Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Regarding : since the edit in question is by Piotrus, I have to voice my concern here. If you're looking for a neutral third party, Shabazz really isn't one. He's basically Piotrus' ally, having filed Piotrus' and for him in Eastern European articles while Piotrus is topic banned. It would be interesting to know who exactly recommended Shabazz as a neutral party in this issue. Please, try to find someone else if at all possible. ] (]) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding : since the edit in question is by Piotrus, I have to voice my concern here. If you're looking for a neutral third party, Shabazz really isn't one. He's basically Piotrus' ally, having filed Piotrus' and for him in Eastern European articles while Piotrus is topic banned. It would be interesting to know who exactly recommended Shabazz as a neutral party in this issue. Please, try to find someone else if at all possible. ] (]) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you for the information. Do you know a neutral, Polish-speaking person who can handle this discreetly? There are real life reputation concerns here that do need to be respected. (What about ]?) --] <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you for the information. Do you know a neutral, Polish-speaking person who can handle this discreetly? There are real life reputation concerns here that do need to be respected. (What about ]?) --] <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::I have concerns regarding Kotninski too, since he Piotrus' appeal and also Piotrus during the arbitration. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone suitable. Sorry about this. ] (]) 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
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 13:48, 8 January 2025 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
User:Schwyz
I notice you posted on the relevant ANI thread and as an experienced user I thought I'd ask you what you think it's best to do about the RfC/U I started on this user. My current plan is to leave it up for the normal 48 hours in case they make a very quick return. After that it will either be deleted if uncertified (if it isn't I'll ask for it to be) or very quickly archived. If the user comes back I can always ask for an undeletion or re-start the RfC/U. Does this seem fair and sensible to you? Dpmuk (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd also be surprised if it's permanent but an RfC/U is useless without participation from the user involved so I'll wait and see if they come back. Off away for the weekend but will look at things again on my return Sunday evening. Dpmuk (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Well. :/ There's a couple of issues. She doesn't state that she owns the copyright of these images; we're supposed to seek clarification of that from people who permit images of themselves (since copyright is owned by the photographer, usually). And she's only joking, I'm sure, but her bit about te moustaches imposes additional restrictions. (Ticket:2010081310007168, for talk page stalkers.) Do you want me to take the ticket and ask her to formally verify the license and her copyright ownership? --Moonriddengirl18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. If she states that she isn't the copyright owner of those photos, can you ask her to provided another photo that she is the owner of? (Note: It may take her a few days to respond to your email). Theleftorium18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
That's great! Thank you. By the way, I just noticed that yesterday, it had been exactly a year since my first edit to SCV and the first time we talked. Time just flies by, huh? :-) Theleftorium20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Have checked. I found hers, but not his. Can you poke at me once in a while to recheck? As you know, things get busy. :) If he doesn't use the same ticket# (which I failed to mention to her!) it'll go into the general queue. --Moonriddengirl14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure! I did a system search for her name, and all I found was our existing thread. Searching for his doesn't find anything, I'm afraid except that same thread. I did a visual scan of the Commons permission queue from the 12th forward but didn't find anything. He evidently hasn't sent it yet, or if he has it's gone astray. --Moonriddengirl17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, may I ask you for your opinion on this copyright matter? An IP started tinkering with a whole section, putting in spammy links and later there was an alleged claim that all the content had been copyrighted elsewhere. I'm at a loss as I can't verify the (c) claims and I'm tempted to restore the article. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I see that the content was removed by User:Daniel, who is an WP:OTRS volunteer. Although I didn't find it, there may be an e-mail about it in the Wikimedia Foundation's sytem. Let me see if I can figure out what's going on. --Moonriddengirl20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Btw, it seems like we've now got an SPA on that matter, see the recent article talk. I'm watching that page anyway and have also left a note at WP:TOLKIEN's talk page so let's wait how that turns out. De728631 (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm glad you mentioned something. I had forgotten all about this. Daniel has only edited twice since I approached him, but has not responded to my question. I've "pinged" him again. Please poke me again if a couple of days go by with no action. I've generally got a lot of copyright work on my plate, and I can be woefully distractible. :/ If he doesn't respond to that note, I'll try e-mailing him. --Moonriddengirl17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Daniel confirms that the action was taken in response to an e-mail (I've logged the ticket number at the talk page). I'm evaluating now to see the likelihood of actual infringement in the material removed. Significant edits that added content found in the version removed include:
