User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

goode family edit [helen's back]

Can you show me where my source is listed copyrighted? I thought it came from another user Wiki (open source) submission. Regards, 76.193.179.162 (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.179.162 (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The bot tagged it as a copy of [1], which site is marked "Copyright © Jackbook 2009". However, I suspect that they have reproduced the official plot summary, in which case it is actually copyrighted to the official source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, i was just wondering what was linked where. I found the source elsewhere, from a user submission. . . no matter the page is no longer. 76.193.179.162 (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC).

The page isn't actually gone; somebody redirected it because it didn't have enough content to stand alone. It can be expanded. You can write a plot summary in your words, for instance, if you've seen the episode. In case you don't know, one simple way to edit a page that redirects is to try to navigate to Helen's Back as usual. It will dump you in the other article, and you will see just under the header "(Redirected from Helen's Back)". Click on the words "Helen's Back" in that note, and it will take you to the redirect page in a way that allows you to edit it as normal. If you look at the history, you can just click on the last version by me and add on to it ([2]). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Shattari: Is this alternative to copyvio any use?

Hi, I noticed the copyvio tag on Shattari (not my work). Have created a possible alternative at Talk:Shattari/Temp and made a note of that on the Shattari talk page. It's only a stub but it is referenced. Is this of any help to you? Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tremendous help! Thank you very much. :) I've moved it into article space. No reason to wait for the seven + one days to expire. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to be of help and thanks to you. It's getting harder to find new articles these days. Esowteric+Talk 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Exinda listing

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I am an employee with Exinda's marketing department and actually wrote the Exinda webcopy from which the Exinda Wikipedia listing was taken. How can we resolve this copyright issue and get our listing reposted?

Thanks for your help.

Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hass2009 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Moonriddengirl will be able to guide you more fully, but I think that WP:Donating copyrighted materials is probably a good start for the purely legal side of things. Hope that helps, - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be an excellent place to start. For more information, see this archived response I gave to the last request for clarification on this subject. The website continues to host "©2009 Exinda Networks. All rights reserved", and there is still no communication in our e-mail system about this matter. That said, you might want to consider other factors as well. First, as you are connected to the company, you will want to be very careful to remain within our conflict of interest guidelines with any edits on the company. Also, I don't recall any third-party references in the article that were deleted. These are helpful in establishing notability and verifying information. "Your First Article" provides some useful information on how to establish an article on Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

For further reference, there was also User talk:Pschwab08#Exinda's copyright status and User talk:MLauba/Archive 4#Exinda Page... MLauba (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

When you get a moment

...could I trouble you to look at Louis H. Carpenter? I see a lot of sections that apparently quote other text right off the bat; I am concerned this could be a copyright violation. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) The one here is evidently from a source that is PD by age. I don't know if this one is pd, though. I don't see any indication that it is, but I am not at all familiar with the sources for the subject. The material is also published here.

Wayback is down, so I'm having trouble evaluating, but there may be some cause for concern with [3], which dates to 1998 and which has text duplicated in the Buffalo Soldiers section. Are they both taken from a PD source? From source:

Life at Leavenworth was not pleasant for the 10th. The Fort's commander, who was admittedly opposed to African- Americans serving in the regular army, made life as difficult as he could on the new troopers. Grierson sought to have his regiment transferred, and subsequently received orders moving the regiment to Fort Riley, Kansas later that summer.

Our article says:

Life at Leavenworth was not pleasant for the 10th Calvary. The fort's commander, who was openly opposed to African-Americans serving in the Regular Army, made life for the new troops difficult. Benjamin Grierson sought to have his regiment transferred, and subsequently received orders moving the regiment to Fort Riley, Kansas, later that summer.

This section closely paraphrases what is evidently a public domain source, here:

Captain Carpenter's troop was the first of these commands to arrive upon the scene. It found Forsyth's command out of rations, living on horse-flesh without salt or pepper. All its officers had been killed or wounded.

Our article says:

Carpenter’s troop was the first of these three commands to arrive upon the scene. They found Forsyth’s command out of rations and forced to survive on horse and mule flesh. Not one animal survived. All of Forsyth's officers had been killed or wounded.

I am way out of time for Wikipedia tonight. If you can, please verify that these close paraphrases are from public domain material. Otherwise, once wayback is up and running, I'll check to verify point of origin. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do that. Take care! TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Icewine martini

I'm trying to find the reference to the page Icewine martini. You deleted it and I left a message in the talk page but now I can't find it. Can you point me the way to find the original deleted article? I left proof that the contentious parts of the article was used by permission. Thanks, Phil. Philcheevers (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Only administrators can view deleted articles. But if by proof, you mean the note "This article is free for republishing" at [4], the contributor who tagged the article explained at that talk page that this is not a compatible license with Wikipedia's. We need a license that explicitly permits reproduction (including commercial) and modification. All content you place directly on Wikipedia is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-alike License 3.0 and GNU Free Documentation License. In order for us to accept text that is previously published elsewhere, it must at the least be explicitly licensed under a license compatible with CC-BY-SA, such as CC-BY or CC-BY-SA itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The article at articlealley is a reprint from a book I wrote. I have explicitely made the content in question at the bottom of my page at www.vinocanada.com available for wikipedia, proving that I am the author and that it is releaseable to wikipedia. Philcheevers (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in donating that text. Your current language, however, needs modification, as it says, "Portions of The Essential Icewine Companion appear with permission in Wikipedia's "Icewine Martini" entry." As I indicated above, we need an explicit license statement. At Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, Wikipedia recommends "The text of this website (or page, if you are specifically releasing one section) is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)." Obviously, you would want to alter that to indicate what specific text you have released. If you don't want to put that statement on your website (for example if you fear that others might misunderstand it and make more liberal use of your work than you intend), you can e-mail the Wikimedia Foundation with your license statement as set out at Donating copyrighted materials. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your superhandy SCV clearance template

I think this one can move into template space now, no? :) MLauba (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I got no talkpage notice when I started work this morning! I've got a bunch of stuff here!

Sure. I have no objections. Has there been any progress in subdividing the CSB listings? I'm barely keeping a handle on stuff as I'm getting ready for my surgery. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarasota National Cemetery

Greetings, Moonriddengirl:
Thanks for the review of Cecil Recreation Complex. I've got another article for you to eyeball: User:Mgreason/Sandbox
Again, no big hurry; I see you've been staying busy. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I will come take a look ASAP, but I make no specific promise as to when that means. :D (Soon!) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Out of Hand by Gary Stewart

Bueno job on the Out of Hand article.

TuckerResearch (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I enjoyed it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Kettering

Hi Moonriddengirl :). This article has had some sterling work done recently, mainly by one editor, expanding and referencing the history section. Another editor has asked me to have a look at it with regard to copyright/paraphrase issues. There is really only one readily available source of early historical information about the town, R.L. Greenall's "A History of Kettering" and this has been used as the major source in this expansion. I think that the majority of what has been added is fine, but wanted someone more experienced in copyright issues to look at what I consider to be two of the most "borderline" examples. I hope this doesn't seem trivial or nit-picking:).

First example:
From the article:

The ‘Wic-’ prefix of the nearby village of Weekley is viewed by some place-name scholars as indicating the presence of foederati, Anglo-Saxon mercenaries brought in to bolster Britain’s defences against barbarian attack.

From the source:

"[...] in the place-name Weekly, the 'Wic-' prefix being seen by place-name scholars an an indication of feodorati, Anglo-Saxon mercenaries brought in to boost the defences of the Empire, [...]"

Second example:
From the article:

The town traces its origins to an early Romano British settlement which lies under the northern part of the modern town. Occupied until the 4th century AD there is evidence of considerable iron-smelting taking place at this site; indeed it is believed that iron-smelting continued in the adjacent Rockingham Forest area until at least the time of Domesday Book and beyond. Along with the Forest of Dean and the Weald of Kent/Sussex this area of Northamptonshire was one of the three great areas of iron-working in Roman Britain. The settlement was unwalled and extends into the Weekley and Geddington parishes.

From the source:

"The major ancient monument in the parish in the large unwalled Roman settlement which lies under the northern part of the town and extends into Weekly and Geddington parishes. Evidence of considerable iron-smelting has been found and the settlement was occupied until the fourth century AD. [...] This part of Northamptonshire was one of the three great centres of iron-working in Roman Britain, the others being the Weald of Kent and Sussex and the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire. The making of iron seems to have been carried on in Rockingham Forest down to the time of the Domesday Book and beyond, and was probably discontinued [...]"

(Both extracts from R.L.Greenall, A History of Kettering, Phillimore, 2003)

As I said, these are examples of what seems to me closest to a paraphrase of the original source. Many thanks in advance for having a look :.) --TheSmuel (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There's some very clear close paraphrasing there, I agree. I doubt that it's substantial enough that any court would find it a copyright violation, but it isn't in keeping with WP:NFC. I'll come over and revise a bit to separate further, since they are small sections. Thanks for investigating it and detailing your issues so thoroughly. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Revised to separate a bit more, including incorporating direct quotations. If you think further revision to my words is necessary, by all means feel free. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for responding to my request. I don't have a copy of Greenall so I was unable to do any checking myself. I can however usually recognise potential problems like these.--Kudpung (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personel Pages

Why do you delete personal pages without discussing. I warn you not to do that Hemant Vohra 11:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant 17 (talk • contribs)

Ummm... it would be unwise to threaten an admin. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

BEE

The page is on my userspace only for now. I'm rewrting it and once it is done, it'll be gone. Regards,--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problems.. I also want to point out that Indian copyright laws mention nothing about Government data.... The census is released into te public domain.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the pure information from the census, then such facts are not covered by US copyright, which is what governs Wikipedia. Census data should be usable. Indian government creative text is generally protected. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopedia - copyright or copyfraud?

The article Moses has text copied from the Jewish Encyclopedia. It's been removed twice as copyvio, the last time by me, just restored here: [5]? I'm confused, at Talk:Moses this is described as copyfraud by the JE, the linked webpage for the JE says "Copyright 2002 JewishEncyclopedia.com." - is it possible the 1906 text is still in copyright, or the JE is making false claims, or? Yours in confusion, Dougweller (talk) 16:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I've run into these guys before. The 1906 version is public domain. They can only assert copyright over any new material they may have added, not over the original text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation. I can see why another editor called it 'copyfraud'. Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Going Wayback

Hi, Mrg. A question about the wayback machine: This page shows the earliest version for this website as November 4 2006. But as I understand it, that only is a point in time that the wayback machine saved that site -- however, the website could certainly have existed in that form earlier(In fact, I notice a 2005-2006 copyright symbol on the page bottom). Or does it mean that that particular website didn't exist previous to the November 6 date? — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I usually take wayback as a ballpark figure, since it's the first sweep where the page was picked up. There's also occasionally issues where a page existed under another name (or a subpage) and was moved. Wayback does not archive on a regular frequency, and there may be several weeks between internet sweeps. Usually I use it as step one of investigation. If the date is definitive, I need look no further. (If the article preexists the earliest archive by several years, for instance; or if the archive predates us.) If I'm still not sure, I check other clues, especially looking for significant development in an article to bring it towards or away from the archived site. If in doubt, I usually rewrite. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's what I thought. Damn it, I was looking for an easy way out. I suspected a reverse copyvio but the WP article was built in such largish chunks that it could possibly have been developed from the website over time. However... I just noticed a mistake on the website - one sentence includes the parenthetical text (see the article Walking like an Egyptian) - just like the Wikipedia article does. But a Walking like an Egyptian article doesn't exist on that hip hop website and Wikipedia had one back then. Whoo hoo! — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Another pesky copyright problem

Lately, I've been having some dealings with an (apparently young) user who seems unable or unwilling to understand WP policies. Could you take a look at Talk:History of Pittsboro, Indiana and let me know whether my comments there are on the right track, and if so, what the next step in dealing with the copyvio should be? Deor (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. coming right over. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right on with the comments there. I cannot quite tell from the contributor's note if he is professing that he has actually copied text verbatim—it sounds like it; but it would be very nice to be able to get our hands on a copy of his source. :/ I'll come over and pitch in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I think it's pretty obvious from the tone of the text ("We had come a long way in fifty years … ," "So, in the 25 years from 1984 to 2009, what has happened in Pittsboro?"), as well as its reflecting a compositional ability much greater than what Sedna10387 has shown elsewhere, that Sedna just typed the text of the pamphlet, or whatever it is, verbatim. Deor (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you're very right. We'll have to see what he says. He seems to be having a rough time of it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

    Normal   0                         MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Your contributions are appreciated

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For being a substantial contributor of music album pages and starting up new album articles. Furthermore, not only have you created many album articles, you created them with exceptional quality. Wikipedia should consider itself lucky for having an editor such as yourself. Keep up the great work. Calaka (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much. :D I got better at it as I went. I was trying to remember my first; I think it may have been this one. I didn't even know how to tell if it charted at that time; I copied the information from her discography page. I asked at the albums wikiproject, but nobody even answered me. :) Now I get to go be the book article newbie.

Thanks also for helping keep that project organized. I got distracted for a while with copyright cleanup, but didn't want to see it languish. Your notes were a good impetus to continue. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe no worries! It is the least I could give you. I wish you all the best with the book article creation process. Oh and no worries about the project organization. I truly should help Wikipedia in more real ways like actually making articles and so on, but due to real life commitments not letting me spend an excessive amount of time doing extensive research on an article, the most I can do is make announcements and suggestions on talk pages and write little notes after doing quick Google searches to help people do the work. I hope that with my meager efforts of helping Wikipedia, the article creation process goes a tiny bit faster. Anyway, congratulations once again and happy editing! :)Calaka (talk) 11:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, your efforts were helpful with me. It all adds together. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Lots of quoting from source

Mind having a look at the recent edits of Jones County, Mississippi by an IP? Seems like way too much quoting from the sources to be acceptable per copyright issues. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Good grief! At first blush, that looks like a pretty blatant overuse of WP:NFC. Off to delve deeper. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, not quite as bad as I first thought. :D The IP put a <blockquote> notation in for some reason before a section, and I thought that the entire section was a quote (with subquotes). Still, quoting multiple paragraphs is not doable. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking at it.   allstar✰echo  19:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Snazzy new sig. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetization

Hello. Can you point me to the proper place in the manual of style where alphabetization is discussed? I am looking specifically for the policy relating to band names. My basic question is, are The Decembrists listed under "t" for The or "d" for Decembrists? I have noticed inconsistencies where this is concerned. My personal feeling is that if a band puts "the" at the beginning of their name, it is part of the name. Thanks for your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) If the band's article is under "The Decembrists", that in itself would seem to support you. Wikipedia:Name requires that the article be dropped if it is not part of the title. Traditional alphabetical schemes drop the articles (so as to avoid having a billion under T, I should imagine), but I do not know if there's a specific manual of style for that on Wikipedia. Can't find one, anyway. If I were you, I would ask at WP:FL first, since that seems like the kind of thing they'd know about. If not, I'd try the help desk, since there are at least good odds that somebody there will have seen it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. At my local library, the "the" is dropped entirely from CDs, which I find ridiculous. It leads to situations in which The Band is just Band, and The The becomes simply The. Terrible. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The The are just problematic all around. I'm sure it seemed like a clever name at the time, but they can be a right pain in an MP3 player. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Image question again

Sita manu (talk · contribs) is uploading a number of images and I'm not clear about their copyright, particularly after seeing this edit [6] - is there a board where questions like the editor's or mine can be asked about images? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:MCQ is the general go-to place for copyright questions. That's where I'd start. Alternatively, I'd consider asking at Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. But I'd start with MCQ. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I still don't know my way around copyright pages enough, and don't really have time to help out more, sorry. But our free use policy seems a bit unclear to say the least, esp. with regard to logos. Dougweller (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree on all counts. I once had an image I had uploaded nominated for deletion as failing NFC. It was deleted. I myself nominated several images I had uploaded with the same rationale for review subsequently at WP:NFCR. They were kept. It makes no sense to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation of Moses. H. Cone Memorial Hospital entry

I have attributed to Wikipedia in the past regarding articles on the hospitals in North and South Carolina, but the article on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital seems like that it was copied and pasted from the hospital's actual website [7] which I have added to this section. I have compared the two pages and have been undetermined to reach a consensus on whether or not this is indeed a copyright violation. If you can determine whether it is in fact a violation and allow for a rewrite of the article, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Geomapboy2 (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletetd fsc2 page

Hi,

I just noticed by chance (I didn't create the page and had no idea that it existed) that there is/was a page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fsc2, which seem to have contained a description of a program for controlling spectrometers I wrote - there's a link in the delete message that points to my web page for the program. It seems to have been deleted by you for some kind of copyright infringement. Could you be so kind to tell me why this has been done? The program in under a free license (GPL) as is its documentation. So I am now worried if there's something where I may have inadvertently violated someone else's copyright (even though I wrote everything from scratch).

If you want to contact me directly my email address is jt@toerring.de.

