→Question: Rd232 wrote "the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think." Rd232 should stop violating AGF and making personal attacks based on unsubstantiated allegations on my politics.
:OK, I see what you mean. I think that again that's because of it being a placeholder; if I'd intended the text to be permanent from just that material, I'd have written it differently, and it would have all been clearly attributed to Giannone in text, rather than just footnotes in some cases. Anyway, thanks for sorting this out. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:OK, I see what you mean. I think that again that's because of it being a placeholder; if I'd intended the text to be permanent from just that material, I'd have written it differently, and it would have all been clearly attributed to Giannone in text, rather than just footnotes in some cases. Anyway, thanks for sorting this out. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] <sup>[[user talk:rd232|talk]]</sup> 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::I can see how that would happen. :) Happy to expedite review. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 15:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::I can see how that would happen. :) Happy to expedite review. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 15:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Rd232 wrote "the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think." Rd232 should stop violating AGF and making personal attacks based on unsubstantiated allegations on my politics.
:::Rd232 still hasn't checked the scholarship of his source, despite my suggestion that he look at Bollen's articles.
:::Rd232 has not claimed to have read widely and deeply in the social-science literature on human rights and democracy or claimed to be a statistician. If he had 2% of my competence, he would recognize his use of an unreliable and politically biased source.
:::He is not alone in editing badly and then complaining when I correct his mistakes. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz|<font style="color:blue;background:yellow;"> '''Kiefer'''</font>]].[[User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz#top|Wolfowitz]]</span></small> 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply . Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time and 21:00 Coordinated Universal Time, on weekdays. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 17:41, 11 June 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Reminder: New Page Copyright Issue
Hi, earlier last month we were discussing how to best rewrite an article I was creating in order to answers copyright and notability concerns. I think I have fully addressed those concerns, but since the article had been removed once previously I was hoping to get your opinion before trying to re-create the page. I just wanted to give you a kind reminder that the proposed page is available on my user page. Thanks again for all of your time and assistance. It is sincerely appreciated.Win.monroe (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you for the reminder, although this is a little longer than I expected when I asked you to remind me again in a few days. :D I'm afraid that this is twice now that you've caught me traveling. I think the copyright concerns are addressed, but notability concerns are far more difficult to predict. It seems like, aside from primary sources, you've got two news articles--[1] and [2]? Can you find any more? I personally tend to be very conservative with that in terms of creating my own articles, and the more indepth references there are to this in secondary sources, the less likely you are to run into trouble! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly (especially after I dropped all wikipedia projects for an extended period while I was busy with school and work). I'm glad we've dealt with the copyright issue sufficiently. If any additional concerns come up on that front, I will be more than happy to help address them. In terms of notability, I will look for additional sources, but from my understanding the two articles are more than sufficient since they both discuss the topic in depth and detail and are from reliable sources independent of the subject. Should I hold off on creating the page for now? It seems to me that it is more likely (and probably more efficient) that if notability is generally established that the larger wikipedia community will add additional sources over time as the page evolves. Either way, I immensely appreciate your time and assistance. Win.monroe (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It really depends on how you read Wikipedia:ORG. I am, as I said, very conservative with that in terms of my own articles, so I may not be the best person to advise you there. :) I like really solid sourcing to verify notability before I create an article. I've seen plenty of people create articles with fewer sources than I would have wanted for myself and those articles do just fine. If you want to get additional feedback, you might try pointing to the article at WP:DBor following the steps being considered at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Changing Howto article: Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft.
There, in a conversation that is having low participation, User:Mabdul is recommending that we encourage people who have userspace drafts such as this one to get feedback by putting {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} on the page. That tag would invite another contributor (ostensibly one experienced in evaluating new articles for such concerns) to look at the article and, if they think it would stand, to move it to article space.
