edit count | edit summary usage
| Welcome
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
|
Archives
|
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Misplaced Pages frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 15:08, 9 January 2025 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Need your help again
There has been a lot of information added to Serial Killer which I'm sorry to say looks like cut/paste entries. I'm not sure how to check to see if that is the case so here I am. I removed a lot of the new edits for lack of sources, undo weight and POV type comments. Would you mind taking a peek? Sections like 'Fantasy' just seem wrong. You can see the new edit is the history. There are like three or four new editors adding large chunks to the article. It shouldn't be hard to see which ones. I swear though that the new stuff looks like it was taken from somewhere else verbatim or at least close to verbatim. I may be wrong with this but the way the new items are written it really looks like a cut and paste addition. I would really appreciate it if you have time to take a look at the article and if I am right, remove the sections that shouldn't be there. If I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to apologize for wasting your time. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal 18:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure. :) I'll be happy to take a look. I'll let you know what I find. --Moonriddengirl 18:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Before I dig in, can you by any chance give me a date when you think it was clean? It's a whole lot easier for me to check copyvio edit by edit. If not, I'll do it the hard way. --Moonriddengirl 18:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure I will, I should have done that to begin with. Here's the history of the article. An editor has worked the areas since I did but I still think there is a problem with copy/paste. You want to start looking after after flyer here. I think this is when the article was cleanest. I hope this is what you were asking for. :) Thanks again, --CrohnieGal 21:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Crohnie. I am not sure where all these new editors are coming from, except from a class; a lot of them joined Misplaced Pages about the same time (back in April). We have had college students who are currently studying this topic add major chunks to this article before, but we tackled the stuff that was wrongly formatted, unsourced, or just plain wrong back then. This time, I am not sure what to make of it, because I cannot check all these sources (at least not now). I was going to check for copyright text as well, but I see now that you will. Thanks for that.
- Crohnie, excuse me for following you. I was going to bring this matter (something about all these recent additions) up on your talk page, but decided to check where you were first (your contributions) and saw that you came here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Who knows? It may be exactly that, a class. Thanks for the starting point, Crohnie Gal. I'll see what I can find. --Moonriddengirl 16:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, for example, Klindseth is from a class, as he or she stated, "I am a student at Seattle University and I wrote a research paper on medical serial killers. I added some common motivations and information on Richard Angelo." After Klindseth, many more started showing up. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Making notes. I will replace this with my conclusions, but if you care, you can follow my progress here. :) I'm up to , and there are certainly red flags. So far, I have not found any problems, though, up to and including this edit. I've done a mechanical scan and a spot check, and I'm currently checking a few of the sources directly (such as footnote 19. See . Note, that this footnote may not support that text, but I'm not reviewing closely for this, and the contributor does not identify the specific edition, so the page number may be out of whack. However, from a copyright standpoint, there's no problem here, as I failed to find even a single match in that book for "child's development.") --Moonriddengirl 17:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not comfortable with the closeness of the single sentence "Theorists interested in serial homicide have dedicated themselves to explaining why certain people kill serially." to the source : "Theorists interested in serial murder have dedicated themselves to explaining the social problem of the serial killer...." Doesn't rise to the level of copyvio, though, since it is quite minimal, and I have not found evidence of other duplication in that post. --Moonriddengirl 18:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Moonriddengirl. Thanks a lot. I will go ahead and take care of that one sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cool. :) I'm not done, though. This is a slow process, when checking is thorough! --Moonriddengirl 19:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Update: I have been pretty impressed with how well these guys have avoided infringement (class activities I've encountered in the past have been more problematic). I found one quote that was not properly marked and repaired it, let the contributor know. But I just found the first substantial problem. As it was scrupulously sourced, I suspect that User:Jane Emily intended no issues, but I am continuing forward with analyzing her contributions. --Moonriddengirl 20:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done! That one contributor evidently was unaware of our policies, but otherwise I found little to concern me. I've removed her content and explained the issue at her talk page. Good catch, guys. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I just popped in to see if you had the time to check this and you did. