User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 55 ← Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This article is infringing on our copyright and we are requesting deletion

Hi there,

I wanted to bring to your attention that this article is infringing on our copyright [1]

Parichay himself is the sole copyright owner of this content and the only email to reach our team to obtain a certificate of copyright clearance is: info@parichayonline.com

We have not granted any permission to anyone for use of this info whatsoever at this moment and have therefore contacted the original creator of the page "ChayProductions" to request a speedy deletion of the article which I see has been done on the article page (currently pending deletion).

Can you please have this page deleted asap as it is violating our copyright?

Thank you CraneCrusier (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) See OTRS#2010032710029672 - a representative from info@parichayonline.com has released this material under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence. In doing so, they have made it freely available for anyone, including Wikipedia, to reuse, for any purpose. Yunshui 雲水 14:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Yunshui. :)
CraneCrusier, I cannot delete content for which we have logged permission. It exceeds my scope as a volunteer administrator on Wikipedia to decide that your word here overrules a release from a verified official address. You may choose to contact our Designated Agent to officially request removal, but I would strongly encourage you first to send an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org from your official site requesting a copy of the license logged at #2010032710029672. Because we attempt to protect the privacy of our correspondents, it is not likely to be supplied to you unless you use the same email domain. That will allow you to determine precisely who released what and when. If the license is valid, the content may not be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright shouldn't be an issue any more. I've gotten rid of the unsourced puffery which, even if released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence, should never have made it into the article. --NeilN talk to me 23:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I jumped in as well. Added some local newspaper sources. Just needs the national and international attention now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Great Movies article

I received verbal confirmation from a representative of the copyright holder, Ebert Digital Media, to include the the full list Ebert's Great Movies on Wikipedia over the phone several months ago. When I asked for an email to get written confirmation, the person I was speaking with said she would do so, but it has been months and despite my incessant emails, I have not received the written confirmation I require. Would just the verbal confirmation be cause to revert the edits to the article you made back in March? Fireflyfanboy (talk) 06:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Fireflyfanboy, I'm very sorry, but we have to have confirmation of license in writing. Since this is a legal issue, verbal assurance does not do it. :( It is disappointing when copyright holders don't follow through, but we need this document to safeguard our legal interests and those of our reusers. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Reykjavík Museum of Photography

Hello; please see the thread "Reykjavík Museum of Photography" within Anthony Appleyard's talk page, and feel free to respond there. Thanks! -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ebadur Rahman and Ebadur Rahman

Hello, Moonriddengirl. I'd like your advice about the best way to put these two pages back together. There is no overlapping history except one bot edit which I can delete. However, there are some deleted edits to be considered.

  1. The mainspace article was created years ago about another person of the same name, and deleted as non-notable in 2011.
  2. In 2013 a draft was created, but deleted as a copyright violation.
  3. The same user recreated the draft right away, leaving out the copyright material (mostly).
  4. In 2014 another user copied most of the draft and made a mainspace article.

I'd like to do a history merge so that the text will be attributed to the correct editor. My question is, should the deleted edits in the history of the draft be temporarily undeleted for a few minutes, even though they contain copyvio, so that when the history merge is done they will appear in the deleted history of the mainspace article? It seems to me that this would be best because someone looking at the deleted history could see the complete development of the article. The four sections above are discrete; there would be no intermingled edits.

An alternative would be just to delete the draft, which will be eligible for db-g13 in a month or so, although this would leave the text attributed to the wrong person.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Anne Delong. :) I see no issue with temporarily restoring the copyvio in history and then redeleting following the merge. I think your proposed solution works beautifully. The alternative is really not doable, of course, if it leaves attribution incorrect. It would be good to have a word with the editor who put the content in article space about copyright requirements in moving content on Wikipedia, in case he is still unaware. Are you comfortable doing that? If not, I'm happy to talk to him. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl; I have done the history merge and while I was at it I came across another copy-paste of Egorov Alexandre, so I fixed it too. I left a message on the user's talk page; I hope it's appropriate.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks good to me, Anne Delong. :) If you don't mind, can you tell him that there are things he must do also when he is copying text from one article to another because it is appropriate in both? A link to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia might prove useful to him. I can do that, too, but don't want to step in where I'm not needed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, I hope.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Knights of Sparta Article

Dear Moodriddengirl.......

You sent me an email about the article I submitted about The Knights of Sparta, my Mardi Gras Organization.

In your message you alluded to material that was taken from our web site - www.knightsofsparta.com.

I write that web site....and everything on it is mine. Therefore, I should be able to quote myself whenever I wish.

I am the Captain (absolute leader) and CEO of The Knights of Sparta and verify that everything I sent you was written by me and usable. You will see on the web site that all inquiries go to my email address.

Best........

Dr. David M. Mulnick - Captain / CEO The Knights of Sparta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.91.7 (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Responded at User talk:Captain of The Knights of Sparta. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

FBReader

FBReader was deleted by someone. I tried to undeleted it, then added to it. Is that copying ? Then someone proposed it to be an article for deletion. There is/was a Delete Campaign. How was the old FBReader history restored ? Can you explain the recent escapades of this pages deletion ? ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Vanessa Lawrence

Dear Moonriddengirl

Your deletions of my contributions to Vanessa Lawrence page constitutue vandalism. You claim for deletion refers to vandalism by by User:Mdann which does not adhere..) that sources are not verifiable are grossly incorrect. Please note: 1. APO.org.au is a very reputable site. Policy Online is a research database and alert service providing free access to full text research reports and papers, statistics and other resources essential for public policy development and implementation in Australia and New Zealand. 2. victorianspatialcouncil.org is the official site of the Victorian Govt spatial coordination arrangements involving govt, industry and academe - the Victorian Spatial Council. 3. psma.com.au - is the official site of the incorporated Public Sector Mapping Agencies of Australia of which the share holders are the federal, state and territory governments. 4. siba.com.au - is the official site of the peak industry body for the spatial information industry - Spatial Information Business Association chaired by the former federal Special Minister of State.

These are all reputable and verifiable with govt accreditaion for 2, 3 and 4.

Vandalism!! 

SSSI-SIBA (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SSSI-SIBA (talk • contribs) 16:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SSSI-SIBA: please keep cool and do not edit war or make accusations of vandalism to a well-established contributor. Thank you. —George8211 / T 18:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

A merge, or not

Since I've recently wasted some of your time ... let me waste a little more! Please, as an uninvolved person, take a quick look at this merge suggestion. I think it's a very simple matter, but of course I may be biassed, wrong or both. -- Hoary (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hoary. You have wasted none of my time. :) I'm happy to offer more. Are you looking for a closer for that or asking for additional input? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience, and sorry not to have been clear. I think that the question should be decided, one way or the other. And having participated in the discussion, I'm not the best person to close it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Done, Hoary. Not a lot of content there to be merged, but I have brought the meat of his bio. The children who predeceased him could be named, but the one who didn't is an issue per WP:BLPNAME anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


PROD?

I am confused, since I did not do a PROD on the article you mention, but perhaps on a different one. Please clear up my confusion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 15:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You're missed too!

Hey! I'm fine thanks, and I hope you're well too! Good to see that you are still active :) My life has changed a lot during the past few years so unfortunately I don't have time to edit anymore, but I will always remember the good times on Wikipedia and all the nice editors like you! :D Theleftorium (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

If you get time

I would grateful if you would run through the half a dozen edits following this one and check the copyvio situation. I'm at 2RR so that's me out of it. Regards. Moriori (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I too would be interested in a third opinion. A longtime editor is claiming that copying a sentence word-for-word is not a copyright violation.[2] Manul ~ talk 12:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You've wound up with two additional opinions. I've turned it into a quotation, which is generally a good way to handle a small amount of text like that if the person does not offer a paraphrase. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Double vision, or seeing double?

User:Schneelocke ⋅ registered Wikipedian and a sysop since 2003 (says the user page), but look at this:

  1. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Pohl.html
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oswald_Pohl&oldid=2037726

I don't have time to deal with this, Moonriddengirl. But, thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 23:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) Some info: Article was created Dec 24, 2003. Wayback's earliest archive of the JVL page was Nov 24, 2004.[3] The JVL page references another page as the source, though wayback's earliest pull there was Jan 2005.[4] Both pages say they are available under GFDL, which I believe was an acceptable license in 2003. CrowCaw 23:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Quote

Quite right, and you beat me to it (I got called onto a conf call so was delayed). Thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problems on Avast Software

Just now I've had to remove copyright violations on Avast Software that were added by the user Debsalmi. I have left a coypright notice on their talk page.

Here is one of the offending edits: [5].

I was wondering if I could ask for your assistance to see if they have made any other copyright violations? Their contribs date back to 2008. —George8211 / T 18:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction: they didn't make many edits between 2008 and 2015, so there aren't that many edits. I haven't found any other copyvios so far. Found this, copyvio of this, but it seems to have been cleaned already. —George8211 / T 18:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC) Edited 18:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Looking. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay, George8211, so in a case like this I would expect that she added content related to Avast on the basis that she works for the company (she says) and is unaware that we cannot accept her word for the copyright status of the content or that there are limits to what she should do. I believe based on her talk page notices that she is trying to work within the guideline of WP:COI. I'll come add a word about using official text. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, but the stuff I removed doesn't seem to be from Avast's website -- it seems to be from other companies, test suites, antivirus testers, etc. —George8211 / T 19:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh! The text I looked at was from one of their pdfs. I'll look a little more deeply, then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, eliminating minor edits and reverts, this person has only ever edited 9 articles.

Extended content

For the top two articles, George8211, I think it makes the most sense to spot-check the current versions, as the edits have been so extensive over the years. Are you able to help with that further? I know you've already cleaned up the second somewhat - does it need more review, do you think? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

For WOT Services, the section "The rating tool" looks like it might contain stuff from the WOT FAQ. The other sections look fairly reasonable at a glance.
It's getting quite late in the UK, so I'll come back to this and sort out Avast Software tomorrow. —George8211 / T 20:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, George8211. :) The WOT FAQ is compatibly licensed so even extensive copying would be okay with license compliance. For that, we'd generally need an attribution template, but it looks like following may be very limited - I couldn't find a lot of overlap. Since it's very likely a company representative and since I believe any copying falls below the substantial threshold, I think we can judge WOT okay. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Avast seems ok. The only problem points are the history and awards sections, but neither seem to have copyvios in them. Let me know if I've missed something :).
While we're in this area, I thought I'd let you know that Debsalmi left a message on my talk page about moving Avast Software to the title Avast. I opened a discussion on Talk:Avast Software about it, and there's no support for the move so far. —George8211 / T 20:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, George8211. :) Fortunately, this contributor's list is small enough that it could be quickly checked, as definitely there was copying in her history. Hopefully the warning she has received will prevent more copying in future! Odd request; I guess not unexpected, but when there's a word that your product is named after, it might not get to own the word. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Difficulties with a User

Good day I have huge difficulties with user YSSYguy, making me problems. I've created the article in english Flyways Airlines it was agreed to kept the Style with Administrator Happysquirrel , ie it is talked to him to keep as it is. The user YSSYguy keeps fighting to impose his style even with not appropriate information. Please see it. At the talk page of Happysquirrel it has the announce to keep as it is and it was understood from him/her. I hope that sanctions would be given to User User:YSSYguy for not respecting my initiation page and my contributions. There is a fight from him which is totally not contributive, not helps also Wikipedia. In fact the missleading distortions and destructive editions of YSSYguy it is no need in the article. As creator of the page version i have the copyright and responsibility of the article and to keep watching. All his/her modifications continue to be undone. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmillenium (talk • contribs) 11:57, 9 August 2015

I've responded at your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The fights did not started by me but from users 200.14.107.2, 200.28.248.144, YSSYguy and even from adminstrator user Myst of French site.

I asked Mjroots all files to be deleted from wikipedia. This was childish. But he said he couldn't.

like you see below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mjroots#Difficulties_to_get_my_contribution_to_this_page_accepted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LATAM_Airlines_Group&action=history https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flyways_Airlines&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmillenium (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 August 2015‎

So As i asked MJroots please close the pages like was done in french one by myst with my image... So the fight stop. People in chile did several times. So please stop the mobile users. The image is correct like sources already shown. Regards.

I please also gentle ask this page to be closed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyways_Airlines YSSYguy continue reverting the changes with bad english i do not agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmillenium (talk • contribs)

Mkmillenium is edit-warring in ten different languages over this image: Farsi, French, German, Italian, Korean, Lithuanian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish and Vietnamese. He knows what he is doing - he has been warned before and he has been blocked before - and I cannot understand why he is being afforded so much leeway. YSSYguy (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Luck of the draw, I assume, YSSYguy. :) I do not block people lightly, although copyright violations are a different matter. He certainly could be blocked for his edit to LATAM Airlines Group after my caution. There's no doubt he saw it first, as he blanked it prior to the edit. He's by no means been easy to work with, but I believe he has good faith intentions, and I suspect that the next time he is blocked we lose out on our last chance to get him to work within our policies and guidelines. That said, he seems to be rapidly heading in that direction regardless. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So block me, but before block me block other users with bad behaviour first. Or as I said, you delete the files from Wikipedia. The french page is blocked anyway without my image.

BUT I AM RIGHT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmillenium (talk • contribs)

It is because the same person use different IP computers for example mobile phones. I could have did also with my 4 computers but do not. So delete the files in commons.