Best regards, Jens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.157.33 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. So far as I know, you have violated no copyright. :) Wikipedia, however, underwent a licensing transition completed this summer that requires that all text imported here after November of 2008 must be licensed compatibly with WP:CC-BY-SA. Co-licensing under WP:GFDL is preferred, but only necessary if the copyright holder contributes it directly. The contributor was notified, here, but did not follow through with attempting to obtain co-licensing. If you want to permit this text to be used on Wikipedia, the quickest and easiest way to do so is to make a note at your website indicate that the content is available for reuse and modification under CC-By-SA 3.0. If you don't want to make such a note, you can still release it through e-mail. Full directions for both types of releases are at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you decide to release at your website, please let me know, and once I have verified that the release meets our requirements, I will restore the article. If you do it through e-mail, whichever agent processes your letter should do it. Thanks, and please let me know if any of this is unclear. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your kind (and clear;-) explanation! I did add a line at the bottom of the page, putting it "officially" under the GNU Free Documentation License. Does that satisfy the requirements?

Best regards, Jens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.157.33 (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response! :) It will if you also license it under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0. Wikipedia used to only accept material licensed under GFDL, but after our licensing change, we can no longer accept GFDL licensed material unless it is also under a license compatible with CC-By-SA, such as CC-By or (of course) CC-By-SA itself. GFDL and CC-BY-SA are very similar, but they are not compatible. (Curiously, we can accept material licensed only under CC-BY-SA. Go figure. More information about this is available at WMF:Terms_of_Use.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for unnecessarily adding to your workload, but I'm rather bad at that kind of stuff:-( I now also added the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 to the copyright notice. I hope that covers all the bases.

Thank you for your kind help! Jens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.157.33 (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Duly restored with proper attribution on the article face. Please don't worry about my workload; I'm very familiar with this stuff and happy to help. :) Thank you for donating the text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Best regards, Jens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.157.33 (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

RICHARD PERRY PAGE

Hello Moonriddengirl,

Thank you for taking the time to fix Richard Perry's page. it looks very good. Sorry I haven't been in touch until now to thank you but I've been under the weather lately. I sent Richard the message you sent to me and told him to contact you directly should he wish to make any changes or additions in the future. Take care.

Best,

Ernie Clark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingweenie (talk • contribs) 13:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: ANI sock question

Mmm, tough one. Here's what I found: both users edit from the Netherlands. Neftchi edits from a big city and a small town (he spends a week here, a week there, the pattern doesn't seem much predictable), and Retlaw only edits from the big city. I find it peculiar that they never edit at the same time, so my guts that might be someone living at 3 different places (2 in the city), and using the Internet connection there. However, I can't rule out they being 2 different people. I can't find any evidence disproving one of these 2 scenarios. -- Luk ^talk 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Damn I was sure I had replied already! I'm so sorry! At that time I would have said to keep an eye open but SPI was unlikely to achieve much (besides of course keeping a record of these suspicions). Of course asking an other CU to weight in might be very valuable (I might have missed something) -- Luk ^talk 11:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a commons admin too. If you need something done there, explain what, who and why on my commons talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Inconclusive based solely on technical evidence, it can not be ruled out nor proven solely on technical evidence.  Likely based on behavior and edit patterns that they are the same. I'd support indef blocks of the socks and a short block of the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

न्यूक्लियर मेडिसिन (गामा स्कैनिंग)

Hi. Which foreign language Wikipedia is it from? I can't find it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

When I hovered over the original article, I thought it said that it was on the Indian version of WP, though I could be mistaken. --mhking (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think WP talk:Upload could be semi-protected, considering it's being spammed all the time or will it defeat its purpose since non-autoconfirmed users may ask about the inability to upload? -- Mentifisto 12:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It's a pity people don't read the edit notices at such pages. :/ Could save a lot of trouble. I think we probably should not semi-protect it because it seems like a likely spot for new users to ask for help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• English words written in Hindi. Reads "Nuclear medicine (gamma scanning)". hi:न्यूक्लियर मेडिसिन. 59.95.99.183 (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Rsrikanth05/Bureau of Energy Efficiency

Yikes, thanks for adding the template there. I completely forgot to follow up on that until it just popped up on my watchlist. The originator User:Hemant 17 has been rather persistent in adding questionable articles. His user page has a list of articles, most of which have been deleted a number of times by various admins. A more forceful hand might be necessary here. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) I'm actually conversing with him at the moment as I'm cleaning up quite a few copyvio articles he put into his userspace. Hopefully, he'll understand the issue now so that further action won't be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing me Hemant Vohra 11:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemant 17 (talk • contribs)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thanks for your tips on copywrite - Hemant Vohra 10:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This bud's for you

Hi, Mrg. I'm going to leave the report on this article from today's list for you to handle. The copyright violation report was filed because of this article. According to the wayback machine, it goes back to at least July 2001 -- predating the WP one by 5 years -- and was written by a retired LA radio engineer. Now see the talk page discussion. The creator of the article, a good long-time WP contributor, says this is a reverse copyvio of his own lectures as a local historian. He is being vouched for by an administrator. I'd assume he is correct, but I would also assume WP might still require some form of verification. So I think this needs your experienced touch. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That is sticky. Helping our cause, the webmaster, here, indicated that "We have used many sources, including FCC files, university lecturers, historical publications and more...." However, he also asserts copyright. I'll leave the article unblanked, but write to the webmaster to seek clarification. If he asserts that the text is his, I'll blank again while we give the Professor an opportunity to verify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for looking into this. I'll relist the report while we wait. Now you may have an actual Bud. Oh, wait... it's still too early for you there. I'll have one (or the equivalent) in your honor. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. I've written the webmaster and asked him to let us know if he disputes the contributor's claim. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

New evidence, on an older case, regarding Incident on RetlawSnellac-Neftchi

Hello, Moonriddengirl, I've just added new evidence, at ANI regarding, impersonation of RetlawSnellac, Neftchi, sockpuppetry and IP thief. I have reasons to suspect him in having another puppet, in the past, who behaved the same way. Please, check it as well.

I also wanted to check, if you've contacted real RetlawSnellac, through email in his Flickr profile. He didn't reply to my last FlickrMail. I think he travels a lot, and on the other hand, when I wrote to him first time, inquiring if it was him, or an impersonator, the reply I posted in report, was his only reaction, so it didn't look as he cared too much, about that. So if needed, I'm ready to provide you with my Flickr login/pass, so you can see the correspondence we had, with him. If yes, contact me through email, it's activated in my settings here. Regards --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for being so thorough with this. I have not written to him because I am scheduled for surgery in less than a week, and I don't want to complicate things by perhaps being in recovery when he attempts to respond. :) This is why I had suggested he write to info-en-c@wikimedia.org, as there are many volunteers who handle that e-mail queue and one of them could respond promptly, when I may not be able to.

If we hear nothing from him, the images should be deleted by an administrator at Commons at the end of this week. The process is built to allow the uploader several days to prove that he is who he says he is. If he does not prove that, either by putting a note on the flickr page or sending an e-mail from an identifiable address to the Wikimedia Foundation, we presume that the material is not allowed. So far, I've seen no sign of an e-mail from him offering to verify his identity. No need for you to provide us with your login information; it should resolve naturally very soon.

I've read over your new evidence at ANI. Certainly there seems to be some copyright problems. But complicating things here are that these images are on Commons, as is the account. The English language Wikipedia is separate from Commons. I am not an administrator on Commons, though I can tag material there for an administrator to review. I may ask User:Rlevse, who is a bureaucrat here and an administrator at Commons, if he can take a look, as he can take any necessary action at both projects. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey. Yes, with this untipcal activity for me, I want to finish it as soon as I can, 'cause knowing me - If I'll leave it for several days, I'll leave it forever. Thank you for your assistance, and answers, now it's clear. BTW, that new user, also uploaded several photos to en:wp, not only commons. I wish you fast recovery and good health. :) And if smth. will rise again, I'll contact Rlevse directly, not to harrass you now. Best - --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes. :) He actually didn't upload photos here; what he did was add the ones uploaded to commons to articles. I'm not sure if he edited enough here for a checkuser, but I have noted to Rlevse that there is a record on English Wikipedia. And don't worry about harassing me; I am happy to help if I am able, though in this case Rlevse is certainly in better position to help you than I am. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of development of GM Motorsports Electronics article

Hi, I just discovered that there is a copywrite concern over the GM Motorsports article I wrote a long time ago. Did some one complain about something specific? The photos used were used with the permission of my friend in California, Phil Crosno, who was the manager of the Delco Electronics program there. I cited my sources for other information used in the text. Similar articles (after the Wikipedia Article was published) were used at the GMNext web site, and in a book published by the GM retirees in Santa Barbara. Please let me knw what the concern is and I will attempt to resolve it.--W9kfb (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Somebody tagged it as a copy of this article. While that site is a Wiki, it is not licensed compatibly with Wikipedia's but claimed under full copyright. However, I appreciate your note, as I overlooked that the text had been published on Wikipedia in another article prior to its establishment at that external site. Ordinarily, even though it seems obvious that you're the same person, we'd have to verify permission, but since the text was here first, we don't need to in this case. I'll restore the article with my apologies. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--W9kfb (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again,

I am concerned that the restore has not happened. Is there anything that I need to do in order for it to be restored?--W9kfb (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry! I restored it, and I didn't even look at the actual article to realize that it was still blanked. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Split

Hi! Thanks for the notice, I'll provide links when I split articles again. (Actually I completely rewrote the princess's article so not much of the original remained... :) – Alensha ^talk 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Qutb Shah

Hi, this article was deleted/redirected by you, any particlular reason? thanks Khokhar (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This one was part of an ongoing multiple-article copyright infringement clean-up by a contributor now indefinitely blocked for copyright violation. It was created as a licensing violation of Khokhar, from which it was copied without attribution. Only the lead was not copied from that article, and I found duplication of it at several points on the internet. I could not positively determine which came first, but since it was duplicated and given the history of the contributor deleted it in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. (If the rest of the article had not been pasted from Khokhar, I would have listed it at WP:CP to give contributors a chance to revise.) If a split from that article is desirable, it can certainly be done in accordance with policy, with a direct link back to the source article. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, a split would probably be a good move, the aricle Khokhar seems to be getting quite large anyway. Thanks. Khokhar (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article in es.wikipedia

Ok, I saw the article, but isn't an exactly copyvio. Only I see exactly the order of countries, and some information about the plant, but are rewritten. So maybe used the text as base, but isn't a copy. --Taichi (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Mustafa Ziyalan

Hi, sorry to bother you again, but I want to make sure that I'm doing the right thing. The {{copyvio}} template should be used for the above article (even though the user says he has permission), right? Theleftorium 17:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. You're more than welcome any time you think I may be of assistance. :) Yes, it should. Unless there is a note releasing it at the website or an OTRS ticket, we need to verify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Did I do everything correctly ([8], [9], [10])? Theleftorium 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly. :) For your simplicity, I do have a template I've created which is a bit like the note you left that can be easily used. It's at User:Moonriddengirl/vp (for verification procedure). It's wordy, because I am. :D If you want to use it, you just fill in the necessary: {{subst:User:Moonriddengirl/vp|pg=PAGE|url=ADDRESS, INCLUDING "http://"}}. (Oh, I should note that it will automatically include your signature.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :-D Theleftorium 18:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't expecting that! Thank you for the compliments! I'm glad I'm able to help out. I recently had a RfA that failed in part because of copyright concerns, so this page is a good learning experience for me. :) Theleftorium 19:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. RFA can be a brutal experience. :( Well, whatever brought you to the copyright work, I hope that you decide you like it and stick around. As you can see, it's neverending. CSB is one very busy bot. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. The copyright concerns at Mustafa Ziyalan have been addressed ([11], [12], did I do it right?) Do I remove the article from Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 12 now? Theleftorium 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Bump. :) Theleftorium 20:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry. I didn't notice you up here. :) Thanks for the bump. You did it exactly right, yes. We don't remove listings from CP, though. We put notes explaining how they resolved. Some people use {{done}}. I'm lazy, so I use {{y}}. You see how I did that day under IANPHI? Just mentioned that it was dually licensed at the source, and you're good to go! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Done! Theleftorium 20:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Devendra Banhart

Hi Moonriddengirl, I hope this finds you well and hope you remember me. I am trying to make additions to the page of Devendra Banhart. I learned my lesson of things being cited since last we spoke. i am haveing a serious problem with a person who has the username Hekuri. He single handedly and without consensus is taking down sited and sourced material that I and others are putting up. I realize that there is a conflict of interest with myself and Devendra's record label putting facts up but I assure you all we are trying to do is get more fun and interesting facts about him up that his fans and people new to him would find interesting and are factually relevant to his page. I believe we are acting in the spirit of Wikipedia and someone single handedly and arbitrarily taking them off runs counter to this. You can refer to the discussion page on Devendra's page if you have time to further look into this. I am at the point where I believe this user Hekuri is exercising a harmful amount of control over the page and would like to file a complaint against him if he does not show a willingness to work with others and stop acting like he runs the page. Best and thanks for your time.Lktmgmt (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, content dispute. I've offered advice at Talk:Devendra Banhart#Recent edits by Warner Music Group. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tagishsimon, for wading in. :) I see you've offered some very good input at the article page. Lktmgmt, I believe that you may not fully understand the consensus process. This disagreement and subsequent debate is very much acting in the spirit of Wikipedia. Articles are improved in collaboration with other interested editors and if you add something that others disagree with (in good faith, as the note at the talk page suggests Hekuri did), you should be prepared to spend a few days as necessary resolving your differences. "Dispute resolution" gives some ideas for where to find other input if you reach a stalemate. Also, let me remind you, please, of a passage in WP:COI:

Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when:

1. Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
2. Participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

If you don't choose to avoid editing this article, you should do so very cautiously. It would be a good idea for you to carefully consider input from other editors. Some of them may have their own conflicts with the text (including a desire to harm the article), but most of Wikipedia's accounts are held by individuals who are interested in developing material in accordance with guidelines and policies, and they may be aware of issues that you have not yet realized. It is better to proceed slowly and patiently than risk having the article locked over an edit war or yourself prohibited from editing it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for your comments and Tagishsimon has definitely made some good points that have helped me understand things better. We are going to deal with things on a case by case basis on the discussion page. Again, thank you for your guidance here.Lktmgmt (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright texts

Yesterday you have blocked the User:Princeofdark07 for his copyrights violations. not only he uploads copyrighted images, also sometimes he add copyrighted texts into articles. see this section in Tuluva article, the entire text is copied from here (from second paragraph). another section is copied from here . he copied and pasted the whole content from that website, see his edit [13] and made very very minor changes. what to do now? it should be removed or not?? C21K^talk 13:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. Most definitely, anything that he has copied from any other website should be removed. The burden is on him to verify that he has the right to release it here. I am just getting ready to sign off of Wikipedia, but I will look further into this when I come back online. Meanwhile, please feel free to remove duplicated text with a note explaining why at the talk page of any article where you know such text exists. If any contributor disputes your removal, the material can be blanked with the {{copyvio}} and listed at the copyright problems board for an administrator to evaluate. The steps for doing that are explained at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the assist. i will remove the copvio texts. C21K^talk 13:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we are being too. harsh on PrinceofDark. He is new to Wikipedia. People do have trouble initially. I have seen some excellent encyclopedic contributions from him. He has been an excellent editor. I suggest giving one more chance, with all due respect to all Wikipolicies. Kensplanet^T_C 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Kansas City Barbeque Society

A question about revising this article. The entire article has been blanked, but there were contributions on the page from other users. What happens to those? In other words, if I start revising all of the other info (which will include citing additional sources NOT related to KCBS), what to do with, for instance, the Judging Controversy section submitted by EndUser1234?

EmmaMae (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) If I myself rewrite articles for copyright concerns and wish to incorporate material that had been included by other editors, I will generally satisfy the attribution requirement by adding their edits in one at a time, with a note in the edit summary indicating who wrote it. See, for example, the history of Federally Administered Tribal Areas, [14], where I did just that in mid-May. Zeroing in on one in particular, [15], all of the textual changes in this edit were authored by the contributor I named in the edit summary at the time indicated. The only other real alternative is to rewrite all of the material, which also works, but when I have time and opportunity I really prefer to retain what others have contributed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Khokhar

Hi Moonriddengirl I have noticed you have commented on this page. If you have time, could you look at this issue. I think we need someone neutral to comment on it. I think User KKhokhar is using WP:SYNTH when he is saying Churahs should not be included in the list, even though HA Rose clearly states that Khokhars consist of Rajputs, Jats, Arains and Churahs. Ibeston also states that Khokhars are Tarkhan. Please caste your neutral eye. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that I'm not really in position right now to pitch in on this one. It looks complex, and I am preparing for an upcoming surgery early next week. However, I have listed the matter for the two of you at WP:3O, and I hope that this will attract a neutral editor who can help you resolve the question. If not, you may wish to consider consulting the contributors at Wikipedia:Content noticeboard. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you for that. Regards --Sikh-History 10:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Film screenshots

Hi Moonriddengirl, I was thinking of uploading some screenshots for an article on a documentary film I have been working on. User:Girolamo Savonarola from the film project pointed me to WP:FILMNFI, and said he thought that any image "must directly enhance critical commentary by showing something above and beyond what text is capable of doing". That is obviously a flexible concept; arguably, any image of a film scene mentioned in a secondary source says more than a verbal description can. Could you give me some hints on how to get this right? Or do you know a specific NFI expert I should ask? Best wishes, JN466 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Just read your post above; keeping fingers crossed for you and hope you'll soon be well again. If you haven't got time right now, don't worry, it can wait. Best, --JN466 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) This one is not so complex, since I'll just refer you to somebody else. :D I don't do much with images precisely because I have the same thoughts you do. The first names that come to my mind are User:Quadell, User:Drilnoth and User:J Milburn, since all of them are heavily involved with images. Quadell seems to be even less available right now than I am. User:Drilnoth founded Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media, which suggests his heavy involvement with images. :) I'd start there. J Milburn could probably also help out if Drilnoth is not available. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do! JN466 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Needing a clarification...