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. What you did was a lot of work and I appreciate your efforts to repair the article. Tomorrow I'll check what you did so I can learn some more about how to do this myself. You are great at this and again, thank you very much for taking the time to clean the article up. Flyer, thanks too for what you did to help. I haven't been online since you all started the clean up. --CrohnieGal 21:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- No problem, Crohnie. And I am also most appreciative to Moonriddengirl. She helped me last year with my own embarrassing "close paraphrasing" issue. So, yes, she is awesome at what she does...and most gracious with it. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are both very kind. :) What I do, Crohnie, is more tedious than magical. I use a couple of mechanical detectors ( is good, but doesn't exclude Misplaced Pages mirrors; is good for whole articles) and supplement by spot checks in google and google books of "striking phrases". When I know there may be a problem, I'll also spot check the sources directly, if I can. (Spot checking the sources cited can deceive you, though. I've run into quite a few copyright issues where people are copying wholesale from other sources, including their citations.) Ordinarily it doesn't take me so long to do one article, but I'm having a bit of trouble getting back into my proper time zone. I was only six hours off of my base, but I've been struggling to control jet-lag induced migraines since I got back. Makes me extra slow. :/ (Flyer, I'm glad if I could help, and nothing to be embarrassed about. :) You were also quite gracious, which I always appreciate.) --Moonriddengirl 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, those tools can be handy for me to keep around so I bookmarked them. :) I know it's a lot of tedious work, that's why I always hesitate to ask you for help on something like this until I'm pretty sure there is a big problem going on. This time it wasn't as big as I thought but still you did good getting rid of that which was a problem. Thanks again, and I hope the jet lag is easing now. --CrohnieGal 10:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Another copyvio and a potential COI
Hi Moonriddengirl. Hope you enjoyed your holiday and had a good break. Back in the wikiworld I'm afraid I may have more for you again...
The article New Forest Coastal Heritage Project would appear to be almost a direct copy of this page on the NPA's website. I'm also fairly unsure about its notability and wonder if it might just be better off deleted. The creator of the article is JamesBrownNFNPA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also edited the article New Forest. Specifically he's been working on the New Forest Coast section, his first edits coming only 5 minutes after an IP created the whole section. When added, the section appears to have been a fairly unedited copy of the parent NPA page here, but the current version of the article has changed it (but not a lot). These are the only articles the editor has edited and the latter section of his name (NFNPA) reads to me like New Forest National Park Authority (the runners of the website), and a James Brown appears in the news pages of the coastal section.....
BTW, the last incident I mentioned to you has progressed to here while you were on holiday. Welcome back! Ranger Steve (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Tagged, so content hidden, editor notified of COI and copyvio issues. And I've suggested in any case that the article be a redirect to a paragraph elsewhere. Dougweller (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- I hadn't realised this was almost a year old, so I've emailed him. Dougweller (talk) 11:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Doug! We'll see if he responds within the listing period. And thanks, Ranger Steve. :) A great holiday was had; the new order of business: getting back into my time-zone. :/ --Moonriddengirl 16:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good luck! Any thoughts on the section in the New Forest article? Ranger Steve (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not yet, but thanks for the gentle poke. :) I was so focused on the serial killers article yesterday that I completely failed to follow up on it. I'll take a look after reading over the rest of my talk page. --Moonriddengirl 13:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- I swear I haven't forgotten this! I'm trying to catch up on CP, but as usual things keep intervening and I fall behind. It's on my mental "list." --Moonriddengirl 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, with all the information you provided, that one turned out to be startlingly easy. I should have just taken care of it immediately! Oh, well. :/ Anyway, I've removed the text pending verification of permission. If the contributor comes back and follows up, we'll have no issues with restoring it. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers MRG. When I have more time (ha!) I'll have to get you to give me a quick run through on all the procedures to make sure I've got it, and one day I might tackle a few myself and bug you a bit less. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
CopyVio question
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I notice you get involved in copyright questions. I've noticed a table on Misplaced Pages that is copied verbatim from this this page, though somewhat re-formatted. I've removed the table, but it has been restored, on the grounds that the material on the webpage itself comes from multiple sources. There's a discussion about it here, if you care to weigh in. Jayjg 00:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I do indeed involve myself there. :) I'll be happy to take a look and see if there's any input I may be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl 00:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for commenting! I've tried to clarify there further. Jayjg 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- You weren't unclear. I was simply too tired to dig into it. :) As I note below, I've been having some jet-lag induced migraines since getting back from my trip, and I wear out quickly (stupid migraines :P). That said, today is looking good, but I'm off and running now for other reasons. I'll come by and take a look a bit later. --Moonriddengirl 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Not much of a help there...
