Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #178

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Daniel Goldhagen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Misplaced Pages mirrors

Ahh... I never thought of that! I'll definitely keep it in mind in the future. (this is why I need the admin tools!) :-) Thanks! Theleftorium 14:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is correct, right? Theleftorium 16:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely. Commercial reproduction must also be permitted. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Moonriddengirl, I have another question. What should be done with Jhala and Jhala (clan)? Part of the Jhala article was copied to the Jhala (clan) article without attribution. Thanks, Theleftorium 20:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've handled that one, but a brief step-by-step: null edits at source & destination to note the transfer of text. {{Copied}} at both talk pages. Note to contributor explaining situation. I have a form letter I sometimes use for splits, User:Moonriddengirl/form_letters#Split_not_noted_in_edit_summary, and another for general copying, User:Moonriddengirl/form_letters#Copying_from_article_to_article. However, I based my note on the not-yet-ready-for-prime-time template {{Uw-copying}}. This one shouldn't be used "as is" until the related documented is run up the flag pole and refined. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) I followed your step-by-step instruction on Chocky (TV Series) and Chocky. Can you see if I did it correctly? Theleftorium 15:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perfectly. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey again Moonriddengirl. Could you take a look at John Todd (occultist) for me? It was deleted from Misplaced Pages a year ago and User:Ian.thomson restored it a few days ago, but I'm not sure if he was the original creator of that text. Thank you, Theleftorium 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was not. I've left a note to the original deleting admin, since it was deleted as a BLP. If it no longer represents a BLP, we'll need to restore the history. --Moonriddengirl 19:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel really bad for bothering you again (I won't do it as often from now on!), but I was just wondering if you could confirm this (see User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao). I don't know much about public domain, and a whole bunch of articles by that user has been listed at WP:SCV. Many thanks! :) Theleftorium 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't feel bad for bothering me. We're colleagues, after all, and this project is all about collaboration. :) But you might want to open new sections when you start new topics on my page, because I'm afraid if I'm not online when a message comes in, I sometimes forget to check to see what might have been added further up! Anyway, I'm off to look. --Moonriddengirl 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. I looked at the wrong link (this says it's in the public domain). Theleftorium 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, public domain and government websites. Yes, most publications of the United States government are public domain. There's usually a link somewhere on a .gov page explaining how that particular text may be used. That website says, at , "Not all the information on our site is in the public domain. Some images/graphics are licensed for use under the copyright law, and the use of the Service logo is restricted to official publications (see below). We will identify material we use from sources outside the Service, and request others do the same when using information published by the Service." So, pictures are not necessary public domain, but text is unless the website indicates that it is not. So long as it is attributed in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, there's no problem with incorporating that text verbatim. Note that while federal US government material is usually public domain, state government materials usually are not. And outside of the US, most government material is also not pd. Confused yet? Part of the fun of the job. :D Short story: if it has a .gov extension, it's probably safe, but I always check to be sure. --Moonriddengirl 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. You're great at explaining things. Thanks! :) Theleftorium 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about copyright

Hi Moonriddengirl!

I have a question about a copyright concern in the dogfight article. If a single sentence has been copied word for word from the source, would that be grounds for removal? Zaereth (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There are a couple of ways to handle it, and removal is one. The other two would be rewriting it or turning it into a usable quotation per WP:NFC. It depends on what the sentence is and how it is used. One of those three should be done, though. --Moonriddengirl 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For the moment I'm leaning toward removal. Then I can begin a discussion on the talk page on how to best incorporate the information into the article. Thanks for the advice, and I hope you're recovering well. Zaereth (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Copying with Misplaced Pages

You're correct, that was an unfortunate oversight. I was kind of nudged to create the new page by comments on my FA nomination and forgot attribution, because I haven't copied Wiki material to create a new article before. I took notice for the future.

Hey, you're big on copyright, could you perhaps take a look at an issue in the nomination, there was a question about files used, which I answered but despite me asking for feedback the user raising the issue hasn't responded and nothing gets moving until this is answered in some way. Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure! But this is one of those things where I will ask in some assistance. :) I do quite a lot with copyvio, but generally text, and Commons is a strange and alien environment to me. But I've got a good friend on Misplaced Pages with a lot of experience there, and I'll ask him to take a look. --Moonriddengirl 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: ANI thread re: Talk:Devils Disciples

I put a notice on ANI regarding the legal threat on Talk:Devils Diciples. --Dbratland (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much for the heads up. :) I wonder if I shall be hearing from some lawyer upset that we may have misidentified a dead man who his killer "alleged was dealing cocaine and methamphetamine in the area"? --Moonriddengirl 10:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mdd copyright concern