Oh, but the killing blow for us is here. It may not be true that every word was copied, but the content in that edit certainly is. There is older material, though, that can be restored, from this edit. Some of the content added later by other contributors may also be okay, but you'd have to be careful that it doesn't build on Doug Adams' writing, as incorporated wholesale. (I was leaning towards thinking this is a frivolous complaint; no longer. :/) --Moonriddengirl13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Ouch, that's in fact a pretty mess, and the IP even stated it openly... I'm going to restore the version prior to the copyvio then and leave it like that. Thanks a lot for investigating, MRG. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
OTRS stuff
First I think I need to be part of the OTRS team otherwise I am going to be coming here a lot now. I was checking out some "in need of attention" and the first few I clicked on have been tagged for years with no number. I just dealt with some of them myself as they were fairly easy but having said that: File:Pledgemusicscreenshot.png is a screen grab of a web site. Normally a copyvio but could fall under Fair use. However in this case we have a notice that says an OTRS has been submitted and, supposedly, it says "Authorisation has been explicitly given by PledgeMusic for its use within Misplaced Pages" which, if that is the case, means it needs to be speedied. However the fact that it also states "Image is fair use as it is provided for commentary within wikipedia article" add a little twist on it. Just as an aside, as you may know the whole "for wikipedia use only" concept vs the "just slap a fur on it" idea has bothered me for a long time. I have been vocal about the fact the foundation set solid rules down about images marked as "for Misplaced Pages use only" must be "deleted on site" so I do not agree with the more common un-official add on "...unless an editor tags it with a FUR". This image is almost thought out that way, if you follow me. So I am not sure how to tag this one if, indeed, the OTRS says "Misplaced Pages use only".
Following that up with another OTRS in waiting image. File:Selenagrammy.jpg is an image of the late Selena backstage in the press room at the Grammy awards. What I am wondering about with this one is the statement "Photo taken at the 1994 Grammy Awards at Radio City Music Hall, New York on June 11, 1994, by the mother of user:AJon1992, who agrees to release it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL". As a photographer who has shot the Grammys before I know that access to the press area is very limited, they don't let fans hang out back there. Before anyone feels I am assuming bad faith I say this because User_talk:AJona1992 contains a discussion where the editor explains his mother and grandmother were Selena fans and his "grandmother used to live in Corpus Christi, Texas and began attending her concerts and taking pictures" and that between 1992, when the editor was born, and when Selena died in 1995 they watched TV, read news papers and "kept playing her songs while they clean, or on the radio." After moving to Florida the user says his grandmother and mother gave him "their collections (pictures, signatures, vhs tapes, etc)." So as with another recent OTRS case I suspect this image is not one taken by the mother, but by a member of the media, a print of which was obtained by the mother, clearly a huge fan, and became part of her Selena "collection".
Than we have File:Wash Post MSK2.jpg which was upped March 22, tagged the same day with {{di-no license}} and the uploader removed that tag and added an {{OTRS Pending}} tag the next day. Nothing has changed since.
So, #2 is pretty unlikely. Several other images uploaded by this contributor recently exist elsewhere on the web. I have some doubts about File:Selenaperfume.jpg, given the watermark and the low resolution. Does it look like he took it himself? --Moonriddengirl17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
And with #1, I find nothing in OTRS. I find the search function wonky, though, so that doesn't prove it isn't there. If the OTRS said "Misplaced Pages use only", I hope the OTRS agent would have rejected it. :)
Now, as to how hard it is to become an OTRS agent, it's not that hard provided you have the right skillset and attitude. They look for volunteers who are knowledgeable about the issues (which you certainly are) and who are patient and unfailingly polite. Many OTRS letters go through without a hitch, but you might go through half a dozen e-mails just to get a usable release from somebody who just can't seem to get what we need them to say. The need particularly for image OTRS agents is extreme; we have a backlog of 150 an en permissions and 528 at Commons. They do prefer admins, and given your focus I wonder if you do much on Commons or have considered seeking adminship there. It's not essential, but it helps. --Moonriddengirl17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for this. Just to touch on one image you asked about - File:Selenaperfume.jpg is from ebay, that is what the watermark is in the corner, so it is possible he took the picture or it is possible his mother of grandmother took the picture "from" ebay when/if they purchased the perfume when someone was selling it. My thought might be to ask for the original image before it was posted on ebay - or to take a new image of the perfume if they/he still has it.
