Thanks [[User:Codf1977|Codf1977]] ([[User talk:Codf1977|talk]]) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks [[User:Codf1977|Codf1977]] ([[User talk:Codf1977|talk]]) 10:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
:I could not find any sign of permission logged for this material either under ACTDU or the full title. The website does not release the material. I've removed it pending verification of permission. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
:I could not find any sign of permission logged for this material either under ACTDU or the full title. The website does not release the material. I've removed it pending verification of permission. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
*Tell me what you need, and I'll have it sent to you.
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 frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 06:25, 23 June 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Hi, I skimmed your copyright guidelines, but what do I need to do to make sure the page isn't in violation. CTJF83chat 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've removed the content for now while we discuss it. Give me a minute, and I'll give you a detailed response. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what you have to watch out for here is creating a "close paraphrase" which is a form of derivative work. The original copyright holder has to authorize these.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. If your rewrite follows the original too closely in either element, it can be a copyright problem.
Consider some of the following examples (I'm skipping around in the article; I haven't read it all the way through). The source says:
By the mid 1870s, most of the Civil War orphans had grown up and left the Home, but there were many other children still in need. The Home began accepting orphans from all over Iowa, and well as children from poor or broken homes and lengthened its name to the “Iowa Soldiers’ Orphans’ Home and Home for Indigent Children." Over the next few decades, the facilities of the Home were expanded and redesigned to accommodate the new arrivals...
The content you placed in the article said (citations omitted):
By the mid 1870s, most of the Civil War orphans were grown up and left, but there were many other children still in need. The Home began accepting orphans and children from poor or broken homes from all over Iowa's 99 counties. Over the next few decades, the facilities were expanded and redesigned to accommodate new arrivals.
Perhaps in looking at them side by side, it will be easier to see that you have closely followed the structure of the original here as well as including some of the same language. The last sentence in particularly seems only to be altered from the source by one word. The second sentence shows more rewriting, though it starts off too close to the source.
Here's another passage to consider:
Although the Home was self-sufficient and virtually its own little village, it was a part of the Davenport community as well. In the early 1900s, the “Orphans Band” marched in local parades and gave concerts. The annual summer picnic on the grounds of the Home was a real Davenport event, enjoyed by all. Children were fostered out or adopted by local families, and many of those who were not chose to remain in Davenport after ‘graduation’. The city was proud of the Home, and there appears to have been little stigma attached locally to being a former resident.
Content you placed in the article said:
Although the Home was self-sufficient and virtually its own little village, it was a part of the Davenport community as well. In the early 1900s, the “Orphans Band” marched in local parades and gave concerts. The annual summer picnic on the grounds of the Home was a real Davenport event, enjoyed by all. Children were fostered out or adopted by local families, and many of those who were not chose to remain in Davenport after ‘graduation’. The city was proud of the Home, and there appears to have been little stigma attached locally to being a former resident.
This seems to have been copied verbatim, without any rewriting at all.
So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this material would have to be completely rewritten, which means both restructuring and changing the language. (You have to be careful not to just substitute synonyms for existing vocabulary; even if you change every word, if the creative structure is the same you may have a copyright problem. That's why unauthorized translations from copyrighted foreign works are copyright infringements, even though every word in them is changed.) The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". You can incorporate a few direct quotations, if necessary, but only a few and only if they are clearly marked (by quotation marks or block quote) and are used for good reason. (See WP:NFC for some examples.)
Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.
Please let me know if you have more questions about this. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you, I'll rewrite it. Are you going to be online for a while in case I have questions/issues? CTJF83chat 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's late in the day for me, so I won't be here consistently, but I always check back in a few times, barring unexpected problems. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll start on it after dinner, and will link you to my sandbox when I'm done for review. CTJF83chat 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right; sounds good. Take your time; better to be thorough and get it in one go, and the article is not in danger of deletion at the moment so there's no rush. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to jump in here, but I've just come across another article you've had a hand in as an example: Phebe Sudlow. There is some very close paraphrasing of this source. For instance, the source says:
In 1859, Phebe was appointed assistant principal at Grammar School Number 2 and District School Number 3 . Her yearly salary was $350, less than the set wages for a man in the same position. By the next year, at the age of 29, Phebe was principal of both schools—possibly the first woman principal of a public school in the United States—at $400 dollars a year.