Got two more trips assigned to me, this week and next. I won't be around, sorry. :( MLauba 07:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll miss you. :) I hope that your trips go okay and currently you get my deep sympathy just for having to leave home. When I get back from traveling, I have a tendency to never, ever want to leave again. :/ (Today is - knock wood - my first day migraine free since getting back!) I hope you remain in the same time zone. --Moonriddengirl 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Does this change copyrighted material?
A new account just reverted my reversion on CP Gurnani from your original version to the one that was copied from the home website. The account's edit summary said that they are in the process of changing the website's home page, so that the information in the article will no longer be a copy. Does this actually change the copyrighted status of the article if they change where it was copied from? Wouldn't it be easier for them to just fill out a ticket to allow the material on Misplaced Pages? Silverseren 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- No, afraid it won't help them. They must explicitly release the content for us to use it. I've explained that at the editor's talk page and reverted to the last version. --Moonriddengirl 20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Help?
Note: I already asked this of MLauba, but he had to run away before he followed up on it, so now I turn to you. I was wondering if you could take a look at Talk:Public domain#Copyright infringement dispute (and if you enjoy drama, the related Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Copyright violations in copyright-related articles) and see if ] (talk · contribs)'s latest additions to Public domain and Orphan works are close paraphrases or not.
As a less serious question, have admins always been reluctant to get involved in copyright issues, or did others just retire and leave you holding the slack? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ack, I'm sorry VW, that one completely slipped off my mind :( I'd just say that I endorse your approach, but little good does it do. MLauba 07:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Enjoy drama? Not hardly. I enjoy a peaceful life of drudgery with very occasional outings. :/ A certain degree of drama is, though, unavoidable in this line of work.
- There seems to be a high degree of burn-out in copyright adminship. When I arrived, CP had a 23-day backlog; it seems mainly to have been maintained by User:KrakatoaKatie and a few other admins, who may have taken the arrival of an energetic newcomer as a good excuse to vamoose. :) Occasionally, one of them still pitches in, but I can't blame them for moving to other ground. It gets old. (Wait. You're an energetic newcomer. What am I saying? I mean...it's fun. And rewarding. Ha ha! Good times! :D Seriously, I'm not planning to abandon the field, but I dance jigs on seeing new folks show up and dig in. The more the merrier; many hands make light work; fill in your favorite cliche.)
- All that said, I'll go reluctantly and peek at the drama of which you speak and see what I can do to help out. --Moonriddengirl 12:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whew. A minor drama. :) It seems like we have a new, good faith contributor who just needs a few points clarified (probably in the relative authority of non-admins, in addition to our use of non-free text, but I'm focusing on the paraphrasing issue first). According to my reading on this while we were working on Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism, a number of people trust in our non-profit status to excuse fair use in producing their works. But while this may protect us, this won't necessarily protect our downstream re-users, particularly in areas that are not as generous with fair use at the U.S. (somewhere, somebody laughs at my description of the U.S. allowances as "generous"). --Moonriddengirl 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for stepping in, it's always appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. At first I thought Orphan work was more problematic than it is, but the close paraphrasing is limited to a couple of sentences. I've removed one and revised some of the other content (also, it did not reflect the source). --Moonriddengirl 17:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
When is consensus bullying?
I feel as though I am being bullied out of Misplaced Pages when all I do for the most part is qualitatively improve articles by adding citations. I have a group of malign editors that have formed a cohort against me. They have searched really hard to find a few matters of dispute out of my 20,000 or more edits that I have made to this Project. I would appreciate some of your time.
B9 hummingbird hovering 10:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. Just a placeholder to let you know I've seen your note. I'll come take a look and see if I can assist in just a few minutes, as soon as I've finished what I'm in the process of doing. --Moonriddengirl 10:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I take it that you are referring to Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering and Misplaced Pages:ANI#Community ban of User:B9 hummingbird hovering. Please excuse me if I'm wrong.
- Answering you in the abstract, true consensus (that is, consensus that reflects community standards rather than a coterie of involved editors who may not be truly neutral or working within encyclopedic principles) becomes bullying when it is done in a manner designed to intimidate or degrade somebody.