Then block me but only after removing the files of Flyways Airlines and LATAM from wikipedia entirely and if you do so blocking me you lose my respect which you had gained as good administrator. I know Mjroots did a unfair block on me so do you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmillenium (talk • contribs) 14:34, 10 August 2015

Panos G. Georgopoulos

Hi Moonriddengirl; I've begun a thread on this and a related article at the BLP noticeboard, and am now wondering if pretty much all of it has been cut and pasted from the subject's resume: [6]. Now, this may be unavoidable when listing several peer reviewed publications, but given the abundance of the listings here, this may merit attention. Thanks for any light you can shed. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi. :) With respect to what I see in the article right now, I think we're okay - copyright does not extend to non-creative content, and an effort to compile a complete list of works is not creative. It's only when people try to list "select" or "notable" or when they annotate the list that creativity applies. This holds true for job appointments as well. Titles are not copyrightable, and a chronological arrangement of jobs held and range of dates for the appointment should be all right. Wikipedia:Copyright in lists holds my understanding of these issues. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick and helpful response. Then my questions leave the realm of copyright issues, and go to the listing of positions and publications. Much appreciated, 2601:188:0:ABE6:18BA:9D03:B907:ADF2 (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mkmillenium

You can't say we didn't try. If you want a block notice to remain visible, you'd better revoke his ability to edit his talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought about it, Mjroots. I decided that I don't honestly care if he deletes the block notice or posts some departing manifesto. If it makes him feel better to have the final word in his rage quit, he can have it. I don't want to deprive him of an avenue to appeal his block, since it's indefinite - as long as he doesn't become abusive. That's a pretty big caveat; I've just reblocked him without ability to email given the two abusive emails he's already sent me. (I never really understand what people expect from that sort of thing. :/ Is it supposed to shock me or hurt my feelings? Or just confirm that I made the right decision?) We did indeed try. I have no doubts whatever about my action here. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

George Ranalli article

Dear Moonridden Girl, When you have time, would you kindly advise about how to get to the Talk board to participate and learn from others who are more experienced about applying best practices to Wikipedia. I have some questions and ideas, but can't find a way to contact the talk board through anyone else. Apologies for bugging you. I did try to ge to the talk board, but can't figure out how to get there. Thank you. 69.86.66.202 (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Anne Valentino

Hello, Anne. The conversation is currently listed at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#George_Ranalli. If you follow that link, you will be able to see what others have already said. That page can be edited just like my talk page or like the article itself. One thing, though - you really should try to log in when you contribute to that page. If you are logged out, you will see a note above the edit window that says "You are not logged in." It's not mandatory, but it's helpful for people to be sure who they're talking to and will make it easier for you to track the conversation later.
I raised the discussion because I had concerns about material being added to the article related to the lawsuit. While Wikipedia does include such material, we have strict rules about content related to living people, and I knew that there are volunteers on that page who are familiar with how those rules apply in diverse situations. Not uncommonly, scrutiny in one aspect will invite scrutiny in others. Wikipedia's goal is to have an article on your husband that is fair and balanced and meets our overall purpose of summarizing neutrally and in due balance what reliable sources say about him. Reaching this goal sometimes requires some back and forth negotiation and agreement. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, wait - you are looking for the talk page of the article itself, not the discussion board I linked from the talk page. Every article on Wikipedia has an associated talk or discussion page; it is reached by pressing a tab beneath the name of the article. See Help:Talk. That link includes a video on using talk pages as well as a pretty in-depth explanation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
coi added by an unregistered editor was, in my view, unnecessary. Note to AnneValentino. If you are using your real name, be advised that you should use a pseudonym. You run a risk of clouding the objectivity of edits and also risk becoming a target of various sorts of unkind online abuse, personally. Eurodog (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, note to all unregistered editors, particularly those contributing to this article — please register — Eurodog (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Advice sought

Dear Moonriddengirl, Here I am again asking for more guidance! While I read and digest fully the newly received information, I/m wondering whether its perhaps a good idea to seek guidance on whatever might benefit from a proactive focus. My inclination is to leave settings -- email address, etc., stays quo until the workings of the site becomes more understandable, although there is so much to learn, and also some mini-projects for contribution to pages. Any advise on how best to proceed both in terms of settings and stretching out a little as a contributor? Your thought are greatly appreciated. Annevalentino 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)Annevalentino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annevalentino (talk • contribs)

Advice will be delivered on your talk page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Notoscyphus balticus

Moonriddengirl, you were a great help to me and Crisco recently when we were trying to get an OTRS image submission processed. The linked DYK nomination has an image for which an OTRS ticket was submitted about a month ago. I thought to try Steven Zhang directly—he's who you contacted last time—but he seems to be busy, and has changed his username since I made the request, which may be distracting him. Is there anyone else you can check with to see whether this submission can be expedited? As you can see, the nominators are ready to give up on the image for the nomination, but it's such a striking image that I'd love to see it run if at all possible. Many thanks for anything you can do to help. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, please feel free to ping me at any time to see if these images are in the system. Even if I don't want to process it because it is more complex, I can at least tell you if it's there. :) In this case, I cannot find a ticket that refers to that file. The search system is not perfect, so it is possible that there is something in the system that was simply not found, so I have asked at that page for the ticket number or the subject line of the email. If that doesn't get the ticket, he can resend it. I will try to expedite it if I can. (And I agree, the image is beautiful!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your help, Moonriddengirl; we very much appreciate you taking the time to search for it. I saw your comment on the nomination page, and hope Kevmin can do what's necessary on his end to get you what you need. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Advice

Dear Moonridden Girl, Thank you for taking time to reply, and for archiving my talk page entries. I will absolutely check into Teahouse next. Thanks for the invitation. Your suggestion to familiarize myself with watchlist is also well taken. Now that you've helped me familiarize myself with wikipedia basis on neutrality and conflicts of interest (which for a psychologist is quite understandable) my thinking about future contributions to my husbands page is to welcome the highest sourcing criteria; its appropriate and appreciated. My next objective is mastery of sourcing criteria for academic publications, especially essays, for that page. I'm learned so much about researching digital databases, (computers came after my graduate studies). Also, in terms of my further work on my husband's page, it should be helpful to track the changes of others I recently realized some past changes were inadvertently misattributed to me, and now there is an easier way to resolve any future misunderstandings of that nature. I also appreciate your inquiry into my areas of interest relating to new wikipedia projects. My research and professional practice orientation is essentially interdisciplinary across history, society, and the arts. My early academic background centered on ancient history and the areas of philosophical inquiry go subjectivity and aesthetics, which is where my interest hatched in the critical reflection of art, culture, and environment. Those interest have been refined into a focus on aesthetics and modernity, in relationship to the histories of cities (especially the City of New York) and civic organizations, and their legacies. My academic background in philosophy and aesthetics was also routed into applied psychology through the link of phenomenology, and particularly subjective experience, which connected me to mind/brain/ thinking/ consciousness topics in psychology. My graduate studies were again interdisciplinary, combining educational and clinical psychology, across seven practice ares.There isn't much that doesn't interest me about psychology, but the challenge of considering subjective phenomena throughout my workday compels endless interest in the phenomenology of intelligence and creativity and human behavior. Along the way, over 25-years of clinical practice, and in the context of my family life, the path was wide open leading to the human experience of the built environment, humanistic environments, and architectural analytics of modernism, especially applicable to education and healthcare settings. Also, my professional training as a psychoanalyst is another very different type of consideration of the biographies of living persons, so there is my interest in personal histories. That's probably way too much information! Whenever you have time to pass along any thoughts about future projects, please do. Working on my husband's page, I noted the absence of 'history of architecture' topics, including no pages about Carlo Scarpa, La Sagrada Familia cathedral in Barcelona, Spain, and certain important subtopics on the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright. Thank you again for all of your help. I don't know how you keep tabs on over 2,500 pages! You do a great job of editing and you've been very patient and helpful. With appreciation, Annevalentino 18:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)Annevalentino — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annevalentino (talk • contribs)

Will respond at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism and copyright

Thanks for explaining me the difference between those two, for I thought that they were almost the same, [EDIT] although I can still argue that it would be plagiarism to use copyrighted material over, over, and over as if the work really were one's own despite having credited its real author, which is why I did it. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) The 2 are not inexorably tied. You can have Plagiarism without it being a copyright violation: If you copy the text from a Public Domain source and pass it off as your own work, that is plagiarism but not copyvio. Likewise if you copy some copyrighted text, but add a clear and obvious attribution, then that is a copyright violation without being plagiarism. That is actually the more common thing we find from good-faith users. Just my 2p. CrowCaw 22:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Can we have our page back?

Hi There,

I am working to get our page American Association of Adapted Sports Programs, Inc., back up after it was taken down by you for an apparent copyright concern. We truly appreciate your diligence, however - please be advised that I - ~~BlueStormz (Tommie Storms) - am the cofounder of this organization, an officer of the organization, THE signer and FILER of all legal documents related to its copyrights and intellectual property and it is I who am attempting to have the page reposted.

I have enlisted another assistant - a Wiki editor - at one of our member schools to completely write a NEW PAGE if we can't get the old one released back to us. His concern however is that I needed to tell you who I am or you may block or take down our NEW PAGE or you cannot release the old one and we have to proceed in that manner.

Can you please acknowledge that we are clear to proceed without issue?

Also, can you release the old page? I wrote once before and got a nice note from you that also referenced your general page on copyright issues. It did not however acknowledge that request to release the page or let us know why you took it down.

Thanks very much.

Tommie Storms, Cofounder, COO/Director of OperationsBluStormz (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)BluStormz American Association of Adapted Sports Programs, Inc, tstorms@adaptedsports.org

Replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Arab Archery

I requested a review of Arab Archery on July 21 and haven't heard back, and now can't find the page. Has it been deleted or anything. Is there still a problem with it? Let me know. Thanks in advance. Hadden (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Hadden. As I mentioned last time you contacted me, the article has been moved to User:Hadden/Arab archery, as we can't leave it in article space. Those temporary space recreations are intended for before an article is deleted, and this one was created more than three months after. :)
The article is still inconsistent with copyright and non-free content policies in several ways. One of the requirements of quoting sources is that you have a defensible reason to quote the source, rather than simply putting the information in your own words. Just wanting the information that your sources presents is not generally a defensible reason. Some defensible reasons might be, for instance, to demonstrate an opinion: "According to Author X, this was important because...." Or to illustrate one. "This was important because that. Author X offers as an example of this...." The second and third sentences of the "Arab Archery History" section - why are those quoted? It looks like you are simply quoting because you want to use that information, not because you need that particular author's' words. The entirety of the following paragraph is a quote, which is an even bigger problem.
I'd recommend re-reading Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and making sure that the bulk of the article is written in your own language and structure, only using quotations where necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've taken out the quotes by Muhammad that seemed to annoy you so much. There are now no quotes in the article, so it should be clean to go. Are you the only one able to move it to the article page, or is there something more I need to do. Hadden (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Hadden, anyone can move it, including you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Back doing little work.

The section track Live At The Final Frontier (album) is indeed a copy and paste here. But it is a list, how do we treat lists? And do we delete history when it was copivio? I think we do... Hafspajen (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I tried ... here, but I probably give up. Hafspajen (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Hello, User:Hafspajen. Please don't give up, copyright cleanup and Maggie need all the help they can get, and many of us have messed up at first while trying to help.

The article was flagged by CorenSearchBot, and that bot does a great job most of the time, but it probably won't ever be perfect - it's artificial intelligence. In this case, it found what looked like a long stretch of text from an external website - but it was just a track listing. There was nothing creative about it - as mentioned in Wikipedia:Copyright in lists: "Copyright in a list may exist in the content of the list or in the way that the content was selected and arranged. Copyright does not protect facts, but it does protect opinion. If a source is based on "value judgments", it may be protected by copyright, even if it looks very similar to fact. And even if the source is fact, copyright may still protect its selection and arrangement if these are creative."

Sending pings to User:Diannaa and User:MER-C - hoping they'll want to help us out here, since Ms. M hasn't been on en-WP for a little while. Novickas (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree with Novickas, and welcome your help here, as much or as little as you want to do. When I first started, I didn't close any of them, but just gave my views on what I found and let someone else do the closing, and watched how it was tagged. From looking at your tags, I think you've got the right ideas, but have some issues with the wording of the tags. "Copy/Paste", for example... it makes sense that when someone copy/pasted from an Internet site, that this tag would apply, but actually the Copy/Paste tag is used specifically for copying between wikipedia articles. (That is perfectly allowed, but the copier has to say where they got it from.) The Copy/Paste from the Internet is just a plain-old copyright violation (G12 if speedy applies).
  • So don't be discouraged by having 1 or 2 listings get adjusted, especially in your first few dozen. As happens all too frequently on Wikipedia, thanks are not always forthcoming, so let me say it now: Thanks for the help! CrowCaw 21:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Crow, such good advice, and seconding your thanks to Hafspajen. See, this project is much more welcoming than most. Possibly due to the precedent that Ms. M has set :) Novickas (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
The same principle applies to text -- if it's creative, it's copyrightable. I apply revdel when the copyvio is substantial or it has a high likelihood of being restored (e.g. plot summaries). Don't fret -- you're allowed to screw up on Wikipedia; treat it as a learning experience. We'll happily double check what you do. If you have any further questions feel free to ask. MER-C 09:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks everybody for your kind words! Hafspajen (talk) 03:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • User:Hafspajen, I'm sorry that you met this trouble and so grateful that you received such swift and helpful feedback in my absence. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, Moonriddengirl. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 10:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Your assistance...

...is required to make sense of this mess.—SpacemanSpiff 11:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, User:SpacemanSpiff. :/ It looks like a lot of people have weighed in on that now. I don't have much time today, but am happy to try to help out this weekend with whatever remains in need of doing. It looks like User:MER-C has put together a mini-CCI in sandbox. If so, I can certainly help with cleaning up there then. :( --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Luckily some of the edits in that don't belong to this editor/Eastern Books. There are probably less than 20 articles left to check now. —SpacemanSpiff 14:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
User:SpacemanSpiff, I finished the list. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, I got sidetracked with another copyvio bit (and Drmies decided that he can take over your role), seems to have been the week for that! There's another weird one that I'm going through and I'll post a proper analysis on that soon. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 14:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio question

Hello M. You have helped me understand copyvio items in the past. Today I found this being used as a source for the Bill Farmer article. There are a batch of similarities. I can't tell which article came first and I wonder if there are any problems regarding this. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 17:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:MarnetteD. :) That's a circular source. World Heritage Encyclopedia reproduces several sources, including Wikipedia, and if you click the text that says "make contributions at the Citational Source" at the external site, it brings you right back to Wikipedia. As a point of personal annoyance, World Heritage Encyclopedia is a reuser that violates our license, and they don't seem to care. Worthy of note - Project Gutenberg's Self publishing section is also not reliable, as it has no editorial oversight whatsoever. I tested this myself once by creating an account and uploading something to it that actually was public domain. It appeared instantly, with no question as to my right to upload. Whenever you see "self.gutenberg.org", look with a wary eye. If it is a reliable source, it's potentially a copyvio. But it can also be any old screed written by any old body. Or, worse, something that looks like a reliable source that has been modified. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Interesting info. Thank you for adding to my "learn something new today" needs. Have a delightful week. MarnetteD|Talk 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Another copyvio question

