Examine individual changes

'{{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |maxarchivesize = 250K |counter = 42 |algo = old(7d) |archive = User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive %(counter)d }} {| style="width: 100%; background-color: #FFFFF0; border: 3px solid #E2725B; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: 8px; vertical-align: top;" | colspan=3 style="vertical-align:top" | {{User talk:Moonriddengirl/header}} {{archive banner}} {{Quote box2 |width = 30% |border = 1px |align = right |bgcolor = |fontsize = 1em |title_bg = #F5DEB3 |title_fnt = |title = Hours of Operation |halign = top |quote = In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 [[:Coordinated Universal Time]] and 21:00 [[:Coordinated Universal Time]], on weekdays. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was {{Time|UTC}}. [[Wikipedia:Bypass your cache|Refresh]] your page to see what time it is now. |salign = |source = }} {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} == [[Specimens of Archaeopteryx]] == I checked article [[Specimens of Archaeopteryx]] Coranbot also marked it and found it to be copied from http://archeopteryx.info/history_of_discovery.html They claim copyright for their article Copyright © 2011. All rights reserved. Archaeopteryx.Please go through this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards#Speedy_deletion_for_Specimens_of_Archaeopteryx he copied it] from [[Archaeopteryx]] and [[Maxberg specimen]] articles .[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pharaoh_of_the_Wizards#Speedy_deletion_for_Specimens_of_Archaeopteryx ] Later marked [[Archaeopteryx]] for copyright investigation it has been copied from various pages from archeopteryx.info .Later it was found that they had copied from us [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Archaeopteryx#Copyright_issues].But the issue is that they are claiming copyright for our work in there website.There website was created only in [http://who.godaddy.com/whois.aspx?k=GoP7PG2z6Uq/ZtEVS9ww6FGlnSkbFYbI&domain=archeopteryx.info&prog_id=GoDaddy 2011] and we has created the article much before that. Thanks.[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 06:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC) :I think this is reverse infringement. :) We catch these a lot through Corensearchbot, when articles are split and pick up matches to mirrors elsewhere. I'd recommend adding {{tl|backwardscopy}} at the talk page of the article and linking in the comment section to the explanation on your talk page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 13:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC) : Yes but here sadly they claimed copyright for our articles which made make a request for a copyright investigation it is better this gets resolved now rather than after another user has worked hard and edited the article . Mirror sites normally do not claim copyright for themselves even if they do not acknowledge Wikipedia.Added the Backwards copy tag to both [[Specimens of Archaeopteryx]] and [[Archaeopteryx]] and this solves the issue.Thank you.[[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 07:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC) == RfC on using images from countries with which the US does not have copyright relations == I started an [[WT:C#RfC: What to do with respect to the copyright of countries with which the US does not have copyright relations?|RfC]] on this issue a couple of weeks ago following some discussion on the use of some Iranian images. Although most users agree that these images are PD and that the legal position is not in doubt some editors seem to think it's worth asking the foundation for their opinion. I'm not sure whether the latest request is just to get a legal opinion on whether they're PD or get a more general policy statement. However there's definitely been some previous discussion with people asking us to get legal opinion on whether they're PD. I know images aren't normally your area but I've come here to ask whether you think it's worth seeking the opinion of counsel on whether they're PD or not as I don't want to waste their time and knowing you deal with them reasonably frequently thought you'd be a good person to ask whether this was worth escalating. Cheers. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 04:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC) :If by reasonable frequency, you mean multiple times most days, you've got that right. :) I am very happy to ask a legal opinion, if you like, or to see if I can get a policy statement. I'd do so as part of what I do as liaison. Just let me know. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 13:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC) ::Could you ask for an opinion please, it would appear that it's going to be the only way to take things forward. I would ask legal myself but it would appear some people are also after a policy statement and I don't know who to ask for that. As far as I can see there are three question: ::#Are images such as these PD in the US - i.e. can we legally use them? ::#If they are what countries does it apply to? ::#Does the foundation have a policy on whether we should use them? One vocal argument is that because they may leave PD it is / should be foundation policy that we shouldn't use them. It would, I think, be useful if they specifically mentioned this last point in an reply just to avoid any doubt. ::Although I started the RfC I'd like to think of myself as still neutral so hopefully the above is a fair representation. Obviously I'm now asking this in your WMF role but it seems silly to split this across two user talk pages! Thanks for the help. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 23:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC) :::Dpmuk, I certainly appreciate your input in the matter and MRG is a great asset to utilize in this discussion. If you don't mind, I'd like to present the case as I see it (I think you may have missed some nuances in the way you phrased the questions). The questions that need to be answered are: :::#Are the images in question PD in the US? Are they PD elsewhere? :::#If PD in the US and elsewhere, how should such images be labeled? (i.e. They are PD in the US, but copyrighted in Iran...so they should be labeled like this? Or in some other fashion) In my less than humble opinion, just labeling them as either PD or just as copyrighted does users on WP and elsewhere a HUGE disservice. :::#How should such images be ''used'' on WP. I don't care whether we use them as copyrighted images, PD images, or "as the en-wp community decides...as long as it's in line with what the WMF dictates." I think it is FAR more important to have a clear answer on this, than what the outcome is. :::#Lastly, just because they ''might'' someday become copyrighted in the US (for example, if Iran signs the Berne Treaty tomorrow), it doesn't change how we should treat them ''today''. I don't disagree that they might someday become copyrighted, but that doesn't change the fact that they are PD '''''<u>now</u>'''''. An opinion on this situation would be most helpful. :::I concur with Dpmuk that specifically mentioning this issue will help clarify the situation. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 03:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC) {{unindent}} Do you guys concur on this expanded group of questions? If so, I'll shoot them along. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :I'm happy for them to be asked. Apart from 2. they get at pretty much the same thing I suggested just re-worded and extended a bit. I didn't ask two because I couldn't imagine there ever being a "ruling" from the foundational on something that specific, and so think it would just get kicked back to us, but given the strong views now being expressed if people want it asked then it's probably best that it is. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ::I concur that they are right along the same lines and we're at least on the same page regarding the matter. I also welcome White Cat's input on the submission if he feels there's anything I missed/misphrased. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 22:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :We'd like formal foundation input for this issue at the rfc. I have made my case [[Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Break_for_additional_comments|there]]. --<small> [[User:とある白しろい猫ねこ/12|A Certain White Cat]]</small> ^{[[User talk:とある白しろい猫ねこ/12|chi?]]