- Beyond that, at this point I'm going to second what User:FisherQueen said in answer to this same question at User talk:FisherQueen#When is consensus bullying?. I'm not sure if things are unsalvageable here, because I do not know the extensive background. I'm afraid, though, that you don't help your case with responses like the following:
my dear wikipedian-collegiates wonder why I rarely enter into conversation with such bland stupidity, all of them, those MOANING, have justly had their egos branded by the Hummingbird, this is true.
- Even if you feel that your colleagues are being unreasonable, your best odds of continuing to contribute to Misplaced Pages come with demonstrating that you are yourself entirely reasonable and capable of collegial discourse. Rejecting input on the grounds of "bland stupidity" does not, I fear, give that impression. All conversations on Misplaced Pages are conducted, as it were, before the court. Nothing here is "off the record," and everything we say can and will be used against us (or for us, as the case may be) when our actions are called into question. You should never lose sight of that.
- At this point, I expect your only recourse if you wish to continue on the project is to change your tactics. You certainly need to reconsider your methods of communication in this dispute. You need to communicate plainly to others at that ANI thread and in that RFC, demonstrating that you can understand and respect their concerns and, where necessary, modify your approach. --Moonriddengirl 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing help yes
Well, I feel it is important to open up the discussion with people who are impartial. I have 20 people for the most part who keep on banding together against me, that isn't consensus that is partisan.B9 hummingbird hovering 12:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- This conversation is open at two community fora: WP:RFC and WP:ANI. Many, many people watch those fora. Your best odds of helping yourself are to succinctly and plainly discuss the issues there. Opening up the discussion in the manner you are doing is not going to help you. Since it's not neutral, it is likely instead to be used against you. --Moonriddengirl 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 31 May 2010
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Moongirl
Just stopping by to say "hi". I know you're busy but I just wanted to let you know I am still grateful for all your kindness and help. The process isn't over yet so I'll wait and see if anything else pops up as you advised me it would take at least several months. Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! Yes, not fast. We had one that lasted for about a year before it closed. :/ Once I get fully back into the swing of things, I'll try to start cycling back through the CCIs myself, and hopefully more volunteers will wander in to help out. --Moonriddengirl 22:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Deletion
Hello,
You took down an article I put up citing the biographies of living persons rule.
I'm confident that adhered to the policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:NPF#People_who_are_relatively_unknown
Please can you refer to the policy when discussing this kind of unilateral action before acting.
You are not the boss of what goes in or out, you can raise concerns and remove things that violate a policy that you can cite, but you are not judge and jury.
I hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdaddy (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
US Arab Chamber of Commerce
Hi.
Could you have a look at US Arab Chamber of Commerce. Is there an OTRS ticket pending for this one? It seems related to Arab Chamber of Commerce. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wow! They're not permitting reuse of the US Patent and Trademark Office under GFDL? (sigh) I'll have to go look and see if they've mailed something. The permission letter doesn't clear that website. --Moonriddengirl 12:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, what a short memory I have. :/ I cleared that one in a separate ticket, Ticket:2010053010026325, but could not restore it because it had been deleted under WP:CSD#G11. I noted it in the deletion log, for which I am grateful to myself. :D So, yes, that website is cleared. I need to check into the US Patent duplication and drop the OTRS notice at the talk page. Forming no opinion on the relative merits of the article otherwise, since I usually don't mix my copyright hat with other work (unless blatant). --Moonriddengirl 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. The article has severe COI/POV problems which is not a surprise as the article is a replication of their website. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I tended to think so. I suggested that the creator keep an eye on it for notes about necessary alterations. Needless to say, the OTRS clearance doesn't give the other stuff a pass. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Well, since the material is CC-BY-SA 3.0, I have free reign to make the necessary alterations myself! :) -- Whpq (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Bothering you yet again