Since none of us has any special authority in this area, there's no guarantee that this would secure permanent publication of the article. My favorite article could be nominated for deletion tomorrow. :) But it would be helpful to see that at least one other person who has not been involved with you thinks it is guideline and policy appropriate. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for all of the information! I will follow up with some of your recommendations. Thanks again for your time and advice. Win.monroe (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corenbot crisis
New Page Patrol is a trainwreck and has been for a long time. It is most unlikely that the majority of those who purport to patrol new pages even bother to carry out the most simple of checks requested in the task list at WP:NPP. The only way to fix the copyvio problem is to turn New Page Patroller into a user right, for experienced editors only. CorenBot will just have to be fixed very urgently, while those of us in the minority who are admins and experienced users who occasionally have a stab at NPP, generally carry out the controls you suggested. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Thanks for letting me know. :) Coren says he's talking to Google about it, and I'm really hoping we can get up and running again. That bot is crucial, I think, to the operation of Wikipedia. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From my experience, NPP'ers usually pick up the obvious copy and paste stuff. CSB was good at the not so obvious potential copyvios.--NortyNort(Holla) 13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many NPPers can't tell the difference between A1 and A3, so they are probably a long way off recognising the ' obvious' signs of copyvio.Things should show a marked improvement when the new rule goes into operation next week to allow only autoconfirmed users to create new pages. FWIW, I've been patrolling the patrollers since Oct last year and I've come across about two (2) new pages that were manually and correctly tagged for copyvio. More recently, Corenbot was reporting a lot of false positives, such as phrases that are the long names of people or long titles of books and movies etc.
Is there a way of linking manually to the page comparison tool?
Do you mean linking the "duplication detector" tool which compares the two pages ([3]) in Corensearchbot's note? If so, once the search engine problem is fixed, that could be a good idea. Unless somebody had already done that and I've simply forgotten, which is possible. :D If you're talking about Earwig's tool for comparing a specific page to the internet ([4]), it's dead as well, since it used the same search engine as Coren's bot did. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I meant the duplication detector. Corenbot was a brilliant piece of equipment - probably the the best bot there ever was in the first line of defence against inappropriate new pages. It must have caught hundreds of pages every day. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bug you but I have a something I want a seond pair of eyes on. User:HighKing has been one of many parties involved with the disute over the inclusion/removal/alteration the term 'British Isles' from WP articles. This dispute is covered by WP:GS/BI. HighKing has a series of cautions from me about edits from June of this year to present[5][6]. He was formally warned to stop edit warring with user Stemonitis in the last 24 hrs (see[7]) and reverted him on a new article today spilling over from the dispute at the Myrmica_ruginodis article. However (and this might seem wonky but I know this action will creat a s**t-storm so I want 'all my ducks in a row') he questioned my warning and made this edit while I was in the middle of confirming that warning. Thus I want another uninvolved admin to review and give another POV on whether sanctions are warranted. I have come to the opinion that it has and have sanction TB01 (topic ban from article but allowed to discuss) from the list of remedies available at WP:GS/BI in mind. Sorry to dose this on you but I'd really appreciate some input--Caililtalk 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A history of this dispute can be seen at WP:BISE however it is a very long one--Caililtalk 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note also that HK as his self reverted - see here[8][9] - this hsould probably be taken into account but I would still like your POV on this--Caililtalk 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that this latest BIs 'drama' is intimately related to User:MickMacNee's recent 'departure', and his determination to pull down the tent before he left. RashersTierney (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry for my delay, but I sometimes have a hard time getting back on in the afternoon. :) I've got a doctor's appointment in a few minutes, and I'm going to need a little bit of time to look into this--I hope to be able to get back with you in about an hour. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Okay, first, this is obviously outside of my usual area. :) I agree with you that sanctions seemed called for (TB01 sounds like a good one) prior to the self-reversion. I don't know if the self-reversion is sufficient, because I do not know the editor's pattern as well as you do. Do you believe that (if MickMacNee was an aggravating factor) the contributor will be able to work within the general sanctions now? I gather from your earlier notes to him that you regard him as generally a productive contributor. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at his Moonriddengirl. In fairness to Rashers's point, MickMacNee did insert himself into a conversation about the harassment of HighKing (an ongoing problem on and off site) trying to cause trouble but I shut that down. So as regards this issue, MickMacNee has in no way shape or form been involved either with my review of HighKing's edits since June or with this last issue. He had no impact on the series of edits in question. I agree, the self reversion gives pause for thought - as it shows HighKing understands what the community's problem with this type of edit is. HighKing's contrib history, while not a single purpose account, is dominated by removals of the term British Isles. However, in the last 4-8 weeks the majority of those edits are explicitly mandated by policy. (There has indeed been action at least in the past by 'the other side' to insert the term in articles without sources. That said the confrontation with Stemonitis is not part of that dispute, as far as I can see Stemonitis is correct in his edits.) Perhaps there is another remedy that can be tried, a 0RR (zero revert restriction) for HighKing on the British Isles naming topic widely contrued. But before we go further with that - you've got mail. I'll come back to this again later tonight but thanks for your time and your thoughts, it's always good to thrash these things out with someone who's got a fresh eyes--Caililtalk 15:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've indefinitely blocked Arfaz (talk· contribs) for continued copyvio (following an OTRS complaint). He's edited/created a lot of articles which may need review. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to leave the computer so I don't have time to file the CCI right now, but this will hopefully save you some time Moonriddengirl if you want to go ahead and do it! Theleftorium(talk) 23:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am struggling to convince an experienced contributor on my talk page that GBooks is not the same worldwide. They cannot believe that this applies to out-of-copyright, "full view" books, with my point being that the book in question is not full view here in the UK even though it might be in India or wherever the contributor is. I tried pointing to Uncle G's essay and that hasn't worked; I even mentioned AGF. Bit of a mess, really, since this person seems to be claiming that their having had no previous sighting of this issue (in five years of experience and something to do with FAC) is a reason why I am doubted.
I have taken a screenshot to demo the GBooks page that I see but am unsure whether or not I can upload it, even for ten minutes or so. I rather think that FUR would have to be deployed. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(stalker) I don't think that it would be allowed, even with a FUR, as it is not for an encyclopedic purpose. Imageshack or something similar may work, but I'm not sure of their policies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. Issue now resolved. Why an experienced contributor could not AGF on the point is beyond me. But I guess that they have learned something. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that the contributor has learned something. I remember what a surprise it was to me when I found that out myself. :) In terms of the screenshot, I think Crisco 1492 is probably quite right. :/ You can always convey it via private e-mail if you and the other contributor are willing to talk that way next time. (Understood it is no longer needed here.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up
I've just done this. Not sure if it represents an ongoing pattern or not. LeadSongDogcome howl! 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for finding those problems and fixing them! I'll have a word with him about our procedures for using text from other sources and have made a note to myself to spot-check to see if this is a pattern over the weekend, when I have more time to volunteer. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your phrasing is much more diplomatic than mine. Cheers.LeadSongDogcome howl! 13:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of deleted article
please can I have a copy of the article 'Surveyjet.net' so I can put it on WikiAlpha. Thanks Alicianpig (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've userfied it for you and left a note at your userpage, in case you need to access procedural information after this one archives. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article concern
In your eminently knowledgeable opinion, is this article too close of a paraphrase of the bio from this website? From what I've compared there appears to be entire phrases lifted verbatim. The material was added in a series of edits beginning here. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a problem. :/ I've blanked the sections and left the requisite notice for the contributor (notwithstanding his recent retirement). (Boy, I hated that website! Why would somebody make something deliberately hard to read?) Thanks for picking up on that. I'm going to guess it was the highly polished turns of phrase that caught your eye. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The website was painful. I felt like I was caught in a really bad Saw knock-off and I'm not entirely convinced I didn't have a small seizure while reading it. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yoshiko chuma
hello moonriddengirl
I am the managing director of the dance company of Yoshiko Chuma, called The School of Hard Knocks. Several months ago, I submitted an article about Yoshiko Chuma, which you deleted since it resembled her webpage. I am also the author (uncited) of her website pages, so I would like to please request that the article about Ms Chuma be submitted to wikipedia again. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashadetroit (talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for your note. In order to restore the older versions of the article, we would need you to provide verification of license for the content at [15]. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.
