliptak and User:Dave Pritchard is the same person is far too far going and even further damaging .In fact it was Dave Pritchard who first questioned copyrights consent of Mr Jamieson's picture uploaded by the creator of the deleted page User:Wesley Phillips.After my intervention -the picture file was not deleted but just casually renamed by another piloting editor ,so it would meet Wikipedia's coding system,but by doing this the real source of the image was erased.(Facebook fan page which nota bene has been deleted due to the violation of FB policy I guess).Someone forgot that the consent of the subject in the picture- in this case Mr Jamieson in his private studio -should be sought before uploading an image and this was never questioned by any of administrators.So,unfairly obtained image ridiculing the artist's profile not only was welcomed on Wikipedia , but even now after the deletion of the article along with the picture ,thanks to the link between Commons and Facebook it exists in this largest social network .I guess some aspects of copyrighting policy were seriously overlooked. Werbena (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
As I recall, Dave Pritchard was connected to Xanderliptak after uploading a number of Xander's images to Wikipedia. I'm sorry if Mr. Pritchard was unfairly labeled; it's unfortunate that Xander's previous use of sock accounts makes others suspect. :/ I see that the article in question was deleted after all, so the legal team must have evaluated the concerns. If the talk page is gone, that should deal with any confusions about Xander's behavior there, I guess? Facebook takes a while to update once a page has been deleted, but given that this one was deleted for "Office" reasons, I'll make sure staff knows to check if the Facebook page is still there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The article in question was deleted ,indeed.Twice and on each occasion for a different reason.First version didn't meet the notability requirements ,the second one because of the defaming content that raised legal issues and this resulted in filing a formal complaint.On both occasions I monitored the development of proposed articles and so far I'm convinced that only in deletion in September Xanderliptak played a role.

I contributed my quite well resourced version of the article which was properly linked with other Wikipedia's entries when Wesley Phillips suggested that 'there is no point in making an effort since Xanderliptak will come and destroy it'.Where this conviction originated I have no idea, but I guess it's the same approach as demonstrated by User:Roux in discussion on User talk:Dave Pritchard -'Since you're ALMOST CERTAINLY user :Xanderloptak'and further 'You know who I am , Alexander '.There is a significant difference between knowing something for certain and being almost certain ,just guessing or bending the reality to meet our presumptions. I jotted down the IP number of the user 173.24.119.169 who placed some tags with a clear intention to develop the article toward its improvement not destruction ,so accusation of vandalism is false.Wesley Philips linked this IP number with Xanderliptak drawing similarity with IP 173.24.117.126 additionally disclosing Xander's personal data including his address. This is clearly forbidden by the Wikipedia's policy. Thank you Moonriddengirl for being so patient and paying attention to the issue:) Greetings! Werbena (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I wish to point out that I'm responsible for the page removal, and it will not be reestablished. There is no point in pursuing this matter any further, so I ask that it be closed. Asav (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Asav, the conversation has value on its own. :) Werbena pointed out that Facebook had not taken down its own version of the page and thus it was still in publication. Staff was able to request Facebook to update, and that page is now gone. Considering that the bulk of conversation seems to be unrelated to the specific article, but rather to Werbena's concerns about treatment of a specific other editor, I think that closure is unnecessary. You needn't worry that I'll be revealing any privileged information from those e-mail threads, as I didn't even read them. :) I generally like to be open for cordial conversation on any matter of concern to other Wikipedians.