I'd like your opinion on a copyright matter. I happened on the article Broken Hill Ore Deposit and found that the text of the "Geology" and "Genesis" sections in it are verbatim matches for sections of this professional geologist's report (pages 5–7). However, the report is dated 3 October 2007, and our article was created on 15 August 2007, with the content in question present, which would seem to preclude any copyright violation on our part. Nevertheless, I find it difficult to believe that the geologist would have lifted major parts of the report from WP without acknowledgment. The editor who created the article has also created and expanded a number of other geology-related articles—never, as far as I can see, including any sources at all for his information. He claims, on his user page and in talk-page comments, to be an Australian geologist, so I suppose it's possible that he wrote both the WP article and the professional report; but his user name gives no clue to any connection. I'd bring the matter up on his talk page, but he hasn't been active since April 2009, except for two isolated edits last June and July. Perhaps I'm being oversuspicious; what would you do in such a case? Deor (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Despair. :/ Following which I would try to locate a source that may predate both. Failing that, I would desperately hope to find some evidence of natural evolution on Misplaced Pages which would suggest that it did originate here. Failing that, I would blank for a week and try contacting the contributor or article author. In fact, I think I'll go do those very things. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The most major change here is the alteration of the spelling of sulphides to sulfides. The pdf follows the latter form (sulfides). This would suggest (but not conclusively) that they are not the same authors, and it would also suggest (but, again, not conclusively) that we came first. Sulphides is the UK spelling, evidently; I get a billion (read: 1,190,000) google hits for sulphide + Australia and less than half that (515,000) for sulfide + Australia. Our contributor, then, is slightly more regional specific. Given the dating, this is enough to make me feel like perhaps we shouldn't blank, but should just drop a friendly note to both authors, who are kind enough to be accessible, and see what comes of it. --Moonriddengirl 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- E-mailed. We'll see what comes of it. :) --Moonriddengirl 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time. Please let me know what, if any, responses you get (either here or on my talk page will be fine). I'm rather curious about the matter. Deor (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Will do. :) --Moonriddengirl 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair-use question
Hi Moonriddengirl, we've talked in the past and unfortunatelly I took the impression that you're an expert in copyright issues, so that here I am again :-)
My question is related to this article: Inela Nogić. This Bosniak girl was the person that won the beauty contest in the besieged Sarajevo in 1993, and was the inspiration of U2's Miss Sarajevo. It can be argued that obtaining a free picture of her is somehow feasible. Do you think that such an argumentation would override a fair-use rationale for this image: here?
Best regards and many thanks in advance --Ecemaml (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. :) You are welcome, but I'm afraid that I'm not as good with images as I am with text. That said, I'm afraid probably not. WP:NFC lists under images that are "unacceptable": "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images." What's confusing to me here is that it goes on to add (in italics, omitted): "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." Now, if you ask me, a beauty queen's notability rests a lot more in her earlier visual appearance than most actors and rock stars. Arguably, somebody might produce a free image of her from that era. Arguably, somebody might produce a non-free image of these guys from that era, too. Because I find the rules on them inconsistent and have failed to get clarification on them, I tend to stay away from images of living people. If I wanted to place an image of her in the article, I'd probably get feedback at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. (Note that with the specific picture you've chosen, there are additional issues/questions. Who took it and when? Who are those other people? You'd probably need to know the answers to these at least, and you might have to crop it to only the subject even if others agreed it could be used under NFC.) --Moonriddengirl 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, you're much more good at copyright issues that what you admit :-) Your answer has been very clarifying.
- I'll post a question in Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions, but possibly after finding a picture which addresses the concerns you've listed. Best regards and thank you again --Ecemaml (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) PD: I've found the original source here. I'll try a crop of Inela and ask for advice in Media copyright questions
- (talk page stalker) I can't see any reason why this image, and especially a cropped version, would be an acceptable fair-use image because its use is to identify the subject of the photo in an article about that person. The full image might be useable if, and only if, there was critical commentary about the image itself, not the content or subject of the photo and it would need to be sourced with reliable sources. Remember the article is about Inela Nogić and any image showing her should be freely licenced because she is still alive. Sorry not to be more helpful. This would basically be the same reply I would give you on the WP:MCQ page. ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! Your feedback is much appreciated. :) Like I said, I find it confusing. I don't know why a non-free picture of Led Zeppelin is okay but a non-free picture of a beauty queen is not. I just keep well away. :/ --Moonriddengirl 23:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, please check Rewrite on Talk -12.7.202.2 (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Replied there. --Moonriddengirl 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, pls recheck. -12.7.202.2 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Babelfish translations and copyright?