However, I do need to let you know that it is unlikely that the community would decide to replace the current version (which is sourced to multiple references) with the prior content, which was brief and only referenced to her website. Wikipedia as a "tertiary source" prefers to draw content from secondary sources such as newspaper articles or magazine profiles or book references wherever possible. Certainly, though, we should be able to incorporate some content from the earlier into the current if permission is provided. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly copyright violation issues
Hi Moonriddengirl. I know you're the expert around here about investigating copyvios and related matters. If not you maybe a talk page stalker could investigate but it seems that The Cloud (poem) might have some copyvio material (text) added in it by Carl savich (talk· contribs). The (many) IPs that have been editing that article also appear to be "in" on it and may or may not be Carl whilst logged out. Killiondude (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. I've tagged and listed the article and given the contributor proper notice. He's had issues before, it seems. :/ Hopefully this will serve as a wake up call, because now that he's received the proper block notice, the next step is blocking. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Crisco and Maggie for the prompt action. :-) Killiondude (talk) 16:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on my talk page regarding the article I wrote on Anthony A. Mitchell. I have taken your suggestions to heart and have fully revised the text so that not a single sentence bares any resemblance to the original sources. Please review my updated text and offer comments on the new version. - Ken keisel (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recognising input for copyedit from User:LeadSongDog and User:Moonriddengirl, two of the above passages and respective input on the main page is also corrected. Thanks.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Albacore (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Albacore and Twinkle. :) I'm surprised this page has survived as long as it has. Chalk it up to some determined employees? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Argentinian government images
Is there a list somewhere here which tells whether images from websites of different national governments are public domain? The images at [16] would be possibilities for our new article on Hylesia nigricans, but I have no idea whether they are PD or not. Can you (or a TPS) enlighten me? LadyofShalott 23:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) There is no list I know of but the commons licencing page is very useful, so perhaps commons:COM:L#Argentina will help you determine what age such image for it to be PD. ww2censor (talk) 03:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I would guess that they are too new to use then... LadyofShalott 04:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that's what it looks like. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NP, I know you are busy elsewhere these days. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarsm etc.
Hi, I was wondering if you could clear this up for me. In cases where a source is old enough to be in public domain, and where the article pretty much copies it verbatim what level of attribution is necessary? I'm thinking specifically of this article Hayyim Selig Slonimski which is copied verbatim from here, which was originally published 1901 and 1906. The article does have some inline citations for particular sentences to the original source but nowhere does it say, "this has been copied-pasted from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906)". How do we deal with stuff like this? Thanks (and I know you're over worked and I very much appreciate your work here) Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)This should do. The article just needs to attribute it uses the text and the copyright status of it.--NortyNort(Holla) 09:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, both of you. :) People like User:NortyNort have certainly done a lot to make things easier. :D And Volunteer Marek, I appreciate your work in this area, too. The more people who know about and pay attention to these issues, the better our odds of getting them under control. There's a whole category for attribution templates to help out with that kind of thing at Category:Attribution templates. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delayed reply - I was on holidays :) Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry for the confusion - I will put next time all details on the related Copyright problems day page. I'm learning every time more :) -- SchreyP(messages) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember any confusion. Sufficient unto the day are the confusions thereof. Confusions of yesterday? Old news. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retirement
@Moonriddengirl. I think you have behaved in an entirely appropriate manner in your recent interactions with a user about copyright. If you take a look at the history page of this user you will find that he has a habit of retiring in a huff and then reappearing afterwards. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I'm a little taken aback by the whole incident, but I gather that there are great tensions between the two at this point. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 02:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Xxanthippe. Wikipedia is a hobby when I have time for it and access to the internet. I'm employed sometimes doing long days and I have sometimes to travel with no internet access. I'm also a father and kids require sometimes immediate attention. And this time I had long holidays also without internet access, but found it appropriate to reply a message from Moonriddengirl I couldn't during my holidays. In what sense is this habit a problem?