Hi, Moonriddengirl. Kit Dalton has been copied in its entirety from its sources, the main one of which is a NY Times article from 1920. Does the age of the Times piece render copyright concerns irrelevant? If nothing else, it's not a very becoming way to present an article here. Thanks, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The same editor copied Thomas B. Turley from other sources, as well. However, it looks like he wrote the original content at find-a-grave, and that the same content was used for a Tennessee state encyclopedia online. In such a situation, I confess not to know what the guidelines are. If my notes to the editor are unfounded, please let me know. Any help you may provide will be appreciated. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, 73.159.24.89. 1920 is regarded for our purposes as public domain (WP:PD explains why), so that's not a copyright issue. It's not great article-writing, either, but it's acceptable as long as the copying is acknowledged as described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism.
In the case of the other page: Find-a-Grave is, to begin with, not a reliable source, because it's user-generated content. And that in itself makes it subject to copyright abuse. Because Wayback shows a very different page on Find-a-Grave in 2007 (the Tennessee Encyclopedia of History & Culture piece was published in 2009) and because the TEH&C is a professional production, because author Leonard Schlup is a professional historian and Patrick Whitney seems to be a photographer who likes historians, we would most definitely need proof that he is the original author. I've reverted as a copyvio and will go look to see the notes you've left him, in case there is additional assistance I can provide. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! You're good. 73.159.24.89 (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

image question

Do you think File:PulpFictionTwist.jpg can go onto Uma Thurman (song)? As explained at Uma_Thurman_(song)#Composition Ms. Thurman's dance performance in Pulp Fiction was the genesis of the song title. NE Ent 01:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, User:NE Ent. :) To that, I have to give you a guarded "maybe." I used a screenshot from a music video in Body piercing because I felt like it was defensible as an exception under WP:NFC. This looks fairly similar to me. ([7]) Some differences : launching body piercing as an industry is probably a little more significant than inspiring a pop song. But still.
Of course, just because my use hasn't been challenged doesn't mean it won't be, and it doesn't mean consensus will be with me. NFC has some very clear rules (first print low res book covers on articles about books? Okay!), but much of it is shades of grey. If I am in doubt, I ask ask at WT:NFC - nobody there can give me permission either, but they at least see more of this stuff. But personally I'm inclined to think your use is defensible. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

UNESCO definitions

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 28#Lists of endangered languages/UNESCO definitions, if you haven't already noticed that. (Specifically, I'm wondering whether you can follow up on getting clarification from UNESCO on the license they will agree to. I don't care if that specific page gets deleted, as long as we don't lose the licensing discussion before final permission [or lack thereof] is received.) - dcljr (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Some time ago I inviegled @Doc James: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_Nations/Archive_4#Liason_re_license_of_UN_texts_on_WMF_projects here. Not sure if there have been any further developments. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
UNESCO stuff is generally under an open license. I continue to work on WHO and they are still discussing my requests. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Doc James, Maggie has already attempted to get permission for this (on 20 May). There's more discussion at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2015 April 21. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers. :) Yes, I wrote to UNESCO in May to seek clarification. Unfortunately, while this content is "Open Access," their definition of that doesn't work for us. :( "Any content published prior to 31 July 2013 and for which UNESCO owns the rights, is considered in Open Access and is released on a case-by-case basis under one of the three following licenses: CC BY SA, CC BY NC SA and CC BY ND." Two of those licenses are not usable here, as we all know. I have poked them again just now, dcljr. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
As do most large organizations, the UN moves exceeding slow when it moves at all. Thank you all for persisting. In the end, it should be clear that WMF goals are well aligned with the education, development, and health goals of the UN. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

2015 Las Vegas NHL bid

Hi Moonriddengirl - Perhaps you can help me out with the best solution to a problem here. This article was created as a cut and paste copyvio/plagiarism of a paragraph from Potential National Hockey League expansion. I PRODed it as WP:CRYSTAL before realizing this, and was intending to allow the article to fall out that way. However the article, originally at Las Vegas NHL team, was moved to the current title and then redirected back to where the text was originally taken from. But I am now interested in how the article history should be handled. Should this be treated like a copyvio and the history prior to the redirect be deleted? Also related is Quebec NHL team, which was created as the same plagiarized copyvio but not (yet) redirected, and still holding a live PROD tag. Thanks, Resolute 13:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Resolute. :) I do rev-delete reverted forks when there's no attribution routinely as they are copyvios, and there's no reason to risk inadvertent restoration. The content is still in the original article and can be retrieved pretty easily and properly attributed as it ideally should be at the time the material is transferred. Since Quebec NHL team is still an article, I've provided the mandatory attribution in the edit summary and on the talk pages. I've also left a note for Dolovis which I hope clearly explains the issue. I hope it won't be an ongoing concern. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope so too, but his cavalier attitude in a semi-related ANI thread doesn't lend me much confidence, beyond the fact that he now has huge scrutiny on him at the moment. Resolute 16:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BigFun.jpg

⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Secure Channels

Hi Moonriddengirl, it appears that the main reason this article has so many problems is that nearly all of it has been cut and pasted from its sources. If it's been like that since its inception, perhaps it can be speedied, or at least taken down until this is sussed out. Thank you for any insight you can provide. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty bad. :/ It's not speediable on copyright grounds, I don't think, because the lead seems to be original, and G12 only works where the content cannot be removed to leave an intelligible article behind. I've pulled out the copied content and also stripped out one unsourced bit of spam from the lead. I'd usually like to rev-delete that, but the history of the article may be useful to others evaluating the G11 request. I thought it better to leave that for independent evaluation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:B169:DAFB:E15A:DBC4 (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Paradise Education Center

TruckerTRex restored copyrighted material to Paradise Education Center. Please delete the affected revisions. Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Davidwr, there's a template you can use to request revdeletion, {{copyvio-revdel}}. I've taken the liberty of adding one to that page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania Notable Alumni

Hi, Moonriddengirl.

I'm new to Wikipedia so I apologize if I missed anything relevant in your editing guidelines.

I was wondering why the Notable Alumni section of the above-referenced page was deleted. All of the individuals mentioned are alumni of the university. I would like to restore the section and am open to learning what information is needed to accomplish this task.

Thank you.


CharlotteFaith7 (talk) 05:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, CharlotteFaith7. It was removed because it was unsourced information about people. :) Wikipedia relies on reliable sources so that our readers and other editors can verify that information is accurate. We need this for anything that is likely to be challenged, but the rules are especially strict regarding living people. Policy says that any unsourced information about a living human being - whether positive or negative - should be removed pending the production of a source. Unsourced information on other topics may also be removed pending a source, but for living people removal is mandatory. You are very welcome to rebuild that section, but please make sure that every person you include in the list has a source that directly confirms their attendance of the university. These sources should be provided for individuals whether they are living or dead. You can read more about these policies at WP:BLP and WP:V. You can read more about how to identify a reliable source at WP:IRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You Win - I give up.

I'm not a lawyer - you appear to need to be one to post here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbowman1993 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jbowman1993. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I don't quite know what you mean. Do you mean that you do not intend to confirm license for Southeast Asian Directors of Music Association or rewrite it? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to ping

MRG, I asked a general (but sort of directed at you) question here, but forgot to include a ping. Would you mind taking a look if you have a moment? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Steven Balogh

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question: it appears to me that this biography began as a copyright violation of the subject's website (lists of work, exhibition venues, etc), and has remained so. I realize that lists aren't the same as prose content, but does this qualify for speedy deletion as a copyvio? Thanks for your expertise, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi. :) ) I prefer to say experience rather than expertise, because I think it more accurately reflects what I have. :D Even though I did work with copyright professionally in the past, I am not a lawyer, and my actual working exposure was much, much more limited than what I've encountered volunteering here. I daresay the copyright issues Wikipedia encounters are more complex than many IP lawyers ever get to deal with.
Lists of works are not inherently creative if they are complete or otherwise devoid of human ingenuity (say, for a year or specific year-range), so that's probably not a copyright issue at all. A list of exhibition venues is probably also not creative, if the organization is what would be standard to the field. There is a line in deciding whether presentation is at all creative - and the more elaborate a presentation is, the more likely the presentation is to be creative. In this case, the exhibitions seem to take the form of year/place, which is probably okay, even if broken apart into group and solo. The list of artworks is a little harder for me to figure, because I don't really understand the structure. Are they paintings in a titled series? If so, that's probably okay, too. Are they paintings clustered into some kind of theme? If so, that's probably not okay. It wouldn't likely be speediable, though, as both lists could be removed and leave prose that could stand alone as an article. Unless that's copied, too. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The distinction between expertise and experience is appreciated--either way, your insights are valued. If we remove the copyright issue, we're left with something else, the amassing of mostly non-notable titles and experiences. Thank you very much, 2601:188:0:ABE6:5DC5:559E:75C4:C241 (talk) 01:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tag from 2002

On Talk:Reversi/Archive 2#Copyright query you've added a tag with |date=January 2002 (although that date is highly unlikely, and your signature indicates it was added in 2009). Anyways, since it is in a talk page archive and not on the article, I wonder if you belive the content is still on the article. If not, can you please remove/"tl" the template, so we can delete Category:Suspected copyright infringements without a source from January 2002. Thank you. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Josve05a. :) It's not supposed to be on the article; Template:Cv-unsure is supposed to be on the talk page. Weird that it was archived and even weirder that it's dated 2002. Or signed. None of that was done by me. Nor was it supposed to be. :/ In terms of the copy-pasting, I do not know if the content remains. The duplication is undoubtable, but I could not prove that the source predated us. I'll look at it briefly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that the 2002 was added by whoever modified the template to begin with because that's when the suspect content was added to the article. Some of the content is still there, so I do not feel comfortable removing the tag. However, I'll move it to the current talk page and make sure it is used properly again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I thought it strange to see (1) a maintenance category from 2002; (2) which hadn't been fixed yet. Good at least that this small annoyance could be sorted out. I could have done it myself, but though it best to ask you since you were the one who added the tag for your opinion/input. Happy editing! (t) Josve05a (c) 21:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
You, too, User:Josve05a. :D And thanks for your continued copyright work. I appreciated it recently when I was working on the WP:CP backlog and saw a listing by you there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I start to wonder if you were ironical since i haven't really done that much with copyvios this last month(s) on WIkipedia (Commons, yes, but not here). Must start doing that again (t) Josve05a (c) 16:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
One thing I hate is that I can't review AfC and tag them for G12 when the url is blacklisted, as it is (/were, depending on when you read this) at Draft:Recruitment consultancy and jobsite relationship. Wish AfC/Copyvio-reviewers could get some sore of excemt form this blacklist, like an IP exempt-user is exempt from IP blocks. (t) Josve05a (c) 16:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
No irony, User:Josve05a. :D We just have a backlog, so if you've not done as much lately I won't notice for a few weeks probably. The blacklist has always been tough for me, too, in copyright work. I tend to kind of manipulate the url a little - so it's not a link, but the person reading it can still understand it. It's an issue with templates like {{cclean}} as well as {{copyvio}}. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

csb?

What's CSB? (Far less importantly, what's oi?) NE Ent 00:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NE Ent. :) CSB is CorenSearchBot. I'm not really so good with edit summaries; I tend to use the same ones over and over again. In this case, however, rather than my generally unimaginative "reply", I went with a bit of noise in my head courtesy of my playlist at the time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Move request

I botched a move request to mainspace of one of Richard Norton's starts, accidentally leaving it in the User space rather than mainspace. The software won't let me do another namechange since I'm not an administrator... Would you be so kind as to move User:Timothy_Healy to Timothy Healy — obviously I'll take responsibility that there's no copyvio in the piece. In the meantime I will work on it a little in User space... Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see the potential problem, it sits as a disambiguation page already. I managed to move it, sorry to trouble you... Carrite (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
No trouble, Tim, especially as you managed to fix it before I even saw the note. :D That said, happy to assist when I can. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Victor M Richel - Wikipedia Entry

Hello Moonriddengirl! Last year you and I were in touch about Wikipedia's entry for Mr. Victor Richel. You were very helpful and I appreciated learning a little more about what is/isn't acceptable on this site. Had a quick question about editing tags under photos. Under Vic's current photo it lists two alma maters - Harvard and Villanova. How can I access that photo box to make a necessary edit and remove Harvard?

Thanks so much for your help here, and for volunteering your time to make Wiki such a great resource!

Erikrslagle (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)erikrslagle

Hello, Erikrslagle. I'm sorry for my delay. :) It seems that you've managed to correct it! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Feedback Requested

Hi Moonriddengirl, could you please take a look at Sur les femmes, and tell me whether the note i have placed in the lead of the article constitutes OR? Thank you. Edited to add: The reason i placed the note was so as to justify why i was using the french title of the book as the page name. Soham321 (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

One other point. i really liked the design of your TP and i have tried to copy it on my TP, but something doesn't seem right. If its not too much trouble could you consider tweaking/fixing it. (I did not want the restriction you seem to have placed on the archive size and also there is a bot about which i don't know about which you seem to be filtering out.) Soham321 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Soham321. Sorry for my delay here. :) I don't think it's OR myself, although it's possible others would feel differently about it. In my opinion, saying "This source does not use this term" is directly verifiable to the source. That said, I'd probably put the note on the article's talk page myself rather than in the article itself. But unless somebody objects, it may be fine where it is. :)
In terms of the talk page, I think the main issue is that you're not really using several features. You might want to put something at User talk:Soham321/header. :) If not, you should remove that from your talk page. You also have redundant archive boxes. If you don't want two and you like mine, you should remove {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} from the page. As a final note, you have copied over the quotebox where I have my hours of operation (so shamefully untrue, those hours of operation), but there's nothing in it, so all it will be for you is a little empty box. You need to put some text next to the "quote" parameter if you want content in it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Soham321 (talk) 12:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Question on copyright clean up

I am thinking of helping clean up the articles i Richard_Arthur_Norton's user space [8] most of them have excessive use of copyrighted text extracted in quote= in the refs. When cleaning these up what is the proper procedure?

  1. Clean them up and move into project space with a note I take responsibility for the copyright status (Last part per current ARCA discussion. Applies to 1-3)
  2. As 1 but have the old versions revision-deleted
  3. Create a new article of the proper name using cleared version of article and credit the text to RAN in the edit summary.