I'd like to do a BFish translation of an article on the Polish WP to (possibly) resolve a current article naming dispute. The translated article would of course need some work, so it'd go in my userspace first, but it would essentially be based on BF. The question's surely been addressed before, but could you point me to any relevant WP links? No hurry. Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know if there are any, really, but it's an interesting question. First, you're in the clear. Babelfish cannot impose new copyright over a translation of a Polish WP article, because Polish WP is, like we are, licensed under CC-By-SA and GFDL, and while modifications are permitted the license requires that the derivative remains free. You should include babelfish in the attribution to be on the safe side. :) But I don't really know if the manufacturer of a machine translator could impose new copyright over content that was translated without human creativity. Hmm. I'll see if I can find any conversations about it on Misplaced Pages anywhere. --Moonriddengirl 23:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you help?
I have recently manually tagged an article for possible copyright concerns. The tag is being repeatedly removed with potentially disparaging remarks left behind. Can you look at this article and help me determine if it is appropriate to tag the article as I have. The article is Millennium Prize Problems and I posted the web address being plagiarized. The P versus NP section and the The Hodge conjecture section are both also copied from this site and I suspect perhaps more. Thank you in advance for any attention you give this matter. My76Strat (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing this to my attention. You're quite right that it's a copyright problem, and I have restored the template you placed on it, protecting the article to prevent its being removed prematurely. --Moonriddengirl 23:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for the action you demonstrated per this request. To add information, I would like to say it is my future intention to contribute to this article, because it seems encyclopedic. I was going to contribute when I noticed areas were plagiarized. I read and understand that in some cases it might be determined better to start the article from scratch. Whatever the decision is I intend to offer contributions to the article that emerges as editable. And really didn't want to expend much effort on an article which somehow became a candidate for deletion. That is essentially why I tagged the Article. Every action I endeavored was from my best interpretation of what was best for Misplaced Pages, and no other factor really. I was surprised when some seemed to ridicule my efforts, and honestly started to question my own actions. Even though they seemed intuitive. Nevertheless, thanks for assisting in this regard. My76Strat (talk) 04:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
National Foundation for Credit Counseling
Moonriddengirl, it would be most helpful if you can give me an idea of what portion(s) of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling page that you find violate the copyright. I am most surprised by your conclusion, since I have authored and edits dozens of Wiki pages over a few years, and yours is the first such notice. I really could care less if the NFCC page is updated, deleted or whatever -- it does however provide valuable and professional support to needy people -- but it would be helpful to learn what evidence if any you have to back up your copyright violation claim. Thank you. MykjosephMyk60640 (talk) 00:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. As I said at your talk page, I am not the editor who tagged the article, though I have confirmed some duplication through the use of a mechanical detector that scans articles for duplicated content.
- For an example of precisely duplicated content, the article says:
Each year, NFCC members assist 4 million consumers, helping many to reduce their debt and better control their finances.
- The source says:
Each year, NFCC Members assist 4 million consumers, helping many to drive down their debt and take control of their finances.
- Further, there is close paraphrasing and duplication of the same source in the lead. The article says:
The National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC) is a nonprofit organization that promotes the national agenda for financially responsible behavior and builds capacity for its Members to deliver the highest quality financial education and counseling services. Established in 1951, the NFCC is the nation's largest and longest serving national nonprofit credit counseling network, with more than 100 Member agencies and nearly 850 offices in communities throughout the country.
- The source says:
Founded in 1951, the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC), Inc., promotes the national agenda for financially responsible behavior and builds capacity for its Members to deliver the highest quality financial education and counseling services. The NFCC is the nations largest and longest serving national nonprofit credit counseling network, with more than 100 Member agencies and nearly 850 offices in communities throughout the country.
- In case it will help you to see the problematic text, I have bolded the content that is duplicated.
- Because you had not been given the requisite notice, I have not fully evaluated the article, but, as I said, have relisted it. The other material may be fine. I'm afraid that you cannot incorporate non-free text into Misplaced Pages without clearly marking it in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline. In addition, its usage must be transformative, as set out in the guideline portion of that document. --Moonriddengirl 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi MRG. Rather than check other sources for possible copyvio, it was easier just to re-write it (given the creator's past record).;-). All done now. See Talk:Ellen Faull/Temp. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So I ran across the Tony Taggart article and noticed that it's still blanked from 15 April and listed as having incomplete permission under Ticket:2010041610020574. Any chance you could see what can/should be done with the article? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
|