@Moonriddengirl. Now you confuse me: what do you mean with "I gather that there are great tensions between the two at this point"? -- SchreyP(messages) 07:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's in answer to Xxanthippe. :) I was overdue for bed when I wrote that (particularly as I'm under the weather) and did not create a separate header. It's completely unrelated to you, but instead refers to this. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oef, I got a little worried. Hey Moonriddengirl, take care of yourself. Your new job I presume takes also a lot of you. -- SchreyP(messages) 12:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:D
You know whats fun? Making personal templates, userboxes, books made with Special:Book, and stuff like that, inside my userspace. I wish to say that the one personal template I do have is like Template:Subpages, but the difference? It actually shows a dynamic listing instead of a simple link. All it simply uses is "{{Special:PrefixIndex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}}". Perhaps you could take a look at what I have made and tell me what you think? (or you could even help make them better and stuff by editting them with some things that will, well, make it better. (or at least fix any problems one may have) I don't mind anyone doing so, so long as it isn't intentional vandalism) LikeLakers2 (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you're learning your way around that kind of thing, but, alas, I'm not the one who can help you make them better. :) I'm not in the least bit "techy" and recently had to ask for help at the IRC "help" page with fixing margins on my own coding! (I didn't actually know about {{Subpages}}. Brilliant! Dynamic list or link, that could save me a lot of time trying to remember where I've put stuff.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images where copyright has been purchased
Hi I have just logged onto my account after a long time not active - in part because of frustration at increasing bureaucracy to do anything, and in part that hard work was all to easily deleted by people who knew nothing about the topic. I see unfortunately the images were deleted in the meantime. Having read both your polite note on my page and your web page notes about copyright and deletionism, I see you have actually thought about the matter. I would like to belated provide an answer to you.
Let me give you some background to my views and why this sort of thing frustrates me.
AS you mentioned, you are not a lawyer. As you may or may have not noticed from the profile page I was a lawyer, though neither an IP nor a US one, so I wouldn't pretend any great expertise. However I do know enough to know the threat of a New Zealand copyright holder's first approach being to sue Wikipedia over hosting an image (rather than proving ownership and requesting it be taken down) is virtually nil - we simply lack the legalistic culture of the US.
As you are no doubt aware, Wikipedia tends to have an American bias in content. One of the ways this shows in insisting upon applying American law - and in particular American intellectual property law - to postings from the rest of the world about the rest of the world - in the past other deletionists have justified that by the all but irrelevant to the rest of the world fact the servers are located in the US.
One of the problems driving the US bias is Wikipedia's "Free Use" policy dovetails with the way the US government has released many historical government images into the public domain - but not with other countries. Most commonwealth nations have also allowed free publication of historic government images but in a slightly different way that hardline wikipedia policy makers are not flexible enough to allow use on Wikipedia; Commonwealth nations have "crown copyright", which usually allows reproduction free of charge, but unfortunately for the free use policy, with some trivial conditions which vary from place to place - typically these are noting the crown copyright, not altering the image so as to mislead, or misrepresent what it shows. Often commercial use is also banned.
Now - as is also the case in the US - all images taken by government employees are the intellectual property of the government. Therefore finding any images which are not crown copyright to illustrate a New Zealand article is almost impossible. To me the logical thing would be to create a category for crown copyright images but this has been suggested before by others and I understand from my point of view voted down by American free use ideologues who don't care if Wikipedia is unrepresentative provided corporations can use images off it in advertisements :-).
Even when - as a colleague did - permission was with great difficulty obtained from the crown to release an image for free use on Wikipedia, it was promptly deleted again because the deletionist could find it elsewhere on the web with crown copyright tagged on it. One reason why this is not a bigger issue is in commonwealth articles many clearly crown copyright images have been added and have gone unnoticed by deletionists.
Anyway as a New Zealand aircraft article writer frustrated by this, I was delighted to find a whole filing cabinet of aircraft photos from the 1920s to 1950s for sale amongst the estate effects of a PRIVATE photographer. Furthermore, after a lot of explanation about your policy and essentially WTFing from the vendor, they were quite happy to release the images of the photos I purchased into the public domain.
Naturally the 'tick which box of American Intellectual Property Law Applies to your image" was too simplistic to cope with this reality, hence my explanation. I have no idea what the usual WP:OTRS procedures are, had never heard of them when I added the material and searching Wikipedia for that produces a lot of German and no answer. Frankly I don't care; the images are no longer easily accessible and frankly my frustration with the increasing number of hoops to go through to add content and this sort of accidental well intentioned entirely within policy vandalism and has seen me give up.