} 15:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ::If I'm not mistaken, the WMF probably wont make a direct input, but MRG will serve as a liaison for that sort of input. Correct me if I'm wrong here MRG. [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 22:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :::That's frequently how it works, although there's nothing to preclude them contributing directly if they so choose. :) They tend to be busy. [[User:とある白しろい猫ねこ/12|A Certain White Cat]], if I bring back a response, it will be in my capacity as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and not as a volunteer. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 22:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ::::When should we expect a reply? [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 07:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC) :::::Well, I submitted it on Friday; depending on what was going on, they may have reviewed it then or may not review it until Monday. For straightforward questions, I usually expect something within one or two business days. (Very straightforward questions, instantly. :D) That varies depending on the complexity and the interference of other factors (such as massive lawsuit threat popping in the inbox in the interim). As an example of one that is taking longer, the legal team is currently researching the legal ramifications of the recent court decision around the URAA for [[:Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/All files copyrighted in the US under the URAA]]. I can't predict exactly when, but with a multipart question like this one, I would myself prompt them on Wednesday if I have not heard back from them before that. It's difficult syncing the speed of Wiki discussions with the speed of the business world. That was one of the harder things I had to adjust to when I started working with staff. Wikipedia runs full steam 24-7. While quite a lot of staff do ''some'' work seven days a week (*cough*), it's not the same steady speed at all. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 12:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ::::::Fabulous. Thanks for the inquiry...perhaps including their legal review as part of the answer may be useful (it seems to touch on some of the issues brought up here). [[User:Buffs|Buffs]] ([[User talk:Buffs|talk]]) 01:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == For one of the Pillars of Wikipedia. == {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:AngelHeartBarnstar.png|100px]] |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''For the Ultimate Wikipedian''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You are truly a pillar of Wikipedia in Knowledge,Commitment ,Dedication both in article space,admin and Wikipedia space and also both onsite and offsite.You are totally consistent both in policy and firm yet kind and cool and been around since 2007 without a break .Truly the project runs due to committed people like you. [[User:Pharaoh of the Wizards|Pharaoh of the Wizards]] ([[User talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 21:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC) |} :Wow. That is so very kind of you. Thank you so much! --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 21:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC) == ''The Signpost'': 23 January 2012 == <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-23}} </div><!--Volume 8, Issue 04--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 18:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC) </div> <!-- EdwardsBot 0224 --> == [[List of Beverly Hills, 90210 episodes]] & below == Recently, I split up the above article per several long standing split tags. Immediately I did so and before I could start cleaning up the formatting, CorenBot flagged one of the new articles as a potential copyright violation. Eventually you (if I recall correctly) removed the tag with a comment to the effect that the other site had copied off Wikipedia and not the other way round. As a result, I completed reformating the articles. This week, the article ([[Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 8)]]) was deleted without discussion on the grounds that it is a copy of "http://www.tv.com/shows/beverly-hills-90210/season-8/?viewmode=expanded&sortmode=oldest". I restored the framework so that original summaries could be included and also to provide the titles for the parent article. This immediately got a warning (my interpretation of the post, possibly not the intention of the poster) for writing an article without content. I said that I would provide content as and when I could find time. However, since then I have discovered that at least 3 other pages have content in common with the site mentioned above i.e. [[Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 4)]], [[Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 5)]] and [[Beverly Hills, 90210 (season 7)]]. If the implications are as I suspect then these articles will have to be deleted and that would be far to much for me to repair. On the other hand, if there is nothing wrong with these articles then presumably series 8 is ok and should be restored. Is there any chance that you could investigate this matter, or perhaps refer the matter to someone who can assist. Regards [[User:Op47|Op47]] ([[User talk:Op47|talk]]) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :The possibility of reverse infringement certainly exists. TV articles are a pain to untangle. :) I may be able to look at it more later today; if not, I'll put it on my list of weekend work. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :::The more I look into this, the less I think the content is likely to have been legitimately ours. The bulk of early plot synopses were copied from IMDb and removed later (as per talk page). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Beverly_Hills%2C_90210_episodes&action=historysubmit&diff=345452944&oldid=339733200 Here is where Season 8 shows up], as duplicating the external site. More of season 8 shows up [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_episodes&diff=next&oldid=353161417 here] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_episodes&diff=next&oldid=353162102 here]; it is ''not'' the same as that source. It was almost certainly copied from the IMDb, though. 3 1/2 hours after it landed here, somebody [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_episodes&diff=next&oldid=353162789 cleans up typos] which are present in the IMDb plot summaries: "[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0522900/plotsummary Rolling Stones magazine]"; "[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0522773/plotsummary out of the Valerie's room]"; "[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0522912/plotsummary for most plastic surgery for herself]". For that to have been legitimately ours, two different editors of IMDb would have had to have copied it in that small window. :::And if we had had it first, I can't explain why the other page copied only part of our list - the ones added by that earlier editor - but none of the plot summaries copied from IMDb. That earlier editor added plot summaries up through 17, "The Elephant's Father". At this point, I think the earlier episodes in that page ''were'' copied from tv.com, while the later ones were copied from IMDB.com. :/ ::(Another editor added content earlier that ''did'' come from there: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Beverly_Hills,_90210_episodes&diff=next&oldid=245681045]; [http://www.tv.com/shows/beverly-hills-90210/season-8/?viewmode=expanded&sortmode=oldest].) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 01:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Beverly_Hills%2C_90210_episodes&action=historysubmit&diff=315584504&oldid=312703639 This series of edits] by an anon user seems to have been a real problem. I'm going to have to blank some of these other subarticles for further investigation. :( --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 01:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::::While I'm pretty sure that the 8th season was ''not'' backwards copy problem, I'll double check these. I've blanked them for investigation because it does look likely that we took from them. But maybe I'll be wrong. :/ --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 01:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == That old favourite again == [[List of highest-grossing Bollywood films]] could do with some admin action again, RD1 and semi-protection may be sensible. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 15:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :And [[List of highest-grossing Indian films]]. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 16:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ::Thank you! I wish that BOI would give us permission. :( But until they do, we don't have much choice. I've held off on protection, since the IP following seems to have made good edits. Maybe it won't be necessary. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 22:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :::Seems reasonable. I'd mentioned the semi- because of the glut of weird edits that were going on, in the space of a few hours, and I couldn't quite decide whether they were an attempt to update the tables (not a problem), change to a top five (a problem) or both. As things have quietened down for a bit now and there's a useful IP about I'd agree protection isn't warranted. Cheers. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 22:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC) ::::Could probably do with another round of RD1ing. Am starting to debate running for admin myself and taking the flak that will undoubtedly come... [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 05:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC) == [[Mildred Seydell]] == Dear Moonriddengirl, I have been referred to you by >[[User:LadyofShalott]]. If you go to [[User_Talk:LadyofShalott]], there are more details. The article has now turned into a "copyright violation investigation." I am frankly appalled. I replied [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Madman here]. If I can reach you with an e-mail (you can reach me via wikipedia e-mail), I can send you the two reports I got from Desktop Plagiarism checker. Sigh. If you would please take a look, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 00:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :Posted a rewrite of the article. Then put back the immediately prior iteration which included copyright violation investigation template. Please access the reswrite through the history. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 11:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::Hi. :) I am just waking, and assessing copyright concerns that are based on close paraphrasing takes some mental acuity. I will look at the article and help straighten things out once I feel fully functional. I want to be sure that I'm bringing my wits with me so that I give you the best response I can. :D I did have a look at your conversation with [[User:Madman]], and I just wanted to explain that he did not put the duplication detector report up; it's automatically generated by the copyright template. I'm really sorry that you're appalled; I can understand that this would be distressing. Please remember that he is trying to help Wikipedia just as you are, even if he is mistaken or his approach was not the best. In cases of close paraphrasing, whether content follows too closely is subjective. Sometimes, there's enough following that anybody would agree it does, but there's considerable room for divergent standards. As a community of creators and editors, we just have to keep working together to make sure that we're all on the same page as to what standard to follow. I'm not saying that you've followed too closely, because I haven't looked yet, but I think it's important to keep in mind why these disagreements sometimes happen. It's an uncomfortable part of a collaborative project. But we make it through, with the end goal of a great encyclopedia. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 12:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :::All right. I'm awake. I've warmed up with some straightforward copyright work, and I'm going in to investigate this one now. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 15:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC) {{unindent}} Okay, I've looking at this one pretty closely. I see that Corensearchbot tagged it in its earliest edit ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mildred_Seydell&oldid=473055247]) for its resemblance to [http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-2460], and I'm afraid that the earliest edit was very likely much too close to the source. Besides having some precise language duplication ("They resided in Belgium for twenty years before returning to Atlanta in 1967"), the entire paragraph beginning "She was born" follows lockstep on the source in terms of structure, although language has been changed. The lead, too, is substantially similar to that of the (then) sole source. While every article has to start somewhere, it's a bit risky to create articles like this, as you can wind up with a derivative work of a copyrighted original. :) We can see this at play in the "early life" section at the time of the blanking. It would be pretty easy for the copyright holder (were they so inclined) to make a case that you had clearly taken from their source. That said, by the time the article was blanked, I think that the content was no longer [[substantial similarity|substantial]]. Madman's later thought that {{tl|close paraphrasing}} might have been a better approach is certainly correct, I'd say. It needed a bit more reworking, but I think that the blanking was unnecessary. Most likely, I would have rewritten it a bit myself to separate it more from the source. In fact, I've done a bit of that. One of the hardest things, I find, in terms of appropriating creativity from a source is avoiding appropriating the structure. The degree or creativity in a structure will depend in large part on how selective the material is. Chronological representation of facts has very low creativity, which helps. :) But when we take facts from a source and present them in the same order that the source does (or with very little change), we run a much higher risk of crossing that intangible line. For this reason, I usually try not only to change the words I'm using but also, where feasible, the structure. It's really hard to do this if you try writing your paraphrase sentence by sentence from a single source. Sometimes, it's very useful to me to take notes (elsewhere) and then see if there's another presentation that makes sense. The ''most'' helpful thing is to find multiple sources that discuss the same time period and blend together facts from both. Alas, that's not always so easy to do. :) It certainly wasn't easy digging up information on Seydell's early life, but I've managed to put some together. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 16:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::Nice job on the extra sources on the early life. Thank you for your advice and assistance. FWIW, I had used multiple sources, multiple structures, and paraphrased. The Bot hit on the article within five minutes of the first edit, and I had edited the article away very quickly thereafter. There are only so many ways you can say "circus Gorilla" and deviating form that will make the statement inaccurate. The "They resided in Belgium for twenty years before returning to Atlanta in 1967" shared some of the facts, e..g. that there were two decades, but was a completely different sentence from the original. Pulling out two and three words in a row, and then saying this is a "close paraphrase" is a flawed methodology that leads to an unwarranted conclusion. Blanking the article and threatening to delete it was 'using a shotgun to kill a flea.' It may get the job done, but there will be a lot of 'collateral damage' in the process. There was no illicit appropriation, and there was everything (except proper names and citations -- and usually my citations were as good as or better, and more complete than the source) lined up according to the MOS. The bot is a limited tool that will encourage off kilter conclusions. Ultimately, this is a matter of style and human judgment, and reliance on misguided mathematical formulae will just create problems. Best regards. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 17:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :::It's best ''not'' to put an article on Wikipedia that include close paraphrasing of a copyright source. :) Not only will it draw the bot to tag the issue, but it puts a clear record in history that can be used to argue that our article is a [[derivative work]]. If your early drafts must closely follow your source (which I generally don't recommend, for reasons I explain above), it's best to start them elsewhere, such as in a word processor file. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks so much for your second set of eyes on this, Moonriddengirl! You're absolutely right that a {{tl|close paraphrasing}} template would have been more appropriate in this case (though, for the record, I was never threatening to delete the article). I was hoping to rewrite as well, but had to sleep on it (likewise "mental acuity") and when I woke it up, you'd already done it! How ''do'' you have the stamina to work so hard?! (I guess being an employee could help. ;)) Cheers! &mdash; <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :::It helps with the stuff I do as [[User:Mdennis (WMF)]] to be sure. :D As Moonriddengirl, it's a labor of love. Thanks for keeping up with [[WP:SCV]], and if you ever want a second set of eyes on review, please feel free to come by. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 19:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC) == scribd .com == As you no doubt are aware are notorious for copyright infringements. The book, ''Baloch nationalism: its origin and development'' published 2004 is currently used as a source, and is linked to a full copy of the book on scribd on the [[Baloch nationalism]] article. Is this a copyright violation under wikipedia policy? [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 15:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :Yes, this would almost certainly be a [[WP:LINKVIO]]. I've removed the links accordingly. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 15:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::Thank you, I will search for other articles using the same source. [[User:Darkness Shines|Darkness Shines]] ([[User talk:Darkness Shines|talk]]) 15:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC) == A question about CCI process, now partially moot == As I work though some of the CCI entries, I am often comfortable that I can resolve them myself, but occasionally I run into something where I am not sure how to proceed. I’ll walk through my thought process below (written in more detail than necessary, because it might end up being part of a case study). I’d appreciate any thoughts on how you would handle this entry.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;">(Talk)</span>]]</font> 16:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC) {{Collapse top|title=Review of Almoravid dynasty}} The CCI entry is [[Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/S710#Articles_101_through_120|entry 115]] The current article is [[Almoravid_dynasty]] The two contributions are: * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=58220066 first] * [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=85023545 second] My first observation is that they have the potential to be of concern, that is, they aren’t simply addition to a simple list, additions to a list of External Links, a reference, or a small copyedit that generates a larger byte count. On the other hand, while they are potentially of concern to us, if the addition happened to be a straight copy-and-paste of material under copyright, they are not long enough to be of legal concern, as the copy of a single sentence (not part of a very short poem) is highly unlikely to be found to be a material copyright violation. However, our internal rules are deliberately more conservative than the law, so I cannot simply move on due to the length; if it is a straight copy/paste, we should take action. The first can be disposed of relatively easily. I look at the current version, and see that almost all of the contribution is gone, with only the phrase “root r-b-t” remaining from the original contribution. Technically, if we determined that the original contribution was problematic, we should consider a revdel, but it is my belief we can move along, using the assumption that we should revdel if the passage were much longer, but not necessary in the case of a single sentence. The second passage isn’t as easy. The first step is to determine whether it remains in the current version, and it does, exactly as added. The next logical step would be to look at the reference, and see if the words were lifted or lightly paraphrased,, but it isn’t referenced. Next, I do a Google search for a phrase, such as "Yusuf ibn Tashfin had in the meantime". That generates many hits, but this isn’t proof of copying. The first hit, not surprisingly is the WP article itself. Subsequent entries look like either WP mirrors or sites which have scraped WP content. Do we have a definitive list of such mirrors and a way to exclude them from the search? My guess is no, and even if someone has complied a partial list, I suspect that it may not have all the sites copying material relating to Morocco. When I started writing this, my planned next question was “Now what?” I will go on to show what I did find, but if I did not find anything, I wouldn’t feel comfortable simply concluding that some of the sites look like mirrors, and I’m not about to check 3000 sites (I realize there probably aren’t that many, but even a couple dozen would be tedious). Is there another technique I’m missing? I did go on to check Google Books, and did find something. In the [http://books.google.com/books?id=_mUYAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA717&dq=%22Yusuf+ibn+Tashfin+had+in+the+meantime%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oxkkT9KJOs2ltwfK0fWiCw&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Yusuf%20ibn%20Tashfin%20had%20in%20the%20meantime%22&f=false Encyclopdia Brittanica] '''''Ibn Tashfin''' who was largely guided by Zainab '''had in the meantime brought what is now known as Morocco''' to '''complete subjection''' '''and in 1062 had founded the city of Marrakesh''' Morocco City He is distinguished as Yusef I '''In 1080 he conquered the kingdom of Tlcmccn and founded the present city of that name his rule extending as far cast as Oran''''' Compare to contribution: ''Yusuf '''ibn Tashfin''' '''had in the meantime brought what is now known as [[Morocco]]''', [[Western Sahara]] and [[Mauretania]] into '''complete subjection'''; '''and in [[1062]], had founded the city of [[Marrakech]]'''. '''In [[1080]], he conquered the kingdom of [[Tlemcen]]''' (in modern-day [[Algeria]]) '''and founded the present city of that name, his rule extending as far east as [[Oran]]'''.'' (Bold for exact match) This is too close a match. However, the source is the 1910 version of the Encyclopedia, so it is pd, right? As a tertiary source, Encyclopdia Brittanica is not a preferred source, but doesn’t seem to be disallowed, and per [[WP:PSTS]], this may be one of the cases where it is acceptable, especially given the reputation. Despite being pd, it still must be referenced, and we have some pd templates which may need to be added (any for EB in particular?) My next plan is to report to S710, request that the editor make the fixes, and if that doesn’t happen, make the fixes myself. Again, the irony is that I decided to write this up asking advice about what to do if I didn’t find the hit (the absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence) but if you want me to come up with a better example before answering, I will. {{Collapse bottom}} :Okay. Dealing with the specific first: you're quite right that the book is public domain. :) We actually have templates specifically for the 11th Edition; [[:Category:1911 Britannica templates]]. There's a specific citation template here: {{tl|Cite EB1911}}. Because it's very small, I would probably use that template and after it add {{tl|PD-notice}}. It's entirely up to you if you want to ask him to do it or do it yourself. I'd usually do it myself and then tell him how for next time. If you want to give him a chance to do it first, that's certainly a valid approach. :If I were cleaning a CCI like this and found something like that, I would probably determine my action based on (a) the extensiveness of the content and (b) the overall "feel" of the CCI. If a contributor copies extensively, and that has been confirmed (and I mean beyond the level of confirmation I look for in opening a CCI: if I've found plentiful instances of copying after it's been opened), I'll default to removing or rewriting. The more extensive the content, the more necessary such removal/rewriting is, but the more time I'll invest in trying to determine if backwards copying happened. Probably too much time sometimes. We don't really have the luxury of spending an hour on a single article in a CCI; we've got too many. :/ That said, I am ''also'' more likely to default to removal or rewriting if the loss of the material will not appreciably impact the quality of the article. In those cases, there's littie reason ''not'' to play it safe, and I won't put a lot of time into checking for backwards copying. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 17:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks for the answers. On the point of who should do it, I understand that sometimes it is easier to do it than to ask. But I also view this as a learning process, and on occasion I’ve asked someone how to do something, and I’m a tiny bit miffed when they just do it for me. That doesn’t help me learn as much as if I try it myself. So I will ask, but not push, if they’d like to fix it, fine, if not, I’ll do it. ::Thanks also for the broad guidelines on how to address in general.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;">(Talk)</span>]]</font> 17:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :::Oh, that's something for me to watch out for! I often do things myself when people ask me how and leave an explanation of how I did it. :) That was actually kind of a weak spot for me as an instructor; my first critical review they noted that I had a tendency to be too "give a man a fish" and less "teach a man to fish" in working with students. Took some major doing to correct that. And the last thing I want to do is miff people when they ask how to do something. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 12:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC) == Intervention needed at [[Problem solving]] == Recently I put a Copyvio tag on [[Problem solving]] to get a long standing copyright issue resolved. I was trying to follow the procedure given in [[Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101#If the entire article is a problem]] where is says "if it's foundational but there's reason to believe the person who added it here is the copyright owner, tag it for investigation with..." since that seemed closest to the situation, though I find the directions to be extremely confusing and self-contradictory. There hasn't been any response from Copyvio board yet but another user restored the material in question, saying the tag was inappropriate, and is now actively editing the article so it may become impossible to separate the new material the COPYVIO material (if it is, in fact a COPYVIO). We are now going back and forth on the talk page about whether there is a copyvio issue and whether I was following correct procedures but this seems rather pointless since apparently neither of us understands the policy very well. First, I'd like to request that you take a look at [[Talk:Problem solving#Is plaigarism an issue?]] and inject some copyvio expertise into the discussion. I don't like to circumvent the normal channels and I'm not sure the other editor was incorrect in restoring the material, but if so then continuing to work on it will turn the issue into an intractable mess and action needs to be taken soon to avoid this. There is also some urgency in that the article is viewed about 1000 times a day, the copied material has existed since the article was created and a concern was raised on the talk page over a year ago. Second, I'd like to know if there is a forum where the copyvio procedures are discussed since they seem to be unnecessarily difficult and painful. Ideally I would have liked to just do the Google searches to determine when and from where the material was copied and leave the rest for someone with the necessary expertise. That should have take 15 min. but instead I've spent hours trying to figure out the correct procedure and the extra effort has done nothing to advance a resolution of the issue. You probably don't remember but I worked with you two years ago on a contributor copyright investigation, which is why I'm coming to you for help on this.--[[User:RDBury|RDBury]] ([[User talk:RDBury|talk]]) 17:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :{{tps}}I've restored the copyright tag and replied on the article's talk page as I believe you're very definitely right to have concerns for the reasons I explain there. As for your second point [[WT:CP]] is probably the best place to raise them. I for one would certainly be interested in knowing what part you found so difficult - I've been doing this for long enough that it's obvious to me that in a situation like this you just put a {{tl|copyvio}} tag on the page with the appropriate source as the parameter but if it's not so obvious to others we may need to change something. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 18:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :The author of the text in question would appear to be [[Joachim Funke]], but they haven't edited in about four and a half years. Would you be willing to try to get in touch with them if it came to that? [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::I will. :) I've found his address at [http://www.psychologie.uni-heidelberg.de/ae/allg_en/kontakt.html]; here's hoping it's still active. {{tl|copyvio}}, alas, can be tough to work with when you have a long link. Maybe that contributed to the issue? Thatks, [[User:Dpmuk]] for stepping in and explaining things at the talk page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :::I've emailed the professor; {{ticket|2012012810012375}}. Let's hope he's available; this may be swiftly resolved. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::::Thanks a lot for the quick responses and clarifications; it's a big load off my mind to know this is being addressed and further problems will be avoided. I'd also like to mention that I really appreciate the job you guys do with this kind of thing; it takes a lot of effort and specialized knowledge and the people who do the behind-the-scenes work that keeps WP going rarely get the recognition they deserve. I'll compose some suggestions to post at WT:CP when I've cooled down and thought it over a bit, meanwhile I'll keep an eye on the article to see how it goes.--[[User:RDBury|RDBury]] ([[User talk:RDBury|talk]]) 06:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ::::::Yippee! Confirmation already. :D And a very friendly letter (sometimes people are a tad annoyed when I have to write them and say, "Hey, is this really you?") I'm off to process and close out this one. Thanks for prompting the investigation, RDBury. The letter in our system will help secure us against future challenges to the legality of the content. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 12:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC) :::::::If only they could all be that easy! Did you see my extra post above about our regular not so easy one? [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 17:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC) {{unindent}} Yes, belatedly. Thanks for pointing that out. :) (And you totally should be an admin.) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 00:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == Jan 12 copyright problems == Hi MRG, there's at least [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copyright_problems&diff=473691513&oldid=473630020 one article from Jan 12] that still has outstanding copyright problems. Way beyond my experience of copyright to address, or I have done it myself in the first place! PS Thanks for everything you do round here, especially copyright stuff. --[[User:Dweller|Dweller]] ([[User talk:Dweller|talk]]) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :Uh oh! Sorry if I missed one. Let me go look. (We used to have a bot that would bring those back around but, alas, like all our copyright bots it's gone.) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::A foundational copyright problem with no rewrite proposed; I've deleted it. Thanks for pointing it out to me. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC) == Getting organized == I’ve been mulling over a thought, and the post above by RDBury prompted me to write. We have a LOT of material about copyright issues, a fair portion of which has been written by you. However, as Sue Gardner recently noted, we are pretty good at churning out good material, we are not so good at organizing and trimming out material. I saw a recent post at [[User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_95#Copyright_education_from_other_Wikimedia_wikis|Jimbo’s page]], and briefly thought that the answer was to do a Copyright Portal, but we don’t have portal for other Wikipedia issues, so I no longer think that’s the right answer. I’d like to take a crack at organizing the material, but want your feedback first - are there other failed attempts that would be good strawmen for starting, or are there other well-organized Wikipedia subjects that would be a good model for organization? Any other thoughts you have would be appreciated.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;">(Talk)</span>]]</font> 20:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :Well, I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind. :) There's [[Wikipedia:Copy-paste]], which is meant to be a brief overview of the issue. There's [[Wikipedia:Text Copyright Violations 101]] and [[WP:GID]], which goes way beyond copyright issues. There's [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/How to clean copyright infringements]] (which includes both text and images) and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources]]. If you can give me more detail about the kind of structure you're thinking about, I might be able to offer more input. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC) ::My initial issue is that if someone were interested in Wikipedia copyright issues, how would they know where to start? And where could they find an exhaustive list of all resources. I’ve seen many of those, but had not stumbled across [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Resources]] before, so I suspect there are other places I’ve missed. I’m still wrapping my head around what I want to do, I’ll see if I can organize my thoughts.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;">(Talk)</span>]]</font> 21:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC) :::This is something that keeps on crossing my mind too, partly from working with the backlog of {{tl|copypaste}} tags. Given the amount of those taggins I see where listing at [[WP:CP]] or a straight G12 would be more appropriate I think we have a problem with how we get information across. Indeed do we even need the copypaste tag to have an url option? If the source is known surely [[WP:CP]] is more appropriate? I'm also amazed at the almost complete lag of information about how to deal with copyvios at [[WP:C]]. I know that page has got a different aim but it seems an obvious starting point for someone looking for information and yet it has a single link buried amongst eight "you may be looking for". Hardly makes finding the information easy. I don't know what the answer is, which is part of the reason I've not done anything, but I would certainly welcome someone taking a look at it all in a methodical way. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 04:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ::::Me, too. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 00:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == [[Nanette Hassall]] == Well, you said if I ever need a second set of eyes, come by... I'm taking you up on that already. ;) In my opinion, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nanette_Hassall&oldid=473528075 this revision] of [[Nanette Hassall]] is pretty blatantly infringing on [http://www.australiadancing.org/apps/ad?action=ViewSubject&id=35&resourceType=Oral%20history]. The structure and style is followed exactly, sentence for sentence, paragraph for paragraph. However, (for the second time in 24 hours; I'm starting to feel like a really bad judge of everything right now!) the contributor has strongly objected and some other admins I checked with say it looks pretty close but may be more ambiguous than I thought. Could you take a look when you have time? :) Thanks! &mdash; <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC) :Already taken care of; cleaned with a rewrite and looks great now. Cheers! &mdash; <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 18:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ::Sorry I didn't get to this this morning! I had some chores to run that took waaaay longer than I anticipated. I'm just passing through at the moment but will be back in probably an hour and will see if I can give some suggestions at least. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC) :::No problem! I definitely think it's clean now but you can still have a look if you'd like. :) Cheers, &mdash; <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 20:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ::::It looks fine to me. :) In case my own rule of thumb would be helpful to you, I tend to [[WP:CSD#G12]] somewhat conservatively. If somebody has made an effort to paraphrase, even if I think they fall short, I will usually use {{tl|copyvio}} just to give them a bit more time and allow me to talk to them more about how to do it. I use G12 mostly when the copying is pretty literal and when there's little chance it was placed by the copyright holder. If it looks like it might have been the copyright holder, even if they don't say so, I'll usually use the copyvio template. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC) :::::I've slipped back into that standard procedure myself, I think, as you'll probably see from [[WP:CP]] today. I used to do this from July 2007 to shortly before I retired the first time, but after three years or so it's not at all like riding a bicycle! ;) Cheers! &mdash; <strong><tt>[[User talk:Madman|madman]]</tt></strong> 00:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == A copyright question == Hello Moonriddengirl, hope you are doing OK. Perhaps you can read this (now somewhat compressed) exchange, look at the link and tell me and/or or the other user, what you think: "Thanks for starting [[Proserpina (gastropod)]]! Hello Smintheus Fallin and welcome to Wikipedia! I am part of the Gastropods Project here on Wikipedia and so I was very happy to see that you started an article on an interesting land snail genus, ''Proserpina''. I wanted to ask you about the very beautiful image of the shell. On its file page the photo is described as being your creation, however on[http://neritopsine.lifedesks.org/pages/896 this site] the photo appears to be the work of Thomas Eichhorst. Are you Thomas Eichhorst? If not then we have a copyright problem. All good wishes, [[User:Invertzoo|Invertzoo]] ([[User talk:Invertzoo|talk]]) 14:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC) ":Thank you, Invertzoo: I just created the stub following a disambiguation link for [[Proserpina (disambiguation)]], as I was making an entry for the Rossetti's painting. I saw that the entry was still in red as non-existent and so I created it. I'm not an fan of gastropods, even though my sister is a[[malacologist]], and I took the image from a website she often uses for photographs. I then retouched the photo and edited it a bit (that's why I stated "my creation"), but you may be right: there could be a copyright issue, however she told me that those photos are for public use and are often reprinted in her magazine, without any acknoledgements... What to do?--[[User:Smintheus Fellin|Smintheus Fellin]] ([[User talk:Smintheus Fellin#top|talk]]) 15:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)" Thanks for all your good work MRG! [[User:Invertzoo|Invertzoo]] ([[User talk:Invertzoo|talk]]) 17:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC) :Hi, Invertzoo. I'm well, and I hope you are. :) I've replied at his talk page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC) == Copyright Block == Now that I've been unblocked, I just want to let you know I didn't appreciate it since it was all a misunderstanding. I never copied the plot of the "iGot Jungle Worms" episodes from an MTV website that there was some warning over. I never saw this "warning" and all I did was move the episode from the Season 5 page over to a Season 6 page since it was already there. So it was already copied to begin with. Perhaps you should have waited to hear my side of the story before taking action. - [[User talk:Jabrona|Jabrona]] - 22:47, 29 January 2012 :I've replied at your talk page. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 23:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC) == Attribution question concerning copying from one Wikipedia article to another == Moonriddengirl, I notice some of your recent comments to one of our editors. Your are right that there should be an attribution to give credit to the other editors. Where should that go in the normal course. Talk page? End of article? Footnote? Somewhere else? What format? Is there an explicit policy statement somewhere? Thanks. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 03:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) : The relevant guideline is [[WP:Copying within Wikipedia]]. [[WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution|Proper attribution]] is in an [[Help:edit summary|edit summary]], and {{tl|Copied}} on the talk page is a recommended additional step. [[WP:Plagiarism#Copying within Wikipedia]] has a little on why footnotes would be excessive. [[User:Flatscan|Flatscan]] ([[User talk:Flatscan|talk]]) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::Thank you, Flatscan. <span style="text-shadow:#396 0.2em 0.2em 0.5em; class=texhtml">[[User:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b>]] ([[User talk:7&amp;6=thirteen|<b style="color:#000">☎</b>]])</span> 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :::Flatscan is a master of this. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 19:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == Fair use images in infoboxes == Would you care to comment at [[User_talk:Pernoctator#Images_at_Nadar_.28caste.29]] ? - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 15:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :{{tps}} I've replied there. [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 15:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::Talk page stalkers rock. :) Thanks, J. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == [[Saadian Tombs]] == I’m reviewing [[Saadian Tombs]]. I had a momentary start when running a CSBot, and getting a hit. However, the hit was [http://www.carto.net/andre.mw/photos/2007/10/21b_tombeaux_saadiens_de_marrakech/20071021-120008_saadian_tombs_garden.shtml this site], with a prominent notice: “The description of this photograph (or parts of) is based on this article of the free Wikipedia encyclopedia and are covered by the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Authors are named on the Wikipedia page.” My first question (and possibly this should be directed at Coren): Do we know if CSBot quits after finding a hit? In other words, can I assume that this is the only high probability hit, in which case the text is probably OK, or does the existence of a hit mean it stops, and I should pursue other means? Second, I searched for “corpses of about sixty members” and got a hit with [http://books.google.com/books?id=xPzzfupCcrgC&pg=PT237&dq=corpses+of+about+sixty+members&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QNQmT9S6JdO4twfgk7mMDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=corpses%20of%20about%20sixty%20members&f=false Travel Morocco: Guide, Maps, and Phrasebook. Includes: Rabat, Casablanca ]. However, that guide was published in 2010, well after the contributions by S710, so is a reverse copy. I looked briefly to see if that book acknowledged the source, but didn’t see it, so my second question is, to what extent do we pursue issues like this? My sense is that we shouldn’t get to excited if some personal website copied some info and didn’t attribute it correctly, but when a publishing company is making money by recycling content (which I know is permissible) they should be attributing correctly. Is there a process for reporting this? I did search for another phrase, the one including twelve columns, and got a hit, but a book discussing a building in Delhi, so I’m going to conclude that this article is fine for copyvio issues, and await your comments on the two other questions.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;">(Talk)</span>]]</font> 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :Hmm. I have no idea how CSB works. :/ :In general terms of reporting backwards vios, the only people who have a legal standing are people who substantially contributed to the content. Any contributor can write them to complain, but they don't have any legal authority to do so - not even the Wikimedia Foundation. :In the case of this publisher, they are a known reuser: [[Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Mno#MobileReference]]. We believe that the "1" at the bottom of the page (where they say it uses text from) probably links to the article, but we can't tell through Google books. They do not seem to include the full text of the license as required, but they do acknowledge the license on the back cover of the book. They aren't 100% in, but they're better than some. :/ :If you ever want to write to a reuser who doesn't attribute, whether you're a contributor or not, you ''can''. There's some recommended text at [[Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks]]. Sometimes they actually listen. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 20:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::Thanks for the pointer to the mirrors site; I'll know to check there first. Given that they are known, I don't see much to pursue in this instance. I'll run the other question by Coren.--<font style="font-family: Copperplate Gothic Light ">[[User:Sphilbrick|<span style="color:#002868;padding:0 4px">SPhilbrick</span>]][[User talk:Sphilbrick|<span style=";padding:0 4px;color:# 000;">(Talk)</span>]]</font> 20:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC) == 2nd opinion on revdel request at [[List of past General Hospital characters]] == I noticed that you've done last edit on that article before the revdel request. Looking back on the history, it appears that the entirety is going to have to be revdelled as it looks like the original edit 3/12/11 was a cut & paste from somewhere else that included all of the (C) materials. If you're of the same opinion, just leave a note here & I'll go ahead and revdel the lot :) [[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 20:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :I don't know; I'm undecided. George would like them gone, certainly, but as I explained to him at [[Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 January 6]], "I think the benefits of revision deletion would outweigh the disadvantages of losing access to the article history. The odds of copying or reverse infringement in the future are high, and it'll be much easier to investigate if we can keep the history. My opinion will change, I'm sure, if people start restoring the old content." That said, I have no objections whatsoever if you feel differently. My gut just says that we're not done with that history and will have to restore it eventually to resolve future issues. :P --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 22:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::I'm sort of in agreement with you - looking at some of the history, it appears that there might have been attempts to cull the copyrighted stuff. We know that its not just admins that are going to be looking at these specific articles (the soap opera ones) in evaluating what can be kept and what needs to go. On the other hand, we do now have copyright bots that are scanning for new violations, which theoretically will catch inappropriate additions. I'm thinking that we probably need some additional admin input on this one - maybe take it to the admin notice board? [[User:Skier Dude|<span style="color:ForestGreen">Skier Dude</span>]] ([[User_talk:Skier Dude|<span style="color:SaddleBrown">talk</span>]]) 22:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC) :::Good idea. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 23:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ==Pope John Paul II article== Hi Moonriddengirl, I have a question about the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_John_Paul_II&action=historysubmit&diff=474123529&oldid=474122332 quotations] of John Paul II. Does the Vatican holds the copyright on these, and if so are we allowed any in the article? -- Thanks -- [[User:Marek69|<span style="color:DarkBlue;">Marek</span>]]<small>.