Hi MRG, thanks so far. I have been urged by Franamax to first identify possible copyvios, and made a first plan, see User:Mdd#First identify possible copyvios. In short I propose to tag all my suspicious articles with a copypaste-template on top or in a section. I would appreciate your feed back on this (first) idea. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you take a look at a more specific question about Working on overview article. Thanks you. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a short question. Is it useful to tag some of my (biographical) articles with a "close paraphrasing-tag" or isn't that appropriate at all in my case? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a little odd to add it for your own text, but should be doable if the text is relatively brief and if you are going to get back to it to fix it within a few days. (Adding that label will automatically put it up for administrator review, and if it reaches that review, it's likely to be stubbed or rather summarily removed anyway.) If the copyvio is more extensive, you should either fix it on the spot or go ahead and blank it with {{copyvio}} until you can get around to it. --Moonriddengirl 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks, better not, better proceed as you suggested. As I understand I cannot get blocked for trying to solve the p-problems in the articles, as long as I don't bring in new material? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I made a first test-edit in Boundary critique, and I would to check... However, after I spotted the attack on Timothy F. H. Allen I am afraid I loose faith. I am not going to continu like this. I am sorry. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I give it one more try. I restored biography section: there is no p-problem here, because this is just the standard I have implemented in over 1000+ articles. It's up to you to block me.

Using words like "Reverting to state prior to mass insertion of copy-pasted copyright violating text" is not my idea of handle things with care. Has he lost his mind...!? -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that anybody particularly wants to block you; as long as you're willing and able to help clean up any copyrighted material you may have introduced and as long as you don't introduce anymore, there should be no problem. I'd really urge you not to get sidetracked by whatever is going on with this other contributor. There is obviously some history between you and this other guy about which I know nothing, given his odd comment to you about the notability of these subjects at your talk page. But it's really just a distraction at this point. If he is temporarily restoring the article to before your contribution, it will not stop you going in to review the changes you've made and restoring the text as it is cleaned. I'm sure you know it's all still accessible in history. But while I understand that you may have intended well, I'm afraid that removing copyrighted text immediately upon identification of it really is the way that these things are meant to be handled, as per WP:COPYVIO. For instance, in Timothy F. H. Allen, a random google search on the phrase "Allen has been applying notions of complex systems and hierarchy theory to ecology for twenty-five years" shows that the paragraph in which it appears infringes on . I would really encourage you to just ignore whatever he might be saying or doing and continue evaluating your own material, repairing problematic text where you find it. If he's already removed it when you get there, it's no problem. Again, you fix what's needed and put it back. That said, while I haven't reviewed the whole article, your change here is a good use of attribution and quotation marks, except that I've corrected the marking within the passage here to conform to the source. --Moonriddengirl 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your feedback. I guess you are right. It is good to get the feed back about restoring original quotes... I always start slow there. Now I do agree the phrase "Allen has been applying notions of complex systems and hierarchy theory to ecology for twenty-five years" and more further notions in the work section are not well cited... and I have no problem them being removed. I didn't put that phrase back, I did put those other things back, which were removed. That was my whole point. He can removed all the worksections he likes, but not the biography sections. These are (mostly) all just standard phrases what can not be any mayor p-problem. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, what we are talking about here is a violation of copyright, which is far more serious than a "p-problem" (I guess you mean plagiarism). It takes very little creativity for US courts to regard text as copyright protected. If you have not yet read WP:Copyvio, you probably should. It says, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major prose contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." Some material may be removed unnecessarily in efforts to clean up this copyright problem, but restoring it later is simple enough. It is with policy to clean suspect material. --Moonriddengirl 02:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that's just too much. Moonriddengirl, I would like to have my side of the story heard, but not tonight. I'm too exhausted from trying to clean up after Mdd. I plainly stated in the talk page that I may have removed more than was necessary, and left it to him to restore whatever he felt was legit. He's just going to quibble endlessly on every point, no matter who's trying to help edit articles with issues he's caused. Bacrito (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not really my position to mediate whatever may going on between you two. My interest here is in the copyright situation and facilitating the cleaning of copyrighted text. My suggestion that Marcel Douwe Dekker focus on cleaning up the issues and pay no attention to what you're doing is intended to keep forward progression focused on that. As I indicated, your removal of problematic text is within policy. --Moonriddengirl 02:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was hardly asking you to mediate between us. I think I have a perspective on Mdd that might have been useful for you to hear. But whatever. The only thing "going on between us two" is the copyright issue. Or was. As I just told talk I'm bowing out of this. It's just too depressing.