Hi, Mrg. The first item on the today's Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 7 list is a familiar face, The Roth Law Firm. Although we received OTRS permission here, MLauba correctly points out their website still says "all right reserved" which is a conflict. I am not certain of the policy here. The relevant line from Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials states If you would like to allow Wikipedia to use your content, but don't want to put a license statement on the site (note that you still must release it under those free licenses), you can contact permissions-en@wikimedia.org... However, the policy doesn't clearly state whether the old copyright notices must be removed. What is the answer? — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) They can keep the notice on the website. The e-mail permits the licensing for the text they've placed here. Pertinent here is that, of course, as per WP:C they have not relinquished copyright to the text; they've only had to license it to place it here. So the copyright notice on their website is not inaccurate, though of course Wikipedia's readers are free to do with what they've placed here anything permitted by GFDL and CC-By-SA. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Re-clarification: my issue wasn't with their website but with the disclaimer they first placed at the bottom of the article and then on talk, which asserted ownership and reserved rights :) Doesn't change a thing but I didn't care for the source web site too much in this context :D MLauba (talk) 13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I misunderstood your reason for the listing (although it did help me to make certain about this other issue). As far as that disclaimer on the talk page goes -- it's meaningless. It is like any other point of misinformation that an editor may write on an article talk page -- it is open for comment and discussion. You already responded with a good explanation there, so the situation was settled. That should be good enough. — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OTRS permissions

Hi, MRG. Could you check to see if permission was received at OTRS for the Dave Fry and Vidal Cantu Garza articles. Both were supposedly e-mailed August 1 and August 8, respectively. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Off to look. BRB. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I've blanked Dave Fry again. The letter for it was insufficient; an OTRS agent wrote on August 1st explaining that. There has been more than sufficient time without response to process it, but I've left the matter for you since it may require follow-up conversations that I wouldn't be around for. :) The article can be stubbed or deleted as necessary. I've protected it for now, since the material has twice been restored out of process. I got no hit at OTRS for Vidal Cantu Garza or Kenio Films or keniofilms or Vidal Garza. Accordingly, I've deleted that one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Billy Gibson (boxing)

Hi Moonriddengirl. The above article is a copyvio of [16], but the text has been slightly paraphrased. What should I do with it (G12 or Wikipedia:Copyright problems)? Or should I just turn it into a stub? Theleftorium 14:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TL. I hope you don't mind if I kibitz here. It won't pass as a G12 -- with the infobox, template,and intro sentence, it can be stubbed. If you want to stub it, that would be great. But list it at WP:CV too, so it can be rechecked in a week. The contributor made some effort to paraphrase, so I'll drop them a note about WP:Close paraphrasing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, thank you for the answer! I'll rewrite it later today, but do I need to list it at WP:CV if I have it on my watchlist? Theleftorium 16:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No. If you are correcting the article, than there's no need to list it at WP:CV. I only suggest it in case you want an administrative check on it later on. But thank you for taking care of the rewrite and keeping an eye on these copyright problems. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Just saying...

Moonriddengirl, Ain't but a very few folks on Wikipedia whose mind, talent and good spirits are absolutely undeniably unquestionably indispensable. And you're one of them. We won't let the whole flower bed go to weeds in your absence -- but hurry back anyway. Here's wishing you all the best this week. Heal well. — CactusWriter

Thank you! That is incredibly kind and very generous, particularly given that you yourself have helped to make me not indispensable. :D Seriously, I am very grateful for your work in the copyright problems queue, and I will be able to focus much better on my recovery knowing that it is in good hands. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

About including public domain text in articles

Hi Moonriddengirl, how are you? Hope you are doing well. I am still (and always will be) extremely grateful for all the help you and your team gave us at Project Gastropods in rescuing all those 1,000 gastropod articles from possible deletion because of copyright issues, that was almost a quarter of all of our articles! In fact at the first WIki-Conference New York this July 25th, I mentioned you and your team in my talk, and our founder Jimmy Wales was there listening, so now he's heard about this massive clean-up too! Anyway, I wanted to say that now we have quite a few articles that contain chunks of prose (sometimes a bit modified) from sources that are definitely public domain, and I see that the users have included this fact in the references section at the bottom of the article. But is this sufficient? For an example, see Gadinalea conica. Thanks for your input on this question. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) It's my pleasure to help, and I very much appreciated the good spirit of you and your project in working on those articles. It's a shame to lose content, but much better to have content that is legally ours!

The only issue that using such public domain text would raise would be issues of plagiarism, ala Wikipedia:Plagiarism. There have been some who've promoted putting such copied text into quotation marks or block quotes. This is the way I handle such material myself. However, directly utilizing it within the article is currently accepted so long as the source is noted. The footnote should be fine. The only time it would be likely to be an issue is if the current consensus on that changes and it has to be sorted out later, to see what is public domain and what is not. But even if that happens, it won't have guide the urgency of the ones we had to clean up. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Very best wishes for your surgery and thanks again for your help on this. Invertzoo (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chih-Ming Ho and John Kim (professor)

Hi Moonriddengirl (or whomever is checking this),

I'm new to Wikipedia, and noticed that the first two articles I posted, for Prof. Chih-Ming Ho and Prof. John Kim, were both deleted by you. I received permission from both of them to post titles of scholarly papers they've published etc. I don't understand why the articles were deleted. Please let me know what I can do to restore them. I don't understand how to put their information into a 'Creative Commons' format.Academic hall (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you,

academic_hall

Hi. The articles were deleted because the permission to use them was not verified in a way that Wikipedia could accept. While we can't accept text from any website that is not explicitly released under CC-By-SA, we particularly cannot accept text from one that says "©1973-2005 UCLA Micro Systems Laboratories. All rights reserved." Although you may have permission, we need a usable license release for our records. Did you receive the permission in e-mail form? If so, and if the e-mail addresses are clearly connected to the source websites, http://turb.seas.ucla.edu/~jkim/ and http://ho.seas.ucla.edu/professor/, you can mail those to the Wikimedia Foundation to verify release. The full procedure is set out at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If not, are the webmasters able to put a release directly on those pages? There is a statement at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials that can be used. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Omphalocele.jpg

Hi, Just wanna consult you about the file if it has the correct license, and copyright information. thank you MaenK.A._Talk 16:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Acording to this I dont think its right!!! MaenK.A._Talk 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio to me; that page suggests that ADAM bits and pieces, where incoporated, are still copyright, as they were not created by a federal source. The ADAM logo would therefore suggest that the image is copyright, unless specified elsewhere. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 17:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a copyvio to me, too; I've tagged it accordingly at Commons. Thanks for bringing it up! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome :-) happy working with you MaenK.A._Talk 13:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Update forthcoming

Several people have asked me to let them know when I pull through, and I've asked my husband to leave a note. He's never edited Wikipedia before (aside from just now), but I've shown him how, and hopefully this will go okay. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is Moonriddengirl's husband. Several people asked for word how she was doing. She made it through the surgery just fine. Expect her to be online in a few days. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent news, MRG's H. Please give her all our good wishes for a speedy recuperation and for a successful outcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. We are actually happier than you to hear that wonderful news! Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Great news! Thank you for the update. Please let Moonriddengirl know that she should just concentrate on relaxing and "recuping" -- we will all muddle along for how ever many days she needs to take. All the best wishes to you and your family. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll join the chorus and thank you for these excellent news, here are my own wishes for a prompt recovery, together with my added recommendation that she take all the time she needs :) MLauba (talk) 10:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User pages exempt from our licence?

Lumos3 (talk · contribs) has this notice on his/her user page "I agree to multi-license. all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below.". Is that legitimate? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This used to be legitimate before the site switched to dual licensing. Under WP:AGF I'll assume that this is simply a notice placed there a long time ago and not updated since June 16th. That being said, to answer the question, no, this kind of reserved rights aren't legitimate today - see below this edit box for instance:

You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 and the GFDL.

MLauba (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I think the relevant guideline is stated currently in a couple of places. Here is the policy at WP:UP:

"If you want to dual-license your contributions under an additional license or declare them all public domain, you may put a notice to this effect on your user page. Because of the large templates and long category names, some editors move the license templates to a subpage. Whether you include an explicit license statement or not, however, all of your edits on Wikipedia are also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License and the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License.".... "However, pages in user space still do belong to the community: Contributions must be co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License and GNU Free documentation license, just as articles are."

Additionally, the text Wikipedia:Multi-licensing describes the addition of multi-licensing templates to user pages. Although the text has been updated since June, it may still require revision. It states there:

"In general, users make their multi-licensing desires known on their user page by way of a banner or some description of their wishes (See User:Jamesday for a complicated example). This is often simply accomplished by adding a pre-made template. See the full selection of licensing templates available."

"Unless you explicitly specify otherwise, all contributions to Wikipedia are dual-licensed under the CC-BY-SA license and the GFDL; therefore, if you elect not to adopt additional licenses, no action is necessary. Even if you use said two licenses exclusively, you may wish to communicate your preference on your User page, such as by using {{NoMultiLicense}}."

I think the bottom-line is that the text is all licensed CC-BY-SA and the GFDL, regardless of the User:Lumos3#Licensing banner. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I should ask him on his talk page what he thinks the practical implications of his banner are? Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I would be interested in knowing that myself. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There really is no mystery there. He added that when we were GFDL-only and multi-licensing was voluntary. Keep that in mind when you question his motives. It's simply an outdated extension of what used to be the default license, and I'm willing to be there are still dozens of these around. MLauba (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, check Category:Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and its subcategories to get all the wikipedians who still have this outdated notice on their user pages. Plenty. MLauba (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not questioning his motives - but should anything be done about all of these users to make sure they understand the current situation? Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

My unhelpful 2 cents: yes, probably, but what or how? :) Perhaps it would be best if we brought it to WT:C or the village pump or something. MLauba (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I also have no answer for you. Raising the issue at WT:C may be helpful - although, in truth, it would probably be MRG who would respond there. You could wait for her to return or drop a note to another editor who is familiar with legal issues. You might try User:Jamesday who seems to be familiar with copyright issues. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Please let me know if you find more information. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Question

i just had a query but since you can't reply doesn't matter.hope for your speedy recoveryMuskeeter8 (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Surgery

Good luck with it. :) — neuro^(talk) 11:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We'll be thinking of you. Awadewit (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Good luck! And thank you for being so helpful and kind to me the last few days! :) Theleftorium 20:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. I appreciate it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

And from me, hope your recovery is swift and easy. :) Amalthea 11:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi

The editor that expressed concerns before now completely ignores the sources and wants to say which sources are valid and which isn't. This in no way helps with the wiki article. Please have a say here:Talk:Strikeforce Sea888 (talk) 23:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is one I probably won't be able to offer assistance with any time soon. I'm afraid that I am recovering somewhat slowly, and you might want to consider seeking assistance from another forum, such as those listed at WP:DR. Good luck! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you are posting and hope you aren't too miserable. I'm having two trigger fingers operated on later this week, so I shall have a bit of a problem for a while using Wikipedia. I'll take a look at this one. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Doug, I should have mentioned that I had taken a look already. Sea888 added the same message to a dozen editor pages. He was trying to drum up support to go against a fairly clear consensus on that article. It seemed to me that the project in charge of the article were already dealing with it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yay, Mrg! Glad to hear your voice... um, see your words. It feels like a year since you last posted. I hope you feel better again soon. And if there is anything we can do, please ask. (Although, hmm, I guess that's just virtual help). — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both much. And, CactusWriter, there is nothing virtual in knowing I have not to worry about backlogging here on Wikipedia. :) I'm completely wiped out, but ambulatory. Good luck with the finger surgery, Doug! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me also say that I'm glad to see that everything went well with your surgery and that you've managed to allow yourself some time off-WP for recovery. Still, it is good to see you back. :) – Toon 01:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's me joining the chorus, welcome back :) MLauba (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad y're back :) Lars Washington (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm sort of half back, but I imagine that I will be getting more into the swing as days progress. Toon, to my shock and horror, I've had no choice but to be off-WP for recovery. I cannot yet use a laptop. :/ (I had imagined myself nicely ensconced in my recovery bed with my laptop purring away while I worked on Wikipedia and played Sims.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

XFlaim copyright deletion

It appears that you made the decision to delete the page on the XFlaim database engine:

22:37, 30 November 2008 Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) deleted "XFLAIM Database Engine" ‎ (Copyright. Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 November 21)

However, you didn't take into account that the author of the Wikipedia piece, ahodgkinson, also is the author of the document that was copied.

You should revert the deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.97.109.23 (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid that, as our copyright policy sets out, we need verification of permission to publish material that is previously published unless that original publication makes clear that it is licensed compatibly for our use. On the contrary, this one is clearly reserved: "Copyright © 1997-2002,2006 Novell, Inc. All rights reserved." The uploader of that material was notified, here, how to verify, but did not do so during the seven day listing period. Without that verification, we can't restore the text to Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information. Please note that the original notice left for the uploader is superseded by the information at those pages, as our licensing requirements have changed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Back in harness. Good to see. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I am returning gingerly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The operation changed your hair colour? Odd side effect ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL! More to this effect, I should imagine. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

For all you do, this star's for you!

Thanks for everything; hope you have a speedy recovery! Mgreason (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This editor is a
Veteran Editor
and is entitled to display this
Iron Editor Star.

Thank you very much! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about military video screenshots

Hi Moonriddengirl,

I have a question about the use of screenshots from old World War Two videos. On the Dogfight article you recently helped out with a copyright question, so I thought maybe you could provide a little advice.

The video in question came from this website, http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/rechfurlan/510/ , which provides this on its copyright page:

All videos and photos supplied by visitors and made available on the Website are believed to either be: 1) protected by copyright and made available by their respective owner/creator, 2) protected by copyright and shown here with the express consent of their respective owner/creator or 3) part of the public domain. Per the Terms of Service, all content made available on the Website by users of the Website is their sole responsibility; Aresta is not the primary producer or primary source of such content.

My knowledge of computers is somewhat limited, and I often learn by experimenting. In such an experiment, I accidentally uploaded a screenshot from this video here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dogfight_-_plane_falling_while_taking_fire.JPG . It should probably be deleted until I can figure out the copyright policy, but I have no idea how to do that either. Can you provide some advice in this situation? Zaereth (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fastest way to get it deleted is to insert the following magic template into the page: {{db-G7}} and save. That requests the deletion of the basis that you've asked for the deletion - the message you see when you;ve done this should make my explanation a little clearer.

MRG is the copyright expert, but in her absence, some comments from me:

• You are always going to be on a sticky wicket since you do not know the source of the video. Anything you assert about its copyright is speculation on your part. I don't think the description of the source (39-44, Europe) is necessarily very trustworthy. (and as far as I know, lack of a source is grounds for deletion in wikipedia anyway)
• If it is a product of a US airman as a course of his duties, then it is public domain because the federal government puts its work into the public domain.
• If it is a product of a UK airman as a course of his duties, then it is public domain because crown copyright lasts only 50 years.
• If it is a product of the axis powers ... I don't know.
• If it is someone else...

On the basis of the first point, I think your decision to ask for it to be deleted is a good one. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've inserted the template. I'll see if I can contact the person who uploaded it to that website, and try to trace down its origin. Thanks again for your help, Tagishsimon.