I still think Wikipedia is a great idea, but since I see you are paid staff, can I leave with a plea you consider making it easier for new and occasional contributors, especially from outside the US, because it seems to my frustrated mind that the only thing not being deleted is the 9/10s of Byzantine pedantic policies comprehensible that just serve the tiny shrinking core of regular editors. Winstonwolfe (talk) 03:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I do a lot with copyright work on Wikipedia (though not so much with images); a contributor raised the question of the license on this image at my talk page. I see that you purchased the copyright to this image, but I don't see any sign that you've confirmed this via the usual WP:OTRS procedures. Can you please send that documentation to permissions-en@wikimedia.org so that the verification can be logged? I've tagged the image as missing that verification, which may result in its deletion if verification is not supplied within seven days, but if it is deleted prematurely it can be easily restored once that verification is supplied.
I'll be watching your talk page for about a week or so, if you want to talk about the best ways to move forward. You are also always welcome to come by mine. Thanks, and sorry for the red tape, but when it comes to copyright we do try to keep everything on the record. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Other photographs seem to be in similar condition: File:Fariey IIIF of NZPAF.JPG, File:ZK-AFH Miles Whitney Straight.jpg, File:Gloster Grebe and Bristol Fighters NZPAF.JPG. File:Etrich Taube replica.JPG is also lacking evidence of permission. Given the breadth of the issue, I double-checked with an admin at Commons, who agreed that the tag was the best way to move forward here (at my talk page). Accordingly, these images have also been now tagged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry that you're frustrated. I do understand. :/ I'll see if I can clarify and also improve the situation a bit by explaining why these deletion are not necessarily permanent. This'll be long-winded, I'm afraid. Please bear with me. :)
First, though, I need to make clear that there is a separation between my work as a volunteer and as a contractor with the WMF. As with all edits in this account, I'm speaking now in the volunteer capacity.
Since the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to U.S. law, it requires that content hosted on Wikimedia Foundation projects (like this one and Commons) comply with it. There is some flexibility in the "free use" provisions, as these have been largely determined by the Wikipedia volunteer community, but in all cases it is mandated to us as volunteers that this policy must comply with the Board of Trustee's licensing policy, which allows us an "exemption doctrine" "in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status" (emphasis added). This mandate by the Board means that, of course, our "free use" provisions must comply with both local approach and US approach, which may in some cases be more limited (although in others, such as the German Wikipedia, less--unfortunately for German Wikipedians).
There is room for user input on the rules of the "free use" policy, within that allowance. Anyone can propose changes to the exemption doctrine at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Other editors will consider whether it meets the mandate and best serves the project. (I won't pretend this conversation will be easy; because there is room for interpretation, there's a lot of room for disagreement!)
That explained, I'm sorry I didn't give you a more complete description of OTRS. I didn't mean to be unclear there. There are different processes for them depending on what you're doing, but all that is really needed in these cases (since you already have permission) is for you to forward the permission that you were given to the address I supplied. The volunteer who receives it should be able to evaluate it to see if there are any questions and follow up with you about it.
I do understand that this kind of red tape can be frustrating, but the policy requiring it does make sense after you've volunteered at the administrative side for a bit. One of the major reasons it makes sense is that content on our websites will (hopefully) be quite long-lasting. Copyright is long-lasting, too, as you know, and the Wikimedia Foundation needs to be able to show these license grants on future challenge (even long after a file uploader may have retired from editing and no longer be reached for comment). Without such a letter on file, content needs to be taken down on challenge. I've seen this happen, even when permission had been asserted, because we could not prove that it had been supplied. Since this may affect not only us but also those sources we encourage to reuse us (including books, which may need to be pulled from publication), practice has evolved to proactively collect and document license grants. These permission letters we receive are carefully logged with file numbers on each image and can be called up in a minute, protecting us, our uploaders, and our reusers.