Incidentally, I was looking at the page discussing promotion of the idea of discouraging copy and paste as a means of generating content, I don't recall the exact link, but I saw it mentioned on your page I think. Anyway, it began with a statement that "99 percent of copying and pasting results in copyright violations" or something like that. I think it's a brilliant! Good luck with your enormous workload. I don't know how you manage it all. Bacrito (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I didn't mean that to be specifically targeted to you; it was meant more as a general request to focus on the copyright issue. (And I apologize further if I have misread your note on his talk page. I presumed you had worked together before and that perhaps this is what led to your discovering the copyright problems here.) I've worked on a lot of copyright problems in the past year or so, and in my experience they become very emotional. Things seem to go more smoothly when the focus is kept on the goal: removing the copyrighted content. To that end, I'm also very sorry that you're bowing out of helping, as we never have enough people working on copyright cleanup. But I do understand that it can seem overwhelming. If I have an opportunity tomorrow, I'll try to open a section on this at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys, which will make organizing clean-up simpler, as the contribution surveyor program may help more easily identify problematic articles. --Moonriddengirl 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh, don't worry, I'm sure I'll find interesting ways to meddle about here and there; I just need a break from this particular tangle. I just realized I inserted a link to the Public Broadcasting System, instead of to Philip just now. Shows how tired I am! Thanks for your gracious response to my over-sensitivity ;)Bacrito (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Chrisjnelson#File_permission_problem_with_File:Geoff_Pope.jpg

Hi, could you take a look at this? I don't doubt he was given permission to upload the images, but is it fine without an explicit statement of being freely licensed (not just uploaded here) and without evidence of it? Thanks, --aktsu  02:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, since I'm here, I was wondering how to deal with (over/mis)use of fair-use images. A section in the article on Fedor Emelianenko has four of them, none of which I think is necessary, and another user has uploaded a couple I disagree with elsewhere (like File:Shamrock UFC 8 title copy.jpg). Do I really have to FFD the lot? --aktsu  05:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends, of course, on whether they're also being used elsewhere. ;) If they're also being used in this article, then I believe that FFD is the usual method for handling. When I've seen this done, it's usually been accompanied with an explanation of why these particular images are less necessary to the article than the ones that you haven't nominated. I've left a note about the first issue. You're quite right that we need verification. --Moonriddengirl 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Ram Narayan images

Hey MRG, just responding to your question about the Ram Narayan images. Hekerui had the right idea but their explanations were a bit off.

1. File:Ram Narayan - Shiraz Arts Festival.ogg: Iran has not signed the URAA and so the video is not copyrighted in the U.S. and can be used because it's also public domain in Iran according to this guideline. Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, the URAA is a US law and not a treaty; however, the Misplaced Pages:Public domain policy linked above correctly explains that the US has no copyright relationship with Iran, which has not signed any major copyright treaty, and is not a WTO member, and hence the URAA does not apply to them (if and when they join, it would only apply from that date).

1. File:Abdul Wahid Khan.jpg and File:Ram Narayan, young.jpg are in the public domain in the source country and I can't strictly verify for either that they are in the URAA date. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2009 struck down the constitutionality of URAA in keeping content in copyright in such cases. I found a Commons discussion on the case that advises tagging with a template, which I did. Is that enough? Hekerui (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

These two images, which Hekerui later removed, are strictly speaking not okay - the URAA is still observed on Commons, and deletions have occurred because of it, but the matter is controversial, and there is considerable debate over the applicability of the decision referred to above. Some users, like Carl Lindberg, argue that the URAA is still in force ("the court just said that the protection for people already using works which got restored ("reliance parties") should be better"), while others, like Yann, argue that it's not. There is frequent discussion about this on Commons:Commons talk:Licensing. The Not-PD-US-URAA template is a compromise - a way of tagging problematic images when consensus to delete them cannot be reached. I think they ought to document this nebulous state of affairs somewhere, and I'll follow up with them about that.

Hope this helps. :-) Dcoetzee 06:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure it will. :) I'll pass this on. Thanks! --Moonriddengirl 20:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and the note. Hekerui (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation that wasn't mine - finally!