Sorry Moonriddengirl, I didn't see that you were out for surgery. Best wishes and hope you recover soon. Zaereth (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, on the question of screenshots, I found another video with much higher quality and resolution. http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1063768/ww_ii_dogfights_in_colour/ The planes in the video are easily identifiable as P47 Thunderbolts fighting German ME109s and perfoming strafing runs. Since the videos obviously come from the U.S. P47 guncameras, can a screenshot or two from these be used? Zaereth (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In your position I would not upload a screenshot. Whether you do is up to you. The requirement for wikipedia is stated at Image use policy#Adding images and the salient requirement is "You can prove that the image is in the public domain." Whereas I agree that it is most improbable that it is other than a USAF or Navy source, I have no proof. Meanwhile I think there's a higher prize here: where did the video come from. If it is the US military, then is it not reasonable to suppose they may have uploaded the video somewhere on the web? If you can track down the source then a) you'll get a much higher standard of proof and b) we can take & host the whole video, not merely take screengrabs. What you actually do, given my advice, is up to you. You are may consider that such are the circumstances that it is inconceivable that it is other than a US military production, in which case make sure you a) put up an appropriate PD tag b) explain in the image description what leads you to think it is PD and c) point to the intermediate source - the website you got it from. Meanwhile, having watched both videos ... very disturbing. And I wouldn't like to come up against they guys flying the yankee planes... --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The US National Archive has an interesting page listing some of the movie footage available from the Army Air Force which kinda corroborates the assertion that footage of the sort you found (and which in fact seems to be all over the net, according to this google search. But I;ve not found an electronic source. You might want to get into conversation with some of the people who have uploaded the video & see if you can track down its source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is more complicated than I usually like to get into. (I may just stick to simple stuff, like building lasers. :-)) This is why I've only uploaded photos of my own. I'll check over at the local Air Force base, as they've often been helpful in my research. I was responding to a request on the article's talk page for better pictures, but not sure I want the headache. Having left comments and links on the article's talk page, I think I may just let someone else have a try. Thanks very much for all of your help. Zaereth (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

←Good luck with it, Zaereth, and thanks, Tagishsimon, for the assist. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about license

Hi Moonriddengirl, welcome back! :) Information from this website can be used on Wikipedia, right? (see Dagoth Ur). Or can only the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license be used? Thank you, Theleftorium 09:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, CactusWriter answered this for me. Theleftorium 12:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Any license compatible with CC-By-SA can be used according to the Wikimedia:Terms of Use: "If you want to import text that you have found elsewhere or that you have co-authored with others, you can only do so if it is available under terms that are compatible with the CC-BY-SA license." So, for example, CC-BY can be used, but CC-BY-NC-SA cannot. The legal code of 2.5 ([17]) indicates that it is compatible with 3.0: "You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a later version of this License with the same License Elements as this License, or a Creative Commons iCommons license that contains the same License Elements as this License (e.g. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Japan)." CC-By-SA 2.5 should be importable. Our copyright FAQ was badly written in that element, I'm afraid, and I have changed it. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Thank you for the answer. Theleftorium 12:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we could get to the point where we explicitly list at the FAQ those licenses we know to be compatible? The vast majority of us would flinch and turn tail at being asked to judge license compatibility. Without a list the improvement to the FAQ in only slightly less opaque than it was. (Forgive the moan). --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I started working on just that very thing on my userpage (User:Moonriddengirl#Importing_PD_or_.22Free.22_license), but I couldn't find enough information on other licenses than CC-By-SA and GFDL that it seemed like a worthy addition. :) If you think it might help, we could try to get it into shape for inclusion? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That table, expanded to show version numbers, would be a very good quick start start. This question was asking about CC-By-SA 2.5 versus 3.0. I'm sure there was a 2.0 & 1.0 ... covering CC-By-SA in this way will answer 95% of the enquiries, since CC-By-Something-or-other-seems to be the winner taking all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've expanded your table. I checked the By-SA licenses to check that they explicitly mention later versions of the license, per your "The legal code of 2.5", above - fine for 2.5 & 2.0, does not look fine for 1.0. The same "later" clause seems to be missing from By ... so I guess I'm relying on the compatibility chart at [18], and, wimping out of mentioning By 1.0. I'm also struggling to see by By is compatible with By-SA, but let's not go there. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

←If Creative Commons say it works, then I'm for it. :) I think their idea is that you can import By to By-SA because By is less restrictive, but it doesn't work the other way around. Should we consider adding the table to the FAQ, do you think? Or would it simply be easier to list some examples of licenses that are and are not compatible? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think add the table to the FAQ, to start with. I'm sure there should be somewhere additional better for it, too, since a FAQ is kinda the place to go when you can't find the answer in the place you expect to find it. And yes, I grok By to By-SA when you put it like that. Long day. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've done it! Well done. (I'm trying to pitch in at CP while I still have stamina.) I did change the color, tho, since orange coordinates much better with my userpage than that one. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup; get back to CP, we're done here. Sorry to bring you back to this page only to send you away again. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Done all I can manage for today probably. :) Building, though! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:No. 1 School of Technical Training

Hey Moonridden, Could you take a look at No. 1 School of Technical Training. There is a definite copy vio problem going on here, but I am not sure if it is Wikipedia's violating the other cite or the other cite violating Wikipedia's copy rights. (The other site would be violating the copyright as their intellectual policy appears would be incompatable with WP's.) I outlined my rationing on the pages talk page, but would like an expert opinion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be happy to give my opinion and will be right over. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this one is almost certainly ours first. For me, the tell is that the article had been established for several months before this edit, which introduced text that is present in that external site. Here's a more subtle, but also telling article change from nearly a year after creation that is in the external site. It looks to me like they snagged the Wikipedia entry at some point between November 2008 and January 2009, when changes appear that are not in that source. I'll note as much at the article's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Those were the signs that I was noting as well... although maybe not those specific edits... there were enough that I thought it was ours first. Thanks for a second, more experienced eye on the subject.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up on your concerns. I'm all about rooting out copyvio! :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NP you are my resident Copy Vio expert ;-) I did ask a follow up question on the articles talk page.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio suspicions - can you take a look?

User:Tokistar created an article today (Eric Olson (artist) which was a cut and paste of a long bio from the artist's webpage. It has been speedied, but looking at the creator's previous articles, I have my doubts about them. There seems to be a common thread to pieces in a magazine called "Clientele" but I can't locate archives which would contain the referenced articles. If you get a chance can you take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look and see what I can find out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. A weird bit of plagiarism here. Compare the article's "In an attempt to breathe expressive life into geometric abstraction, which, with the movement had fallen into the dead end of flat effect, he added random drawings inspired by musical compositions of “maqam” and Iraqi poetry which resulted in varied, unpredictable two dimensional works." with this 2003 piece: "Again one thinks of Kandinsky, but this time his Bauhaus period, which featured a singular integration of geometry and gesture--geometrized gesture and gesturalized geometry. Structure is what's at issue in Yale Piece (so called because it was made for an exhibition on the Ivy League campus); it's an attempt to breathe expressive life into geometric abstraction, which, with '60s Minimalism, had fallen into the dead end of flat affect." Odd. Still looking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done a close textual search of all of the articles that he's created, but I can't find any duplication other than the strange bit of plagiarism I mentioned immediately above. I notice that the piece that was deleted was deleted under a combo of G11 and G12. The website currently says, "This work by Eric Olson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License." Is that new? If so, that would suggest affiliation of some sort. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, non-commercial. Pasted and completely missed that part. Tells me I've been on here long enough. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Poetic license

Hi MRG. When you get a chance would you or one of your talk page stalkers have a look at Alejandro G. Abadilla and make a determination on whether the poem is okay to include? I have no idea what copyright rules apply and would appreciate a more expert opinion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

talk page stalkers :). Any fule kno that Section 213 of the Philippines Republic Act no. 8293 gives life plus 50 years protection to such works, and use of the complete poem is unlikely to fulfill Philippines fair use provisions, so it looks like it's a gonner. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, Tagishsimon. :D ChildofMidnight, one of the headaches of this job is trying to figure out the copyright laws of various countries. Nice if we could have one unified code. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you both for helping to resolve the issue. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I should also mention for Tagishsimon's benefit that from what I heard on Entertainment Tonight the other evening, casting has not yet been determined for the B. A. Baracus character, formerly played by Mr. T, in the planned A-Team movie. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

He learned all he knows from Molesworth. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded subpage split question

Hi Moonriddengirl, I hope your recovery is going well. I was wondering if you could answer a simple question for me. I noticed that another user, in an attempt to lessen the size of List of legendary creatures, created 'subpages' for each letter of the alphabet (e.g. List of legendary creatures/A, etc.) and transcluded each subpage into the main list. I've never seen anything like this before, and was curious whether there was something wrong with this editor's approach - what is poilicy for this situation? I know that these pages aren't technically subpages because they are in the article namespace, so do the violate disallowed subpage uses #3? Also, it doesn't seem like the actually size of the list is decreased by transcluding the sections (right?). If there is something that should be done about this, I'd be happy to talk to the editor about it. Thanks for your time Moonriddengirl - I hope my question makes sense. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 13:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'm gradually getting better, thank you. :) The basic idea is a sound one, as I have seen things like television episode guidelines transcluded in that way, but as you say I don't believe that the subpage set-up works for it. I'll poke around and see if I can find an exception somewhere, but I doubt that I'll will. I'll get back with you in a few minutes! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no exceptions, pretty clearly. The simplest thing to do, if the split is necessary, is probably to create sub-lists in the fashion of List of mathematics articles (0-9), though I wonder if each letter needs its own subpage. I'm not entirely sure if it is better in that case to transclude or to create a "Lists of legendary creatures" page, though, with links to those subpages. I guess the question is what's easiest for contributors to maintain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose once I've talked to the editor, I should PROD the subpages? Thanks again for your help. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on where it goes from here. They could be moved into mainspace if they are created as mini-lists. Easiest if he or she tags them as {{db-g7}} if there are unused leftovers. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I never thought of {{db-g7}}. I confronted User:Rursus about some options here. You're welcome to contribute, of course, if you see the need. Many thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Diamond

Thanks for fixing that. Weird that HotCat created the article, I think that's got to be considerd a bug.LeadSongDog come howl 15:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the many mysteries of Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I just noticed your notice. Glad you're OK! In any event, the individual in question kept triggering one of the abuse filters. He originally titled the article "Alex ko" with no caps in the last name; the rest of the article was laid out as if he'd been on a wiki for years. The username certainly suggests we're dealing with the subject of the article. I'll unblock him, but with the caveat that he not promote himself. Thanks for letting me know. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the guy went and blanked the article, for crying out loud. I reverted it, but I don't think this qualifies as a speedy as a good-faith blank by the original author. Gawd, how I love this site.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

A real slice, girl. A real slice.  :)) Doggone it, the kid really is notable, I tagged it as COI and he blanks the thing. Someone else put a notable Wikipedian template on the talk page, so I guess I'm not the only one who feels there should be an article. Sigh. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Symicat

Hello Moonriddengirl,

I have now contacted the others who formed the `Symicat` group and explained that to work as such a group is against the rules. Any of them wishing to contribute to Wikipedia will now send seperate registrations. I shall, if acceptable, continue to write using the original name - if I can be unblocked... apologies again for the error. [[Special:Contributions/] ([[User talk:|talk]]) 14:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Symicat. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Password changed

I have now changed my password as requested. Thanks for you your help, patience and understanding.Symicat (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Symi:Link.

Extended content

The link to SymiGreece that appears on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Symi is to a website that <unsubstantiated allegations removed>. Further, the site is connected to a number of commercial concerns and derives an income from some of these. <unsubstantiated allegations removed> I suggest you visit the site and judge for yourself. Apart from the blatant link, the link that appears as Reference 11, Symi Festival Reports, is also a link to the SymiGreece site. Attempts to offer a link to the Symi Visitor site, which has been active for far longer, are constantly deleted. It seems quite clear that a commercial war is being waged here, and links to neither or both sites should be allowed to appear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Symicat (talk • contribs) 22:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC) This is a disgusting piece of defamation by a man hiding behind an alias and using Wikipedia to further a hate campaign against the SymiGreece website and those running it. All of the accusations he makes are lies. The only person waging any war is "SymiCat" who has visited a site that had had no edits for two years and then vandalised it. I urge that this user be prevented from using Wikipedia to conduct his hate campaign, and request that his comments above be removed.--Symiakos (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate you removing the "unsubstantiated allegations" (aka serious defamatory lies) of Symicat in his posting above, you have left his accusation that the website regularly libels people. This too is a serious and defamatory lie. He accuses SymiGreece of being conneted to commercial concerns. This too is a lie. He accuses SymiGreece of deriving an income. This too is a lie. Symicat is allowed to have his opinion and believe what he likes, but he is not allowed to defame people by stating his incorrect opinions and assumptions as facts as he has done here. I request again that the post above be removed or at the least that the first two lines be removed.--Symiakos (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now also removed the mention of libel, but I do not see how an allegation that your website links to and derives income from commercial concerns is defamatory, since so far as I am aware there is nothing illegal or immoral about doing so, even if he is wrong in presuming that you do. However, I've collapsed both comments, which will routinely be archived within a matter of days after this conversation ends, since its visibility seems to distress you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It was the allegation of libel that I considered defamation. The other accusations were just plain wrong. Thank you for your help on this matter. As the reference to the Talk page has been removed, I will now give my agreement to the archiving of the Talk-page mentioned.--Symiakos (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All right. I will go attend to that, and perhaps this episode will conclude. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Defamatory images

Glad to see you back. I still have problems with my hand but can type so long as I don't overdue it. Could you take a look at the discussion at User talk:CactusWriter at the bottom, I've already deleted 2 images and am concerned about File:Warwakstoned.JPG. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replied there. I agree this is a clear problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Symi: archiving of unedifying argument

I don't know to which comments Symiakos is referring, so I'm afraid that I can do no more. Thanks again for your help. (And I don't envy you your task!). My consent to achive the page remains.Symicat (talk) 19:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

State House (Seychelles) and King's House, Jamaica

I have extensively edited and reduced these articles to let them conform to copyright requirements. Do you know how long it will take for an administrator to reinstate or delete these articles? Bleaney (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have taken your advice in regards to State House (Seychelles). I have looked back at King's House, Jamaica and think it conforms for now.

As regards to my other article edits, I am at a bit of a loss... shall I not edit anymore articles as you will be looking at some of your other articles just to be sure that this problem does not exist in others. I see that you have received notices from Corensearchbot in the past...?? In the distant past maybe, and in the many thousands of edits to wikipedia I have done, this has happened to me very rarely???? Bleaney (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive made the changes for King's House, Jamaica. I'm so embarrassed, as I felt for a while that i'm an experienced Wiki editor, but ive obviously got a fair bit to learn!Bleaney (talk)

Needs an OTRSer

Hi, Mrg. This concerns this article from today's CV due list. The article was created back in 2004 by User:Genie whose user page indicates that they are the same person who wrote the original 1994 article (see copyright notice at bottom of page). Info on that person's personal website pages confirms their WP activity. However, I think WP still needs an OTRS ticket to verify identity for the copyrighted text. Would you mind handling that? — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But of course. :) I'll leave her a note. Meanwhile, if you haven't already, we can just relist it. I'll look into it once I've had some coffee. (Well, Diet Coke. Each his wake-up caffeine of choice.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll relist it. Go get your morning buzz on. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Clara White Mission

I've got a new article at User:Mgreason/Sandbox when you have time to review. Thanks! Mgreason (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) I should be able to come by and look at it at some point today. I've been cleared to return to work (joy!) and have a bit of catching up to do, but I'm sure I'll reach a point where I can't stand it before long. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the article into production, so whenever you get a chance to restore the logo, it's fine. Thanks for your help, and I hope you have a nice holiday weekend. Mgreason (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You, too. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Shultz tables

Hello. Thanks for your message. I'm afraid you've lost me a little bit as I don't know what OTRS means. This is a strange case as I found it in an inappropriate category, noticed the AfD notice and then discovered that it has been speedy deleted but is still here! I'm confused.

I'm sorry to read that you have been unwell and I hope you are recovering after the surgery you had. Very best wishes. --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No easy answers when it comes to copyright. Thanks very much for the explanation. --Jack | ^{talk page} 20:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou!

Thanks for all the help you've given me with my articles. I think I get now how to reword sources so not to infringe on copyright. You've been a tremendous help. Mind you, youve done it now. Seeing as youve been so helpful, I will probably drop you a line everytime I have a problem! Thanks again, can I assume that your review of my edits is complete? Bleaney (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome, but I'm not yet finished. I've only done through the As. :) If I encounter small issues, I'll repair them myself. If I encounter major problems, I'll let you know so that you can. Meanwhile, you are very welcome to come by any time you think I may be of assistance. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear! Youve only done the As! I should have known that from my watchlist! Good lord you are a very patient lady, thank you anyway. Bleaney (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

B's

I have rejigged the British School of Barcelona and Bedford Museum. They await your attention. Thanks, Bleaney (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Recovery

I hope your recovery goes well. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm not up to running (or, really, walking) marathons yet, but I'm loads better and feeling mentally back up to speed. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wheel-warring

I wouldn't presume to edit your user page, but you might consider linking wheel-warring at User:Moonriddengirl#Adminship. Since I'm not an Admin, rational thinking says I should just ignore it, but part of the delight of Wikipedia is learning odd useless facts. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 15:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. :D Done! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

a good idea?