The good news here is that the images are easily accessible; while they have been removed from publication, deleted content is not purged from the Wikimedia Foundation servers. If you still have the permission letter (and it is usable under Wikimedia Foundation's requirements, which can be a bit specific), administrators can restore them at any point. (I myself could restore any on Wikipedia, although a Commons administrator would need to do so on Commons.) All you would need to do is produce that letter to the address I supplied above, with a list of the images, and the volunteer response team will proceed from there. (The list of images is easily obtained, as it was left on your userpage. :))
Speaking now briefly as paid staff, the Wikimedia Foundation would love to make it easier for new and occasional contributors and is funding a number of studies even as I type working out how to do so. There are some complexities that are hard to easily overcome when you are based in one jurisdiction and working on international scope. But I feel sure that WMF will continue trying to overcome them...at least as much as they can. :)
Back to the volunteer side, we certainly need to do the best that we can to keep procedures clear and simple (insofar as we can). And I do hope that we can still resolve this issue satisfactorily. Please feel free to drop me another note if I can help with that or if I can offer any further information. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Want to see a funny discussion? Check this out
Since you are probably interested in discussions regarding NFC, reading through the following discussions might be fun:
NFC can result in some really interesting discussions. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much true of everything on Wikipedia, I think. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Hi Maggie. I'm sure you're very busy, but there's no-one whose opinion on copyright issues I respect more, so if you could quickly cast your eye over something for me, I'd appreciate it. This section was something I wrote a while back, heavily quoting from an academic article, in bullet point form. It was supposed to be the ground work for a proper prose section, but I never got round to it. Recently someone claimed that this section was a copyright violation [17], though the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think. Anyway, is there a real concern here or not? PS Just so you know, this is currently an issue in an ANI thread, but don't worry about that, I just want your opinion here. Thanks. Rd232talk 09:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Okay. I have not looked at the ANI thread. First, let me say that I've found it slightly hard to follow since the duplication detector report is looking at a user page and not the source document. Now that content in question is actually at [18]. That said, I'm reading through it now. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Step one: the duplication detector has an option to "exclude quotations". Excluding quotations, the results of comparing the userpage are somewhat different: [19]. Leaving aside the wiki text matches, everything I see is titles. (Not sure why it isn't working with the pdf directly; it's supposed to. That's concerning. :/) Moving on to step two: human review. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Applying the strictest reading here possible, the biggest concern I see is the lack of intext attribution and some verbatim replication of Giannone's language without quotation marks. Looking at it here, you are quoting from Giannone, but not naming him in the text itself for text like "have pointed out that the index...." or "For instance, Scoble and Wiseberg...." (You did give him intext attribution further down, though: "However, Giannone (2010) finds....")
Giannone does not own the words in the studies he is quoting, but you do copy some of his words without quotation marks:
lack of specificity and rigorousness in construction
inadequate level of transparency and replicability of the scales
ideological biases of FH methodology
Whether this is a "real" concern depends on what you mean by it. :) I'm not a lawyer, but in terms of law, I'd hazard a guess that this is not substantial. In terms of policy, well, we are required to put words we copy from non-free sources in quotation marks in most cases per WP:NFC, and Wikipedia:Plagiarism urges clarity when copying words from people to ensure that we make plain who said what. That said, this certainly doesn't look to be a flagrant problem by any definition.
The final question, I guess, could base around whether you are too closely following his selection and arrangement of facts and, if so, whether this constitutes a Wikipedia:Close paraphrase to the point of substantial similarity or not. I don't think so.
I would agree that the content should be tweaked, though, because of the lack of "intext" clarity and the runs of words that aren't qouoted. I have not looked at the extensiveness of the quotes and if any of these can be comfortably abbreviated in accordance with WP:NFC, but I will do so now, as I'm about to fix the material I think should be tweaked. :) The blanking for a week is unnecessary. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your analysis helps remind me of the background, which was that this was a very dense section of highly relevant text in the source, and it was very very difficult to be sure of retaining the exact meaning without direct quotation. But it was supposed to be a placeholder; I was going to follow up by going to the sources Giannone cites and replacing his summary of their points with my own, and I never got round to it. The brief phrases not quoted I used because I couldn't find any non-trivial paraphrasing that didn't impute meaning beyond what the source justified, so I just left them there as part of the placeholder, on the basis that whatever (de minimis, I think) problem that was would naturally disappear as part of the rewrite from bullet points to prose. PS I'm not entirely clear about your point about intext attribution though; to me it seems clear that the whole section derives from Giannone, with everything footnoted properly. Much of the confusion I think arises from the placeholdery attempt to clarify who the sources are that Giannone is talking about in the quotations. Obviously, being retired, I'm not going to do anything with it now; but if you have time to tweak it enough to ensure it's OK (until someone can rewrite it properly), that would be great. Rd232talk 15:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten it and closed the CP listing. "Intext" means that when we directly quote somebody, we don't just cite them, we name them before the quote. "John said...." :) When we do a lot of direct quotation, that can get a bit redundant, but it's hard to avoid. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see what you mean. I think that again that's because of it being a placeholder; if I'd intended the text to be permanent from just that material, I'd have written it differently, and it would have all been clearly attributed to Giannone in text, rather than just footnotes in some cases. Anyway, thanks for sorting this out. Rd232talk 15:41, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how that would happen. :) Happy to expedite review. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rd232 wrote "the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think." Rd232 should stop violating AGF and making personal attacks based on unsubstantiated allegations on my politics.