Hi Moonriddengirl, just noticed you removed some copyright material from Asia-Pacific Song Contest 2010. For once, I am proud to also notice it wasn't me that added the material in the first place (phew!). This link shows it was someone called Senseimatthew who did it back in April 2009. And by the looks of it, this editor inserted several pieces of copyrighted material into the article for months following. I'll take a look at what was removed, and re-work on it, if that's ok?! P.S. did you get chance to see that Lostock Hall one in the end? I think I'm starting to get the hang of this, and the article looks better than ever before lol. Anyways, take care, and I'll catch you around wiki-world soon. Pr3st0n (talk) 21:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries; I remove copyrighted material that wasn't added by you all the time. :D I did take a look at your reworked material, and it seems that you've rewritten it well. I appreciate that. I didn't get around to going through it until this morning, actually. Between my day job and a few pressing Misplaced Pages issues, I've been a bit swamped. I'm glad to hear that things are going well for you. :) --Moonriddengirl 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Carrier pigeon

I came upon this edit to the subject article while watching recent changes. I Googled the text and got several hits. However, I don't know where the text originated and so am not sure if there exists a copyvio. I know it's a huge gray area and I'm not asking for miracles. I'm just hoping that your experienced eye will pick up something definitive that will tip the scales one way or the other. Apologies if I'm ringing the alarm bell over nothing. Thanks for your time. Tiderolls 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A related question; would it be bad form to revert such an edit on suspicion of a copyvio? A large block of misplaced text that appears verbatim several places on the net begs to be reverted, but is that reason enough? Your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks Tiderolls 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in here, but that addition seems to state a lot of what is contained in Pigeon post as most of it is about carrying messages. I would revert it after some more investigation. ww2censor (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tide rolls. You are correct and definitely not "ringing the alarm bell for nothing." We really appreciate you noticing this kind of problem and raising the issue. The text you've pointed out is certainly a copyright violation - the verbatim text found here shows a 2007 copyright -- and it should be removed. When you suspect there is a possible copyright violation on an article, you can template the page and report the article for review per the instructions at WP:Copyright Problems. Thanks again for your help!. — CactusWriter | 09:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. and Mrg, sorry for the kibitz. — CactusWriter | 09:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The more the merrier. :) Thanks,Tiderolls, for noticing the problem and ww2censor and CactusWriter for responding. :D --Moonriddengirl 11:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my official "oops" for missing the coyright. Now I'm edumacated and will endeavor to put the instruction to good use. Thanks to all for responding. Y'all have a good day Tiderolls 14:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In regard to the above -- My understanding is that there is no need for a copyright notice to have been displayed, since copyright is automatic unless the author indicates otherwise, no? Just asking in case Tiderolls or others reading this might misinterpret. That is, the notice you spotted confirms Tiderolls' catch, but the material would still be a clear enough copyvio to have justified removal? (I don't mean just justified legally; I mean pragmatically in regard to how editors should respond to such suspicious text. I believe the copyvio policy states explicitly that copyright is assumed absent explicit indication otherwise? Bacrito (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I took CactusWriter's mentioning of using the tag to be for instances where an editor is not sure if there had been a copyvio or not. I believe the edit to Carrier pigeon to be a clear case of copyvio. I just missed the copyright. There may exist instances where copyright

may be asserted in error by the publisher, and that's concerning. The thought of that makes my head ache, though...I'll have enough challenges without seeing ghosts behind every door. Regards Tiderolls 15:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me I can feel your pain; but since you seem to have a good nose for sniffing out those ghosts, you might take this as a silver lining: I've found that if you check a potentially contentious passage -- something that you might argue with in regard to style or pov or notability or whatever, and in which a revert battle might start -- for a copyvio (like illegit verbatim passages) you might save yourself even more headaches in the wrong run. That's my consolation for the grueling copyvio issues I've been trying to find the right way to respond to, anyway. (sorry to run on an on on your page like this, Moonriddengirl) cheers. Bacrito (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This conversation seems to have been thriving without me. :D No problems, Bacrito. I'm always happy to see that happen on my talk page. :) And, yes, copyright is assumed unless its absence is verifiable. Only very occasionally do I see situations, Tide, where the publisher falsely asserts copyvio, and it's understandable for you to be confused by it if it happens. I do enough with copyright work that I recognize most of our regular "wikimirrors", but if I see text duplicated on a page I'm not familiar with, will usually just check it at the wayback machine to see which came first. If they had it before us, it is almost certainly a copyright violation of someone, even if not of them. The exceptions, of course, are when material proves to be public domain by age or origin, such as with US federal government works. --Moonriddengirl 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

CC-By-SA 1.0

Can information released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 1.0 license be used on Misplaced Pages (see Haga Haga)? If not, could we add that to the table in Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright? Theleftorium 15:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