Go onto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EICAR_test_file there is a code on the bottom of the article. It is used to test the antiviris on the computer. Im not an expert but if that article is unblocked and somone tries to test it out, is there any possibility that someone would change it to a real viris? 74.109.233.125 (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue, I'm afraid. Tech stuff is not my area. :) I'll bring your question to the attention of somebody who might know. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I took this one to the help desk, and User:PrimeHunter has resolved the issue by protecting the code. All should be good now. Thanks for noting your concerns! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This one needs your view

Hi, Mrg. If you have a chance, the Cultural hemisphere listing on today's CV due list requires an admin other than me. It's an article with which I have a history.

Here's some background from my obviously biased perspective. I ran across the article on New Page patrol last April and tagged it for issues and asked a couple of editors for expert opinion because it was apparently based on a single unpublished internet source. After a month, it became apparent that the article was being written by the author of the internet source, who had also created a page about himself and added references to himself in dozens of other WP articles (including even adding a photo of himself in the article). Eventually I brought an Afd case and a sockpuppet case, which led to the contributor's indefinite block. In the meantime, the article was rewritten by Dbachmann and myself. In June, an IP complained on the talk page that the history showed copy-pasting from the original internet source. So I cleaned the early history of copyright violation text. Another IP has now filed the CV report. (See talk page for the IP's reasons).

I have no doubt the IPs are the blocked author. Oddly enough, he has now released his unpublished work into the public domain and uploaded it to Wikisource:East-West dichotomy. (Which will need to be tagged A2 speedy for unpublished material, but I'll wait until this is concluded). So, I suppose the deleted history can be restored. Other than that, I still can't find any text which can be attributed to the internet source -- perhaps an unbiased eye will fair better. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take a look. This is the value of having several active CP admins. :) (I am currently focusing on OTRS & multiple article issues, since you're still running hard with the CP board. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

All right. I'm on it. I've removed the tags and addressed the IP. I've also watchlisted it, so you don't have to worry about the appearance of an involved admin. (Not that you are; anybody with sense would recognize that you are being personally blamed for doing Wikipedia work, but since I can help, the appearance is not necessary.) I did restore the history, for transparency. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate you diving in there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seth article

Hi I am new at all of this but I understand an article was written about me around the time there was an especially intense mainstream media interest in my finance commentary. I am told it was deleted, which I think is fine with me. But, nonetheless, I would like to see what people had written about me and it is my understanding that you may be able to send me a copy. The name of the article is Seth Asher from 2006 and 2007. Any help would be appreciated.javascript:insertTags('64.195.119.97 (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)',,)

Hi. Since the article was not deleted for copyright concerns or other that would prevents its contents being viewed, I can certainly provide you with a copy of the last version of the article if you can provide me an e-mail address to do so. I do have to caution you, though, that this material is not free for republication elsewhere. Even if it is about you, the copyright belongs to those contributors who helped build the article, and when the original Wikipedia article has been deleted reusing their content violates Wikipedia's licensing policies. If you wish to give me an e-mail address to which I might mail this material here, I would recommend that you mask it so that e-mail auto-detectors do not pick it up. Alternatively, if you would prefer not to publish your e-mail address on Wikipedia (which I understand; I do not) you may wish to register for an account, which will enable you to access the "e-mail this user" link in the "toolbox" next to my userpage. You can then contact me directly, and I will send you the text in return e-mail. Please just let me know how you'd like to proceed, and I'll be happy to assist you in this matter. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

EICAR test file

I just went to a responsible user, you helped me out a few times when i was a wikipedian. Thankyou for your help to solve the problem. 74.109.233.125 (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad I was able to help, then and now. Sorry to hear the past tense! You should come back. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I will think about it, once you leave sometimes you want to come back. 74.109.233.125 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

Why did the Frank and Mary's logo and Pittsboro Pizzeria logos and all the other logos get deleted on Pittsboro, Indiana Businesses and Buildings? Is there a way to fix them? Thanks Sedna10387 (talk) Also thanks for the support! ;)

Almost certainly because they were, in copyright terms, Non-free content. Our policy on such content is that we make minimal use of it. A logo can be used on the article about the logo owner, presuming that a fair use rationale is added to the image page; but cannot be used as eye-candy in other articles. There's no practical fix for this, since matters have in fact been fixed by their removal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copy-paste

Hi, I know you're interested in and experienced in these issues, so I thought I'd let you know that I created Wikipedia:Copy-paste. It's designed basically as a short, sharp (WP:TROUTish, even) "don't do that", as something to link to from the Article Wizard (Wikipedia:Article wizard2.0/Wizard-Content) for a bit more detail. I see so many copy-vios in new articles, I think something like that is necessary, because so much of the existing copyright documentation is quite overwhelming and doesn't apply to the average "hey I want to copy this. duh what's copyright?" user that ends up getting their article speedied. Anyway, what do you think? Rd232 ^talk 09:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous! I love it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Perhaps after a bit more improvement, it could be linked from some other relevant places. Rd232 ^talk 10:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fear not. :) I've already made a note about it at WT:COPYCLEAN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

C's

Have reworked Colesden, Chawston and Cognita. Thanks for pointing out that someone has incorporated my language about Dragonwyck (novel) into their blog, i'm kind of flattered as well as a little peeved, but considering the process my articles are going through, maybe its my just deserts! I wont be complaining about it anyway. Also, thanks for the sources for HMP Drake Hall, that was a particularly tricky one to source. I shall attack the D's and E's tomorrow! Bleaney (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

D's & E's

I have reworded Dorchester (HM Prison), Edmunds Hill (HM Prison), El Limonar International School, Murcia and El Limonar International School, Villamartin. I seem to be a day behind you! Many thanks, Bleaney (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

F G & H

Gloucester (HM Prison), Great Denham, Grendon (HM Prison), and Holme House (HM Prison) have been reworked. Those were my words on the John Bunyan Upper School article, and looking at that particular website, it looks like they might have copied other stuff about other schools in Bedford from wikipedia! Bleaney (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Licensing lower-resolution photos

Hi, I'm talking with a photographer about possibly licensing some images for use here and he's wondering whether if he licensed low-resolution versions of some of his photos it would also apply to the larger-resolution copies (i.e., does he license the image itself or the image at that resolution?). I would almost assume the latter though it seems kinda hard to enforce (what if someone got a hold of a larger-resolution version, for instance by purchasing it from him, and uploaded it here?). He's a full-time photographer so he's naturally worried about his work being devalued. Do you have any other suggestions which might might make him more willing to license some? I've told him any photos he considers "bad" is probably excellent here, but I guess that might not be completely optimal for him in a PR-sense. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

He licenses the image itself; he doesn't have to license the image at all resolutions. But I think you're right that it could be hard to enforce. I like your "bad" photos idea, but can see your point. :) I don't know what kind of photographer he is, but if he created derivatives of his original photographs, it would be a bit easier to determine if somebody is uploading an unlicensed version. For instance, what if he cropped them? Obviously, this works better for some types of photography than others. I'd be inclined to include a specific reference to the resolution both in the permissions line of the image and in the letter to OTRS verifying clearance. That might also help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

FEU Institute of Accounts Business and Finance article

Hi Moonriddengirl! I hope you could please go back the Page on it's last revision made by Unending247 the multiply site is not the basis for that article. That site also got the information on the same source as cited in that article. If ever that there are similarities with the said website, it wasn't intentional. I look forward to your immediate action regarding this matter. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unending247 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, would you mind to accept my e-mail (MS word Format) so that I can send you my article and help me improve that to avoid errors about this article? Send me your e-mail address and I'll send my article. and help me to improve that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtam1008 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Replying at user's talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wondering?

I have a question. Why do so many people say that Wikipedia is not a reliable resource? Sedna10387 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it isn't. :) One of the things that makes Wikipedia great is that anyone who wants to can contribute to (almost) any article -- unless it is protected, of course, and not if they've been blocked. :) Unfortunately, though, that same thing makes it a bit unreliable. You don't know who wrote an article or if they know what they're talking about. We have our verifiability policy to help with this, but you really have to check the sources that are linked to be sure that the contributor who put it there got the information right. You also have to be sure that the sources used are reliable. You even have to be sure that there aren't other sources that aren't being used, maybe because the contributor want to promote one viewpoint. There's a whole lot more information about this at Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia, especially in the part called "Article quality in Wikipedia." There's some at Wikipedia:About, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If You A Have A Chance...

A pretty obvious sock Djjesse24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has shown up of an editor you blocked earlier this week Djjesse123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and continued his problematic editing. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for letting me know. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I filed a Checkuser request before you blocked. Hopefully they will actually run the checkuser instead of saying "already blocked" and archiving it. I suspect there's a sizable sock drawer. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I kind of wondered. Seems fairly bold about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Far Eastern University copyright violation rewrite

You are an angel!! I really, really was not looking forward to rewriting (or even revisiting) Far Eastern University. Brownie point, gold star. Piano non troppo (talk) 14:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Very much appreciated, particularly since the drama has now all moved to Far Eastern University - Institute of Accounts, Business and Finance. This one is startlingly out of process. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to tackle that article, and discovered you'd beaten me by a few minutes! The experience admin DMacks, talk, and I have had is that the vandal(s) are using a variety of techniques. It seems odd in a way, because the university apparently does have some solid accomplishments, and a considerable number of notable graduates -- still it's an old game -- many good universities seem to find it necessary to exaggerate. (I live near one of the "best" -- they often made false claims trashing mine. Don't get me started.) Piano non troppo (talk) 14:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've semi-protected the article again. I'm assuming good faith that the new contributor is not the currently blocked user doing another block evasion, but the copyright infringement in that article has to stop. At least for a bit, only registered users will be able to edit, so at least we won't have to repeat the same admonitions to a rotating range of IPs. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I now put my sandbox on the article? or It's much better if you will be the one to include the sandbox because you're one of the established users here. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtam1008 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply to your comment about Lydia Canaan's article

In response to your claim I would like to make the following statement: As you will see from the facts below, the paragraph in question is a short and precise summary of the conditions on the ground Lydia Canaan had to face early on in her career.

Facts

- The people of Lebanon had to endure between 1975 and 1990 a savage and devastating war. As a teenager Lydia began her career, making concerts under very dangerous conditions, often with militias fighting in the neighborhood, defying death threats, like annonymous phone calls to her parents, that she will return in a bodybag, if she goes ahead with her gig in Tripoli...yet she just beefed up security, posting snipers on rooftops, with additional security around her and went on to perform. Or her participating in a Peace Concert on the Demarcation Line between East and West Beirut, unifying Muslim and Christian artists and fans, interrupting the bloody fighting for one night...

- As Lydia stated in an interview to a Dubai newspaper, indeed, her father threatened her to kick her out of the family, if she continues with her music, which she ignored...

- In this Middle Eastern country, with its conservative traditions and perceptions, especially about women, Lydia went on stage as a female pioneer pushing the boundries of music (performing Rock) and the dresscode with Rocker outfits...

Her attitude, success and personality gained her indeed much respect and admiration from her fans and the Lebanese population at large.

I believe, that theses facts speak for themselves, justifying my neutral and factual description of her in the disputed paragraph. Thomasvitins (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at the article's talk page, Talk:Lydia Canaan. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

G, H, I, J, K & L

I have done further work on Great Denham and Holme House (HM Prison). Must have been a bit sleepy when I re-edited those!

Have also reworked Independent Association of Preparatory Schools and Independent Schools Association (UK). At least we are over half way now! Bleaney (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is my proposed article. could you please help me improve this one. There's no problem with the History but I really want to add this pictures and other vital information...

Thank you for improving the article. This is my proposed article after the HISTORY. Could you please help me improve this one because I really want to add these updated pictures and other vital information like the international linkages, institutes/schools, student organizations and athletics. Can you tell me where did I go wrong in this article or help me to improve it and put this on the article.

The alumni were also based from the reliable editors who made the table for the list alumni etc., If you could help me out to use this information, the article will be more relevant and informative to the students. Thank you.

I removed the article, as it had more than doubled the length and size of this talkpage, making it more difficult for the user and others to use. I would suggest moving it to your userpage or a sandbox, and then linking it here for Moonriddengirl to look at. The article text can still be found in the history of this page should you need to find it. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio on a user's talk page

Do we really allow this? It's been suggested we do in this discussion] about IP 71.241.218.107. Our guidelines on user pages make it clear we don't allow latitude on user pages, but this is their talk page - personally, I don't see any difference. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we really don't allow this. Perhaps the commenter meant that we allow more latitude about POV-pushing, but copyrighted material cannot be placed on any space except in accordance with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I see the IP's been blocked, copyvio removed. Hope you are recovering ok. I have to massage my scars 5-10 minutes every 3 hours for at least 3 months, plus finger exercises. Plays a bit of havoc with my day sometimes. Dougweller (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good heavens! I can well imagine. I'm recovering ok. My scars also require massage, but not that much. And paper tape. My surgeon swears by the stuff. I'm looking forward to having surgical restrictions lifted. I'm getting tired of having to ask others to do everything for me! I'm forbidden to lift anything heavier than five pounds for another two and a half weeks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Expert opinion requested

Hi Moonriddengirl. Long time no speak. When I try to think of who to ask a copyright related question you're the first person that springs to mind, though I don't know how much you deal with fair use issues. Anyway, I thought maybe you'd take a look at my question here and that you might be able to give a definitive answer or point to past discussion that would define the consensus. Please feel free, of course, to ignore this unsolicited request. Thanks.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! No, no ignoring requests on my page. Not on purpose. :) I do more NFC stuff with text, but I'll see if I have input. If not, I'll try to track down somebody that I would ask. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jefferson Friedman Article

Hi- We have created the Creative Commons copyright for our Jefferson Friedman Bio. Could you please let me know if there is anything else I need to do before re-posting his information. (you can see our CC use at christinajensenpr.com) Jessicacjpr (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Jessicacjpr

The CC license on your site is all that needs to be done with respect to copyright concerns - an article created in wikipedia based on text from the christinajensenpr site will not successfully be challenged for copyright reasons. (And thanks for so licensing the text; it is always good to see work enter the commons.) However the notability of, for instance, a classical music artist may be challenged and, of course, the text you add may be serially edited, mangled, and generally discombobulated, as is the wikipedia way. Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability (people) are worth a read, if you have not come across them before. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest also seems to apply here. But with all those caveats, please go ahead. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored now that the copyright issues have been eradicated. I have also tagged some issues that need correction, and Tagishsimon's pointers are very good. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl 44

I've noticed the super bowl logo wikipedia has is the wrong logo. On the super bowl 44 website the logo is different. The football between the field goal thing on wikipedia has the middle line of the football going all the way down while on the website the line doesn't go all the way down. also the logo should be darker.

Sedna10387 00:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably that would be a good thing to talk about with the contributors at the talk page or maybe at the talk page of the "wikiproject": Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. I'm afraid images are not my thing, but I bet some of the contributors there would be happy to help fix this problem! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you need

Would you like one of these, to keep a tally of where we're up to with the Bleaney article check process? If so I'll fill in the blanks thus far. In reply to your question from a couple of days ago, I'm not sure there's much more that can be said to help, and so thought tabulating the articles to be checked might be the next best step. The table lists articles created by. I've not thought about whether we need to check additions to existing articles. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea! Thanks! I'm working on it right now; I'm having a very spotty connection, but am checking some revised articles. I've checked through the Ls and hope to be able to pick up from the Ms tomorrow. I like the idea of filling in the chart rather than leaving separate notes on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll move it into position & start adding some ticks & crosses. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've ticked (or crossed) everything from A to L which you've edited, and knocked off a few DABs. If you could tick those you've checked and are happy with, we can work through the list. (I say we; I may get seduced again by geo-coordinates, the backlog for which currently stands at 174k articles, or the next few years of my life). User_talk:Bleaney#The_grand_unified_table_of_new_articles_to_be_checked is your friend. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! My internet connectivity issues are momentarily over, but I'm stuck doing that stuff they call "work." :/ I'll be able to get back to it later today, so here's hoping that the internet connectivity issues don't return! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For rescuing and cleaning up an article, for resolving a major dispute, for making things right, and for being objective, helpful and constructive all the time! 117.79.64.87 (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. As I said, I'm glad that I was able to resolve your concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Flexicurity

I have modified a page on Flexicurity and need some help. I am very new to Wiki so I am learning as I go. I have a question: I would like to centre justify the title in the framed text 'The Common Principles of Flexicurity'. Can you help? Thanks in advance, Antoine Mallia (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Have replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Attribution of ref copies

Hi again. I'm glad to read that you are feeling well. I have yet another attribution question.

Do any of these relatively small edits copy copyrightable expression and require attribution?