The article says:
In 1859, Sudlow was appointed assistant principal at two of the elementary schools in the district. Her yearly salary of $350, was less than the wages for a man in the same position. By 1860, at the age of 29, Sudlow became principal of both schools and was possibly the first woman principal of a public school in the United States.
The source also says:
On April 21, 1869, a convention of school administrators and teachers was held in Des Moines, Iowa, to discuss current educational issues. Mr. Kissell, who was by then the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, ran the meeting, and Phebe, whose name was beginning to be known in educational circles, gave a presentation on the teaching of language, which by all accounts was well received by the largely male audience.
The article says:
On April 21, 1869, a convention of school administrators and teachers was held in Des Moines, Iowa. Abram Kissell, who was now the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, ran the meeting. He had Sudlow speak, giving a presentation on the teaching of language. Her speech was well received by the largely male audience.
In my view, this paraphrasing is too close: while some words are changed, many creative phrases remain the same and the paragraph and sentence structure is generally identical. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I guess I should stick to books, so I can't just copy/paste/paraphrase, I have to do it all. CTJF83chat 00:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said at your talk page, I've blanked that one until it can be rewritten. Yes, copying & pasting leads many people astray. I'm afraid content has to be completely rewritten, and it helps not to have any of the original on the page to start with. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess you might as well look at the other articles I've started (laid out nicely on my user page) I will assure you that neither History/Neighborhoods of Davenport are an issue, cause those were sourced from books, and I obviously can't copy and paste those. CTJF83chat 01:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right; I will come review it at some point today. And I'll take a look at some of your other articles to see if additional work will be needed. Sometimes book sources can cause problems, not because of copying & pasting but because of close paraphrasing, but certainly online sources are more typically a problem. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have several more entries on today's current listing at CP, but will come over when I've caught up. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving my review to your talk page, as mine tends to get quite long under the ordinary course of affairs. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're watching me, but I rewrote the issue section, and hope it is ok now. CTJF83chat 04:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you saw the above post cause it is in the middle of the talk page :) CTJF83chat 18:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bump. :) I do have your talk page on my watchlist, but the few times I checked in it wasn't for me. :) And you're right; I missed this one! I'll come right over. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we should rather quickly get feedback on the non-free logo usage. I'm afraid images are not my specialty, but I'll see what's up at the TFA nomination and try to run down an image admin with experience if it seems like one could be used. I'll clarify the issue at the talk page that the logo is not replaceable by a non-free version (itself) under the OTRS release. Unless you license it, it's not non-free.