...yes. You'll note that I don't say "Yes!" The problem here is that CC-By-SA explicitly accommodates upwards compatibility beginning with 2.0, while 1.0 evidently didn't foresee the possibility. So, strictly speaking, the answer may be no. But let's go with yes for now, and I'll check with our lawyer. --Moonriddengirl 17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I'll remove it from WP:SCV. Theleftorium 19:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have written him, and I think it's a very good question. This one could have wide-ranging impact. He sometimes responds with lightning speed and sometimes, presumably, has real life going on. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Mike says we're okay with this, as the various numbers are a subset of the first. --Moonriddengirl 12:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the history of Tina Knowles? I'm not sure if User:Brenntagee was the original creator of that text. Thanks, Theleftorium 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not his. Restored the history. We may need a new template for this soon, but for now I've made a form letter. Please let me know if you see any problems with it. :) User:Moonriddengirl/form_letters#Restoring_PROD_without_attribution. --Moonriddengirl 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That looks great. Thanks! Theleftorium 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have another request (I hope you don't mind!). Could you delete the Jacobs photos article? It's a copy of the The Jacobs Creature article (now a redirect) and the subject had an article before, Jacobs Creature, that was redirected after an AfD: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jacobs Creature. Theleftorium 11:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Done and recreated as redirect. --Moonriddengirl 12:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		I give you the Special Barnstar for being extremely helpful and kind to other edtiors, and for your work with copyright violations. It's very appreciated! :) Theleftorium 13:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you. :D I'm happy to help, particularly since I really appreciate that you're pitching in on this important work. :D --Moonriddengirl 13:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice to hear from you

I hope you are doing well. Thanks so much for the note about the email, I did not know that. I wanted to point out that I think you forgot to actually physically delete it, because it is still there. So I wanted to let you know, so that you could delete it yourself, so that the edit history would sort of make sense. Good luck and bless you for all the hard work you do to keep Misplaced Pages free from copyvio. As you know, I still am very grateful indeed that you and your team enabled us to keep those 1,000 gastropod articles this spring instead of having to delete them. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and that was very much a mutually successful experience. I mentioned you and your project not too long ago in discussing how a project might handle a copyvio. :D As for deletion, I didn't see the need to delete it in the sense that admins use the deletion tool. I really think just removing it is sufficient unless there is a request. (And that request can come from you. If you'd like me to delete it, let me know!) Cheers. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Thanks MRG! Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

May I point you to this?

User talk:IWazEre1 creating self promotion articles. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let me go take a look. --Moonriddengirl 12:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it and given him a friendly little block warning. I've watchlisted the space in case he continues. If you happen to notice him doing it in another space, please feel free to give me a heads up. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans maybe we can redirect the zeal to GA creation. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Got another one.... Switchflicker Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Darryl Read page deletion

CatWizard777 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Dear Moonriddengirl Donators I know are trying to put up a page on me, I should like to ask your help in this matter, as you have deleted my biographical information without (in my opinion) checking all original sources. We should like to work on this page under your guidelines, and get a hold on thsi page until such time as this is laid out in a satisfactory manner that suits you. Please advise

The donators are: atomaticshoes & Julie Rex

Sincerely Darryl Read www.darrylread.com

Actually, another administrator deleted the page. Unfortunately, no usable permission seems to have come through that would allow us to retain the text previously published at other sites. I am not permitted to provide you with a copy of this deleted article because it was deleted for copyright concerns. But I'll take a look and see if I can construct something brief and usable, as I believe that you do meet the notability guidelines. The users you mention are welcome to expand such an article (or even create it, if they get there before I do), but they must not use previously published text unless they first verify permission. This, I'm afraid, is a policy on Misplaced Pages that does not bend. The full details can be read at Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials and Misplaced Pages:Non-free content. --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

apologies

sorry that i wrongly thought you were in conflict with the blocked user, thought user was disrupted you. apologies. entry since corrected. Ecoman24 (talk page) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This may be of interest

I thought you may want to see this, VRTS ticket # 2009082510043322. It relates to that case that you ended up reviewing and closing out yourself. I believe it simply re-iterates the necessity of either using our provided copyright request forms, or clearly explaining the ramifications of free licensing, coupled with the necessity to have the copyright owner choose a license themselves, and fill out the consent form themselves. Not sure if there is anything that can/should be done here, but wanted to bring it to your attention. Thanks. -Andrew c  14:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It certainly does. :/ It seems to me that the thing we most need to do is communicate amongst ourselves. We do seem to have some diversity in how permissions are handled that can lead to problems. I know not all of us are on the e-mail list. I doubt we all read the communication forum at the OTRS wiki. I wonder how this is done? --Moonriddengirl 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