I would like to avoid making more problems while I try to work on this. JbhTalk 23:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jbh. This is just my opinion, obviously, as I'm not an authority on the issue particularly, but if I were working on this I would make that dependent on the extensiveness of the issue. If copyrighted quotes form the bulk of the text or if a large or key portion of any one source is reproduced (relative to the size of the source), I'd be inclined to go for #2 or #3 (either of these satisfy attribution, obviously). If not, #1. I would not do #1 if the issues seem really extensive, in case there's some contributory issues in moving the content to article space. As noted at meta:Wikilegal/Copyright Status of Wikipedia Page Histories, content in history may still constitute infringement even if not currently published. I'm fairly comfortable that engaging with these pages where your action is just removing the content from publication would be defensible (this is not legal advice, which I'm not entitled or qualified to give - just my own feelings on risk management :)), but being the one who actually increases exposure of the content and thus the history is less within my comfort zone if I think that the content as it was represents a substantial issue. In that case, I would at least the have it rev-deleted. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Based on the pages I have looked at most of the problem seems to be excessive quoting which is large in relation to the article body (order of 30 word body 70 quoted words) more than in relation to the source. From the discussions it seems people think the material, in general, is fair use but contrary to our NFCC policy. The whole thing is a mess. Most seem to be from early-mid 20th Century NYT so I got a subscription to access their archives and will assess based on quote size in relation to the source. Thanks again for the help! JbhTalk 13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

You've revoked my user rights, you happy now? --OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 23:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't be rude OluwaCurtis! I know this is demoralizing but I think Moonriddengirl is right for revoking your rights as both require you to be familiar with our policies and guidelines, particularly, the copyright policy. Ideally, autopatrol right and pending change reviewer right should be reserved for long-term experienced editors. Nonetheless, don't be discouraged, editing without these rights will make you a better editor and when you demonstrate an understanding of the core policies and guidelines, it will be restored. With kind regards! Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 00:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Wikicology, I'm not discouraged though! --OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 07:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

Another move request

On this move of a Norton page I did get stymied by the software... User:Anti-Vaccination Society of America needs to go to Anti-Vaccination Society of America. It was formerly a redirect. If you could make this move for me, I'd appreciate it, thanks... —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done, User:Carrite. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Ta! Carrite (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed, if possible

Hi MRG, I wonder if you could provide some clarity on a point regarding this edit. I deleted text on the basis of a straight COPYVIO from http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/ketelbey. I have been reverted on the basis that the editor claims to have written that page themselves. I'm not happy about the text appearing being a direct copy by the same editor, or it appearing without quote marks, citation or any reference to any reliable sources on either of the two pages. If it is from the same source, shouldn't there be a note on the talk page to warn editors of the duplicated text? Many thanks – SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker)Typically when someone claims authorship off-wiki, we need them to follow WP:DCM to record that fact in OTRS. This is as much for the benefit of the re-users of our content as us ourselves. However, looking at that source page brings up a WMF question for MRG: is the Open-Government License compatible with us? Its terms look remarkably like CC-BY... CrowCaw 17:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Under UK copyright law the editor has no rights in the material he claims, as it was written for an organisation, and it is they who holds the IP rights. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, User:SchroCat, user:Crow. Indicates that the license is compatible with CC-By-SA 4.0, since compliance with that license satisfies the requirement of OGL 2.0. I believe that is true of CC-By-SA 3.0 as well. Attribution is a trickier issue. If the user who placed the content is an employee, copyright ownership goes to his employer. If he's a contractor, it may belong to him. ([9]). In the latter case, his username is attribution enough, IF there is no doubt that he authored the content. Otherwise, an explicit acknowledgement of authorship needs to be made for license compliance. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
So what happens with the text in the meantime? He claims he wrote it, but there is nothing to confirm that, and I'm not convinced AGF should be used in that respect. Should the text be removed again? – SchroCat (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't need to be removed from a copyright standpoint, but attributed per Wikipedia:Plagiarism (which discusses processes for incorporating compatibly licensed text) to the government source until he demonstrates authorship. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks MRG. I've removed it again, linking to this thread. Thanks again to you both. – SchroCat (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Added. All formalities met, at least until we have some clarification of ownership of the content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

Save as release

Hey Moon. Regarding your revert, I don't understand how that can be proper. I do understand what you are saying: that by clicking save under our licensing scheme, that constitutes a release under the Terms of Use, so any prior claim of non-free ownership is superseded; the save is the release.

But here's where the logic breaks down for me. First, there seems to be an element of knowledge missing—unconscionability. Not because intent is required, but because I could easily see, were this ever tested, a court stating that what we have boils down to a (or is analogous to a) contract of adhesion, and would invalidate that a free license was given. This seems out of keeping with our custom and practice to bend over backwards in our standards to make licensing unquestionably proper, e.g., our fair use requirements are purposely more exacting than may be legally necessary. So, down the road, a person whose website says "© all rights reserved" who then tries to license that content for profit (and it told you already gave it up under a CC license by saving it at Wikipedia), may end up making a claim that no release was given – claiming, as we know is extremely common, that they were not cognizant of the the notice before saving; that they did not see "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use". Moreover, that that notice is not immediately accessible but requires a person to click on one highlighted term among a number to reach the Terms of Use, and its boilerplate text. Therefore, that the manner it is set up is highly susceptible to unconscionability, and thus, is unenforceable. I'm sorry if I lapsed into legalese. I am a lawyer (though with no intellectual property specialty).

Turning to what I think is a more accessible problem, where it really breaks down for me: This seems to make no sense in light of our permission policies and practices. Bear with me. When a person comes here and posts non-free copyrighted content and we discover it, we refer them to WP:DCM and OTRS, and ask them to make use of the Declaration of consent for all enquiries ("Consent Notice"). The Consent Notice, in turn, tells them, in effect if not expressly, that they must declare the release under CC-By-SA 3.0, the GFDL or another compatible license (and further acknowledgments of release in its text). Here's the problem. If it's to be our policy that once a person click save, all we must do is verify they are the actual owner but don't need their tailored, knowledgeable consent as owner—because clicking save is the content, then why are we telling them to fill out this specific release for OTRS compliance? Just out of an abundance of caution? Think about it: it's exactly the same. The person has come here, posted non-free content and clicked saved – just as is the case for content listed at WP:CP. If saving is a release, and all the proof needed for WP:CP is proof of ownership and not any explicit release, then all we need to clear such material to count as a proper OTRS release should also be [just] ownership. Yet, as far as I know, we don't do this. OTRS rejects proof of ownership without an explicit release. (Am I wrong about that?) Unless I'm wrong, that appears to be directly in conflict with the basis for your revert.

You may read this and tell me just where I went wrong, but I am not laying this in your lap, expecting you will know the answer. This is (hopefully) food for thought, and possibly, something to run by Wikimedia counsel (or not).

As always, with the best of regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Holy wall of text, Fuhghettaboutit. :) (Although it's very legible! At first sight it was kind of boggling.) There's more than simply the link to the TOU here - there's the copyright text, which reads, "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution." It's right above the save button. It's difficult to argue lack of awareness of that.
As an OTRS agent, I have in the past more than once tied users together to specific websites, say, to verify that they are authorized to license the content. Sometimes this verifies content they have not even placed yet. The save button is their consent. We do require specific license when people write to OTRS, but we have used lighter-weight processes in the past, such as having people who edit a non-compatible wiki that allows contributors to own their contributions to log in to that wiki and, with their account there, to visibly connect their two accounts - the one on that site to the one on this.
I'm happy to run this by our legal team (although I'd have to switch hats to do so), but I'd really like first if you could share your thoughts on this:
Every single one of us who places content on Wikipedia (unless we're taking it from someone else) is the copyright holder of that content. If the Terms of Use and the "save page" requirements are not binding for Author X, how would they binding for Author Y (in this case, say, me)? Or do you fear they have no force at all? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh, to add - I also don't have to run this past the legal team, even if I am happy to do so. I'm also happy to abide by consensus on this - if it is not enough to do this anymore - to verify that User X on Wikipedia is Author Y and that he is thus able to consent to the TOU like any other editor, that's not an issue with me. I have no pitchforks to wave on this issue. :) I also have best regards for you and nothing but respect for you and especially your contributions to this area, which are much needed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) I've found, as a non-OTRS, that a lot of times the person who adds content to WP that they wrote elsewhere, intend it to be "ok to add to Wikipedia" but don't fully understand what they are releasing by so doing. We do that ourselves: how many times when installing software do you just click "I accept the terms" without actually reading them? (Did you know that using iTunes to control nuclear weapons is a violation of their TOS?) Also on other occasions, the person adding the content, and who wrote it elsewhere as part of their employment, actually didn't have the right to make the license release, as copyright reverted to their employer. I think the official process of verifying authorship, ownership, and a full understanding of what a CC release actually means, is the right way to go. As a reference that MRG was involved in, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Tom Frost for a case where there was ambiguity between authorship and the ownership of rights. CrowCaw 22:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
That is an excellent counterpoint question (as well as your point that the licensing is more in users' faces than I referred to). And thank you for the kind words; right back atya. My gut reaction is that it is different, but I acknowledge that I have not researched the legal issue to know whether my musings on it, to follow, have a legal foundation. In that situation, the original content was first and always licensed through our platform, and it seems to me difficult – weak – for a contributor here to argue "well yes, I wrote it just at and for use at Wikipedia, but was not aware of the licensing that the very place that I wrote it for provides for content, and no, I did not invoke a more restrictive copyright when I saved it there – but I really, really did mean to use it later, for something else". By contrast, a person who has created some whole creative content elsewhere – first elsewhere – and explicitly reserved all their rights in, maybe even licensed it for profit in the past or is currently doing so, has a different stance. Prior use and custom and practice are recognized legal concepts in other arenas at least. Also, in contract law – and again, I don't know if this is near the same in application to this area of law – but one of the elements for formation of a valid contract is a meeting of the minds, and such past use might be one of the indicia to disprove that element.

Anyway, my feeling is that where we find preexisting non-free content, our practice should be that even if we know the person who clicked save was the owner, an explicit acknowledgement from them should be required. I do not believe we should allow such content to remain, where a person continues to maintain, for example, a website claiming full copyright ownership to the world, and has not made it clear their release here was consciously done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I'm sorry for my disappearance. In spite of my good intentions, real life continues to intervene. :/ I'm going to bullet-point my thoughts, because I don't have much time now. :)
  • In situations like the example case I gave above, when a user from an incompatible wiki wants to port in content he or she also donated there (resolved with a note on that wiki's userpage saying "I am also User:Example on English Wikipedia"), it is possible to have them also put a license release or even just an "I agree to the WMF Terms of Use regarding copyright" on that userpage as well. So I don't see it as making those transfers impossible. The situation is rare, anyway. I haven't seen it pop up in years (although maybe it does happen and somebody else is handling them these days. A real possibility :)).
  • User:Crow, the situation you bring up is a bit different, in that it wasn't the author of the content uploading it, in which case he or she would have been bound by the terms of the license selected during the upload. That was a matter of somebody else acting under external license granted by the creator and the external license being unclear. This is a question of authors who post their own content. On Commons, they must specifically assign license. On Wikipedia, it's assigned by the TOU and the save text. :)
  • In spite of that, I can well imagine people hitting "save page" without reading the sentence above it. So I've put it back the way you had it, Fuhghettaboutit.
Now to check my watchlist while I can and hope to get back to some real work later today or tomorrow! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Chechen vs. Dargin

Hello, could you blcok one participant, it is engaged in vandalism! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/193.106.183.1 he removes nationality and ethnic group and puts false information in Ruslan Magomedov article. I ask you to block him, it gets on my nerves! :)

Hi, User:Ricco Baroni. I'm sorry he's getting on your nerves, but nobody has communicated with him about the issue. There are all kinds of templated notices you can give him, or you could just drop by his talk page and explain to him a little bit about our sourcing requirements and why changes must have reliable sources. Once he is warned, if he keeps making unconstructive changes he may be subject to blocking. Wikipedia:Vandalism talks a bit more about how to deal with vandals, including the warning phase. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can you like that for a while will block it for a week, it just takes troolingom. --Ricco Baroni (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Upload procedure question

Per my being unblocked at Commons, I offered to have any future uploads subject to review or approval first. Can you suggest a good way to have that done? I'm also curious as to whether CCI-tagged images such this one can be moved to commons by me. Any ideas would be appreciated. --Light show (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Light show. It's up to Commons whether a specific unreviewed image should be moved over and under what conditions. I would ask there. (I do note, though, that the image in question does not show the back per your note on Commons - "showing a reverse side image when needed" - and includes specific terms of license on the front. I would definitely seek review on that one.) You should also ask there for best practices of having images reviewed. You might ask the admin who unblocked you for suggestions. Commons has its own administrative structure, and nothing agreed upon on English Wikipedia is binding there. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. --Light show (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Unity (Hungary)

Hello! On 29 April 2014, you deleted almost the whole Unity (Hungary) article because of my copyright violation. Since then, my unblock request was accepted and I would like to fix my former serious errors. Could you copy and paste the deleted text into my sandbox? I'd like to completely rewrite but I also need those references. Best regards, --Norden1990 (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Norden1990. I can't restore content that was a copyright problem on any space on Wikipedia. I can give you sourcing and markup and any lists of references if that will help you, but not the text. It's against policy and opens me up to personal liability, I'm afraid. Please let me know if you'd like the things I can supply for you, and I'm happy to do so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Ok. The references and the table (which shows the distribution of seats) will be enough for me. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Norden1990. I put it all in your sandbox, including the markup on the refs. I hope it will be useful! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

reply

Hi, did you just leave me a message? I got an email from Wiki saying that someone named rankersbo had left me a message about my article, but when I got into the page it only showed your message... I'm confused!80.0.168.233 (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. :) You're not logged in, and your IP user talk does not have any message, but my guess would be that another user left you a message and then changed their mind. If they removed it, it won't show. You can look at the "history" tab on your registered account's talk page if you want to see if that's what happened! It's happened to me before. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

User:ADB Manila

User:ADB Manila appears to be responsible for multiple copyright violations - if you have the time and inclination could you please have a look and take whatever action might be appropriate, or pass it on to someone who can? 110.77.221.89 (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. :) Fortunately their contributions were rather minimal, so I was able to clean up what was left behind them. Some of it had already been removed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Has this one snuck through - [10] [11] [12] - an attribution violation of a copyright violation, maybe? ;-) 110.77.221.89 (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
It looked like it had all been removed; I'm afraid I didn't realize that the editor had moved it. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, cleaned up and the other editor now alerted to the process for moving content. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue

Hello, I wonder if you could help me:

user Jssteil: 1637 edits, pages created 185, pages moved 44, files uploaded: 73 + 4 (commons)
Hasn't edited since 17 dec 2013
Two of his articles are nominated for deletion; I noticed that one of them contains large parts copied verbatim from a NASA paper. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radiation_carcinogenesis_in_past_space_missions; article: Radiation_carcinogenesis_in_past_space_missions the likely source: NASA publication. I posted 2 examples on the Talk page
I guess NASA copyright(-free) policy probably applies (although two of the authors don't work for NASA), and the article will be deleted anyway, so the problem is mainly with the other articles he wrote:

Spaceflight radiation carcinogenesis. According to a post on the talk page, the material comes from https://humanresearchwiki.jsc.nasa.gov/index.php?title=Risk_of_Radiation_Carcinogenesis

Food systems on space exploration missions is also nominated for deletion
Fatigue and sleep loss during spaceflight
Visual impairment due to intracranial pressure
Reduced muscle mass, strength and performance in space
Intervertebral disc damage and spaceflight
Medical treatment during spaceflight‎

... and more ...