Generally speaking, though, try not to panic. :) The use of non-free images is a gray area; I've had content deleted myself that I had written a FUR for as violating NFC. Just state your case in your usual civil fashion and wait to see how consensus falls. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have ask admin User:J Milburn to take a look and offer an opinion on whether or not it can be used under the logo rationale. If he thinks not, or if consensus otherwise develops at the TFA that it does not, you should probably jettison it unless you do feel that the school would want it under CC-By-SA. I suspect that the article will remain stellar without it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One thing is for sure: you learn something new here everyday. . . . . --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BS
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for all your help on Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home and helping me to fix potential copyright issues. Your help is greatly appreciated, thanks again! CTJF83chat 19:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I appreciate the work you've put into rewriting it. And thanks for your patience when I overlooked your notes. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright q
A quick question for the expert - an IP has added a large amount of novel descriptions here. Aside from my concerns regarding the overly promotional nature of the wording, I'm worried there may be copyright issues with the descriptions - they sound like they've been taken right of the back jacket of each book. Is there a quick way to check that there are no copyright issues with the material added? Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Experienced, anyway. Copyright is a pretty big field; I learn more all the time. :D (And I run swiftly from image issues.) Ordinarily I would run a google search for snippets of text. And, in this case, that paid off. :) Whether they're from the back of the book or not, if they're previously published we can't use them without verifying that they're free. Other times, I might ask either the contributor or somebody who might be able to access the books. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up; explanation left for IP. Thanks for following up on this! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank me? No way, you did all the work! Cheers for the help, Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking in
How have you been? I know i've been gone for a while. Life has been a wild ride. SilverserenC 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it always? :) I'm feeling under the gun and pressured to catch up, as usual. On the plus side, though, I'm seeing more really good contributions at the various copyright fora! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back to my old haunts at AfD and creating requested articles from scratch. I've got a few projects i've been working on that should give fruit soon. :3 SilverserenC 21:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sense of accomplishment is always good! :D I haven't participated at AfD in a long time, and I'm not getting to write as many articles as I'd like. :/ I keep telling myself that once I catch up a bit more on the copyright work, I'll indulge. That said, I've written a couple of bug articles recently that I enjoyed, Sweetpotato bug and Pheidole purpurea. There wasn't much information out there on the last guy, but I found the pictures fascinating. That poor "major" worker's head looks so heavy! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those are really awesome looking articles. :o I'm impressed. Yeah, don't lose yourself in just the copyright work. If you'd have fun doing an article every once in a while, then go do it. Don't bog yourself down with just one thing. You can see what i'm currently working on over in my sandbox. Admittedly, my interests are rather varied. SilverserenC 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They certainly are. :D The Migralepsy article looks pretty interesting. I'd never heard of that. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I got it off of requested articles. Most of the stuff on there is junk, really, stuff that belongs as subsections in other articles, but every once in a while you'll find some gold. SilverserenC 00:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think i'm ready to submit the Migralepsy article, what do you think? It look good? :3 I'm going to try and get it into DYK. SilverserenC 01:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Alosio again
Hi there. I'm sorry to bring this issue to you again, but it seems the alleged subject of this bio has a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. He has taken it upon himself yet again to add back copyvio/poorly sourced text to "his" biography despite being told not to do this by me (and you) several different times. I offered to help them rewrite the content if reliable sources were presented but the editor never came up with any and just kept adding back the same copied content. Due to their rather snippy message to me some months back, I advised them to contact OTRS and to basically leave me alone since they don't want to heed my advise. Your help and/or advise would be greatly appreciated in this matter. Thanks! 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I had watchlisted the page, but probably would have forgotten why by now! I've blocked him with a recommendation that he read the copyright policies prior to requesting an unblock. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it had to come to that, but thank you. Pinkadelica♣ 00:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me, too. :/ Maybe he'll decide to work within policy, though. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Sorry to bother you, but while going through one of the investigations I came across a different established editor who may have made some rather problematic edits. However, the editor is very much a wikignome, so has large numbers of small edits, making it difficult to track down the edits which potentially matter. Other than the Windows software, which I tried but wouldn't work on my computer (my computer is feeling a tad sensitive at the moment), is there another tool to highlight major edits? - Bilby (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and eep. Yes, Dcoetzee continues developing his program which is also currently housed at [1]. When you first run it, you get all edits, but there are tick boxes at the top which will eliminate (most) reverts and minor edits. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps - that's what I need. I'm hoping it is an isolated problem that can be cleaned up without any fuss. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Toon05's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
...you might have something to add here. – iridescent 23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy St. Paddy's Day
Have a Happy Day, Moonriddengirl, :D Malke2010 23:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And to you, too. I completely forgot to wear green today, though. :/ Fortunately, I was not punished for it. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy St Patrick's Day!
We don't celebrate it where I live, but still ^_^.