S, T, U & V

Hi there MRG, feels like were nearly at the summit of the alphabet mountain! I have done re-editied versions of the blanked St. Paul's Church, Bedford, St. Peter's Church, Bedford and Stamford American International School articles. I have also re-worded the wobbly content in Society of Headmasters & Headmistresses of Independent Schools and Sudbury (HM Prison), and was wondering if the close paraphrasing tags on these 2 articles could now be removed? I have also added reworded versions of the paragraphs you removed in the Standford Hill (HM Prison) and Times & Citizen articles. As were nearly at the end please tell me if im getting the hang of this? :-) Bleaney (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are top on my list today, after the plumber. (Due any minute. Eep! Breakfast dishes!) :) --Moonriddengirl 12:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It is helpful. You are right in that its the short sentences and facts that I have struggled with. And also not wanting to misrepresent what the original source is saying. Hopefully though my re-edits have improved in quality... :-) Bleaney (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have reworked Talk:St. Peter's Church, Bedford/Temp, taking your suggestions. I have also reworked Talk:St. Paul's Church, Bedford/Temp(again)! You are right - inevitably if its from 1 source, you have to slash the detail, and i'm learning that now (hopefully). I always had a feeling that these 2 church articles would be the most tricky, as they are possibly the most historically important pieces i've done on Misplaced Pages. Bleaney (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All right; I'll come review soon, though it'll probably be tomorrow. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Treaty with Algeria (1795)

I did wonder whether this would be PD because of it's source but thought that I didn't know the ins and outs of the copyright of US government sources well enough to decide either way. If it wasn't PD for that reason I did wonder whether it would be PD because of age, but again I wasn't sure as US sources of that age seem to be in a weird situation, and that's why I mentioned it's age on the copyright page. Dpmuk (talk) 12:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Checking into it is the right idea. :) I appreciate your diligence! --Moonriddengirl 12:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Article lock instead of vandal block