</small>[[Special:Contributions/Marek69|<small><span style="color:Blue;">69</span></small>]][[User_talk:Marek69|<small><span style="color:Green;">^{'' talk''}</span></small>]] 01:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :{{tps}} I'm uncertain who would own the copyright but I think that's irrelevant. From the quotes I saw in the article I would suggest that their use qualifies as [[WP:FAIRUSE|fair use]] especially as they are mainly used to give his opinion and views and these can often be distorted by paraphrasing. The article does seem to have quite a lot of quotes but given that giving views and opinions (forgive me if I use the wrong words) was one of his main roles I don't think their use is excessive. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 07:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC) ::I'd agree that we rely on fair use here. :) Ownership of quotes is a complicated question. Whether or not they're copyrightable depends on a number of factors, including whether, when and by whom they were written down. If a news agency transcribes something the Pope says in a public statement, they do not own the copyright, because there is no creativity in transcription. But if the quote is part of a prepared speech, the speechwriter (or his employee) owns it, and if the quote is part of an impromptu speech that is later recorded by the speaker then it also attracts copyright protection. ::What's important for our purposes is that we must record faithfully who said them, when and where, and we must keep their use reasonable. The only problem I see with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_John_Paul_II&action=historysubmit&diff=474123529&oldid=474122332 this quote] is that no source is cited. You should always attribute your quotes with both [[Wikipedia:INTEXT#In-text_attribution|intext]] attribution ''and'' a footnote. [[Wikipedia:Citing sources]] notes that "Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]] policy describes when sources should be cited, and what kind of sources are considered reliable. It requires [[WP:CITE#Types of citation|inline citations]] for any material challenged or [[WP:CHALLENGED|likely to be challenged]], and for all quotations, anywhere in [[WP:Mainspace|article space]]." So, you need to add your footnote. :) Quotations without them can be removed at any time. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC) == ''The Signpost'': 30 January 2012 == <div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-01-30}} </div><!--Volume 8, Issue 05--> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:EdwardsBot|EdwardsBot]] ([[User talk:EdwardsBot|talk]]) 03:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC) </div> <!-- EdwardsBot 0225 --> == [[Junior Achievement]] == This one cropped up on the 7-day old listings at [[WP:CP]] the other day and you said you'd take a look later. Well now someone claiming to be from the relevant organisation has posted on the talk page. I've posted quite a long reply as I thought it important they got a reply as soon as possible, but given my previous involvement in this I'd appreciate another set of eyes to make sure I've not missed anything, especially as I'm not that used to dealing people in situations like this. Of course if any talk page stalker fancies taking this on then they should also feel free - I'm sure Moonriddengirl wouldn't mind given how busy she is! [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 06:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :And as a complete aside, congratulations on the permanent position which I've just noticed. Can I suggest you remove "at this point" from the top of your user page for this account, as it implies to me it's temporary. [[User:Dpmuk|Dpmuk]] ([[User talk:Dpmuk|talk]]) 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC) ::I haven't meant not to. :/ I haven't had time to get around to it! I planned to do it after work last night, but family illness cut into my online life. :P (Pesky real life.) I ''will'' go look this morning. :D --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :::(I don't know if it's any better, but I changed it to "currently". I want to avoid implying that I've always been an employee of the WMF. Hmm. Maybe I'll go back and just change it to "since May 2011". What do you think? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)) ==Possible sockpuppetry== I would like to launch an investigation of sockpuppetry for the user [[HereToSaveWiki]]; it seems to be a direct new account created by [[Seeta mayya]]. To clarify, you may remember her umpteen comments about "what is happening to Wikipedia?", hence the name. In addition, her style of talking is exactly similar to Seeta mayya's, with the exception of all the gasps and "Oohs". Check this for reference (and I have responded strongly to her statements):- [[Talk:Shahrukh Khan]]. I would like to know how and where to begin; if necessary, I can take this to [[WP:ANI]]. If this is Seeta mayya's account puppet, I will ensure that an IP ban is placed on her. ~*~'''[[User:Ankitbhatt|Ankit]][[User talk:Ankitbhatt|Bhatt]]'''~*~ 08:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :If you want to launch a sock puppetry investigation, the place to go is [[WP:SPI]]. Opening the SPI is the easy part; you put the primary account's name into the box where it says "SOCKMASTER" here: [[Wikipedia:SPI#Submitting_an_SPI_case]]. It'll open a new edit window that is partially filled out for you. All you'll need to do is follow the directions in <nowiki><!--hidden comments--></nowiki>. One of the most important things here is having good evidence; bring links of similar behavior that will help you convince the administrators who work there that the two are the same. They probably won't investigate if you don't. And remember where it says "|admincomment=" not to edit the section at all. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC) == RfC closure == It looks as though the [[Wikipedia:Featured articles/2012 RfC on FA leadership|RfC on the FA leadership]] has slowed down. The notification in last week's Signpost appeared to bring in a few more commenters, but now there's not much happening. What's your feeling about closing it soon? [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :Sure! If you think it's winding down. I didn't expect it to finish quite so soon. Unless it's a great deal simpler than I'm expecting, I probably won't get to close it this morning, but I'll take a look. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC) ::Well, the closure looks pretty straightforward; the only question is if we should wait to see if more people will comment, just because it was so acrimonious going in -- I don't want people to think I asked you to look at it because I wanted it closed while one side is ahead. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 11:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :::Well, how about this: I had budgeted time on Saturday to work on this. What about if I wait until then and see if the conversation is really dead? --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 11:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC) ::::I think that would be fine; but I honestly think you could close it in five minutes. There's a huge majority on one side. Either way is fine; if you decide to wait till Saturday I'll leave a note on the RfC talk page saying that's when you plan to do it, just in case anyone wants to wait longer. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 12:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :::::That sounds good. :) The Saturday time is more to deal with potential issues with people thinking you wanted it closed at a particular point. We can't predict the point it will be on Saturday. :) --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] ^{[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]} 12:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC) ::::::OK, thanks. I've [[Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles/2012_RfC_on_FA_leadership#RfC_closure_planned_for_this_Saturday|left a note]] about the planned closure, just in case anyone disagrees. Thanks! [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] ([[User_talk:Mike Christie|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Mike_Christie|contribs]] - [[User:Mike Christie/Reference library|library]]) 12:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC) == A barnstar for you! == {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png|100px]] |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For tireless work protecting Wikipedia from copyvios. ~~~~ |}'