Thank you! Always a good reason to be festive! :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted "File:Single Power Gate cover.jpg"
Hi, I saw you deleted that file and I don't understant the reason. It was a cd cover used in the article for that single, so it was a copyrighted image used under the law of the Fair Use, like we do with all album covers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerefis (talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There was no picture there. It was tagged as a page in file space to which no image was attached. I checked the article just to be sure. It wasn't an issue with the FUR; it was just the lack of an image. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats weird, I uploaded the image myself and there were no problems. I was watching both the article and the file, and there were no changes. It should still be there. Anyway, if there is no problem with the image, I will just upload it again. Thank you.--Nerefis (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no problem with the image at all. :) Maybe there was some kind of computer snafu that lost it? It doesn't seem to have been deleted by anybody else; the only thing in the deleted history is your placing the FUR and User:Sfan00 IMG tagging it for lack of an image. If you upload it again and want your FUR back, let me know. :) I can pull it up from File:Single Power Gate cover.jpg. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that the main author of this page, User:WELDWiki may be a representitive of the resort. This would probably make the article deletable. However I would welcome a second opinion on the matter. Please feel free to answer here, or on my talk page, or the article talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your notice about the copyright being held by "WELD" is certainly suggestive of a WP:COI! Good observation. I'm a bit hamstrung in my ability to weigh in, though, because I'm not allowed to reveal any personal identifying information about people with whom I've communicated through the OTRS system. I will say, though, that if there is WP:SPA behavior and non-neutral text, some kind of action would certainly seem appropriate whether the contributor is affiliated or not. I've left a COI warning at the talk page on that basis and mean by it to suggest nothing at all about the user's identity.
Currently, while such editing is "strongly discouraged" it isn't actually forbidden, but if the article can be cleaned, it should be. If you don't want to neutralize it yourself, maybe you should list it at WP:COIN? If it doesn't seem notable, there's always AFD. I don't know that I myself would feel comfortable doing much more, as I never feel quite right wearing my "contributor" hat and "OTRS agent" hat at the same time, unless there's something really egregious going on. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand you don't want to create your own conflict of interest. I'll pursue other input. Thanks for your help. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. :) But I do routinely trot things that I find to WP:COIN. Haven't had to do so in a while, but it's a way to make sure that the community can review the content without my stepping over my own line. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking, just a note
Hi. :) I just wanted to drop you a private note following your ANI notice. The whole thing at Will Hanrahan was unfortunate, and it would have been nice if he had been wiki-savvy enough to explain his blanking, but please remember that in accordance with Wikipedia:Vandalism, blanking is not regarded as vandalism where reviewing the content makes the reason for the blanking clear. BLPs are listed as a specific example where such blanking may be legitimate. As WP:BLP says, "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." I don't know whether this guy is really the subject of the article or not, but it's a good idea to review the content that is being blanked when something like this happens. As here, for instance, the removal of the words "and narcissist" might suggest legitimate concerns. Anyway, I know that recent changes patrol can be challenging, and I appreciate the time you put into it...I spent a lot of time there, a few years back, and I remember how frustrating it can be...but I just wanted to note it for the next time you encounter a situation of this sort. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Nods* Your absolutely correct moon, and i am not particularly proud of the way this was handled myself. Personally i noticed that cluebot was being reverted, and that the page was blanked while doing so. I failed to notice the username which implied that the editor was the subject of the article, and i could have sworn that the uw-delete had a section explaining what to do with BLP issues. However, seeing the edit history of that template it has never been there altogether. Frankly, i didn't notice the issue until John dropped me a notice regarding the BLP issue.
I guess this (again) proves that to much vandalism patrol can cause tunnel vision in the end. A few regular breaks to cut trough the addiction should prove useful. And of course watching if blanked pages are BLP's might work as well. After all, Wikipedia didn't crash and burn during my 3 month wikibreak :) Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe something about BLP issues *should* be in uw-blanking. That's a good idea. And a change of scenery is always a good thing. I don't go so far as to walk away from Wikipedia, but when the copyright work overwhelms me I'll write an article or two and get a second wind. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I actually proposed that on JohnCD's talk page, and he suggested a separate template for this with the reasoning that most blanking would be pure vandalism. Both idea's have its own merits. Adding it to the blanking templates would almost certainly guarantee a 100% reach, but at the same time it would be prone to imitators and false positives. A separate template would require manual addition, but would likely cause less errors. Though i admit that i lean towards 100% coverage myseld.