Getting back to it, Werbena, we have an approach to sock puppetry here that surely does sometimes result in misidentification; see WP:QUACK. Sometimes people go too far in applying this and assume that "reasonable doubt" is the same as certainty. Linking an IP to a named editor can be a problem, but fortunately with Xander there's no issues with disclosing his personal data, as Xander was not shy about revealing IP information: see this edit. Geolocation tool places those IPs in the same area. That would make the "duck" test much more reasonable there, given the connection of interest. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Moonrieddengirl ! I know that deleted page can not be recreated without special permission from the WMF office and the content would be protected but considering the fact that office actions are extremely rare I'm just curious how does it work.Both mentioned IP addresses 173.24. are pointing to the Middletown, New York while Alexander Liptak and Mr Pritchard reside in two other different states ,meaning different ISP ...Werbena (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Information on ISPs is not available to most users, but a checkuser did confirm that Xander and Dave Pritchard were on the same ISPs. Just to be clear, this is not the same thing as an IP. :) ISP; IP. I don't know what IP the latter was using, but Xander himself said that 173.24.117.126 was his, in the link I provided above. He also said so here. I'm afraid I can't explain how that comes to be his IP address if he lives in a different state; perhaps he travels? In any event, we have to take his word that the IP was his, particularly since he was not yet blocked and since the IP in question did intersect with him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Editors who want to use more than one account for some reasons are allowed to do this under Wikipedia's policy under the condition that they will provide links between them on the respective user page ,with an explanation and this is what I guess Xander did...if I understand this correctly.In my mind revealing his alternative account username to redirect eventual messages from one user talk to another one would be a fine thing to do...And this is as far as it goes :)Thank you Moonriddengirl for your assistance .Very much appreciated ,specially by a newbie like me on WP Werbena (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but that's unrelated to the issue. :) The point I'm trying to make is that you need not be concerned that "Wesley Philips linked this IP number with Xanderliptak drawing similarity with IP 173.24.117.126 additionally disclosing Xander's personal data including his address. This is clearly forbidden by the Wikipedia's policy." There is no policy issue here as Xander himself identified 173.24.117.126 as his, and this Geolocates to the same area as 173.24.119.169. Whether that is or is not Xander's location, it is Xander who said it was. Wesley Philips has disclosed nothing that Xander did not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, maybe I was not very precise - when I referred to the address disclosed by Wesley Phillips- I meant Xander's postal address ,concrete location,city and state as well as an Internet Provider, as far as I remember.There was a suggestion as well, that IP address is the same with which A.L logs into some kind of forum ...only strange abbreviations were given .And if I'm concerned with anything it's this fact that a strange editor dared this researched info place in a public, or at least accessible to other users edit summary.Werbena (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I didn't understand that. The article and it's talk page are both gone, and I don't see any sign of outing elsewhere on Wikipedia (I can't do anything about it if it's off Wiki). :) If you have a link on Wikipedia to where private information about Xander is still published, please let me know, and I'll get rid of it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you,I didn't find anything else but again the comment left by Wesley Phillips on User talk:MSGJ in regard of Andrew Stewart Jamieson article ,this time referring to my action I find disturbing.Again, I was accused of providing requested references and linking article about artist with another article that I wrote about Anthony Wood,heraldic artist and Mr Jamieson's teacher.Phillips went on editing for months ,spacing text , moving photos and preserving the link to Anthony Wood,XVII century antiquary !Maybe this is a main reason why from a passive Wikipedia reader I became an active editor myself :))I think ,that I need to submit the statement confidentially right to Mr Philippe Beaudette who reviewed the controversial edits.Thank you Moonriddengirl for your far going commitment and help.Werbena (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Certainly you can submit your statement to Philippe, but you should be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation takes a pretty hands off approach to the daily running of the project, as it's handled usually by the volunteer community. Office deletions of the sort that happened here are very rare. (BTW, I should reiterate, as it says on my user page, that I'm not at all speaking on behalf of the Foundation here, but in my capacity as a volunteer. :) In terms of Wikipedia's approach, we would usually recommend that you speak to the contributor to voice your discomfort directly (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution), but the contributor doesn't seem to be actively editing anymore and the comment is almost a month old. I think most contributors would recommend you disregard it and focus on editing other things. But you can always ask for a second opinion at WP:WQA. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about scanned images