I don't know for sure if this warrants/requires action, can you or someone else take a look or tell me what to do? Thank you. Ssscienccce (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:Ssscienccce. :) https://humanresearchwiki.jsc.nasa.gov/index.php?title=Risk_of_Radiation_Carcinogenesis seems to be public domain per their site information; as long as content is correctly flagged as public domain as described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism, that should be all right. Each of the articles you list above includes such acknowledgement, in the references or external links section. As long as the sources are NASA, I don't believe this constitutes a copyright concern, so I think we're okay from that standpoint. If you see any sign of NASA content that's not properly flagged in that way, it would be fantastic to add attribution. If you see any sign of content copied from other sources that are not public domain, or of using content that NASA hosts that was produced by contractors and so also not public domain, we should remove that material.
The basic steps there are:
At the top of the page or the section where content appears, add {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source of material or other identifying information}}.
That will generate a big box to cover the content that will include further "filing instructions" in the lower right quadrant, with a prefilled template for you to place at the linked listing day of WP:CP and on the user talk.
If you have any further information about why it is a copyright problem (especially if it's a NASA source but not public domain), it's a good idea to put a note on the listing page. When it's evaluated by an admin or copyright clerk, they'll appreciate it. :)
If it proves that this user copied from non-public domain sources it may be appropriate for us to run a contributor copyright investigation on him. These are resource heavy processes and we have a backlog of literally years on them, so it's best if there's evidence of repeated issues. I usually like to look for at least five substantial issues before opening a CCI. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

YGM

I've sent an email to Mdennis (WMF)'s email account—I'm not sure if the "please let me know when you email me" only applies to emails sent to you wearing your MRG hat or not. If it's not you I should be contacting, please point me to whoever I need to write to (or just forward it). Thanks, and congratulations (or commiserations) on the new job. ‑ iridescent 16:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I've already responded to the email, but just as procedural point, no need to leave a note when emailing my work account. I'm on it quite a lot. :) It's my personal account that is sadly neglected. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help undoing wrong merging of Green Boots article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Green_Boots
User DN-boards1, who is now blocked, has merged the two articles Green Boots and Tsewang Paljor without providing source. (s)he rewrote a great deal of Tsewang Paljor's article upon an article (s)he said (s)he read, that I can't find anywhere. I don't know whether the new story of Tsewang Paljor is true or not, but there's something I know, and that's even if this new story is true, it doesn't make it any less certain that Green Boots could still be Dorje Morup and not Tsewang Paljor.
Is it so that for undoing what user DN-boards1 did, a new Green Boots article has to be created? Thank you. Akseli9 (talk) 12:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I know you already saw this, but I just wanted to acknowledge openly that this is done, Akseli9. :) I was waiting for further response from DN-boards1 before undoing the merger, but that's presumably not forthcoming. I see also that s/he had further edited the article on Tsewang Paljor and undertaken many other edits without responding to the request for a source. It may be that he or she was not going to be able to produce that beyond the "If I recall correctly" referenced at talk:Green Boots - no basis for an article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Deleted Notable Alumni section

Hi moonriddengirl,

Can you tell me why the Notable Alumni section of Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania was deleted?

Thank you.

CharlotteFaith7 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC) CharlotteFaith7 (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies

Sorry, moonriddengirl. I was experimenting with the tildes and submitted my question before realizing that you had already answered it.

My apologies.

CharlotteFaith7 (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC) CharlotteFaith7 (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, CharlotteFaith7. :) Glad you're figuring out how to do the weirder techniques for participation! :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Nakedicarus

User_talk:Nakedicarus suggests a history of vehicle image copyvios. File:Us90.jpg is obviously a copyvio. Which leaves just two - File:Bluepinto.jpg & File:Pintoint1.jpg (the latter is not in use) - which I guess need to be reviewed with great scepticism? 223.205.243.225 (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Indeed, see here. Digging further, as those were uploaded here in 2008, so looking for an instance that pre-dates that. Of note, the blue pinto pic appears to be one of several out of a photoshoot, and the interior pic looks like it came from a sales brochure. Crow Caw 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing GAs and copyvio question

Hello, Moonriddengirl, I hope you are well !

So, I've been reviewing a lot of GA candidates lately, and noticing a lot of nominators like to use a huge amount of both in-paragraph quotations and extremely large blockquoting.

There is now a handy-dandy tool in use as linked on GA Review subpages -- called Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox.

I've been recommending in my GA Reviews that nominators cut/trim/remove, or paraphrase quotations, so that when I revisit, each source with that Copyvio Detector tool gets below a 30 percent confidence value.

I'm getting some initial resistance at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/GA2 regarding my review of Avengers: Age of Ultron -- see Copyvio Detector results at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Avengers%3A+Age+of+Ultron&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1

This is the version of the article at time of my initial GA Review, placing it as GA on Hold and asking for quotes and blockquotes to be removed.

Am I right in my GA Reviews to strongly recommend cutting down on amount of quotations, even if they are indeed properly cited with in-line citations?

Can too much liberal quoting and blockquoting be a form of straying towards copyvio?

Just wanted your expertise before I revisit that particular GA Review again -- and going forwards with how I approach large amounts of quotations on other GA Reviews in the future.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Update: Also now getting some resistance to my recommendations of quotation removal, at Talk:Dump months/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, Cirt. :) Yes, indeed - liberal quoting can stray towards copyvio and cross the boundaries of WP:NFC. The more that's taken from a particular source, the greater the risk here of reaching substantial similarity. But even if it's a small amount, it can still be a copyright issue if what's taken is core or critical or if the resultant work is derivative. (This requires looking at both the source and the destination.) There's also WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE, of course, which I imagine factor in to GA status. But articles should not be simply extracted quotes from sources (or subjects); we should be using quotations transformatively and building something new. We need to balance original material with fair use materials carefully. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) Just throwing in my 2p here to see if I can offer a perspective (and, slightly selfishly, to get a head-check from MRG that my interpretation is correct, or at least viable): My approach to quotes is to ask: Does the quote provide content or context? The former is generally a problem, while the latter is generally ok, both subject to exceptions for extremes of use of course. As a spot check, I looked at Ultron, in the Cast section, and to me the quotes in the character sections fall squarely into the Content side of the question. They add new facts not previously or subsequently discussed in the article, and the rest of the article doesn't mention the content of those quotes, so it fails the "critical analysis" fair-use exception that is being brought up. The bit about when the Hulk's lines are written, for example, could easily have been paraphrased, referenced to the source, and then maybe had 1 line from the writer as a quote to add a little zinger. As it sits now, though, that quote is being used to explain the writer's approach to the lines, a concept never mentioned again. Thus, it provides new content without putting any article prose in context. Crow Caw 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd copyright issue

Hey MRG. In doing some boring maintenance stuff I stumbled upon Barnes Compton, which per the talk page looked like a copyvio of [13]. Sure enough, a lot of it matches. However, the bottom of the page simultaneously says "© Copyright August 06, 2008Maryland State Archives" and "This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain...proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives." It can't be copyrighted, fair use, CC-BY, and public domain. That's just one example but their entire site is like that. You'd think a government website would have more understanding of copyright, and I'm at a loss as to how to proceed on the article. Wizardman 23:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Maryland State Archives. :/ Way to throw up some absolutely meaningless jargon.
Okay, we require clear license. We don't have that there. The page is copyrighted, explicitly. They are reserving rights to attribution, so "public domain" does not mean what they think it means. But they are also explicitly noting that it is "for fair use" - which has narrow constraints. We have to close one eye and turn sideways to see this as compatibly licensed.
Years ago, when I first encountered a really ambiguous case like this on Wikipedia, I asked the bureaucrat who flagged it what he thought I should do. He pointed out quite right that WP:C is clear on this: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." That "If in doubt" provision has informed my approach to copyright on Wikipedia. In terms of crying foul against people who place material here, I don't where there is any good reason they may have believed the content to be usable here, but the content itself needs to go, unless we can verify the status.
What I would do in such a case, User:Wizardman, is blank it with the copyvio template and list it with a note on the talk page explaining the discrepancy and the policy that requires it be rewritten. I'd then really hope somebody would come along to rewrite it. If not, at least when I was on Wikipedia more, I would be facing a rewrite myself at the end of the listing period. (I might, in a case like this, also reach out to the Maryland State Archives to ask them for some language with teeth.)
If you want to blank it accordingly, I'll write to Maryland. And try to do the rewrite if they don't come through and nobody else does, although I might have to make a note at the listing or I will forget. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi MRG and Wizardman. The copyrvio was added with this edit in 2008, the day after the material was added to the Maryland Archives. You could simply revert it to the last clean version and add some refs and the infobox. Would save a lot of palaver. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Me again. There's the same problem with George A. Frederick from this page at Maryland Archives. Same editor who added it with this edit. That article also has a clean version to which it can be reverted. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, good idea, Voceditenore! I will write to Maryland regardless, but no reason to shut the article down completely in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I went ahead and gutted Frederick per the above, but there's been a lot of work since the original addition on the Compton article, so I'd rather not do a complete revert if it can be rewritten. I'll tag it and keep an eye on it in the meantime. Wizardman 01:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Separating Wars issue from general issue at Plagiarism page

I m trying to separate the Wars section from a general discussion on this issue. The Wars section was specifically laid out to be the preceding. That is why I refactored to move text up. Can it not remain the way I put it? After all I started the discussion… lol. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Leprof 7272. :) I'm not comfortable with that because my response about the attribution template was intended to be key on point to your question about templates for issues. I understand that the subsequent material got back to the specifics of the case, so I did subsection in respect for your valid concerns, but I don't want my targeted response lost because it had to be moved to make sense of subsequent comments. Keeping things where they happened avoids that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
This star also functions as a badge, since you are, after all, a kind of sheriff here. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
LOL! Thanks, Drmies. Lot of work still ahead on that guy, I'm afraid. :/ Even when he tried to do it right, he accidentally made a bit of a mess. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That's why we pay you the big bucks. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Page Move

Baby (2015 film) was moved to Baby (2015 Hindi film). I couldn't find any other film named Baby released in 2015. --The Avengers (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'd ask User:Bovineboy2008 about that. Perhaps it was a mistake. :) In the meantime, are you able to move it back? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the reverse move works. --The Avengers (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
See Baby (2015 Tamil film), as linked in Baby (disambiguation)#Film. BOVINEBOY2008 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

A question re: content

Hi Moonriddengirl, perhaps you can tell which came first, the Wikipedia article Barony of Blackhall, or the website [14]. I've reservations about several accounts that are editing in this area, and whether they're indulging in persistent copyright violations. Thanks for any light you can shed. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker) I just happened to have my copyright forensics hat on! Barony of Blackhall was created on June 7, 2012 (revision 496467948). The source page you listed goes back to 2002 in one for or another, but in March 2012, 3 months prior to the article, it looked like this, with a copy comparison that looks like this. So yes, that content was heavily copied originally. Crow Caw 17:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Addendum, the content you're concerned about in Gillespie is on the source page back in 2003: [16] far pre-dating the article here. Another copy by the looks of it. Crow Caw 17:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • That might be a little extreme, since there is non-violating material (the list of barons, for example). Listing at WP:CP is probably the better approach. Crow Caw 17:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't list there as an IP, since the page is currently protected, but I will remove the speedy template in favor of a less draconian one. Thanks, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I see. I'll list it at CP, but want to get MRG's feedback on the list of baronies in the second half of the article. The list itself is ok I'm sure, but there are annotations to each that also appear in sources verbatim, which strike me as creative contributions. Crow Caw 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • IPv6 editor, Crow, this seems to me very similar to a question that arose a while ago at House of Dlamini, where a list of people included some biographical notes. This is what MRG thought at that time. I think blanking and listing would be a good move, though I suspect it will turn out that both pages were written by the same person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • IPv6 editor, Crow, I've now gone ahead and done that – there was quite the edit-war going on there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Jlan. If this persists I'm inclined to file a report at the administrators' noticeboard--between the copyvios, COI, and likelihood of sock or meat puppetry there's enough going on there to warrant further investigation of the accounts. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Lightshow

The editor has been playing other games with images for a while; more needs to be explained than a few recent uploads. In mid-August, LightShow added a sizable stack of nonfree images to Jack Nicholson (hidden within a lengthy set of textual edits), obvious NFCC violations in a BLP, without bothering to even add article-specific use rationales. I caught this and removed them about a month later, but didn't check on who'd done it at the time, and by the time I did check, I thought the violations were isolated and too stale to act on. I clearly got that wrong, so I'm going to keep an eye out for other shenanigans. Good block! The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro forma ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I have quoted you in an ANI discussion regarding User:Light show. You may wish to comment, especially if you are concerned that I may not have properly represented your prior comments. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Minipiano , Minipiano, and http://www.nachtschimmen.eu/zachar/writer/1301-MIP.htm

Dear Moonriddengirl: I'm sorry to bring this up here, but I have never been able to figure out how to properly ask a question at WP:Copyright problems. The talk page says it's not for specific cases and the main page never seems to have an option for what I want to ask. Here is a draft, which was created on the same day a page on another website which says "written for Wikipedia", and also an article in the encyclopedia which was copy-pasted from the draft by the same user at a later date. Normally I would just deleted the old draft, since there is no content by other users, but that would leave the appearance that the website was created first. Should I delete it anyway and put a backwards-copy template on the mainspace article? Or should I do a history merge, after deleting the newer edits by reviewers? Or is it, after all, a copyvio?—Anne Delong (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Anne Delong. If it were me, I'd resurrect all edits prior to the creation of the new article and history merge those into it. I wouldn't but backwards copy onto it, because in this case it looks like we have the same author on both sites. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. This was my thought as well, but I have been criticized for suggesting that draft edits by the same user who creates an article be history merged into the article, so I appreciate your supporting opinion.—Anne Delong (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
These are unusual circumstances, I think. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Just so you know, since you are not very active on Commons, I responded to you at some length there, and at ANI here. Your understanding is perfectly correct. Reventtalk 14:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

5 Million: We celebrate your contribution

We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.

Celebrate 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Hello! What do you think?