• citation within ref tags [19]
• ref including {{cite web}}, brief quotation, introductory phrase "which reads" [20]
• ref, quotation (expanded beyond original article), introductory phrase "Producer Scott Langteau offers that" [21]

On a different note, do you think that a page named something like WP:Copying within Wikipedia would be useful? It would isolate the editing action from the motivation (e.g. merging or splitting) and move discussion away from Help talk:Merging, which is only relevant sometimes. If such a page existed, I would have posted my question there, then asked for your input. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come check it out. And, yes, I think a page named something like WP:Copying within Wikipedia would be extremely useful. I would strongly support merging Help:Merge and Wikipedia:Split into such a document. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the citation within ref tags is not copyrightable, as there is no creative expression there. This one doesn't either, but I myself would have attributed as you did just to be on the safe side for plagiarism concerns. The only words that would be original to the article author are "which reads", and that's formulaic. This wasn't necessary, since it was his own text. Whether it would have been needed if somebody else had written it is debatable. It certainly wouldn't clear the "de minimis" threshold for a court of law judging copyright infringement, but in this case we have not only the introductory clause, but also the specific choice of a quote from the other source. With the second example, it's the title and the entire title, so there is no creativity in that selection. From a plagiarism standpoint, attribution would be proper (IMO), but (again) isn't required here because the contributor is copying himself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look at those edits. I'll do some thinking on the copying page and let you know once I've gotten something. Flatscan (talk) 05:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if you'd like assistance with that. We could create a draft in user space and propose merging Help:Merge and Wikipedia:Split into it, if you agree that's a good idea. And if you're just as fine doing it on your own, yes, please let me know when you've gotten something. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate your input and assistance. I'll try to start a draft over the weekend. Regarding consolidation, I agree that the how-to portions of those pages will be mostly redundant, but the information on making content decisions (e.g. article size, forking, standalone article notability) should remain separate. As many of the considerations are shared, merging into WP:Merging and splitting may be appropriate. Flatscan (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I'm on board. Just let me know when you're ready. :) (Should note, though, that I'm having out of town guests on Monday and Tuesday of next week, which will severely hamper my Wiki time.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I started a draft (an outline, really) at User:Flatscan/Copying within Wikipedia. There are two phrases that I've marked with hidden comments, as I copied them from your licensing update edits. Feel free to remove the comments if they're unnecessary. Flatscan (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Meoncross School

I have re-edited the Meoncross School article. Seems ive got 2 editors helping me with this now! Bleaney (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fabulous! It will get us through much more quickly. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have re-done Meoncross School again. I really hope i'm starting to get this now. I DO know now (I hope) the difference between simply paraphrasing an article, and actually re-writing it in my own words. I suppose my reluctance in the past, has been down to not wanting to change text from sources too much, for fear of being accused of misrepresenting others views. I shall have to be bolder! Also, have re-edited North and Middle Littleton. Bleaney (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

CM-Online

Mrg, did we ever received word on this ticket for the CM-Online article? — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No, we didn't. Deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've received a separate e-mail. :) I've just found it, but it does not verify. I'll wait to restore until I've got clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Hmm... OTRS sometimes sounds like the teetering paper stack on my desk at home. Now where the hell did I put those notes? — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh.* To that, I can only say see the third listing down: Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 September 17. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Those things happen. Even in cyber offices stuff falls into the bureaucratic cracks. (Um... Now, I meant cracks in the "physical space sense" not as a personal descript... ah, forget it. You know.) — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL! You make me very glad I'm not a bureaucrat. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Widnes

Could you please take a look at the above list, it's currently a Featured List Candidate and I'm concerned about a possible copyright infringement. Many of the descriptions in the table are based on a single English Heritage source, and some may be too close to their respective descriptions on that site. St Michael's Church and the sewer vent probably have the closest similarities. Thanks in advance. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. I hate these. :) Kvetching aside, I very much appreciate your diligence, and I will come take a look at it today, probably pretty soon. A few chores to run! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this. Most of the descriptions have now been rewritten by Peter I. Vardy, they look OK to me but your view would be appreciated. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I will try to come take a look a bit later today, when I have some free time. I'm ducking out of work to check my messages. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Vouvray (wine)

Hi

Soory for the slow response. I can confirm that the Vouvray article was all my own work - I don't do copy and paste as you can see from my other stuff. So you're definitely looking at a Wikimirror on that other site. Cheers. FlagSteward (talk) 12:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Answered at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

logo

Do you know how to get rid of the white background on logos? Sedna10387 11:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope, unless you mean through Photoshop. I presume you're asking if it's possible to make them transparent. You might ask that one at the help desk. They're really good with questions like that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Bowcliffe Hall

Ack, I screwed this up. I was trying to merge the revised temp page history with the old history and somehow I seem to have lost the old history. Sorry. Could you show me how to fix this? — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Here I come to see what I can figure out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The history is there. Perhaps you didn't refresh your browser? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Egad. That's exactly what it was. What a goofball! I got it now. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Happens to everybody now and again. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (1930)

Thank you for that information. I will certainly take that into account when editing future articles. Yes, i coopyed that information from another Wikipedia article - New Moon (1930 and 1940 films) - which has since been renamed New Moon (1940 film), while unbeknownst to be, that information had itself been ciopyed from that site. Thankyou for fixing up the copyright issue :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, hold on a second, what exactly do you mean in the talk page, saying that "New Moon (1940 film) now serves to provide attribution for content in New Moon (1930 film) and must not be deleted so long as New Moon (1930 film) exists." (just wondering :D)--Coin945 (talk) 12:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh, so does that mean tat i can add that so-called copywrited information back, because after the article was nominated for deletion, i removed a large chunk out of it which was practically all copyed from the New Moon (1940) article.--Coin945 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. sorry if i'm bugging you by talkingto you every 2 seconds...!! :)--Coin945 (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Shale oil extraction

Hi. There is a plan to nominate the Shale oil extraction article for FAC, but before doing this I would like to be sure that there is no any kind of copyright infringement. I believe there is no problem; however, as the article has a long history of extensive editing, splittings and mergers, I would feel better if you or some other expert will take a look at this article. Maybe you could take a look or would recommend some other editor who could do this? Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a tall order if there's a long complex edit history, but I will certainly try. :) Something may come up in FAC that I don't detect, but I'll run it through the routine I use when investigating potential copyright problems and let you know if anything comes up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. Better find it now than during FAC ;) Beagel (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

←Okay. First thing I found is some duplication of [22]. The article says:

In Independent Energy Partners' Geothermic Fuels Cells Process (IEP GFC), a high-temperature stack of fuel cells is placed in the oil shale formation. During an initial warm-up period, the cells are fueled by an external source of natural gas. Afterward the process fuels itself using oil shale gas generated by its own waste heat.... Alternatively, the formation can be pre-fractured to enhance the flow of shale oil between heating and producing wells.

The source says:

...a high-temperature fuel cell stack is placed within the formation to heat the ground.... Thus, after an initial warm up period (during which the cells are fueled with an external source of natural gas), the GFC process becomes self-fueling from gases liberated by its own waste heat.... Alternatively, the formation can be pre-fractured to enhance the flow of hydrocarbons and accelerate communication between the heating wells and the production wells.

There's a little bit of literal duplication here such as only can be used in quotation marks (that last sentence in particular). Other sections could stand further revision to avoid close paraphrasing.

I'm going to check http: //www.associatedcontent.com/article/1256818/ oil_shale_development.html?singlepage=true&cat=15 more thoroughly (have to break up the link because it's blocked). The program I use hit on some striking phrases in it. I'll check it manually now and let you know what I find. I haven't date compared yet, so I don't know if the text in our article predates their use or how extensive it might be.

Only other thing I found is duplication between Shale oil extraction and a couple of Wikipedia articles: Unconventional oil, Independent Energy Partners and Environmental impact of the oil shale industry. You've edited all of those heavily, so it's possible that the text in all three articles was written by you. I haven't checked. If not, you should attribute the source articles. You probably know how already, but if not there's an under-development page at User:Flatscan/Copying within Wikipedia which explains.

Off to do the manual check! Update when I'm finished. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Manual check shows that at least some of the text was already in our article prior to the dated creation of that source, which is good news, since it means a reverse infringement is probable. Seems like that article's author is a Wikipedia fan. :)

Are there specific sections that concern you? I can do an additional check, but it's kind of time-consuming and I ordinarily would not unless I know that I am dealing with a copyright infringer. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this. It is really helpful. I think that the Independent Energy Partners' paragraph would be rewritten to avoid potential problems. The most doubtful seemed for me the in-situ section–exactly where you found the Independent Energy Partners' section. I have also question concerning the table in the Classification section. This classification is worked out by Alan Burnham and the table (with minor modifications) is published in this document at the page 17. The table in the Wikipedia article has all necessary attributes referreng to authors; however, it is very hard if not impossible to present it in very different way. Do you think there could be any problem with this, and if yes, what could be the solution? The author himself has helped to comment and edit this wikipedia article including this table (user:Akburnham) and so far did not have any objection for using this table. Beagel (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:RTCanada

Hello Moonriddengirl. Would you be so kind as to review my actions regarding this user? You had previously warned them about posting copyrighted material. Thanks in advance for any feedback. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think that was a completely appropriate block. If the contributor can't comply with WP:C, he can't be permitted to contribute. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, girl ;P

It's been a while. A looooong while. But i'm finally active again, though I think i'm going to stay in my little cave of a sandbox and work on articles from there, not bothering people. XD I don't want to have to get into all the issues that I used to. They gave me headaches and college gives me enough of those. @_@

You've come a long way, haven't you? I was surprised when I checked out your page and saw what you've done. It's kinda embarrassing that, technically, i've been around the Wiki for longer than you and yet you're light years ahead of me in...everything. An inspiration, you are. ^_^

Anyways, I came over to ask a question. I have a really tiny, insignificant issue with my userpage that i'm trying to rectify and I was wondering if you could help me out?

I just added the WikiDragon template, but it didn't center itself as the coding says it should, as far as I can tell. I'm bad with codes, I am not one of the other WikiFey that know how to do this. How do I fix it?Silverseren^C 17:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! My wikiactivities are a result of having a very boring life, so I'm not sure that you should be the one embarrassed. :D I'm not really up on the pretty stuff, but I think it will work to center the box if you add the code that I'm adding to User:Silver_seren/Userpage. It looks like it does in Firefox anyway. :) If you don't like it, feel free to revert it on out of there. (Otherwise the text is coded for centering, and it is, but the box is not.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Yay! I fixed up some other stuff myself as well. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being a Wikipediholic. I mean, at least you're learning random stuff, right? It's probably better than college...>_> Silverseren^C 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

N

I have reworded National Association of British Schools in Spain, National Association of Local Councils and North and Middle Littleton. Another editor has done a reworked version of New Hall (HM Prison) which I am not responsible for. Hope you are well! Bleaney (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am, thanks. Just insanely busy! I'll catch those up tonight and try to knock off another letter. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Just a short note to wish you all the best and hope you're recovering well. Bye for now. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Been a while. Thank you. I am generally recovering very well, though today is not looking like a good one. C'est la vie. So long as I have more good days, I am satisfied. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The Red Wolf Conspiracy

I typed in the title above on 'Wikipedia; search', and I saw the page had been deleted. Is it possible to bring back that particular article? 196.3.183.92 (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and interpreting this as a request, I have done so. But unless reliable sources are provided to verify that the book meets the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (books), it may be nominated for deletion again through deletion debate. If it is deleted following a deletion debate, creating a new article on the book will be far more difficult. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Soundtrack sections on movies articles

Hi.

So, a couple of hours ago about 50 movies articles appeared on the list of unassessed album articles, and that got me thinking, i usually just remove the project template because is not an album article, but am i right on that?, should i just consider the section as an article, keep the template and assess, move the section creating a new article or keep on doing the same? What do you think?.

Thanks as always. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Generally, if there's a clear section on the soundtrack, I have retained the template and assessed. If there's not, I'd remove it. I don't know what the project at large thinks about it, though, because I never asked. I wouldn't create a new article unless the section is particularly well-developed (and be sure to attribute, per Wikipedia:Splitting). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

File:TankAbbottGreenCover99.jpg

Hi, could you take a look at this (see my talkpage and the uploader RubyBeIvrit's)? I'm very surprised by the tone of his reply and as I'm somewhat unfamiliar with what is required in terms of verification of permission it's probably best someone else handles it... --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've directed the uploader to the proper procedures for verifying. One thing I notice is that while you tagged the article db-nopermission, you gave him the F11 advisory rather than the {{di-no permission-notice}}. Was this an automated notice? If so, we should get that updated, since the no permission-notice gives much better information in how to address situations where ownership is asserted. Of course, you may have just inadvertently given him the wrong one, which I'm sure we've all done at some time or another. Just today, I warned the Copyright Problems board not to violate copyright. :D His tone is uncivil, but I haven't addressed it, since I felt like it was best to get the copyright matter straightened out first. Thanks for noting & tagging the problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, the notice was added by Twinkle. Looking at it's code it subst's {{db-csd-notice-custom}} which given the nopermission-paramter includes {{Db-nopermission-notice}}. Assuming I'm reading things right, the easies way to update it is probably to edit db-csd-notice-custom to include the di-one if given the 2=nopermission-parameter. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Um, that one is a bit beyond me. :) Can you fix that, or should we ask User:AzaToth? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The above seems to work testing it in my sandbox, but I asked Amalthea to take a look at it to make sure it didn't break anything (and if there's a reason not to change it). Is there a reason not to use all the di-templates BTW? If so it would probably be better to integrate it properly instead of simply making an exception in the code only for nopermission as my fix does. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! And Amalthea will certainly be able to offer good info. :D I don't know if it would be better to use the di-templates; we might want to wait and see what Amalthea knows. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea is humbled by the vote of confidence.^[1] Anyway, as I've said on my talk page, since the db-* notifications of F4, F5, F6, and F11 are more or less remnants, using only the di-templates from now on is certainly not wrong. The db-* versions of both tag and notification were designed for immediate deletion, not for the delayed "delete if" tag.
Cheers, Amalthea 15:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ There is a German winged word that would be fitting here, but is lacking an English equivalent: I received Vorschusslorbeeren, literally translated as "Advance laurels".

....

yo no entiendo lo que está diciendo perra

Translates as a rather hostile "I do not understand what you're saying". The poster is User:Denbaby, who vandalised Hittites on the 18th September. I've left a level 3 warning on his page. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

He was duly blocked indefinitely, and three posts to your page were removed. You ain't missing anything, though ;) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Always bemusing to see evidence of skirmish that one has missed entirely. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

York Prep Alumni

Hello Moonriddengirl,

This is concerning the addition--and subsequent deletion by you--of Phil Abraham, an actual alumnus of York Prep, Class of 1977. The school is rightfully proud of the successes of its alumni community. You are to be commended for your work in keeping Wikipedia accurate, but have alumni listed by other schools (e.g. Dwight School) also been scrutinized in this way?

Thank you. 208.105.76.90 (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I was lurking & happened to find a reliable source, so he's back in. Glad you liked the picture ... I've completely forgotten ever loading it, but I did go through very many thousands of Gutenburg books stealing images for us, once upon a time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done. :D Thanks. (Wonder why google didn't pick that up? :/) I do like the picture! For some time now I'd been thinking I ought to add something visual to spice up my userpage, and Ch'ang O had seemed the natural. When I picked out my favorite, I was surprised and pleased to see it came from you. So, again, well done. Thanks. :D (I had also been considering the jade rabbit, but Ch'ang O being a girl and all....) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Linking to scans of magazines on WT pages

What are your thoughts on linking (on a Wikiproject talk page) to a site carrying scans of magazines? This is contributory infringement right? –xeno^talk 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I've recently left a note about that very thing at Talk:William Beckett (singer), though I haven't yanked the link yet (it's being used as a reference). This is a link to one image of a small section of a single page; any website carrying multiple scans of magazines would be right out. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at the present case here and comment? There seems to be confusion as to whether it is acceptable to link such a site as long as it is not on the article itself (and it's not just one or two scans). Thanks, –xeno^talk 15:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor silliness: I want an edit banner.

I like your edit banner "Welcome, Sinneed. If you are here with ..." that pops up after the usual "This is a talk page. Please respect..." when someone edits the page. My poor search skills have not turned up how to create one (or even if mere mortals can have one). Is there an wikilink you might easily add (I am watching the page) that might guide me to information? If not, no problem, I just want a new toy, it isn't important at all. :) - Sinneed 15:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. :) The basic instructions are at Wikipedia:Editnotice. User:Amalthea the Brilliant helped out with personalizing it. A peak at the code of User talk:Moonriddengirl/Editnotice tells me this is done by placing {{REVISIONUSER}} where you want the greeting to go. Mind you, this kind of backward technology is risky, so I would test. :D If you decide to do it and want a second set of eyes, let me know, and I'll come tell you if it's showing me my name. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh. A new toy. Thank you!- Sinneed

Personal attack

Dispute resolution - moderation request

I have placed a request for neutral moderation on this unedifying and purile spat here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Symi.2C_the_Greek_Island_of Symicat (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been doing what I can to resolve what appears to be a personal fight going on on the `Symi` page. My suggestion that an independent moderator try to settle the differences has elicited the response copied below from Symiakos. I object VERY strongly to being called dishonest, and a `filthy libeler.` Could you ask Symiakos to withdraw those remarks, please?