Now an add on to check. This is an image i took care of myself but as it has been questioned I thought I would have you look into one element of it. In my "in need of" search I came across File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg which has an OTRS tag on the talk page. From what I can tell the image was sent to deltion discussion in January 2010 because Image not necessary to understand article, and no sources indicate the significance of the image itself. At the time the result was a "keep" however after that a free image was uploaded - File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg. I Based on the discussions it seems like there was not any OTRS ever submitted and the tag was placed to prevent the image from being deleted. I removed the non-free image from the The Doors article in the section it was being used in and tagged the image for deletion. The uploader posted on my talk page and also on the Doors talk page and I replied on both pages. There is no mention by the uploader of the OTRS tag he had placed on the image and he says, on my talk page, that the photographer "cannot be located to comment on possible copyright problems". So just to be 100% - can you check oTRS to see if anything is there on File:Jim In Miami w-Hat.jpg. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk)
I did a system search for every ticket created between 2/25/2010 and 3/19/2010 that include the word "Jim" and didn't find it. I looked at every ticket created within the last year that included the words "Jim Morrison", and I didn't find it. I did a complete system search for the text "Jim in Miami" and found nothing, and I found nothing by searching for the url (<http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Jim_In_Miami_w-Hat.jpg>). I've got nothing for "David E. Levine". I don't see a single scrap of evidence that OTRS ever received an e-mail about that image from anyone. --Moonriddengirl16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much. And FYI I have "applied" over at OTRS. If it goes through I don't need to bug you about OTRS images - you can bug me. LOL! Soundvisions1 (talk)
This AfD hasn't had any new votes for three days. Can it be closed now or do we have to wait the full 7 days of the re-listment period? Silverseren17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
It could be closed now, but I'm afraid that there's a bit of a Catch-22. :) Given that you took a position, my closure of it might be seen as a conflict. It doesn't do any harm to leave it for a few more days until an admin does the necessary. --Moonriddengirl17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
LOL! More than once I've noticed a thread at somebody else's talk page where I've chosen to take action. Last time concerned a sock that an admin felt he could not block; I could. I suspect something of the sort. :D --Moonriddengirl20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I replied here. I don't think it is very difficult, because over the past few years as I got interested in copyvios, I tried to ensure that my old edits from the time I didn't fully understand the policy have been rewritten. A few sentences somewhere may still be problematic... if anything comes up, do let me know and I'll be more than happy to rewrite anything that's needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. This is always tricky. Regardless of prior conflicts, I think we'd all agree that the most important thing here is just to make sure that there are no remaining copyright problems. I know Piotrus is quite conscious of copyright concerns now, given that he has himself pointed out to me a good many issues, but if there may have been issues in the past it's worth looking to see how extensive an issue it may be. Here's what I propose: at this point, for my own uses, I'll run the CCI program and narrow it down to the time-range that is likely to have been the issue. I'll randomly select some articles for evaluation. If I find further concerns, it may be a good idea to formalize the procedure.
If it comes to that, Piotrus, our practice in the case of people operating under real names is to list them by date opened, and they are not indexed. You would be quite welcome to help out with any issues, including helping to locate them. As soon as the evaluation is complete (again, if it comes to that), it is courtesy blanked and archived. Low drama is a major goal of mine. --Moonriddengirl13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Update: I've got a list of articles in my sandbox. I would like another CCI evaluator to help me look over these and am looking into finding one with time. I mean to get started on this today after finishing CP and working a bit on an essay I've promised to MILHIST. --Moonriddengirl14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Halps!
Hi there...I wonder if you can advise me a bit about a copyright issue; I was concerned about copyright troubles by an editor, so I looked at all the things they'd created and compiled a list - however, I didn't want to be 'bitey' so I just asked them about a couple of specific ones, and also fixed what I could. The user did add attribution on a couple of the copypasted articles.