Also, my absence was caused by Force majeure - taking form in a mountain of work that left me exhausted during the evenings \ nights. I figured that taking a break altogether was a better alternative then risk making a load of errors - with the added possibility that stress would cause me to snap at people. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 13:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O We don't have one (for regular users to close a CCI or note that a CCI needs to be closed) because it's never happened before! :O I am in awe, and am off to take a look! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
will hanrahan
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I am most grateful for your help in watching the Will Hanrahan page. I am indeed, Will Hanrahan. If you wish to confirm this, please email direct by first visiting my company's website and navigating your way to the email.
As background, the vandals work specifically said one line which suggested something quite grotesque and which falls into the category of harassment. I have lodged my views with the Police. If this is not repeated, I will not make my complaint formal. I have noted the discussion about the matter and have no wish to enter into the debate. Put simply, harassment represents two or more unwanted 'attacks' by phone, email or web. I hope the vandalsim is not repeated.
The sadness, for me, is that Wikipedia is a wonderful thing and whenever whomsoever added an article about me I was very pleased. There were one or two, minor factual errors and I hate the photo (!) but it was fine by me.
The vandal is clearly someone with a problem and I simply wish that he is kept from raiding the page. His work was brought to my attention by a solicitor working for us checking one of our TV programmes for possible errors.
I would be most grateful, as I am not familiar with Wikipedia's protocols, if you would contact me direct rather than through this public access forum.
Again, many thanks Moonriddengirl.Willhanrahan (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss a statement that a Wikipedia administrator would delete this article in "x" days? If so, I apologize. If not, for future, please make that a regular, clear policy: "As per [wik-referenced] policy, we will delete this article by "x" date: please take action in advance to avoid such." None of us are paid Wikipedia contributors, editors, or administrators, and it would be more than encouraging to contributors to receive such support. For myself, I have been incredibly busy otherwise -- but could have marked my calendar to get this done, had I received a deadline.
Looking forward, please do not fully delete the article. Please keep it in suspension while I take the actions recommended by you and Toon.
Further, I may come back to you for clarification: I found the links and instructions provide by you and Toon very confusing, cumbersome, and off-putting to sort through
Lastly, please give me a new (and generous) deadline!
Awaiting your further advice --Aboudaqn (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but we have standard processes for addressing copyright concerns. The note you received from Toon is a "template" or form letter used for such situations. It does not specify a deadline because the date of resolution is variable. Sometimes, articles that appear to constitute copyright problems are deleted immediately. But the note left on your talk page does say, "The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted." The notice left on the face of the article also contained information about addressing the concerns, and it said, "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing." (Bold text is in the template.) While we appreciate that you are a volunteer, as are we all, the one week deadline has been long agreed upon by the community as a fair allowance of time for rewriting copyright concerns or supplying verification of permission for them. Occasionally, the deadline is extended, but only if we are told that additional time is needed.
The note that I left you is also a template. If you find the instructions in any of these templates confusing, it would be helpful if you could explain where and how the confusion occurred so that I can see if others also find it necessary to clarify these and we can arrive at better language.