Hello Moonriddengirl! I just wondered, could this be a sock of this user you recently blocked for extensive copy-vio'ing/hoaxing? I watched the latters' edits from the side for some time, and I have to say there is quite alot of quacking/overlap between the two, heh. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite sufficient quackery to block. :/ Thanks for the heads up, LouisAragon! User:Drmies, User:Dougweller, socks are not really my thing, but I suspect that this may bear watching going forward. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've been racking my feeble grey cells to figure this out, glad you more able people have provided me with an answer. SPI on watchlist now, and we should be liberal with G5. —SpacemanSpiff 15:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the images here and had a lot of copyvio images deleted from Commons. I've also deleted a few articles under G5 though they were also eligible for G12 and A10. Some of them have significant contributions from LouisAragon, albeit cleaning up after this chap, so I'm hesitant to delete them as G5 (unless LA is in favor), though I suspect most would be eligible for G12 as this chap has been copying stuff from everywhere, blogs, journals, what not. A lot more work to do though. MRG, you also have an email on this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Well well, seems after all he was related to Artin Mehraban as well. Strange I didn't realise that earlier. Yeah, they both hoax'ed and violated copyvio's a lot during their existence.. Most of their edits were a true pain. @SpacemanSpiff, yeah, I contributed quite significantly to some articles as some of those which he created (at least the titles), were topics which I wanted to create myself later on. Such as European Scythian campaign of Darius I, which basically only me edited so far after its creation.
@Moonriddengirl, indeed thanks for making the SPI. Good one. ;-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I've G5ed quite a bit already, but only stuff that hasn't been substantially touched by anybody else. Hopefully I will not touch something you're interest in. If I do, LouisAragon, please let me know! User:SpacemanSpiff, I haven't seen the email yet, but will look for it in just a few minutes. : ) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
PS; could someone remove this map created by him as soon as it's possible? [17] It's hoax. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl:, my fault, I should've been more direct when adressing; could you perhaps delete this hoax map added by Artin Mehraban/History of Persia? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, LouisAragon. I missed this. I can't; it's on Commons. :/ I'm not an admin there. It would need to be nominated for deletion there, likely with an explanation that the user is a hoaxer and why this one is a hoax. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @LouisAragon: Commons doesn‘t deprecate “original research“ as WP does—see c:COM:Project scope/Neutral point of view—and a hoax has to be pretty blatant or inflammatory to be considered not “realistically useful for an educational purpose“ and therefore out of scope. If you nominate the map for deletion, beware of giving the impression that you‘re pursuing a WP content dispute on Commons, as that’s likely to provoke reflexive objections & unnecessary drama. Instead I would suggest tagging the file with c:Template:Inaccurate-map-disputed and explaining what’s wrong with it on its Talk page; along with the lack of references, that should help keep it out of articles.—Odysseus1479 06:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479:, thanks a lot for the advice! I'll most certainly do that then. Btw, @Moonriddengirl: and others here, I just listed his new IP range in a new SPI as we speak, just for the record and for a range block at the same time. If any more finds, don't hesitate to comment on it. ;-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, LouisAragon. I find a combo of blocks and page protection often effective here. If you see particularly troubled articles, please let me know. Aside from the necessary articles left open. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
LouisAragon, I am speedily deleting this user's creations, except where they have been salvaged by the work of others. You seem to be the only other substantial editor of European Scythian campaign of Darius I and Division of the Afsharid Empire. What are your thoughts? Should either of them be deleted under WP:CSD#G5 as the creation of a block-evading serial copyright infringing hoaxter, or are they now okay? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
@Moonriddengirl:, hey, well, they're both fine for now. I would really like the articles to stay as there's still a lot to be written about both. The only thing that should be deleted ASAP, as we're talking about these articles, is that map on the Division of the Afsharid Empire map, which is another hoax creation. But as I understood it you can't delete it that easily and thus needs to be brought to commons. :/ But yeah about the articles, they're ok for now. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
I can't delete it, because it's on Commons, but I can take it out of use on English Wikipedia. Anyone can. Feel free to remove it with extreme prejudice any time you come upon it, LouisAragon! I will consider that I have reverted and G5ed all that I can, then, of this sock and be prepare to go nuclear on any other socks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Aight, great coorporation! That satrapies map really needs to be deleted entirely from wiki, as he spammed it everywher and its based on bogus. I will do that surely some time later, as I dont have the time for it right now. (always takes quite time, that deletion stuff on WikiMedia based on "arguments") Btw, some new headlines; we got another one, haha. Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl, hey! I found another thing that should be deleted. It was one of his "first" hoax material creations on WP, which after continuous deletions by me and others, he decided to save in his sandbox. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 04:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, LouisAragon , for repinging. I tend to miss stuff at the top of my page. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright question

Hi Moonriddengirl, I've detect this article has copyright issue. But I have little experience on dealing with such issue on EnWp, as well as not good at reading long English paragraph, would you mind to check it so I can see how does these things work on EnWp, that I can help more in future.--AddisWang (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked it through this tool--AddisWang (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I think you are right about that, AddisWang, and I've blanked that article and listed it at WP:CP. There are problems at Monasterio de Tarlac too, but I don't have time to deal with that now. Thanks for spotting this! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Safe harbor

You share my opinion that "crossing the line" might "break" safe harbor provisions. However there was some push-back at User talk Jimbo when I suggested this some months back - and not without cause, as further research revealed. I forget the exact case, but an on-line magazine was found not responsible for the content of an article it commissioned.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC).

Thinking about it, perhaps WMF could fund a serious legal opinion on WP:PARAPHRASE, which makes some absurd claims. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC).
They've already done a Wikilegal post on close paraphrasing. Any details on which claims are absurd? :) It would be good to spell those out on the talk page! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Rich, can you please give me more details on when this conversation might have happened? I've tried searching on Jimbo's talk page for key words and can't find anything. You're fairly active at that page, so it's not easy to narrow it down otherwise. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_191#Mandatory_account_creation - I was a bit irritated that both Jimmy and I mentioned § 230 (c) 1, and yet a subsequent comment told us off for not realising it was § 230.
The case I refer to is Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc., which is pre CDMA. The ruling is, in my opinion, deeply flawed. The summation said that "CompuServe has no more editorial control ... than does a public library, book store, or newsstand..." - by this measure any large organisation can disclaim responsibility for the acts of its contractors and sub-contractors.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

But use of the phrases "indolent expression" and "undulating throat" would violate copyright. - it most certainly would not. To quote from the Wikilegal "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"

Moreover the phrases have both been used before: E.G.

I love thy mellow note,
Pealing, so beautifully, from the spray
Whereon thou sitt'st with undulating throat,
Chaunting thy matins to the dawning day.

(1824)

What is still worse is the application of WP:PARAPHRASE to expressions such as
"In 1624 he was appointed deputy-pro-voice consul of the Armenian ambassador to Turkmenistan."

Given that "deputy-pro-voice consul of the Armenian ambassador to Turkmenistan" is the official job title, should we really be suggesting that even a direct replication of this sentence is a problem?

Essentially by asking to someone rephrase the natural expression of a small number of lexical units, we are likely to introduce more problems thane we resolve.

"He was appointed, in 1624, deputy-pro-voice consul of the Armenian ambassador to Turkmenistan."

might have a better ring to it, but it's unnecessarily convoluted and should be avoided. Like other changes that might be made it would still be claimed to fall foul of close paraphrasing:

"He served, from 1624, as ..."

And in this example "serve" has introduced POV. Do we know he served, or did he steal the Embassy artworks, swive the ambassador's wife and spy for Moldova? It's often the case that re-phrasing introduces shades of meaning not present in the original - sometimes it's appropriate to remove those shades of meaning, but rarely wise to add them.

Of course this is applicable in a "bare recitation of facts" scenario - but that is what a lot of our articles are, and quite reasonably so.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

Not my talk page, but the talk page of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, Rich. :) FWIW, I agree with you about the first bit - except in your "most certainly would not" bit, which I think is too strong. (In a Wikipedia article? I can't see how it ever would. But whether it would violate copyright would depend much on usage.) But it's not remotely accurate to say "would violate copyright". That particular essay has undergone quite a lot of transformation over the last year or so. I have pushed back on parts but haven't even read the whole thing in quite some time. I do not care for nor would I stand behind many of the changes.
As to the rest, I don't know where you're seeing 1624 on that page. I don't see it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. The second part is mere pontification on the overzealous application of WP:PARAPHRASE, with a quite made-up example. Well perhaps not quite made up, but based to some extent on Susan Pamerleau. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC).

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Copyvios?

Hi Moonriddengirl, long time! Can I have you opinion on this comparison and this comarison and suggestions as to what to do about them? Thanks ww2censor (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear, ww2censor. :(
While copyright rules of 1957, section 52(q) excludes as copyright violations the "reproduction or publication" of certain government works, they explicitly require the retention of certain materials in subsection (ii). Reproduction in the absence of these materials is regarded as a copyright violation.
Specifically, it says that the following are not copyright violations: "(q) the reproduction or publication of-
(i) any matter which has been published in any Official Gazette except an Act of a Legislature;
(ii) any Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter;
(iii) the report of any committee, commission, council, board or other like body appointed by the Government if such report has been laid on the Table of the Legislature, unless the reproduction or publication of such report is prohibited by the Government;
(iv) any judgement or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the court, the tribunal or other judicial authority, as the case may be;
With respect to Acts of Legislature, it even forbids translations in any Indian language if the Government of India is offering one for sale, unless published with disclaimer:
(r) the production or publication of a translation in any Indian language of an Act of a Legislature and of any rules or orders made thereunder-
(i) if no translation of such Act or rules or orders in that language has previously been produced or published by the Government; or
(ii) where a translation of such Act or rules or orders in that language has been produced or published by the Government, if the translation is not available for sale to the public: Provided that such translation contains a statement at a prominent place to the effect that the translation has not been authorised or accepted as authentic by the Government;

(See page 35 of that pdf.)

Acts of Legislature are the primary sticking point, but note, too, that the law suggests that copyright protection does exist when a court, tribunal or judicial authority has forbidden reproduction of reports and judgements" Literally, the "unless" clauses in (q)(iii) and (iv) nullify the header: "52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright. -(1) The following acts shall not constitute an infringement of copyright..."
As far as content from NIC - which applies to both pages you link - I'm afraid that this material is not public domain. See [18]: it can only be reproduced with prior permission, and modifications are expressly forbidden. This is incompatible with Wikipedia's Terms of Use, I'm afraid, as we can neither prevent modifications nor require prior permission.
Content from NIC should - unless it is exempt from copyright in the limited circumstances set out above - be treated as material from any other non-free source. Close paraphrasing should be removed or rewritten, and {{copyvio}} is appropriate if content can't be just cleaned and viable material left behind. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"Thanks I'll advise the questioner of this advise. ww2censor (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, ww2censor. If you think the questioner isn't going to act soon, please let me know. Since there are known issues, I will blank pending correction in that case. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I pinged User:220 of Borg on Talk:Army Postal Service (India) but they don't seem to have any interest right now. ww2censor (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@Ww2censor: sorry, must admit COPYVIOS is not my greatest area of interest, and I have been less active on WP of late, real life issues. Note that Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk · contribs) is now part of an educational course, though they have been on WP for nearly a year. I am rather daunted (though impressed) by Moonridden Girl's knowledge of copyright law.
• I was being a bit (overly?) kind to the noobish creator of PP Reddy, the 'paraphrasing' is so close the copied sentences are identical. I have warned them about it. They have not done anything to correct it, though they must be aware. .
• I have just dropped another note about this on their talkpage.
Should be asleep now (UTC +10 Yawn). Have had a 'keyboard nap' so I'll probably be back in 5 hours or so. Real life permitting! 220 of Borg 19:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@220 of Borg: I understand your situation, so perhaps Moonriddengirl can do something with these pages as she is more of a text copyvio expert than I am. My area is more images. Thanks for posting here. ww2censor (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, 220 and ww2censor. I have done some cleanup, including from other sources than identified originally. Hopefully the user understands the message left and will comply going forward. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I knew you would do a good cleanup job on those two. Thanks MRG ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Another Artin Mehraban sock

Hey, Moonriddengirl, what's up? Another Artin Mehraban sock here. I don't have time to post extensive behavioral evidence as I'm posting this from my phone and I'm in a lack of time, but I hope you can block him asap when you read this. Same edits, same targeting pages, same obsession to upload hoax pictures, etc, please see his edit summary (before he's making too many edits) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Done, LouisAragon. Pretty strong "quacking" there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for stopping the duckie. By the way, wanted to give you again explicitly credit for your good work, as you often helped me out with such things. I know its part of being a moderator, but, if you ever need assistance with anything, feel always free to ping or message me. Bests
PS: >The guy made an unblock ticket while he was still editing with this sock account. Some people seriously..
- LouisAragon (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Public domain elsewhere than in the U.S.

Hi, MRG. I've run into this situation before, but I figured I'd ask you, this time, if we have a policy on the matter. Is it acceptable to add an external link to material that is out of copyright in the country hosting the material but is definitely copyrighted in the United States (as someone just did at That Hideous Strength)? I'm tempted to remove the link, but unable to come up with a reason, I decided to ask you. Deor (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This isn't explicitly governed by our policies, Deor, that I'm aware of; what's the status of the copyright of the work in its country of origin? We would not permit linking to, say, the latest Avengers film if hosted in a country without a copyright agreement with the U.S. We should not facilitate piracy if the original is in copyright in country of origin, in my opinion. If it's only in copyright in the USA because of URAA or something, I'd be inclined to pay it no mind. We couldn't allow it to be used here, in that case, but I wouldn't stir myself to contest the link. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's definitely copyrighted in its country of origin (United Kingdom); Canada, however, has life+50 copyright rather than life+70. (Lewis died in 1963, on the day Kennedy was assassinated.) It wouldn't concern me too much except that the link is to an e-text of the entire work, which seems problematic when the UK and U.S. publishers are still making money from the thing, some of which presumably goes to the author's heirs. Deor (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Committed identity?

Can you help me figure out how to set one of those up? I'm not sure where to get a hash string. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

exclamation mark  @Tokyogirl79: News Flash! Former Big Tme IP editor helps Admin! Try Wikipedia:Committed identity, which actually re-directs to an archived Signpost page. 220 of Borg 05:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

FYI - Lifted an autoblock

Here. --NeilN talk to me 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Hi, MRG! I was looking at Laudya Chintya Bella, where there are various problems including a foundational unattributed translation from id.wp. That led me to this: you blocked YogaWP in April 2014 for copyright violations; I imagine that Yoga Widya, Yoga Widya 1994 and Yoga Widya Prasetyo are all block-evading socks (1994 wrote this 15 minutes after WP posted an unblock request, before it was even declined). What I wondered: do you remember if were there enough copyright concerns to need looking at in more detail? I don't immediately see that the socks have done anything very terrible. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Justlettersandnumbers. :) That was a "block until you can demonstrate competency in this area" situation. The user had multiple warnings and kept going. It he had said, "I've read the page, and I get it. I'll stop," I'd have unblocked him for the asking. I suspected at the time that there might be language barrier issues, and it seems true, given his unblock request was a request for a username change. The copyright issues were blatant, but if they haven't had problems since it may be that they got the message anyway. My usual philosophy with people who are blocked for copyright issues is to try to get them back on their main account, usually by blocking their socks and telling them to request unblocking. Sometimes they do. Sometimes they make no socks and you wind up playing WP:RBI with somebody you'd be happy to unblock. That's not a productive pastime. In this case, I'm not really sure what the best thing to do is. Perhaps leave a note making the connection clear so that if future copyright issues emerge people will know that the "explain the problem and ask them to stop" phase is behind us? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Christmas Island Immigration Reception and Processing Centre

Per this edit to Christmas Island Immigration Reception and Processing Centre. It appears that this big addition to the page in late April is a copyvio. Largely from here (pdf). (or HTML version)

The results from Earwig's Copyvio Detector is here at "82.2%".

I haven't templated the article page yet, but I have left a personal talkpage message for new editor Jefftheref (talk · contribs), here. I gave them an example where, except for 2 deleted words, a sentence is the same as the source. They haven't edited since, but have e-mail activated, so may reply.