That's a difficult situation. :/ First, thank you for noticing it and getting on top of it so quickly. Particularly with unattributed splits, later cleanup can be a massive headache. Give me a minute to look into it a bit, and I'll see if I can help come up with a good approach here. --Moonriddengirl12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, a quick glance tells me that there may be older issues that will also need addressing. For instance, : translated from what? Presumably another language Wiki, but that needs attribution. History of Google Docs is an unattributed copy of Google Docs (and a split of questionable value, really). This edit to Chinatown reproduces without attribution content from Chinatown, Brooklyn and Chinatowns in Canada and the United States. This edit uses unattributed content from Google Toolbar. This article was obviously pasted from somewhere given the tell-tale "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag"--and if it wasn't, it's a copyvio of , which predates (but it was; that site also has a tell-tale sign of Misplaced Pages copying: a ref that doesn't go anywhere. :)). So, there seems to be more clean-up work to be done. Let me take a look at his or her talk page to see what conversations you've held about it. --Moonriddengirl12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Is this the only conversation you've had, or have you spoken elsewhere? It'd be good to figure that out, since it seems that we need to talk to this contributor about proper attribution for Misplaced Pages copying, ask him or her to properly attribute the content he or she has previously copied, and talk about close paraphrasing. I want to be sure, though, that the approach is optimized based on any prior conversations you've had. --Moonriddengirl13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
That diff is the only discussion on-wiki specifically regarding copyright concerns; previously, when I investigated things and fixed the histmerge, I spoke to the user over IRC, asking them to check their other edits for any similar problems. As IRC != Misplaced Pages, we may as well disregard that, and take the facts as they stand; I asked for your input chiefly because I am unsure how to ensure the user understands the importance here - admittedly, my concern about the difficulties is based on off-wiki activity (in the help channel). I didn't want to make a big fuss, but on the other hand, I think it is a problem that needs addressing...hence my request for help. They responded to my request re. the GoogleForDoodle with that edit, and they wrote 'done', and - as with their previous notations regarding the origins of article text, it would appear that the matter is not resolved. Chzz ► 09:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to note: I see this and will come back and work on it more in realistically a half an hour or so. I've got a new mess that dropped on my lap this morning. :) --Moonriddengirl13:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
(sigh), well that took more than a half an hour. I don't even want to think how much of my life I wasted on that. :P Okay, so, we need a primer here on the use of non-free text and on attributing splits. Will do. --Moonriddengirl15:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem.:) The note to User:Mono was pretty easy for me. I do this stuff so much I could talk about it in my sleep (and probably do :D)). Way less frustrating for me than trying to figure out the original of a sockpuppet! --Moonriddengirl20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yes, absolutely; recently, I spent many hours fixing up the disruptions caused by two people incorrectly declining 'articles for creation', only to eventually find out they were the same person. It's frustrating, to say the least; mostly seems to be younger people who treat Misplaced Pages like a game; it wastes an inordinate amount of time dealing with them, and they rarely add any useful content. So when I spend hours on such things, I get a bit frustrated, because I know that in the same time I could've actually written a half-decent new article. But these people do not go away; they want to 'level up' and become administrators, etc struck; I now realise that if I continue, I will only start to rant, and won't say anything you do not already know. So, well...such is life. Chzz ► 20:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I just want to show my appreciation for you always helping me when I ask...