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hey MRG, on another editor's talk page a copyright question came up: if an image is PD - say an illustration in a book that is out-of-copyright, and Google scans that book for Google Books, is the resulting image still PD? Somewhere along the line, I got the impression that whoever did the scan could claim a copyright on the scan itself (though not the original image, of course). LadyofShalott 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Heh, I participated in that other discussion! MRG, I said that they are PD because of WP precedents like {{PD-art}}, but I'm open to other interpretations. However, I think a better argument would have said "sweat of the brow" is not part of US copyright law. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The general rule, as cited in the template you reference Ed, is that a mere technical copy does not have sufficient originality to be protected under U.S. copyright law. The leading case is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Google often acknowledges that their works are PD but merely requests that they be given credit. This topic comes up all the time at Wikisource and, by extension, at Commons. We normally remove the front page with the Google text on it (unless we're uploading direct from the source via the toolserver) and sometimes mention at commons that it came from googlebooks but that's so that people can look for other copies of works than to give Google any credit.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
If Google is actually claiming a copyright, it would be good to provide a link so others can see the work before it's uploaded - you might consider doing that anyway. And of course, if it's PD it should go to Commons.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Ably answered, I see. :) Thank you. And just for some insight on our history with this issue, National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute makes for good reading with respect to local take on this issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, thank you all for your input! I stand corrected. :) LadyofShalott 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments2 people in discussion

Hi! I'm sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you'd take a quick look at a past version of an article and the current version and let me know how I've done at cleaning up some paraphrasing. Thankfully I didn't catch any flak, but was still inwardly nagged by it so I've tried to fix the perceived problems.

The article in question is potcake dog -- this is the version I was especially concerned about (it was also the version that received GA status, which is hopefully an indication that I wasn't dangerously close!). It was the first article I wrote and I tried to avoid inadvertently changing the meaning, which I worry resulted in a "franken-article" of sorts. In retrospect, I'm concerned that it was too close to the sources it cited. Some parts rely on a single source and I can't be sure I was diligent enough in restructuring the content. Certain sentences and phrases are especially difficult to retool or can't be written in a "novel" manner.

Thanks in advance, I appreciate it. :) Anna talk 04:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. I'll be happy to take a look and give my opinion on that a bit later today. I've got a few things I've already promised to take care of first. If something unexpected should come up and I should overlook it today, please feel free to remind me. I don't think that'll happen, because my schedule today looks relatively relaxed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks (just making sure this doesn't get archived yet). Anna talk 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi again -- I hope I'm not being a terrible pain but I was wondering if this had been passed over somehow, as it's now the oldest thread left on your talkpage. Thought I'd let you know I haven't forgotten, though there's absolutely no hurry (or obligation) on your part. Thanks again. Anna talk 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, thank you! It slipped my mind! I'm just back in from traveling for the weekend, but hope to be able to catch up in a few hours. Sorry! Please don't ever worry about bugging me by bringing something back to my attention. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Looking at this right now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the article and the sources, and I think it's probably okay. I used the duplication detector as well; it's not so good at Frankenarticles, but it didn't find any significant runs of duplication. I can see why you were concerned; there are a few passages that may be a bit borderline, but I didn't see anything that I felt compelled to revise. I am sorry for the delay in this; I do appreciate your reminding me. :) Things are a bit hectic for me at the moment. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you were looking at the new version, while the old version is (was?) quite a bit worse -- is that correct? -- so I'll keep revising it for now. Thanks so much for taking a look at this; I appreciate it. Anna talk 14:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I looked at both versions and am assessing the current. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm still quite worried, especially about the previous version which was horrid, but I suppose there's nothing that I can do about that now. I can try to rewrite the article without looking at it but I'm afraid that some of it is burned into my brain; perhaps it should be delisted until/unless I'm able to fix it. Again, I appreciate that you looked over the article. Anna talk 01:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, there's something we can do about it. We can delete the revisions that were horrid, if you're heavily concerned about it being inadvertently restored or something. I don't think the article constitutes the current concern, though, that you seem to think it does. :/ I did see some similarity, but not so much that I would feel compelled to do something about it, even to tag it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Chances are I'm not looking at it in a detached way -- I feel very ashamed, of course, as I'd hope anyone else would. In any event, I understand that you're busy and will rewrite it to the best of my ability and be on my way. Thanks for the help. Anna talk 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I've now attempted to fix all outstanding issues with the page by altering the structure and presentation a fair amount. Anna talk 05:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel ashamed! I don't think you should. :) There's a difference between deliberately plagiarizing or compromising copyright and inadvertently doing it, especially in the pursuit of a goal like "verifiability". Wikipedia even recognizes this in our good faith policy--WP:AGFC. Over the years at Wikipedia and well before hand, I've spent a lot of time helping people master paraphrasing. It isn't always easy, even when they are motivated to do it. I admire the fact that now that you are aware of the issue you are so diligent about fixing it. (If sharing a story of my own ignorance will help, I remember when an irate website owner confronted me many years ago for hotlinking to something on his website in a blog entry. I was absolutely clueless about bandwidth or any other issues that this might cause. I apologized, took it down and (then better educated) never did it again. I did something wrong, but not shameful--and I reacted correctly when I was informed. And all this said, there's also the possibility that my definition of shame is different than yours, and you don't mean the word "ashamed" as strongly as I would, in which case I should just stop talking. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, it does. The worst part is that I know that changing a few words around doesn't void copyright, and whatever I did was "(terribly) bad paraphrasing" and not "pasting a passage in and rewording it". I'm surprised at how many established editors -- those with more academic credentials than I, for one -- have contributed very close paraphrases, so I suppose it's not the rarest issue out there. Since I wrote that article in April, I've not looked at sources and have written from memory, going back to make sure that the facts check out. Still: "On March 21, 1967 the Treeing Tennessee Brindle Breeders Association was formed and recognized as a legal organization by the state of Illinois." -> Article: "On March 21, the Treeing Tennessee Brindle Breeders Association was established in Illinois." That's not a very unique sentence structure and I arrived there by chance, using a single source, but I suppose someone could take issue with it nonetheless.
Does potcake dog look alright (better) now? diff (still needs copyediting, but I'll get to that) Just want to be absolutely sure. :) Anna talk 03:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue with member -- Weijiya

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I am having an issue with someone who has re-worded or misinterpreted a book. Basically they put down what they wanted and kept the original source which quoted something completely different. The user is User: Weijiya. This person has edited quite a few pages including Catherine Parr -- taking out correct, quoted, and copyrighted information to better suit his views while making it seem that it came from the source in the inline citation (Starkey); they kept the inline citation and did not quote the book correctly, fabricated the sentence. Is there any way that we could get a lock or something on the Catherine Parr page and have only a select few that can edit it because this is becoming a real problem. We have already gone over this issue concerning Catherine Parr vs. Anne Boleyn lineage. It is rather taxing to keep fixing it because every month someone new comes along and believes something completely different without even reading or knowing a thing about Catherine Parr's history or lineage. I hope I don't sound rude, but I am extremely frustrated with this. You can't just change something to suit your needs or wants and then cite it from a book that says something completely different -- am I wrong? Isn't that considered illegal on here? It is a fabricated sentence manipulated from a copyrighted book to make the member's viewpoint seem like it is that of the author and book cited; that of David Starkey, one of the top Tudor specialists. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I understand how frustrating it is to have an article you care about it that is repeatedly degraded by false or misleading information. I've got a few of those I keep an eye on myself. But in keeping with Wikipedia's fundamental philosophy of open editing, very few articles are locked unless they are subject to ongoing vandalism or edit warring. (You can read the "protection" policy at Wikipedia:Protection.) The only form of protection that would have prevented from editing the article is full protection, which would prevent everyone who is not a system administrator from editing it. The community has resisted the idea of creating specialist levels for articles, which would create narrower categories who must approve content before publication. Upholding the vision of open editing is generally held to be a higher priority; the hope is that those who understand Wikipedia's methods and goals will help those who do not to learn them. When people will not learn, we sometimes must resort to blocking them individually (in accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking.)