The following lines were by Symiakos:

Unedifying? Peurile? Spat? What silly words you use in yet another of your myriad attempts to make things appear differently from how they are. Any reasonable and honest person would read what has been written above and see two people engaged in an honest debate which doesn't resort to name calling. You always have to do this with every discussion you disagree with. You can't even place an honest description of what has been discussed here on your dispute resolution post. How you behave (including your filthy libels that were deleted on other pages here) makes a total mockery of your professed love of Symi.--Symiakos (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lmoench Symicat (talk) 16:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your comments on this page (now deleted) and also on the archived Symi-Talk site (still visible in the 'history') where you said that SymiGreece's photos were "mostly of boys in swimming trunks" was an extremely filthy libel with the very clear aim of implying that those who took the photos and/or put them up have paedophilic tastes. That was a lie as there is not a single photo out of about 20,000 of a boy in swimming trunks on that website. All in all, I think my comment was rather restrained.--Symiakos (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. This is a rather difficult situation to respond to. :)

I understand that both of you have strong feelings on this topic and that there is history that predates (and will likely continue after) this matter is resolved on Wikipedia. It does indeed look to be a very personal fight, and language used on both sides has not been in keeping with the policy of Wikipedia:Civil. Never mind earlier comments on this talk page (which have already been addressed and were a problem under the biographies of living persons policy) describing a conversation as puerile is not in the spirit of the civility policy. But neither is it within that spirit to imply that somebody else is unreasonable and dishonest.

I am not only a Wikipedia administrator, I am also a Wikipedia editor, and I speak from experience in saying that disputes on Wikipedia are best conducted with a cool and level head. Sometimes, this requires ignoring hostile comments from other contributors and speaking to them as though they had spoken civilly to you. Responding in kind will not help the situation and will also make it difficult for other contributors—who otherwise might be called upon to help if the incivility continues or escalates—to determine who is at fault. When incivility seems reciprocal, sanctions may be imposed on both sides or neither, even if it crosses the line into personal attack. No matter how much reason you may have to dislike a contributor (given on Wikipedia or off), you are expected to remain civil here and will find it in your best interests to do so.

In keeping with Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments, I would personally suggest that you both revise your own comments to conform, focusing on the issue and avoiding unnecessary adjectives or personal comments. Regardless, I would request that you both take care to follow the civility policy in future communications. The point here is to iron out the issues with the article. Here, you should focus on article content only, and you may find it easiest to do if you ignore the fact that you know each other in any other context. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Moonriddengirl. I understand that this is a difficult position for you and for Wikipedia in general. I hope you can appreciate that it is not an easy matter to keep a level head when someone makes the "young boys in swimming trunks" accusation, so full of implications of paeodphilia, that "Symicat" did. I believe that Wikipedia's line against that user for making those comments should have been stricter than it was, as his accusations were about the most disgusting that anyone could make. I shall withdraw, but I shall not edit my previous comment; it is a fundamental human right to defend oneself against untruth.--Symiakos (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted no such comments. They may well have been made using the `symicat` tag - I have not seen them - but if so it was without my knowledge or permission.If these comments are still visible, then I agree that they should be removed if that can be done. I will try to find out who did post them, I will assure them that "there is not a single photo out of about 20,000 of a boy in swimming trunks", and on their behalf I apologise unreservedly. I am sure, symiachos, that all the picture on your website (http://www.symigreece.com/symipeople08.htm) comply with the convention of not being posted without the permission of the subject, a responsible adult, or with a model release. Otherwise it would be like pointing an illegal web cam at people - police state stuff. Thank you for withdrawing your remarks. Let's see if we casn keep this civil from now on. I hope the matter of the Symi article can soon be settled.Symicat (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

For the moment, while the comments that SymiCat denies making are part of a criminal investigation, I would like them to remain. Even though they are distressing, they are valuable evidence.--Symiakos (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia carrying out an investigation? Please let me know if I can assist. Symicat (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As Symiachos IS, he says, pursuing legal action against me (For the moment, while the comments that SymiCat denies making are part of a criminal investigation, I would like them to remain. Even though they are distressing, they are valuable evidence.--Symiakos (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Personal_attack ), does this now mean that neither of us will be able to edit for the time being?Symicat (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This question is now at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread needs closure

Paging Mrs. Moonriddengirl... Your help is requested here. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that this one has moved forward since your note. :) If he doesn't respond to User:CactusWriter, but persists, additional action may be necessary. Hope he'll get the point! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Italian copyright question

Hi! Thank you for your request! Now it's late for me, but rest sure, tomorrow of course I will do whatever I can do for this problem. ;-) Bye! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for the problem, and there is a lot of confusion on that: our it.wiki page appeared on Aug 7th 2008 for the first time done by an anonymous, and on that date it was deleted as copyviol from a site that now shows another article. Then, it appears again on the same date by another anonymous, and it remained until Aug 23th, when it was deleted again for the same reason and recovered after a cleanup; but on Aug 17th appeared your translation. After that our article was deleted again for a copyviol from another site, but also in this case I can't verify where the copyviol is, because the site now shows another article. Your latest version of Aug 17th shows many differences from our deleted version of that date, but it seems a "free translation" (I mean, not letteral) from our version of Aug 7th, with the same sections, that are the same used now on the current version of our page. In other words, we have to discuss if now both are copyviol (or riadaptations from a pre-existing copyviol) or not. The original works from the sites are not available. But I think we can keep both. Anyway, I can contact Lusum (the admin who deleted thoose versions last year) on chat and I will inform you if something will be decided. ;-) Bye!! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 05:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lusum found the copyviol text, so I checked your article, and it seems clean. You can close the question. ;-) If you will have any other thing to check in future, don't hesitate to contact me again. Bye! --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 19:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lostock Hall

I'm not going to ask you do dig through the drama, but rather focus you on one particular point. Can you comment on the apparent copyvio that I have outlined here (among other places)? I sort of volunteered you to walk a user through WP:OTRS; we'll see if he takes me up on it.  Frank  |  talk  20:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I followed up here.  Frank  |  talk  20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure! Happy to help. Feel free to volunteer me. :) I'm off to look at it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Lostock Hall

Hi, time was given for a complete change to the section, to remove any similarities from another website. Swift removal was a little unfair, and not permitted any change to take place. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You were alerted to the situation more than two days ago, and have repeatedly insisted it isn't a copyright violation, as recently as 30 minutes ago. That is plenty of time to have made the change. What you have consistently failed to understand is that whether or not you have permission to use the text is not what makes it a violation. The reason it is a violation is that Wikipedia has knowledge that the text is copyrighted, that it appeared elsewhere first, and that the license under which it is copyrighted does not allow its re-use on Wikipedia. Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, it is a clear copyright violation.  Frank  |  talk  21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Adoption Scheme

Hi Moonriddengirl, firstly I want to say a big thank you for all (and I mean ALL) of your help; I appreciated it immensely. Secondly, I have joined this Adoption scheme, and was wondering, if you would like to be my adopter, and teach me all there is to know, so that I can prepare myself for a future RfA nomination, which I'm aiming to do sometime in 2010. I appreciate if you're busy and don't wish to take on this task. I look forward to your reply. (P.S. you can call me Gareth) Pr3st0n (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Gareth. I will be pleased to help you learn your way around Wikipedia, but I suspect you'd better consider a "formal" adoption relationship with somebody else, too. The reason is that I am very specialized in what I do on Wikipedia. I get to write some articles and fix some vandalism, but I mostly work with copyright problems. You are welcome to come by my talk page any time you have a question, and I will be happy to answer you if I can. But if you're considering an RfA in 2010, somebody with more general experience (and more activity at RfA!) might be better for you. I almost never drop by RfA, and I'm a bit out of touch with how things go over there these days. You might want to consider me a back-up and look for somebody here. I'd be happy to help you figure out a good person to talk to, if you pick out a couple there that interest you. It's mostly about finding somebody who is active and who edits in areas that you also like to work in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Awww thanks hun, I will most certainly drop by with any questions, and also find an active adopter too - perhaps you and the adopter could work as a tag-team on me ;-). I've added your name to my wiki-friends via here, hope you don't mind!? Done some additional work on Lostock Hall too, included new tables to show local election results in 2006 (for the governance part), and stats for the railway station's usage figures (not that people would want to know, but it helps bulk things up a bit). Pr3st0n (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pls help me?

I am Mark and could pls remove the lock in the article section of Cagayan de Oro City, because some of the information are wrong and behind the new. I am concern about the place and the problem you ask from could be remove immediately. Pls response to my request tnx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.137.125.58 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2009

We received a complaint via e-mail about this article's copyright violations. That article was locked to prevent the copyright violation that you keep placing into the text, presuming (as evidence strongly suggests) that you are User:Heartbreaker 84. As was explained at that user-talk page and at the article's talk page, we can't use text that has been published on other websites. The article has been protected again, since you have once more restored that text, to ensure that we keep those copyright violations out. It can be unprotected only if there is assurance that the text that was previously there...which we cannot legally use...will not be restored. You are welcome to add original text (text you have written by yourself) to the article. You are welcome to correct mistakes. You are welcome to change images. You must not keep restoring the text that was previously there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Scole Report

Hi, sorry to bother you with this. I've put a prod on his article, but then noticed it was apparently a translation of the Italian wikipedia article (look at the version prior to my editing) - which has been deleted. Doesn't this leave us with some GDFL concerns or something similar? Your opinion/advice would be appreciated. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Always a fun situation. :) Yes, this leaves us with licensing concerns. If the contributors are not attributed at least through a direct link to the original article, we're in violation of their licensing terms and hence of copyright. If the article were going to be retained, I'd contact an Italian wiki admin to ask for the history. It was evidently deleted there by AfD because it was an orphan, unsourced & non-neutral. Here's what I suggest. I'll tag it with the copyvio template. If the PROD is challenged, I'll try to get the history. If it isn't, anyone who ever restores it will know that the history is needed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So tagged. Listed at CP just in case the PROD is challenged. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Verbal chat 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Darryl Read Temp page deletion

Dear Moonriddengirl The donators are having a lot of trouble getting Darryl Read page into Wikipedia --- I have come into to help them with corrections, as its about facts of my biographical information.

At this stage, I would like to ask your help on how we can use biographical info, that the donators Julie Rex and and automatic shoes have been trying to place on Wikipedia. The biographical info on me has been around for a quite a few years and of public domain. What would be great, is if you could possibly look into the material and edit it the way its supposed to be or deem necessary. As I noticed you did put some input into the works already. Failing that the donators will have o rewrite all and tell the same story in a different way and place public domain facts in a different manner.

I appreciate your stringent measures to insure all is kept with in wikipedias' guidelines, I will as a matter of due course make sure that any articles on Wikipedia: in factual evidence on myself or associated acts are baring the correct output. Please advise accordingly on all current state of play.

You may also correspond on this matter direct to me at: info@darrylread.com or as you wish; here

Sincerely Darryl Read CatWizard777 (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Answered at your talk. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

N, O, P, Q & R

Hi there. I have done a reworded version of Ridgeway School, and I have reformated someone else's edits to New Hall (HM Prison). Hopefully these both come up to scratch now. I have also reworked Rochester (HM Prison)... is it up to me to remove the close paragraph template, or should that be up to you? I have also fixed the reference links for Pentillie and Queens Park, Bedford, so these should be able to be checked now. Many thanks, Bleaney (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also recently created the new article - Ruth Watson's Hotel Rescue. This may need to be checked and/or added to the table. Bleaney (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have taken your suggestions for Pentillie and Rochester (HM Prison). They have now been amended! :-) Bleaney (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the close paraphrasing I was guilty of occurred before this review of my articles. I think I have a good idea, but this whole process is a nice revision tool for me! Thanks again for all your help with this, and it is good to know you are recovering well. Bleaney (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

University of Pretoria

Hi Moonriddengirl

I've tried to bring the University of Pretoria page in line with Wikipedia policies (I hope). Is the page up to scratch enough to warrant removal of the unrefrenced and clean up tags?Purple Duke (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I'll come give my feedback in a few minutes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the tags; seems like good work! I did find a very old lingering copyright violation, which I've removed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Need Help!

Hello Moonriddengirl, I just noticed that this user Tazaliischool have created the following page, Ali's Telefilms, which is just a hoax. I have searched the whole internet, and haven't found a single website that mentions about the production house. Besides, the page contains content straight copied out of the page, Balaji Telefilms. All of these shows are solely produced by Balaji Telefilms, because none of them mentions the name Ali's Telefilms, neither in the beginning or the end of the series'... Also, the page has no reference or source... Can you please check? I'll be very thankful to you! Your wiki friend, Survir (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) That one worries me, too. :) I've proposed it for deletion, though if another admin speedies it I would be fine with that, too. I'll AfD it if the PROD is challenged. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Take care! Survir (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation

Thank you for your clear and helpful explanation here. You cut to the heart of the matter, and the context and example you provided were both thorough and accessible. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I'm glad if I was able to help. I happened to be checking my watchlist when your content noticeboard request went up, and since copyright is quite a bit of what I do, the words "Close paraphrasing" caught my eye. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues at Lostock Hall

Hey there! Good to see you around again, is everything going well after the surgery? :)

Thought I should notify you that I have manually removed the (pretty blatant) copyvios at Lostock Hall -- seems strange to just add that to the top of the page for anything other than a very short period of time, since the copyvio will still be downloaded for everyone who views the page, since the copyvio tag only blanks the visuals, not the page source. Not sure of the usual procedure with these tags, but legally I cannot imagine that simply blanking the visual side of the copyvio is enough, since the copyvio text is still downloaded to every individual viewing the page. Thanks. :) — neuro^(talk) 17:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, recovering nicely, thanks. :) Generally speaking, the copyright problem tag is used when there's a chance of verification or to give other contributors a chance to address. WP:CP policy is 7+1. In this case, it was done as a courtesy to the contributor. I don't know if there's any way to make the {{copyvio}} prevent the text being downloaded, shy of the blanking that we used to use. But I see that when you removed the copyvio tag, you inadvertently restored some of the material to publication. Almost the entire train section is copied, which is why it was all blanked. Compare [23] with [24] and [25] and the sequential sections. I've gone ahead and removed that, too. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear you're recovering well. :) Sorry about messing up the copyvio sections. Missed the closing div tag. I can't imagine any other way to stop it actually being downloaded short of removing the text itself, since the blanking is interpreted by the browser instead of being actual null space. :) — neuro^(talk)

Null space...that sounds dangerously close to technology talk to me. :O I do not know this language. But since you do: at one point, there was a conversation about automatically blanking attack articles listed through speedy the way that the {{copyvio}} template does (though the comparison was not explicit). Somebody commented that unless the text is physically blanked, this text would still display via our mirrors. I asked somebody at the time if, in that case, the new process with the {{copyvio}} template of automatically blanking was a bad idea, since we do let these sit around for a week. Said person didn't know, said he would get back to me, and evidently went off on hiatus, as he has not edited Wikipedia in some time. Do you know if this is true? Do some of our mirrors still publish the text we're blanking? If so, the change to automatic blanking was probably not a good one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is concerning. Some mirrors will no doubt publish it, since they may interpret templates differently, and their core CSS will be different. I didn't even think of that, that is very concering. Might start up an RFC about this over the weekend, this really is worrying. Thanks for bringing this up. — neuro 19:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. I'd love to get an answer on that. Evidently, the change was modeled on the practice at wikisource. See the thread. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thread up. Glad to hear that you are well. :) — neuro 20:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Euro Alliance of Payment Schemes

Dear Moonriddengirl,

Thanks a lot for adding information about EAPS (which is the shortcut, often used for search!) on Wiki. For updating the article you may want to consider to delete the last sentence as the group mentioned does not exist anymore as such and the link of the referenced article does not work. As the official site from EAPS was updated recently you could find more accurate information there.