Just so you know, the article you locked was constantly vandalized by user User:LAz17. He claims to have consensus - more specific explanation of this "consensus" was given by him in the talk page "We by 80% overwhelmingly reject the gay parades, and along with that we reject this in the wikipedia article. Simple analogy, no?" That is not a valid way to create the consensus, in a case you don't know you can't make an analogy between personal rejection of gay parade and article on Misplaced Pages. The information that was removed was 100% unrelated to gay parades, it was about Vladimir Putin endorsement. While I tried to achieve compromise by arguments he kept on posting conspiracy theories - how this information was put into this article with intention to alter election results (?!). He also claimed that the content is irrelevant trying to make it look like a content dispute but another user posted several independent sources that covered the issue and I had intention to expand that to include the background and aftermath of that letter which caused stir in the political scene of Serbia. Finally he posted in Serbian "Samo da znas, dok srbi dobijaju otkaze, tadic daje stotine hiljade dinara pederima - sto to nestavis u clanak?" which translates as "Just so you know, while serbs are getting fired, tadic is giving hundreds of thousands of dinars to fags - why don't you put that into the article?" and though he claimed he used the word homosexual not fag it's not true. This kind of writing is not only irrelevant and made up it is also libelous to Tadic and insulting to homosexuals. Finally in the last ANI against this user admins said that if he continues his irrational behavior there will be a reaction however your reaction was to lock the article instead of blocking him for good (he has a history of of template warnings on his talk page, ANIs on him and even a temporary block for his behavior). Now I don't know if this is the way we want Misplaced Pages to go, that anyone can abuse it and to slander left and right and make us all look like idiots for giving him the right to vandalize the article while claiming that his consensus is actually the consensus against homosexuals and that his reasons are basically conspiracy theories?! One more thing - this is an ongoing issue with a user that has a history of such behavior so please don't try to downplay it and direct me to talk with him as we've been through all that, meaning all red lines, all fine attempts to solve issues with him by other users have failed, there is no more time for that, that has all been tried and didn't work.--Avala (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. He may have a POV issue (and attitudes about homosexuals that I find abhorrent, even if he is correct in his disputing your translation of his words), but this does not seem like clear vandalism to me. Leaving aside his views, several other contributors have also expressed concern with the way the material has been handled: User:Bwilkins and User:No such user. This suggests it is not a simple matter of vandalism or pushing a fringe POV, but a legitimate content dispute that needs to be resolved through the consensus process. Have you requested feedback from further neutral contributors? --Moonriddengirl 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No, after a glance through your contribution history, I can see that you have not. I have courtesy listed the matter again, this time at the WP:NPOVN, which may draw more participants. --Moonriddengirl 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had a lengthy discussion about this on ANI. This is just dragging the issue, asking for further input is not helpful as one user who had supported the inclusion of this into the article was accused of "lying on purpose" by Laz17, he is no longer involved in that talk page. So whom should I call? Nobody was interested to respond previously to the content dispute, and why would they? Who wants to deal with user who acts like that? When they see the article talk page where one user begs for discussion to reach consensus (me) and the other user that victoriously keeps proclaiming consensus while it's obvious that there are arguments for and against which means that there is no consensus as consensus is made of arguments not votes. Like I said, his "arguments" are not arguments but something that warrants the admin reaction especially considering his history. I wanted to work with other users like No such user, who didn't have a clear position - while he said he felt this shouldn't be in the article he did subsequently provide a handful of references proving that this is relevant and that it was followed by media and that it did cause a political stir by prompting reaction from all of the political leaders in Serbia. I wanted to work with him on expanding the content in the article to give readers full insight on the issue, to avoid synthesis or whatever could be the issue with the current short sentence but he left the talk page and I was there alone again with Laz17 and his slander and conspiracy theories. You can sum up his willingness to talk in his latest post directed to me in bold letters "Your opinion no longer matters." --Avala (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was part of that lengthy discussion. I was the admin who was advising you to seek dispute resolution. This is the only way to reach compromise. Is there some reason you do not want to invite neutral participants to help settle the matter once and for all? --Moonriddengirl 17:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whom to call and judging by other three editors who tried but ran away from personal attacks and diversion of discussion to gay parades I doubt I will be able to convince anyone to take part. Not to mention that no one would respond to request to discuss conspiracy theories and other things that LAz17 insists on in every discussion. - sorry for this mistake, it will be added below.--Avala (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Laz17 did not attack No Such User or Bwilkins, and his diversion to gay parades took place yesterday, nearly two weeks after the last note by one of those contributors. I don't believe that you can directly connect their departure to either. I attempted to invite neutral participants at the NPOVN, but I am concerned that your note there may discourage participation. Notes are meant to be brief, and (per WP:CANVASS) neutral. It's best to focus on the issue, and let other contributors draw their own conclusions by reading over the page and judging the arguments and behavior of the participants for themselves. --Moonriddengirl 18:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see ever since the beginning the discussion was being diverted either to attacks or conspiracy theories or to some empty space of "we have the consensus, I'll make an edit" while I kept asking for discussion on compromise. Gay thing just came as the top of the cake, and I am trying to prove here the irrational tone the other user inserted to this discussion. As for the other part, it is kind of necessary to point out to users that all these "consensus" that were mentioned are actually not consensus but things like 80% of people statement. From my long experience on Misplaced Pages, users tend to be superficial even if they have the best of intentions.--Avala (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't encouraged to edit your earlier comments once they've been responded to in any substantial way. Unfortunately, edits like this may give readers the impression that I am responding to sentiments that were not expressed at the time I wrote my reply. Please see Misplaced Pages:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments. The consensus process requires that you trust your fellow Wikipedians to read through the conversation and come to the proper conclusion. You certainly can point out to them errors in logic, but the place to do so would be at the article's talk page, not at the noticeboard requesting additional feedback there. At the noticeboard, I'm afraid it may simply become a distraction, particularly when the original request was placed by a neutral party. --Moonriddengirl 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I added it there as it was integral part of that comment not the subsequent one. And as for the other part, it seems that I am somehow failing to explain that suggestion "You certainly can point out to them errors in logic" with this user is almost humorous as you yourself have seen his behavior and his willingness to discuss and work with other editors. Playing neutrally to the point of complete inactivity isn't really beneficial for Misplaced Pages as it can cause a standstill and repetition of the dispute. Btw as it seems that requests due to fat amount of discussion and irrational discussion seem to fail so I tried to take things from the standstill, I made my proposal for a compromise solution on the NPOVN, LAz17 should make his proposal and prove that he wants to discuss, and even if he doesn't at least uninvolved editors that should try to help will now know what is my position. I invited everyone to work on my proposal, it's just the first proposal and we should work from there and if you want, you can encourage it or alternatively you can post there that I should take that to the dead article talk page as the NPOVN isn't 100% fit for such initiatives and cause further standstill.--Avala (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if its integral; it wasn't part of the comment when you made it. Placing it there later is misleading. Doing so is against guideline.

We do seem to have some difficulty communicating. As I told you at ANI, it is not him you are trying to convince; it is them--the neutral persons you invite to view the article. You should have made your proposal for compromise at the article's talk page, which I had already requested contributors from NPOVN to read. Contributors are capable of following the link to that talk page. It happens all the time. The noticeboard header is pretty clear that material there should be concise. --Moonriddengirl 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I said that I was sorry, what else do you want me to do? They will not read only my latest comment, they will read edit summaries where he keeps on talking about consensus and it is my job to warn them that the "consensus" is based on his analogy of 80% on gay parade and this article.--Avala (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that no one would respond to request to discuss conspiracy theories and other things that LAz17 insists on in every discussion.--Avala (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What else I wanted you to do was this. Thanks. Again, consensus requires trusting the community to read and judge arguments. Aside from the Serbian text, they are as capable of reading his words and judging them as you are. --Moonriddengirl 18:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And as I said before, five years of experience have thought me that even the users with best intentions tend to be superficial when asked to read through the block of text on the talk page and make a decision. Pretending that it is not this way will not make it go away, and that is why the discussion must be kept active at all times.--Avala (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