Fortunately there hasn't been a lot of editing there since and (I have checked) it should be easy to revert, and then RevDel if required. Let me know if I should just revert back to before this edit. Regards, 220 of Borg 03:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, user:220 of Borg. :) Apologies for my delay here! In this case, fortunately, the content is in sections instead of intermingled, so instead of reverting we can just pull it out. It looks to me like two of the sections the user added are okay - the one on legal proceedings and protests. Do you see any issues there? I've yanked the rest. We can still revdel (and probably should) but waiting for your thoughts on that bit! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
No problem, I probably should have reverted myself. (It was a simple revert, until another editor edited the sections in question!) Then I could have gone through the edits and re-added what was relevant, without copyvios. If I see anything I'll bring it up. 220 of Borg 08:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

English version of Un Canadien Errant

Dear Moonriddengirl --

Regarding your removal of my English version of "Un Canadien Errant":

Extended content

The wikipedia rules do not allow signing of contributions. However, is there not a difference between (a) signing a contribution as the author of an "article" or part of an article, and (b) naming the writer of a poem, song, or translation thereof? In other words, why is the author of the 1927 English version named, while the author of the 2011 English version (myself) is not only un-named but his work is banned from wikipedia? And what is the real difference between "signing" my sing-able English version and having my name listed at the bottom of the page as the contributor of the literal English translation?

Forgive me, but it seems as if you're stretching the Wikipedia rules about signing an article in order to delete this contribution, or perhaps you're being over-zealous.

If that isn't the case but you still feel that I should not be able to add the sing-able English version as the author, then I ask you to do me a favor, which would also be a favor to all English-speaking Canadians (and perhaps other English speakers around the world) who do not speak French and who would like a sing-able English version of this great song, by re-inserting my English version YOURSELF, and therefore avoiding any issues of "signing" the contribution. I think the version I came up with is not bad, and is certainly an improvement over the 1927 version, and would be enjoyed by others. In the end, this is just a song; is there any great harm in adding another English version?

If you decide to go this route, I thank you kindly. Below is the removed section. Please feel free to edit everything but the actual verses, or to contact me regarding any issues involved, at brian999@earthlink.net or 951-392-8504.

Best regards, Brian Manfromtexas (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Below is the 2011 version by Brian C. Puckett. An effort to ameliorate the deficiencies of the 1927 Gibbon version, this version maintains the original ABAB rhyme scheme throughout (Gibbon does so in only one of the five differing verses). Furthermore, to the extent possible (1) it maintains the order of the lines within each verse; (2) it translates literally (3) it uses English cognates of the French words (e.g., “fugitive current” for “courant fugitive”, and "my longing look" for "mon regard languissant").

A Canadian wandering afar,
Banished from hearth and home,
Would gaze at the northern star
And weep in the strange lands he roamed.
One day, with thoughts full of woe,
He sat by the river’s edge.
To the fugitive current below,
These are the words that he said:
If you see my country some day,
My country in sorrow’s thrall,
Go tell my friends faraway
That I remember them all.
O days full of charm you have passed,
You vanished like summer rain.
And my fatherland, alas!
I never will see you again.
No, but on my dying day
These eyes will be filled with tears
As my longing look turns your way,
O Canada, ever so dear.
Responding at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Moonriddengirl -- I saw your response, and thank you for the clarification. If the problem is that my English version is not published elsewhere, then perhaps it's not a problem. I just did a google search for and and found three websites where the 2011 English version is now published and (correctly) attributed to me. BTW, this is not simply an ego issue; I have worked in various art media since I was young and believe someone's work should be properly recognized. In any case, here are the three online publications; there may be more. Also BTW, I hand nothing to do with posting these items -- I just now searched for them and found them. http://folkqueue.blogspot.com/2013/02/un-canadien-errant.html http://www.liquisearch.com/un_canadien_errant/english_version http://www.self.gutenberg.org/articles/Un_Canadien_errant -- BCP Manfromtexas (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

Wow! BOLD!

Wow, THAT was BOLD! In one fell swoop, you deleted four years of edits! I wish more people had guts like that! Well done! Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Rui Gabriel Correia. :) That's not actually really BOLD; it's policy, and it's not uncommon in copyright work. It's unfortunate, but not uncommon. When copyright problems are not easily extracted from material, our options are to revert or rewrite, and when people don't rewrite during the copyright problems investigation period, reversion is the only choice left. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

compare please

[19]

After the close of the extended 2015 season, work began on "Phase Two" of the project. Plans include: conversion of the excavated area just west of the field into a 30,000 square foot area for players locker rooms, strength, conditioning, training and hydrotherapy sections, players lounges, a media center and team offices; the previous clubhouse space will be utilized to enlarge the dugout, add two underground batting cages, an auditorium and more team office space; premium and season ticket holders will be afforded a new "Third Base Club" next to the batting tunnels and a "Home Plate Club" will be introduced behind home plate; a new 30,000 square foot concessions preparation and staging area will be constructed below the new Triangle Plaza; all seats, from the left field foul pole to the main gate, will be removed and replaced and new concessions and bathrooms will be added ; and an upper-deck exposed concourse will be added along the south and west roof-line of right field. Improved bathroom facilities and additional concessions are included.

Sourced to http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2015/10/wrigley-field-restoration-update-phase-two-of-the-1060-project.php

Which has A new, 30,000 square-foot concessions preparation and staging area will be added below the plaza., The Cubs 30,000 square foot space includes locker rooms for the players and coaches, a strength and conditioning center, training and hydrotherapy areas, player lounge, media center and team offices. , The Cubs former clubhouse will be developed in order to make the dugout larger and will include two underground batting cages, an auditorium and additional office space., The team is building an area for premium and Season Ticket Holders adjacent to the batting tunnels in order for fans to get a view of the players batting practice. seats ... the third base side concourse will be completed that includes new concessions and bathrooms in the area etc. More could have been bolded alas.

[20] indicates how seriously the contributor actually views "The Plaigerism Police." I can not believe he did not know what he was doing all those times - and still continuing. Collect (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC) [21] blames me, alas. I did not recall having such powers to make folks into such edits. Collect (talk) 14:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry that this has evidently been quite unpleasant; I know it can be. Over the years I've been working copyright, I've unfortunately upset quite a few people, and I imagine it's no fun for anybody on either side. :/
I like to be clear on the distinction between plagiarism - which is a serious issue, but a guideline - and copyright violations. The two are often but not always connected. We are mandated to remove copyright violations pretty much on discovery. There may be close following that I myself do not feel rises to the level of a copyright violation that I will not blank. The more creative the source and the more blatant the copy-pasting, the more likely I am to remove or hide material to be addressed. But identifying when something is closely paraphrased crosses the line from plagiarism to copyright violation is not an exact science, not even for the courts. So you are welcome to blank sections that you feel yourself should be reviewed and list them at WP:CP. Another admin or copyright clerk will review.
I know that assuming good faith is a bit of a trope, but I honestly try to do so when it comes to copyright issues. It is a difficult area for many people, and outside of my work on Wikipedia I have had to coach many on how to handle such material. For some, the concept itself is hard; for others, the degree of rewriting required is a challenge. I didn't see any sign of warning in the distant past, so I assume that unfortunately this particular person was not alerted to the problem earlier. That's a shame, because it's got to be absolutely no fun to find out that people have problems with the way you're doing something you've been doing so long. Most people on being coached on the issue do stop, and I hope that this will prove to be one of those cases. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The user says that I am the Plaigerism Police(sic) and that he and a friend of his have been joyously deriding me personally in their userspace repeatedly for eight years now :(. the "giggles" number in the hundreds now Collect (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kimberly Brandão

Kimberly Brandão appears to have a copyright issue. 71.47.9.186 (talk) 22:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Can you identify the source? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

OluwaCurtis

Hi Maggie. I recently spotted that OluwaCurtis has requested autopatrolled, despite being the subject of an ongoing CCI. I decided to do some further digging to identify if their copyright and close paraphrasing problems have continued, and discovered a couple potentially problematic edits after the CCI was initiated. My first concern is in the article Deputy Governor of Abia State (created by the user), from this:

Source Deputy Governor of Abia State
"be a member of a Political Party and be sponsored by that party" "be a member of a political party and sponsored by that party"
"be educated to at least school certificate level or its equivalent" "be educated to at least school certificate level or its equivalent"
"have attained the age of thirty five (35) years" "have attained the age of thirty-five years"
"must be a Nigerian by birth" and/or
"must be a citizen of Nigeria" 		"be a citizen of Nigeria by birth"

I also identified another potential problem, albeit less substantial, in the article Nzango (created by the user), from this:

Source Nzango
"two teams of players, lined up and facing each other on a pitch measuring eight metres by 16 metres" "two opposing teams lined up and facing each other with individual members from each team taking turns in outplaying the other. It is played on a pitch measuring 8 metres by 16 metres"
"position of their feet in relation to their opponents" "position their feet in relation to their opponents"

The above problems are all that I identified in a rough check of their post-CCI contributions. I am wondering, would you be able to evaluate the above examples? This G12 tag from just over a week ago leaves me concerned that their understanding of copyright has not yet developed. I look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thine Antique Pen. I suspect that the first run is exempt from copyright as per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works as an edict of government, even if it's not a government source publishing it. The second is a bit closely paraphrased, but limited in creativity and a very short run, if that's the extent of it. The G12 tag does show some lack of familiarity with copyright rules, but I appreciate the intent! Let me take a glance at other contribs and see if there's anything else. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't really have a lot of time right now, I'm going to drop this here:
Extended content
I've done some hopping around throughout - not comparing to sources but Google searching spot-checks to text - and so far I haven't found any red flags. (I did find an illegal download site that copied the article at Ghetto University, but didn't do a {{backwardscopy}} because illegal download site. I did confirm that it was on Wikipedia first by comparing text changes early in the history.) I'll do more hopping around to see what I come up with. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've marked off a couple of articles above as simply being uses of the Reflinks/reFill tool, and plan to do a little more digging into their contributions and the material in the Deputy Governor of Abia State article from the INEC FAQ page. Thanks for looking into this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. :) It's important to check back. I've poked at a few more, and so far things are looking okay. I'll keep poking a bit, and look forward to hearing your conclusions on Deputy Governor of Abia State. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Maggie, I've done some further digging into this. I began by looking at Nigeria's Copyright Act - Part 1 4(1) of the Act shows that all Nigerian government works are copyrighted. The first schedule of the law outlines that a work by a "government or a body corporate" is copyrighted for 70 years after publication. Although, as INEC is independent, rather than governmental, the FAQ page is not a work of government. I am unsure if the work is an edict of government due to its nature as a FAQ page (although, it could perhaps be a dictum), and I am also unable to identify any exemption of edicts in the Copyright Act. Of course, this is Nigerian law, and Wikipedia content must simply meet US law (respecting laws elsewhere is nice too!). I believe that US law interprets edicts of government as being both from the US and everywhere else, and excludes such edicts from copyright. I worry that this does not constitute an edict of government, being INEC's FAQ page (and claiming copyright in the page footer). I'm unable to offer anything conclusive about this. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted anything – I haven't worked with edicts of government before! :-) Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thine Antique Pen. :) I'm sorry; it's my fault that I didn't explain myself better. :/ The reason I said, "I suspect that the first run is exempt from copyright as per Wikipedia:Public_domain#U.S._government_works as an edict of government, even if it's not a government source publishing it" is because I suspected they had copied that from an edict of government themselves. I didn't know that - it was just a suspicion because it sounded a lot like legal text tied to election law to me. If it were a more substantial run of text with more creativity, I'd have gone digging immediately, but for a couple of phrases that were closely paraphrased, I put it aside and focused on the larger issue (to me) of whether there were ongoing copyright concerns.

So now, I've now backed up and done some poking and find the Nigerian Constitution, which discusses election eligibility in 65 (1). The FAQ did not copy all of the language directly from the constitution, although it's clearly derivative and some is reproduced. For instance, they wrote "be a member of a Political Party and be sponsored by that party", while the constitution says, "he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that party." I don't think their changes are substantial enough to attract copyright, and since the article doesn't copy directly from the FAQ, anyway, I think it's okay. I believe the base material is PD under U.S. law, and I don't think there's enough creativity in the deviations for us to worry about the copyright element.

The paraphrasing element is a separate question, of course. If the source were fully reserved, it would be more closely paraphrased than it needs to be, by which I mean that one doesn't have to copy it. It would be pretty easy to write "Must be sponsored by the political party of which he is a member" or something like that. So I don't want to imply that rewriting isn't possible and doesn't matter. :) But it is a short run of text with low creativity and moreover it is a rule. If there is a risk that the rule will be misinterpreted, it may be necessary in the case of describing a rule to follow pretty closely on your source. And you often are forced to follow the structure of the original by the rules themselves. You can't omit some and rearrange others, for instance.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I wouldn't necessarily assume that closely paraphrasing a small amount of material from rules represents a lack of understanding of the need to paraphrase or how to paraphrase. This is why I was checking other contribs. If there is close paraphrasing of more creative source material, then we'd be looking at a pattern that said to me "This person may not understand this." If their work with more creative sources shows good rewriting, then I think what we're looking at is difficulty with a particularly challenging paraphrase issue. It's more master level work. :)

Does that make more sense? Again, I'm sorry for not explaining myself better to begin with, and if I can explain my thinking better now, please feel free to say, "No, Maggie, not really." :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Maggie. Thanks for explaining that - it now makes perfect sense. :) I agree that the text is quite uncreative and rather unsubstantial, so there are probably not any copyright problems within it. I see that the focus of efforts should on identifying whether copyright violations have continued, or their paraphrasing of creative material is too close. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Another copyright issue

Dear Moonriddengirl: I came across a draft, Draft:Helen Manning, which appeared to be largely a duplicate of this web page. I was trying to find out which of the two was created first, and I noticed that there was a "next page" link, which I followed, finding this, which had pretty clearly been copied to Donna Caruso, so I tagged that one for deletion. Going on to the "next page" took me to this one, some of which appears in the older history of Donald Soctomah, along with text from another document. Each of these has a different editor. Could this be some kind of class project or the results of an editathon? If the first three I came to have been copied into the encyclopedia, chances are there are more. Should I keep going and tag all of these for deletion, or is there something I have missed?—Anne Delong (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Anne Delong. :) Still looking to figure out which came first. I have to say, this is a weird one. It doesn't inspire much faith in me to see this (from source.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
THere's also this, from this, or similar. And there was copying from this or similar. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Looking at commonalities, I believe I've figured this out. :) The site comes first. I'm almost certain that at least the two remaining articles were written by students of User:Ssenier, who may be in position to release the content of that site, anyway. As to the article I was looking at and finding copying from multiple sources, unfortunately students sometimes do plagiarize, in spite of the best efforts of the teacher. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. What's the next step?—Anne Delong (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
User:Ssenier being active, Anne Delong, I was kind of hoping the next step would happen automatically and that she might see the ping and stop by to talk about the copyright status of the site. :) If the site is released, the content can be duplicated with proper attribution as per Wikipedia:Plagiarism. If it is not, any article that is a copyright infringement of that site will have to be stubbed or deleted. :/ So, next step would probably be to ask her whether she is interested in coordinating or able to coordinate a compatible license for that site. (If the material was authored by people who are no longer available to agree to said license or who refuse to do so, her interest in coordinating a compatible license won't help.) If she can coordinate a compatible license, the site can be annotated as described at WP:DCM and any articles that draw upon it marked with the proper license template. I'm rushing out the door, having tossed together a basic stubby article this morning and needing to be somewhere for Thanksgiving dinner, but if she doesn't happen to notice the ping and stop by here, I suppose the next step is to go to her. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to be catching up late here. Yes, these are articles by my students. Wikipedia actually came first: the students drafted their articles for the "Writing of Indigenous New England" website in Wikipedia, where they got great editing feedback and practice in using reliable sources. They then imported the writing they had done in Wikipedia onto the other site, usually amplifying that work with other primary research not allowed in Wikipedia. In an earlier iteration the latter website did have a notice indicating that UNH students wrote the entries, which they had begun in Wikipedia. I see I need to restore that notice; but is there something else I should do? (In effect, if I'm reading your concerns correctly, the students have been "plagiarizing" their own contributions to Wikipedia.) I would indeed be interested in developing a compatible license, though this might be complicated with students who have graduated. Please advise, and thanks for your attention! Ssenier (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

Vormeph

Hey Moonriddengirl, how are you doing these days?