If you supply permission for this text, the article will be restored. That you may do at your leisure. You are also welcome to create a new article with original language. If you have need of the text with which you had been working, I would be happy to e-mail it to you, if you have e-mail enabled. Just let me know. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK Stuff
Do you do reviews for DYK at all? I'm just wondering, because i've been helping out in making the March 17th nomination Norrie May-Welby long enough and with the right references. I did so a while ago and messaged the original answering admin, Gatoclass, about it and asked if s/he could re-review it. Since then...there's been no response. Would you be able to re-review it instead? SilverserenC 20:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't, and I don't have the script that's used to verify length installed. (If I were more tech savvy, I'd install it, but I'm scared to break what I've already got in my monobook.js :) As you can see, we've had some issues :/ I've got something in there now, even though it's not approved for this, that's supposed to tell me the size of prose. It doesn't. I don't know why.) It's not about to run out of time, is it? You get something like five days for those? If you've got time, I'd suggest waiting a day and if nothing's happened ask one of the other contributors who is "verifying" hooks if they'd mind checking the length. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a day and four hours since I left the message on the nomination and a message on his/her talk page. So... :/
Couldn't you just look at the prose manually? Copy it into the tool that's on the DYK page? SilverserenC 21:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't use that to verify the length, according to Wikipedia:Did you know/Article length. There is a way evidently to scan with that without the monobook script, but I'm not really familiar with the protocol at DYK (having only submitted a few articles of my own). Would you like me to find one of the regular DYK reviewers and ask them to have a look? I'd be far more comfortable helping out that way. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and thank you. I've not been sure who else to contact, which is why I went to you, since you're pretty much the only admin I know (or that remembers me). SilverserenC 21:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) But you don't need an admin for this; any contributor can do it, according to Template talk:Did you know. I'll see who I recognize there. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Talk page stalkers are useful, wouldn't you say :)
Prose size of the article: 2425 B (408 words) "readable prose size". That certainly seems to pass the DYK limit. On the other hand, this article might not pass WP:BLP1E... NW(Talk) 21:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, absolutely! I was just about to leave a message for somebody about it when my talk banner lit up! :D Thanks. I'll make a note at the DYK nom. -Moonriddengirl(talk) 21:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The event is still developing though, considering it only happened two days ago. If you factor in the fact that zie might end up suing some aspect of the government because, at this point, they won't actually give up the certificate, this becomes significantly more than a single event. Besides, doesn't a ground-breaking event get some more significance than, say, a person who was murdered? I think it should. On that note, I should go see if there are any new news articles about the developments in hir complaint. SilverserenC 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on the nomination. I put other references in that work as well. Question: I just realized, do I actually get half-credit or something for expanding? T'was just wondering. SilverserenC 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have the time, could you also check out the Pitcher (container) nomination? It's also March 17th. SilverserenC 23:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if you're asking me or NuclearWarfare, since he verified the length of the last one. :) DYK is not really my area, obviously. The 17th is just two days ago, so I'm sure somebody will pick it up soon, if they haven't already. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plz check this article, and remove copyvio notice. Quality check 05:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The rewrite includes the following:
This fort is now popularly known as the RDB fort amongst tourists and photographers [1]
This doesn't seem to be supported by the cited source, as I don't find the text string RDB anywhere. However, I do find an almost exact match for this text at [2]. Presuming this to be the source, you must properly attribute it as well as enclose in quotation marks text you have copied. All previously published content is presumed to be copyrighted unless it is verifiably not. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. :) I know you'll notice if problems resume, so I have no concerns whatsoever on that front. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Costello Tagliapietra
Hello, Moonriddengirl. I wonder if you can advise or help with a situation I haven't encountered before (maybe I'm just lucky :)
In August I created Costello Tagliapietra by translation from the corresponding Spanish WP page. If you look at the page history you can see that a user called Beefcurtains keeps deleting bits off the page. In my most recent revert I commented on this behaviour in my edit summary, and Beefcurtains is now bizzarrely claiming "ownership" of the page (or subject matter) in his/her edit summaries.
I'm finding it increasingly difficult to assume good faith in this case, and I have better things to do in life than to play these silly games with him/her. However, it seems a shame for this article to finish up purposelessly truncated. Do Wikipedia administrators have a way of dealing with situations like this?