←There is an "initialism" in English: TLDR. It seems to me to be a real concern. Some Wikipedians seem to agree. A 716-word note may not be your best bet at keeping the discussion active. Cutting to the core is likely to get you more responses. Contributors encountering a long chunk of text may well choose to move on to something less time consuming. This is undoubtedly one of the reasons why the page instructions call for us to be concise. --Moonriddengirl 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Those who are driven by the TLDR shouldn't get involved but they often do. If the issue was simple and short I would write a simple and short note but it is not. Anyway I did take a step forward to cut the endless discussion as you may have noticed - I made a proposal to work on and I would just like to now get some responses, some discussion etc. and finally no nonsense.--Avala (talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Latest quotes from LAz17 directed at me , "you are full of POV stuff.", "What the hell are you smoking? Get off of your cocain or whatever you are on.", "Your last sentence there is really appalling, reaking with extreme POV.", "Truely disgusting, what you are trying to do here.", "Look, we know you are a Tadic supporter. At least take your sick POV out.". Now even No such user is talking about blocking LAz17. Which editor will join from the NPOVN now? Tell me which one? Who wants to get involved only to be insulted left and right by some LAz17? I don't think that anyone will. Btw maybe you didn't read what I wrote before but LAz17 has a history of many warnings, many ANIs and even a temporary block, and your optimistic approach that we are all capable to sit down and talk has only brought that he is testing boundaries further and further. As an admin you now have to step in and protect me from such grave personal insults and respond for that if not for his previous writings.--Avala (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Request

Hi Moonriddengirl! :) Could you take a look at the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya article (and the recently created Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Churu article)? They appear to be copyvios of this source, but I don't know how to find out if the Misplaced Pages version was published first. Theleftorium 18:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All right. First thing to do is check wayback. Wayback is not helpful here, I'm afraid, as it's not giving me anything. That doesn't mean it didn't exist previously, so we can't draw conclusions from that. Next thing I'll do is a "history search" for an idiosyncratic term in the older article, looking to see when it entered. I chose "socio-economic". It came in here. At first glance, this is promising for a Misplaced Pages origin of the text, because I see that some material from that external source was already in place. If a different editor introduced the word "brain child", that's going to look even better for us. Let's see. Oh, it was there at inception: . And material was different enough then that there's no doubt that the source copied us. But to make matters yet more complex, it didn't originate there! It originated at Navodaya Vidyalaya! LOL! Off to look further. --Moonriddengirl 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that article had been PRODded. I restored it for attribution. This is the true origin of that text. I think I'll go do a history merge before I forget. --Moonriddengirl 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

All right. That's taken care of. I'll leave it to you to take care of attribution at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Churu and to notify the contributor, if you don't mind. I'm trying to catch up on another task. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this copyright stuff sure is confusing. :) I'll do that now. Theleftorium 18:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi, Mrg. At User talk:Globe.explorer and Talk:Franca Batich, the editor says that they have sent two e-mails to Wikimedia. Could you check the OTRS office please? In the meantime, I've replaced the article with a stubbed version from the temp page and dropped the editor a note. Thanks :) — CactusWriter | 09:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will as soon as I can access it. My primary computer is at the moment a brick, as it is at war with a computer virus (lovely!), and I'm on my laptop. I hope (believe me) to be able to get back on soon. --Moonriddengirl 11:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste copies of sections

Hi, just want to check I'm not being stupid. My understanding is that copying an entire section, such as the lead, from one article into another, such they both have the text but only one the history, is against the (GFDL?) licence. Is that correct? Can anything be done to allow this, such as an edit summary that contains a link to the revision of the article being copied? I've found this happening at a lot of articles. Cheers, Verbal chat 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct, copying within Misplaced Pages must maintain attribution for both the GFDL and CC-BY-SA. This can be done by mentioning the source in the edit summary of the target, mentioning the target in the edit summary of the source, and placing the {{copied}} template on both article's talk page. Best, MLauba (talk) 10:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but P.S., that mention should be a link. --Moonriddengirl 12:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

re Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Coin945

Hi Moonriddengirl - A quick question about the above: I've started working through the list and come across Carmencita (film). It looks from that page's history like you have already dealt with the copyright issue; is it safe to remove it from the list, or are there other steps to take? (Apologies if this is in the how-to!) --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 14:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Image question

Can you take a peek at this picture and either comment or forward the request accordingly? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  14:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)