To be honest I couldn't find one that showed how much your are apreciated and what it is you do for me and everyone else. That said, you're welcome. I really do like knowing that if I need help I know where I am welcomed to come to ask for it. :) Be well, --CrohnieGal13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
It would be so nice if we could, but, unfortunately, I think not. Images are not my primary area, but, while under US copyright law there is no copyright protection in mechanical duplication of public domain works, photography is creative in itself. Think of it, perhaps, in the same vein as a nature photographer who captures a naturally growing grove of trees. No copyright protection in the subject, but the photograph is copyrighted nevertheless, even if the photographer is not very good and there's minimal creativity in the photo. :) (Note, though, that the situation is different with faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art; see Commons:Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs.) --Moonriddengirl12:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
As you can see, I have done. :) At this point, the ball is in his court. He's been notified of guidelines on creating autobiographies. If he persists in creating the autobiography without showing of notability, further action may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, a few days back On User talk:Closedmouth I've notified him of all those you've mentioned just now but today he probably was thinking of how to circumvent the WP policy and guideline laid before him not knowing that we've dealt with more of his kind here than he can imagined. Tough luck for those wanting to get free web hosting when they turn up on WP, they usually get blocked in the end for showing their repeated unwillingness to comply despite being told not to. Oh well... trust people to believe in free lunch in this world, eh? Cheers~! --Dave18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyright problems/2010 August 9
Hi again. You've checked my entry there for Róka Hasa Rádió as resolved but I think you misunderstood my posting to the noticeboard. There has never been a copyright infringement claim on the article page but instead I wanted to point out that this book club thingy is apparently making money with content from WP, not only that one article but they seem to offer loads of books. Of course they don't charge their customers for Misplaced Pages but for wrapping our GFDL and CC texts into nice booklets. I guess there's not a lot one can do about that but I thought the Foundation might be interested in it. And it might not even be the first such case. De728631 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I did indeed misunderstand. It's not the first case; there are tons. Misplaced Pages actually encourages reuse of its content (even commercially): see Misplaced Pages:Reuse. If they did not give proper credit, the content contributors could protest in accordance with the non-compliance processes at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks, but it seems like they probably do: . --Moonriddengirl17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at this "magician", seems like we have a lot of misguided peeps joining WP just to have their own autobiography but only to find themselves flounder in the very hole they've dug, by not being familiar with Misplaced Pages's editing guideline, policy and rule. Note also the number of image files in question. --Dave19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
How do I put the Ed Fox page back up? I'm working on a second Taschen book and would like to have that all squared away.
Instead of deleting my page, why didn't you try to help me by fixing or adding to it? I don't want to have to go around in circles reading page after page only to be more confused, as Wiki rules seem to be (at least to me anyway)
I am owner/creator of edfox.com/footfactory.com and chromelady.com
Hi. Unfortunately, we don't really have the manpower to repair every article that does not meet our policies and guidelines. In the case of an article such as Ed Fox, fixing it isn't a simple matter of adding content; when material is copied from other pages, we must verify that the content is not in violation of copyright. This is the responsibility of the contributor who places the content. In this case, the user who noted the problem gave notice to that contributor here and listed the article for the requisite week. When no verification was forthcoming, the article was deleted per policy.
Copyright problems with the page can be eradicated by following the procedures at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. If there are other issues with the page, these may remain to be addressed once the content is restored. Generally, providing reliable sources to verify that the subject meets inclusion guidelines is a very good idea. I note that prior to its deletion the article seems to have relied primarily on sources related to the subject himself, which are insufficient to verify that it meets those guidelines.
There is a user who in the past made a number of cut and past moves. I think this was due to ignorance not malignancy (I'm spending too much time on English Civil War articles as I am staring to use the patter!) His user name is LouisPhilippeCharles and I have just slapped him on the wrist because I came across one of his cut and past moves more than a month after he was told not to do it, which means he has not cleaned up after himself. His posting to my talk page shows that his English is not the best, and his edit history shows that he is using the move tab now.