Cheers 203.215.137.252 (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Happy that I was able to help. I have altered the language since the report is now several years old. However, we don't delete cited material just because links have died; I've tagged it as a "dead link" to alert Wikipedia's readers and also to request its editors to try to locate an archive or otherwise replace it. We may be able to use the official site to add additional information, but Wikipedia prefers second-handed sources, as these are understandably less likely to be biased. Wikipedia also relies on second-handed sources to demonstrate that an organization is notable. What this article really needs is somebody who is familiar with the reliable source guideline who is also multilingual. There seems to be a bit of recent press coverage here and here, but I can't evaluate whether those sources are appropriate for Wikipedia or incorporate information from them that I cannot read. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarfication! Cheers 79.233.72.48 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Achille et Polyxène and Ippolito ed Aricia

Hi Moonriddengirl, Would it be possible to simply delete the synopses in these articles, note it on the talk pages and remove the humongous {{Copyviocore}} plate from the articles? I've found 4 copy/paste synopses today and simply deleted them rather than using {{Copyviocore}}. Best Voceditenore (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it is certainly possible, and even easier for me to do if you think your project will not object. I had been using it to draw attention to the material so a project member can rewrite it, but will happily just remove it if this is preferred. :) By the way, I am struggling with competing "real life" and Wikipedia demands over this weekend, but I will not forget this clean up project. I'll get back on it as soon as I can. Off to do today's CP batch right now. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The project wouldn't object at all. Hah! They'll do whatever I tell 'em! ;-) Seriously though, it's our preference for cases where there's copyvio only in selected sections. If the whole thing is a copyvio, that's a different matter. You've been a huge help to us so far and I really thank you for it, so don't worry if you have stuff to do in the coming days. We've made quite a lot of progress - 24 articles detected and repaired so far and many others found to be OK. It seems that a lot of the articles that Nrs claimed he had made "significant contributions" to didn't actually have a lot of input thank God). Best, Voceditenore (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All righty. Moving forward I'll take that tack. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging

Since the copyvio purge started, I've been tagging so many images in the last month or so and all I am only dealing with new and recent uploads. I keep being asked essentially the same sort of questions, so I wrote an IfD faqs type page to reduce the issue (I hope) based on User:Jonny-mt/CSD which I actually have usurped for myself too but refined for images. Besides needing a new image, would you kindly review it for me to see if if fits the bill? BTW, I stole a few lines of text from you too; hope that's ok! TIA ww2censor (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, have at it. :) It looks very good! If I were you, I would consider adding to this: "If you created the image yourself, please say so and, if your username is different from you own name, make it clear that you the uploader took the photo." I'd put on some kind of parenthetical note, "(If the image is previously published elsewhere, you will need to verify the license. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.)" That may not be the best language or the language you'd choose, but something along those likes will let people know that just claiming to be the source isn't always enough. Well done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you must be a speed reader? Thanks for the quick reply. Text added per your suggestions. Do you think I have missed anything obvious? I will of course be pleased to share it or others may modify it for themselves. BTW, how do you get that green box to show at the top when editing your talk page? GTG and do some stuff. ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a speed reader, thank goodness. I'd never be able to keep on top of the copyright problems board otherwise. :) I don't see anything obvious that you missed, other than the one I noted. But while I wrote the WP:GID, I don't actually do that much with images myself. You might ask User:Drilnoth. He's certainly up on them. :)

That green text is an "edit notice", and the directions for making your very own are at Wikipedia:Editnotice. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright status of lists

Hi, hope you're good. I'm curious as to your take on the copyright status of a few lists I've come across over the last couple of days -- I seem to remember seeing you discuss the subject of lists before, so hopefully you can enlighten me. :) As far as I know, there needs to be an element of creativity rather than simply factual definition. I'm curious what the deal would be with lists such as Time's All-Time 100 novels as well as AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) and the rest of the AFI 100 Years… series. The first was decided by two of Time magazine's critics and the American Film Institute lists were decided by "a ballot with 400 nominated movies [presented] to a jury of over 1,500 leaders from the creative community, including film artists (directors, screenwriters, actors, editors, cinematographers), critics and historians." What is your take on the copyright side of things? – Toon 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Falling behind as always, but otherwise good. :) You're right that there needs to be an element of creativity for a list to be protected, but all of those seem to me to involve sufficient creativity. Last time I wrote to lawyer Mike about this (June of this year), he told me that lists are good as long as no human judgment is involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear - and I hope you enjoyed House as much as I last week! I don't have much experience with lists, thanks for clearing it up, I'll go hit delete. – Toon 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrmm, according to an assertion commented into the AFI films list, the lists are PD and the mystery shall be solved by looking at OTRS ticket 2007041310002766. I feel like I'm in a Dan Brown novel, can you shed any light? I'm not quite sure who Robert Langdon is in this scenario, mind you. I'm signing off for the night so whenever you have a spare moment would be fine, I won't see a reply for a good while. Cheers, – Toon 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. We have a forwarded letter purporting to be from AFI verifying pd. Leave them for now, and I will follow through with AFI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

AFI responded promptly. OTRS now has a letter from them in storage verifying that they consider the lists PD, but not the logo. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maria L. de Hernández

Hi Moonriddengirl. Do you think the Maria L. de Hernández article is too closely paraphrased (see [26])? Theleftorium 14:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. :) Off to look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. It incorporates material directly from the source without indication that this is quoted in accordance with WP:NFC. For example, "she made hundreds of speeches on behalf of the Mexican community", added after the Corensearchbot tag was removed, is copied verbatim from the copyrighted source. From the start, "In 1932, Hernández became San Antonio's first Mexican female radio announcer" differs by one word from the source: "In 1932 María Hernández became San Antonio's first Mexican female radio announcer." "The family moved to San Antonio in 1918 where they began political activities in 1924" differs only superficially from the source's "The family moved to San Antonio in 1918 and began political activities in 1924." I'm puzzled by this, since the contributor seems to be quite experienced and is an OTRS volunteer. I will ask her about it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the fact that she seems to be an experienced editor is the reason I asked you first. Thank you for your reply. Theleftorium 15:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Help talk meta-wiki's history

Hi again Moonriddengirl, sorry to bug you. Do you have any idea what is to be done about this (a removal of authors and history from meta-wiki)? I thought you might be a good person to ask - feel free to comment here. Thanks a lot! Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Have done so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for going out of your way to help out ... again :D Take care, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lostock Hall rewrite.

Hi Moonriddengirl, I just wanted to let you know that after several mugs of coffee, numerous cigarettes smoked, not to mention every song stored on my laptop being played more than once; I have now got 2/3's of the way through a complete brand-spanking-new Lostock Hall article. I went back through the articles history, to obtain what was written previous, and with some skill, I have managed to rewrite everything avoiding that copyright situation, and well see for yourself, I think I have done a pretty good job using my own words. And to be honest, it looks and reads much better than what it did LOL. Good old Nescafe comes in handy doesn't it?! Anyways, I'm now working on the Library and MPD sections, and they will be up soon too - although the old MPD section was too long for my likening, so I'm looking at shortening it. Let me know what you think - and thanks for all the help and advice too along the way - much appreciated. Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 06:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

All work complete - and it looks so much better and tidier than the previous. All I've done is read the original copyright stuff, and then written it down as if I was summarising the content without using the same wording as originally shown. Hopefully it now complies to the policies. Thanks again! I need sleep now, but all that coffee has got me wide awake. Pr3st0n (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied at your talk page. Hope you got some good rest. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the Religion section now. Kept in the part which you said were really good, and taken out the close-sourced info, replacing it with things in my own words. Let me know if its OK now. I've also requested for a peer review on the article, to see if there is anything else it needs. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nathan Greene (artist) Deletion

Can you please email me a copy of the article Nathan Greene (artist)? Please send to charles@raggedyland.com I spent a few hours creating it. I now know I need to make the text original and I am willing to make the changes, but I do not have a copy. I am new at this and hope you can help me. You did not delete this article, but I randomly selected your name on the list of administrators who can send me a copy. Thanks. Raggedyland (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. It is on its way. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

List of electoral districts of Sri Lanka

You have moved List of electoral districts of Northern Province, Sri Lanka to List of electoral districts of Sri Lanka after removing copyrighted information in the former article but there is already an article which deals with this subject: Electoral districts in Sri Lanka. Could I suggest that List of electoral districts of Sri Lanka be deleted to avoid confusion?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 17:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've done so. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations from LB Barnet pocket histories

I believe that many articles in this area have copyrighted text from the London borough of Barnet's "Pocket Histories" going back years. Do you have any tips on identifying which articles have been effected and repairing them? The task seems so big. Do you think that it might be best to start the articles again? Thx Grim²³★ 14:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I do think it's best to start them again. I blanked the two that showed up at today's copyright problems page and relisted them. If no regular contributor steps in to rewrite them, I think they'll probably either be deleted or stubbed at the end of a week, depending on which admin closes them. I'm not sure how to most easily identify which articles might have copied from the website. :/ Is your wikiproject, Wikipedia:WikiProject London, very active? Sometimes I have found wikiprojects willing to pitch in, and if they are it might be possible to ask them to subdivide the topics listed at Barnet's and compare the related articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Update

Hi there MRG, hope you are well. Just thought i'd tell you that I have started 3 new articles since we were last in contact - Gravenhurst, Bedfordshire, Kensworth, Potsgrove and Stondon. I dont know if these need checking and/or adding to the list. Otherwise, i'm very keen to break the back of the outstanding list if you have the time... :-) Thanks again, Bleaney (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Over the weekend I was diverted by a rather more urgent investigation. :) I haven't forgotten you, though, and clearing that list is next on my "Wiki-things-to-do", after finishing today's batch at WP:CP. I'll probably get at least the next letter in the alphabet knocked out later today. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have just realised that's 4 new articles! Thanks again, Bleaney (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Technicalities. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen

The Daniel Goldhagen BLP keeps getting vandalized. In my opinion the only way to get it into some kind of reasonable shape is to protect it or semi-protect it, which is why I'm writing to you. At present [User:Mamalujo]] is at war not only with Goldhagen, but, in my opinion, with the Wikipedia itself. As I've noted in other places a few minutes ago, he's even deleted the name of Goldhagen's spouse. He deleted information that's 100% verifiable and 100% NPOV, such as the title of his his new book. I'm looking forward to your wisdom. crm411 00:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs)

Hi. I think the place to take this would be WP:RPP, I believe. While I had no involvement with Goldhagen at the time I got involved with BLP issues in his article before, I am no longer uninvolved, since I helped develop one of the articles about his books to "good article" status. Your note here won't be seen, I'm afraid, as that listing has long been archived. You might consider opening a new conversation at WP:BLPN. Let me know if you need help with that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just posted at WP:BLPN. I hope the page gets protected. It's been messed up for so long. Looking at the edits, so many people have actually put good work into that page just to have it destroyed by folks in violation of BLP and the Wikipedia in general. I was stunned when the name of Goldhagen's spouse, the title of his new book, etc, were deleted. It meant to me that without protecting the page, there's no hope to create a verifiable, NPOV article.

On a related note, you admins have plenty to do, for sure. It's pretty sad that good time is being wasted on edit wars that go on for years, like with the Goldhagen page. I think it might be worth considering protecting pages very early on when edit wars are obvious. That way, admins spend less time on this kind of warfare, and also it protects the integrity of the Wikipedia. Just my 2 cents. crm411 02:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs)

Hi again. Actually, I could use your help. What's a good way to find an admin to keep an eye on the page? Thanks. --crm411 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Your message at BLPN is a good start. Sadly, monitoring on any forum on Wikipedia can be a bit uneven. You can place a request and get no takers anywhere. :/ (I myself put a listing there on September 28th that received no response and will probably wind up being archived unanswered: Wikipedia:BLPN#Robert Garside.) Generally speaking, I recommend a lot of patience with attracting other responders. But you should meanwhile open a section at the talk page of the article specifically explaining your problems with the reversion. Please be careful to focus specifically on issues. Wikipedia has a policy governing how we speak about other contributors on the project. You'll see this widely violated, but if you yourself follow it carefully, outsiders will find it easier to recognize your legitimate concerns rather than thinking they've stumbled onto a personal conflict.

Certainly, a lot of admin work would be simplified if we could protect pages, but I'm afraid that this is approach would undermine the purpose of Wikipedia. :) Wikipedia was created in part to remedy problems in the closed-contributor, peer-reviewed Nupedia--which produced only 24 articles in the slightly more than three years of its existence. By permitting contributions from anyone without peer-review, Wikipedia had produced 1,000 articles in a month. Launched on January, 2001, as of an hour ago, it had 3,053,059 articles. (Such stats are routinely published at Wikipedia:About.) Keeping down vandalism and POV-pushers while remaining free for editing is a constant struggle. Generally speaking, the project protects articles only for short times and only in limited circumstances. I'm afraid it really requires vigilance from the editing community, and the process of resolving disputes can sometimes be labyrinthine.

I've had a look at your alterations to the article and made a few changes. First, you removed the article's "lead"--or rather, replaced it with a short biographical section. Every Wikipedia articles begins with a lead section that gives a brief overview of what (or who) the subject is and what makes it important. This lead is supposed to introduce the article with a kind of overview of the most important points. I've also removed the mention of Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Wikipedia is very important to Wikipedians, but unless a "reliable source" mentions the controversy, it is not presumed to be important to the readers in general. :)

I have also restored some of the criticism of his works from earlier versions and from the article A Moral Reckoning. In keeping with WP:NPOV, we must cover all significant views of this individual in discussing his works, and the criticism does seem significant. I realize that you created a section for critics, but I am concerned that not representing negative views in the book section could be problematic, as these sections are also meant to be brief overviews of the "main" articles about them, covering all aspects. However, I think criticism as it existed before your edit was unbalanced.

Having made these alterations, I don't really expect to be contributing much more to that article. As I said above, I'm no longer uninvolved, and the work I do with copyright problems keeps me fairly occupied on Wikipedia.

Administrator intervention is not specifically necessary at the beginning stages of a dispute, as any contributor can help to form consensus. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your contributions both to the Page and to my education. I've been reading, actually studying in some minute detail, the Wikipedia for a number of months before posting. Initially I was surprised by how much behind the scenes fighting goes on. Like everywhere else, I suppose. I've actually been saddened by it. I believe though that most people are well meaning, and strive for balance -- and the other percentage, it could just be one person, is motivated, some could even say obsessed to obscure/fool/persuade whatever you want to call it others to their own POV. This is true for editors, and sadly for some Admins. There are rogues in every group. I'm astonished by how many admins are really altruistic, completely neutral on all content issues, because almost all they are doing is WP and content housekeeping. Spelling errors, syntax issues and whatnot. Completely independent of the subject matter. Some admins clearly, at least to me are actually SPA admins when it comes to content. They deal with certain back end Admin issues, but when it comes to content, there's a thread that runs through their work, and it tends towards POV. Then there are two other kinds that I've noticed. The apolitical ones that try to create balance through referring and upholding policies and procedures, which is very useful and important, and with the ratio of edits on the Wikipedia per admin, that's a very sensible approach. I believe the processes could use some tweaking, but that's just my 2 cents on that. Then there are the apolitical admins who act in a way like you, an impartial arbitrator trying to get to a balanced result. That takes a lot of cycles on the part of the admin, but the result, I believe ends up with subtantially better articles -- resulting in higher scores of all kinds. When it comes to the future of BLP's, it's worth thinking about what is the actual role of an admin. I've noticed that in many of the RfA discussions, there's talk of procedures and past edit wars, issues regarding online behavior and so forth in the Q&A's, but hardly ever a question about a candidate's concepts about the tangible things an admin can do to help raise the score of an article. After all, ultimately, one of the goals, the result of all this effort by everybody, is to raise the score (assuming the score is knowledge). I think you've been doing that in your work, which is one of the reasons I approached you.

Also I think the issue of SPA admins is a significant issue -- difficult to uncover, but certainly present, and I think a reason for scrutiny, which is equally, arguably more important than the issue of SPA editors --crm411 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs)

I appreciate your comments about my own contributions, because that's something that I strive for. I haven't broken down contributors into groups (it seems like you've really put a lot of thought into Wikipedia; impressive!), but I certainly do agree that there are admins and others who unfortunately are more interested in promoting their own viewpoints than creating neutral content. When I first got involved with Wikipedia, I did not do all the advance study you did but just sort of started up, and I came to be aware of some of the politics more slowly. I've also been disappointed by some things I've seen on Wikipedia (among admins and otherwise), but on the whole have just tried to do the job the way I think it is meant to be done. To the best of my ability anyway.

It sounds like you may have an interest in (and perhaps a future in?) Wiki politics. :) With all the reading you've done, you probably already know that even policies & guidelines are formed by consensus (to a certain extent; we couldn't just decide to throw out the copyright policy), and perhaps you could take a hand in shaping those. I am basically optimistic, I suppose, and believe that maybe something could be done to fix the problems Wikipedia has, if somebody energetic and insightful could guide things in the right direction. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's very nice of you to say that. I'm somewhat experienced in these kinds of things, and because of that, I find going slow is better, at least for me. I like learning a culture, looking deep, and come to some understanding of how an organism operates. I'm not asking for you to respond here and now about the problems that are on your mind, or the strengths. I'd love to know though. I suspect others see the same things.... Also the strengths, never forget the strengths. I'm going to do some more posting in a number of very different areas, and I'm interested in studying a bit more the admin function regarding content--if only for the sheer joy of understanding, and if someone thinks it's worthwhile for me to share what I've learned, I'll be glad to. SPA admins is one thing to look at. There are others. What's the purpose from my point of view? There are a lot of amazing and useful articles on the Wikipedia, but in total there's a lot of out and out junk, and when it comes to BLP's, and this comes straight from WP:BLP they can be harmful to real people, so this is not a game. In my opinion there's an ethical responsiblity, which WP says up front to "do no harm". That's not the only ethical concern. A lot of people (editors and admins) are acting in good faith. I think we owe it to the Wikipedia itself, which people talk about all the time, but also to the good, well intentioned editors and admins that the system and the processes are ethical and effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crm411 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)