Hi. I've only encountered ownership a few times in the past; not fun. I've restored the contents and written a note to the contributor that may clarify. I'll keep an eye on things, but it would be helpful if you can continue as well for a bit. He or she may persist a bit further before beginning to work within the community processes to deal with whatever may be his concern. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Your comment on his/her talk page is much better than I would have done – let's hope the reaction is positive. The page remains on my watchlist, and I'll keep an eye open for changes. Really grateful for your help and support. -- Hebrides (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I just wanted to drop in and thank you for your kind and patient attitude towards me. It's a refreshing departure from much of the admin interaction I've seen in the past, where communication/explanation can range from brusque to nonexistent. That (and some of the other abuses of power) is one of the big reasons I'm not a more active member of this community. I'm just glad there are people like you to counter the God-kings, trigger-happy deletors and blockers, and various other power trippers. Keep up the good work. Nemokara (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the encouragement. :) And, again, for going out of your way to take on a new process to report a problem. I've encountered some pretty unpleasant people here myself, but there are also some very nice ones. If you do decide to become more active, I hope you'll encounter more of those. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any sign of permission logged for this material either under ACTDU or the full title. The website does not release the material. I've removed it pending verification of permission. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me what you need, and I'll have it sent to you.
Possibly the South African bios made in early 2006. Somehow come a long way from my initial enties such as Navanetham Pillay but others are just as they were 4 years ago. Taprobanus (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question about images. User:Amchishalachembur has uploaded many images, all as "self-made", but they are all official looking portraits of Indian people, from different time periods, with differing qualities, see here. In short, I think they are scans or taken from Internet pages. Do I need to list all the images individually or is there a process here that resembles the Commons procedure of nominating many pictures at once for discussion based on the contribution as a whole? I saw WP:CCI but this seems more about text and about stuff actually in articles (and it looks a lot more serious than discussion), but the images are all orphaned. Any advice? Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really have an analogous process to the mass deletion, I'm afraid. :/ I think there are probably two options here: bundle them together at WP:PUF; bundle them together at WP:FfD with an explanation of the unusual circumstances. I've done the former myself, and if you decide to do that, let me know. I'll be happy to divide up the list and share the legwork. :) CCI would work, but only if several of them can be confirmed as copyvios. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many image copyvios give their actual source, but these images have no description/date/author whatever, and that makes it tedious, you're right :) I think I'll try the route of a custom request at WP:PUF and see how that works out. Thanks, again Hekerui (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want to start at the top, I'll start at the bottom, and we can meet in the middle? I need you to start the listing so I can add new images to it, though. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd try a novelty and just start a new subsection at the March 21 PUF page that explains that all images are questionable. Then I'll leave a note on the user's talkpage inviting discussion. No good? Hekerui (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, typically these images are supposed to be tagged, just on the off chance anybody happens upon them and has input. :) Tagging them is easy when they're orphaned, though, and I'll be happy to run through them myself once you open the section so that I know what it's called. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, I created the section and will simply use {{puf|log=2010 March 21}}. Best Hekerui (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we've met in the middle? I started at the bottom. :) I'll see if I can get User:MER-C to produce a list of these images. He has some magic that lets him do so. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thanks for the help. I notified the uploader and now it's a wait and see what happens. Regards Hekerui (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you actually need to provide a direct link to each image nominated on the PUF page so that reviewing editors can make individual comments if they wish and not have to go through the toolserver to get a link for an image. ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked MER-C to give us a list. He has some tool he uses that makes nice ones, complete with links, for CCI. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea. I added some sources which indicate most of these images could have been speedied per WP:F9. ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! They still can be. :) Once the list is complete, I'll take care of any F9ables. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, why wait? With the tool Hekerui linked above, I can easily see what's what. That only leaves one image. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this copyvio?
I just removed a link to a webpage with a copy of a Daily Mail article, it's been restored claiming it isn't copyvio[3] (in fact the only thing relevant to the article itself is a 'blog response' which I think fails WP:EL anyway, this is someone trying to save a crank article about some supposedly ancient texts called the 'Kharsag Epics' which are only recognized by UFO fans, etc). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an issue under WP:LINKVIO to me. I've replaced it with a link to the actual article. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I didn't know about LinkVio. However, it should have been replaced with the correct one, like Moonriddengirl did, not removed entirely. SilverserenC 20:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not only does the article not mention anything called the 'Kharsag Epics', it fraudulently reported what the archaeologist said about Goebekli Tepe which is why it isn't used in our article on Gebekli Tepe, which is why I've removed it again. Please read WP:EL. Thanks. And thanks, Moonriddengirl. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]