I've looked at User:Weijiya's edits to the article, and it seems as though they were likely done in good faith: [20]. S/he removed reference to "Anne Boleyn", added some perhaps questionable information about Jane Seymour's status and strengthened the claim of better lineage. Jane Seymour's status isn't sourced to that book, but, interestingly, neither is the explicit comparison of Seymour's family lineage with Parr's mentioned on page 690. Google books will allow me to see that page, and Seymour isn't mentioned on the page at all. It may need to be clarified that Starkey did not make that explicit comparison or, if he did, on what page he did. :)
I am concerned, comparing the page to the source, though, that it seems to contain close paraphrasing of that source. For example:
Source
Actually, she was the daughter of a substantial northern knightly family that--like the Boleyns--had gone up in the world as a result of royal favour and successful marriages.
Article
Catherine Parr was the daughter of a substantial northern knightly family. Like the family of King Henry's second wife, the Boleyns, her family had gone up in the world as a result of royal favor and successful marriages.
I have not looked at other content, so I do not know how substantial this following is, but this material follows closely in language and structure on the original in a way that is out of keeping with Wikipedia's approach to copyrighted text. There is always a difficult balance in avoiding original research, but in accordance with copyright policy, information taken from copyrighted content must be presented in our own words, written from scratch, unless we are using direct and plainly marked quotation (per WP:NFC). Given your familiarity with the subject, might you be able to address this sentence and see if there are other ares where the article follows too closely on copyrighted sources?
Looking at User:Weijiya's other edits, it seems as though generally good information is being added without explicit source. His or her last edit, for instance, at Jane Austen was rejected for other reasons, but seems to have been factually correct. (I verified against a book reproducing a timeline of Jane Austen's life.) I'll have a word making clear that s/he needs to specify where the information is coming from to avoid the misimpression that it's coming from already cited sources. This is important because, as you say, we don't want to mislead our readers into thinking content is verified by a source where it is not. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The User:Weijiya basically wrote in his/her summary that Anne was a granddaughter of a Duke; Starkey's book doesn't mention anything about specific lineage -- so perhaps that needs to be worded better, but I don't see a way around it because someone will always come along on Catherine Parr's page disagreeing with that statement that "she had better lineage". That is correct about Jane Seymour -- I believe that statement may have come from Agnes Strickland's book. I did read that somewhere; comparing the paternal lineage of Sir Thomas Parr to that of Thomas Boleyn and John Seymour. I will see if I can find that again. I am not familiar with how to quote specific lines from a text -- I usually try to interpret them as best as possible and then end the sentence with an inline citation as to where the information came from. I'm not sure who re-worded the sentence about "Catherine was the daughter of a substantial northern...". Is there a better way to word that without quoting it? If you could point me in the direction of the Wiki page that deals with quoting from the source directly that would help with a lot of things. I could then add the conversation Cat had with King Henry after she learned that she was to be arrested. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The Wikipedia essay Wikipedia:Quotations contains pointers on various facets of quoting, including how and when to do it. :) It also has links to various guidelines that give more details on specific aspects, if you need more information. Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing offers some good suggestions for rewriting to avoid close paraphrasing. The point, though, isn't always to find a "better" way, but rather just a substantially different way. I find it helpful to rework a passage rather than an individual sentence, as reworking individual sentences is very challenging and can still wind up following too closely on the structure and organization of the original. :/ I think the way you handled that information in the article in your last edit looks fine. Basically, I try to take out the facts (which are not copyrightable), combine them with facts from other sources and compile them in a new way. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_37&oldid=1144607804"