Could you please do something about this user? He's on bad terms with like everyone due to his editorial behavior, and is continuing with this. Though numerous people have told him not to remove those links, he's still continuing to do so, ignoring the talk page consensus and that the majority does not want them to be deleted like that. Just as of seconds ago, he officially made a threat to continue edit warring (which he's already doing and has done priorly too),[22] reverted it once again, without edit summary, though we explicitly told him not to do so,[23], says the voice of the majority "must be screwed".[24] Could you do anything about this? Honestly, we've shown enough resilience, and there's no simply no place for edit warriors that make statements such as "screw the voice of the majority". Clearly does not grasp multiple WP's as well as what is being a valuable addition to this place.

If it's not too much of an issue for you, of course. Bests and take care.

Edit; nvm! :-) Already appropriately blocked. Which will probably get extended as well. - LouisAragon (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussions in AFD where you may be useful and interested

Hi, Moonriddengirl. We used to interact a lot when I was more active on the copyright discussions. Long time no talk.

I see you've had interaction with User:Joeyc91 regarding copyright violations. Two of the articles he's created are up for AFD:

I have no specific non-Wikipedia sources I can point to to show copyright infringement, but it seems clear from the level of detail that these are copied from somewhere without attribution; although for all I know they're from an old PD dictionary or the like, which would not be infringement.

I'm uncertain on whether my rationale for deleting is appropriate, given the inability to point to an infringed work; basically, I'm using a "sniff test," and I don't know if that's appropriate. Given your copyright enforcement background here and your interaction with the creating user, can you opine?

I think I'm not violating WP:CANVASS by this notification; I just figured you're in a good position to assess this and meet the "Editors known for expertise in the field" criterion. If you believe I am in violation, please ignore this. thanks. TJRC (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, TJRC. :) I think you have good instincts there, although I can't prove it. This user has a history of copying from inside and outside of Wikipedia, and he has a history of directly translating content from sources, named and otherwise. (I thought it was just a matter of WP:CWW until I started investigating his socks.) I've commented on those AFDs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

WP:ANI

Long time ago you suspected Mar4d to be a sock of Siddiqui. New developments show that you might have been right. Mar4d was blocked as sock of Acejet. But there is too much behavioral evidence which matches Mar4d with Siddiqui.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Acejet could be a sock of old blocked user Siddiqui --The Avengers 14:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:The Avengers. :) Are you going to re-open the SPI? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
As both the cases are closed, i wanted some extra details from Administrators. For that i opened the report at ANI. I asked the same question in Teahouse. I don't know, under what circumstances i can file an SPI when there are no new socks. I suspect Acejet/Mar4d could be Siddiqui. As Marduking name was similar to Mar4d, i suspected they might be related. Later on i found, you made a similar report many years ago. After all these years, Check Users can't link them.--The Avengers 13:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

A favor

Hi, Moonriddengirl, I have favor to ask: when you get a moment, can you swing by Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/A Guide to Reporting Copyright Infringement and make sure all the info is still current? I'm in the process of going through the Milhist Academy to update and trim the material to keep it current and relevant, and want to make sure this is still up to date with everything going on on the copyright front. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

  •  Done, TomStar81. :) User:Crow or User:Justlettersandnumbers, would one of you mind glancing as well? I'm trying to encourage more "Please fix this" than previously, given the backlog. But I don't want to add too much complexity. Also, I'm not doing the heavy hauling there now. :) (And feel guilty about that! Sorry!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm in your debt. Some of these academy courses haven't been updated in years, and heaven knows our guidelines have shifted in that time. I did an audit and found about 25% of our academy pages need help, but this is now one less page we need to worry about. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I took a look at them per request. The parts on how to identify a violation might start to make people's ears smoke, but given the subject matter and the complexity of the If:then:then-if:then-then:but-if... nature of the cases, I'm not sure how to simplify it. (Perhaps I'll make a series of user-pages in sort of a flowchart, where a user's reply links to the next if-then page...). I may tweak the 2 above as well, after I re-read them a few times to better get an idea of the sticking points in the flow. CrowCaw 17:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can, that would be much welcome, User:Crow. :) I worry that I overcomplicate things. I have a natural urge to cover every possibility. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Denny Somach

The article Denny Somach has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Searches found nothing better at all to suggest better notability and improvement aside from a few local news articles.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 09:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, User:SwisterTwister, I left you a deprod notice, but I'm curious: do you generally check Google books when you PROD articles? I think Billboard Magazine lends to notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes of course (it's one of my many search resources) and I suppose it seems notable and acceptable for now (surely there are several other AfD priority articles). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused as to some deleted content

In the article Maryland Department of General Services Police, you deleted two subsections because of a copyright violation. I wrote the article years ago and I have never copy-and-pasted, nor written anything close to plagiarizing. Out of an abundance of caution, I went into the article history and copied the section deleted and pasted it in Google. I found no evidence of copying or plagiarism. A second concern I had with the deletion is, even if it were copied directly from a government source (1) government sources (unless classified otherwise) are in the Public Domain. (2) Even if it were not in the public domain, why would you not leave the two divisions? And (3), why would you delete the politics of the agency? Just trying to understand the logic. Thanks! It's me...Sallicio! 03:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, User:Sallicio. :) The copyrighted content was added on 24 November 2014 by User:Mwarehime and has been hidden in the history. US government sources are public domain (as long as the content they publish was not contracted or authored externally), but state governments are not, unless they explicitly indicate that they are. WP:PD talks a little bit more about that. The government of Maryland does claim copyright see notice at the bottom of this page. I stubbed the article because neither of the two sources in use were live at the time (or now, it seems), so I used verifiable content, but only the material rev-deleted can't be used. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense..thanks for the quick response!It's me...Sallicio! 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

hi Maggie

Hi Maggie, OK, I think I finally at least figured out how to leave you a message here! LOL The whole Wikipedia thing I have to confess baffles me and seems very complicated to me 😱, i'm just really not good at it. I wrote the original copy that is on IMDB and posted it there, so I figured since I wrote it I owned it. also, the copy that I sent you is slightly different than the original copy I posted in that it has updates and more information added to it. I will be adding this new one on to IMDB to update it as well. I don't want to have any violations or anything, and I will try to verify however I need to, I just want to get my correct information up on the Wikipedia page about me. Just trying to keep it easy simple, honest and straightforward. just an actor guy trying to get my staff correct. I'm sure you can understand. I'm just not computer savvy at all really. Obviously you totally are. can you please help me with doing this? I really appreciate it. And please, just call me Ryan :) Hope all is good with you, R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDB4:18D0:B140:7250:361D:4277 (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

Rose Lavelle

Rose Lavelle appears to have a copyright problem with material copied from her Wisconsin bio. Joeykai (talk) 07:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Joeykai. :) At a glance, I'm not seeing it, but I imagine it could be an issue of close paraphrasing. Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101 talks about how to handle copyright issues. It might be helpful to point out a specific problem area or two on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Tom Hackett

Tom Hackett appears to have a copyright problem with copied material directly from his Utah bio.Joeykai (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Removed. If someone with Magic Powers can delete revision 694328702, that would be appreciated. Thanks Joeykai for the vigilance! CrowCaw 22:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant

Hi, Moonriddngirl. The Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant is a newly created article in the course of a student assignment. Originally, it included large parts of text copied from the company's website (http://www.raztes.am/eng/). After some intensive editing, there is no direct copyright violation any more, but I think it may still have an issue with a close paraphrasing. Could you take a look and give your opinion? The same issue may concern also the Spandaryan Hydro Power Plant article. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you more, but the student assignment project is going on and the newly created Yerevan Thermal Power Plant article seems to have the same problem. Beagel (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Beagel. :) I agree with you that the paraphrase there is too close. This is a difficult situation for paraphrasing. I've reworked Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant and welcome your assistance if you see areas that could be done better. I am not very familiar with power plants, which makes it difficult for me to recognize where content is creative. :) I'm afraid it took a bit longer than I would have liked, so I will have to get back to the other two. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much! It was an excellent work. It uses a much technical jargon and badly translated terminology, which makes it hard to understand and copyedit. But as I said, from the copyright issues aspect the Yerevan Thermal Power Plant article seems even more problematic. I tried to clean it up and edit out direct copyrighted material, but there is still some of it and close paraphrasing is also the issue. Beagel (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I've done some rather more clumsy work on that article, Beagel, given my lack of time. Do you think I got it all? (The statistics are non-creative, so a certain degree of closeness is inevitable, but there were definitely passages in there that should have been rewritten.) It feels to me like these students were kind of set up to fail. :/ It's not easy to rewrite such content from such limited sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I have had similar feelings and my first reaction about this to nominate it for speedy deletion. But the subject is notable, of course. I am also quite depressed about these students restoring copy-pasted and copyrights violating version. But I still believe they are able to learn. Beagel (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Bzuk. :) Happy Holidays to you as well! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Moonriddengirl as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:18, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
LOL. :) Indeed. Thank you, and Happy Holidays, MarnetteD! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Moonriddengirl: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

CCI case

Hello, can you please let me know what's up with this CCI case here? Regards! —OluwaCurtis »» (talk to me) 21:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, OluwaCurtis . It looks like nothing much. As I mentioned when I left you the note in September, cases may remain open for some time. Some have been open for years, and yours may not close swiftly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio in history at Dave Hansen

Good morning! Posting here to draw your attention to a copyvio in the page history at Dave Hansen, this edit which is a cut-and-paste from this news story. It's already been deleted from the article, but I don't recall if these revisions are normally revdeleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ivanvector. :) I've revdeleted. I typically will rev delete when the content is extensive or the collateral damage (loss of transparency) of rev deletion is minimal. In this case, both are true - extensive content and no contributions of value are lost. It helps prevent inadvertent restoration. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!!!

Seasons' Greetings Moonriddengirl. May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this Christmas and New Year. It has always been a pleasure knowing you and I wish you and yours all the very best in 2016.
Happy editing,
SW3 5DL (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Tobias and the Angel (Filippino Lippi)

The text at Tobias and the Angel (Filippino Lippi) is copied verbatim from https://www.nga.gov/collection/gallery/gg7/gg7-370.html. The article markup contains a comment "TEXT FROM US STATE SITE, THEREFORE CONSIDERED PUBLIC DOMAIN." However not all material carried on .GOV domains is in the public domain and this page carries a copyright notice from the National Gallery of Art. It is certainly a plagiarism because the source is not quoted.

The editors involved have (frankly) an absolutely dreadful reputation in the art world and I am not prepared to involve myself personally with them or on behalf of my institution. I should be glad if the Wikimedia Foundation might perhaps intercede. At the very least the issue of plagiarism should be addressed.

Thank you. 207.207.28.47 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 207.207.28.47. I'm afraid by adding the text "I should be glad if the Wikimedia Foundation might perhaps intercede" you have put me in a somewhat difficult position. :/
As a volunteer, I work on copyright issues, but not on behalf of the WMF. Where I am consulted as staff, I cannot act as a volunteer. I cannot blur the lines between the actions of Moonriddengirl the volunteer and Maggie Dennis, WMF employee.
As an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, I do not handle copyright issues. I am not a lawyer, and my only involvement in copyright matters comes on direction of our attorneys in response to valid DMCA takedowns. The Wikimedia Foundation does not create or curate content on the sites. Instead, this is the work of a vast community of volunteers. The WMF does respond to validly formatted takedown requests, and copyright owners can send these by contacting its designated agent. (See wmf:Designated agent.) If you are affiliated with the NGA, this avenue is entirely open to you.
I will note in case any bypassers have interest that had I come upon this as a volunteer, I would have handled it in accordance with the instructions at the copyright problems board, given that the gallery is clear that not all employees are federally funded and content produced by federally funded agencies if not automatically public domain. The content also violates Wikipedia:Plagiarism, but that's an aside. What matters here is that the page indicates the content is reserved and that not all content produced by NGA may be presumed to be copyright-free. See also [25] and WP:PD.
Perhaps a talk page stalker might take an interest. Otherwise, it might be worth approaching this at WT:CP. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for this. I didn't appreciate the distinctions you indicate and I am sorry to put you in difficulties. I was simply given your name as an editor who specialises in these problems. I do appreciate the long answer you give and thank you for your time. I see that the copyright violation was present from the article start. Subsequent editors really ought to have picked up on it. I have deleted the material and indicated on the Talk page why I am not prepared in this instance to spend a little time supplying the deficiency.
Thank you. 64.9.157.242 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I looked at this briefly. The offending content had already been removed by 64.9.157.242, and the history has now been revdeleted; just to be sure, I checked that the NGA content pre-dates the creation of our article. I'm concerned by the suggestion of wrong-doing of some kind by Wikipedia editors, and would like to ask the IP to provide a bit more detail. This particular copyvio was added in 2007, surely in good faith under the impression that the content was PD (though without the necessary attribution of the source); it was wrong and there's no excuse for it, but it alone doesn't seem to be enough to have given Wikipedia editors a bad reputation in the art world. Can you expand, IP? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Buon Natale


May you have very Happy Holidays, Maggie,...

and a New Year filled with peace, joy, and beautiful music!



Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

Hello Moonriddengirl: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 00:11, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry Christmas

I came here to post {{subst:Season's Greetings}}, but it is already posted more than twice, so, just wishing "Merry Christmas" --Tito Dutta (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Tyler Murphy

There is a copyright problem with Tyler Murphy Joeykai (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Joeykai. I'm happy to take a look if you will be a little more specific about your concerns. Alternatively, you can tag it as described at Wikipedia:Copyvio101. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

Season's Greetings
Wishing you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_59&oldid=1143177407"