Rd232 still hasn't checked the scholarship of his source, despite my suggestion that he look at Bollen's articles.
Rd232 has not claimed to have read widely and deeply in the social-science literature on human rights and democracy or claimed to be a statistician. If he had 2% of my competence, he would recognize his use of an unreliable and politically biased source.
He is not alone in editing badly and then complaining when I correct his mistakes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you revisit your comments on the article talk page with regard to the full list being a copyvio? It has since been re-added and we probably should stay consistent, if indeed this is a copyvio. Cheers Fæ (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see that it's already been removed by User:Masem. :) I've added a hidden notice adapted from the one I recently placed in the 2011 Bollywood film article. Let's hope this helps. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moon! Over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#poppy tea article, a writer named Peter Thompson alleged that our Poppy tea article "draws a lot from" his widely published Confessions of an eBay Opium Addict. Thompson's report and our article are both rather lengthy, so I haven't been able to tell if there's plagiarism or copyright violation going on there. Would you be willing to look at it for me? All the best, – Quadell(talk) 13:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Stalker): Page 1, Page 2, Page 3, Page 4, Page 5, Page 6, and Page 7 look fine. Considering our article is written in the third person and his is in the first, a copy and paste is quite unlikely. However, if we have similar information it may be wise to cite his article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I can't help with any plagiarism investigations though. Hope I helped a bit. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That helps tons, User:Crisco 1492! Thanks. You've saved me a lot of work. :D I'll look for the kind of plagiarism that the dup detector can't report. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing it, but it doesn't help that our article is not much fun to read. :P I'll ask for clarification from the author. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Moon! – Quadell(talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: on the same page in the "cc-by?" section, a user wants to know the proper protocol for reusing text from another website, where that text says "The material in this publication may be reproduced if [publisher and authors] is acknowledged as the source". He wants to know how to properly attribute in a Wikipedia article in this situation. I don't want to inadvertently mislead him, so I was hoping you might give a more definitive answer. Thanks! – Quadell(talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it can be. :/ Our license requires reuse and modification...that website doesn't mention modification and could well come back against our derivatives, arguing that they only meant to authorize reproduction. I'll suggest he ask for a more liberal/specific license. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The paper under discussion
Hi Maggie. The paper seems to be freely available for view here to everyone at the second author's previous place of employment.[20] Google scholar points to other freely available versions on academic websites. So I think the worries about piracy that Miradre expressed were unwarranted. Mathsci (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the paper is freely made available by the copyright holder, you are certainly welcome to link to it. The prior place of employment seems a likely one. However, we can't link to it somewhere that we know is unlikely to have licensed it or received permission, just as we can link to a news video on an official site but can't link to it on YouTube, unless the uploader is connected to the source. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be able to link to it, not only at the talk page but in the article. That should make things easier. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help, particularly your patience, and apologies about any misunderstandings. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!
Hi Moonriddengirl!
I just want to give you a personal thanks for your rewriting of Freedom in the World.
I shall have to read up on WP's policies, because I apparently applied the copyvio template(s) roughly. I really appreciate your help, which has ended the debate about whether there was a problem.
Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm always happy to help with copyright problems (time permitting). There are a number of different approaches to copyright concerns. I see that you figured out how to limit blanking to the specific section; sometimes {{close paraphrasing}} might be sufficient in a case like that, but it is harder for me to recommend it now that we no longer have a bot listing those articles at WP:CP. They may never been reviewed. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]