What I wanted to know is is do you know of a tool that I can use to see where he has made these cut an past moves by listing of his edits with edit sizes (large deletes followed by large inserts should be fairly easy to see). Just article creations will not be enough because he is an active editor (and may well have been creating articles) and many such cut an past moves are likely to be onto redirects. Thinking about it he probably needs to be informed about copying stuff from the French Wikipeda into the English Misplaced Pages as well...-- PBS (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll have a go myself and if I get confused or after running it needs a more formal approach I'll come back to you. -- PBS (talk) 00:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have now completed the task I set myself see User talk:LouisPhilippeCharles#Warning: Do not make cut and past moves and by looking at the last page of the took I was able to pick on some obvious ones. A list of some previous violations were also produced by another editor which I looked through. They clearly show bad faith by LouisPhilippeCharles. Most of them had already been corrected, but the last one I looked at is troubling because it shows that this problem goes much further back and involves the use of an older account used by the same editor. Since this issue of cut and past copying has been raised several times by different editors with LouisPhilippeCharles, and to date he has not stopped, or volunteer to clean up his mess, I think he may need to be formally investigated. When you have time please take a look at Talk:Marie Louise of Orléans (1662–1689)#The history of this article. to see what troubles me. I will leave it to your better judgement to decide if this editor needs to be investigated further as it could be argued that by putting a note on his edits that he has copied the text from another page that no internal copyright violation has taken place, even though due to subsequent page moves it is often difficult to piece the article histories back together. -- PBS (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
First, I support you in your stated intention to block him if he persists and in fact I would support blocking him if he does not help to clean up the mess he's already made. This is a copyright problem, even if it is one that can be repaired. He must stop, and if he does not, we have to presume either willful disruption or competence issues...both of which are bad for the project. When you ran him through the CCI program, roughly how many edits did you come up with? If this can be handled without a WP:CCI, it would be better, as the backlog there is already substantial. If it's needed, though, we don't really have much choice. --Moonriddengirl15:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I fixed some obvious ones by going to the bottom of the generated list and looking for large deletes (14 of them as listed on his talk page). But I suspect I have not found all of them. Also I did not look at the user name User:Tbharding. I have just run the tool on User:Tbharding. The first two in the list look OK (one was probably a cut and past move but it was fixed at the time -- I did not look at it closely as it had been fixed so it may have been kosher) but the third entry is the result of a cut and past move that has not been fixed. The history of the article is now split over two articles Princess Louise Élisabeth of France (since a cut and past move) and Louise Élisabeth of France, so as that was only the third in the list there is probably a lot more mess to be cleaned up (under both user names). :-(
Therefore I would suggest that a formal investigation is opened because since I started looking at this users peccadillos he has not offered to helped in any way to clear up his mess. -- PBS (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Adish Aggarwala
Hi Moonriddengirl! Thanks for your prompt action in response to my copyvio notice. However, I suspect that I may have led you to block an innocent user. Looking through the article's history, the current copyvio occurred here and was perpetrated by an IP editor with a dynamic IP address (see preceding article history) the day after NeoNeo1087's last edits (10-11 Jan 2010). A checkuser may confirm that NeoNeo1087's contribs come from the same IP address block, but that's hardly conclusive. The most damning edit by Neo1087 is this one in which two paragraphs are copied, but with a citation to the source added. Please could you review the evidence and reconsider the block? Many thanks -- Timberframe (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) I believe that the block is appropriate. Before imposing it, I checked the history of the article and found content introduced here that is clearly copied from that site. That occurred on 10 January. The user had been advised in August 2009 about the need to verify permission and the potential for a block and again told about the concerns twice in August. In January, he created the article International Council of Jurists, deleted via WP:CSD#G12, without any showing of permission as well as adding this content. I think that the risk of recurrence is significant enough in the face of these factors to warrant some assurance that he understands and will comply with policy. --Moonriddengirl13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, that seems like a good decision based on a more wide-ranging review than I'd made of the user's history. My conscience rest a little easier. Thanks :) -- Timberframe (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and I understand. :) If he were a more frequent contributor, we could try talking to him about it, but when he logs in once every six months or so it's a bit harder. The block is a just a way of saying, "Hey, we really mean it; you have to follow process." Typically, a contributor like this will be unblocked as soon as he requests it, as long as he notes his intention of complying. --Moonriddengirl14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Ping
I'm not sure if this would automatically show up in your OTRS messages or not, so I thought I should let you know that I just merged some new emails into Ticket:2010072310041103 since they weren't automatically connected. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. I've not looked at OTRS yet this morning, so I'm not sure if they did or not. I've been trying to knock some off at the Banglapedia CCI and now get through CP. (Speaking of, should have known the DuPont article would come back to bite me eventually. :D) --Moonriddengirl13:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Lighthouse of Houston/ Please advise.
Hi Moonriddengirl,
Thank you so much for reviewing the Lighthouse of Houston site I put together. I actually posted this entry with the permission of the Lighthouse of Houston President. We respectfully request that you please reactivate the Lighthouse of Houston Misplaced Pages entry. Lighthouse supporters would very much like to have a presence on Misplaced Pages, as I know so many other Lighthouse sites in the US can be found on here. I would be more than happy to put you directly in touch with the Lighthouse of Houston President. Can you please advise me on the best way to move forward?
Again, thank you! I am watchlisting this post and look forward to your response.
DoubleDimond DoubleDimond (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for contacting me about your concerns. The primarily problem is that the website does not use a license that is compatible with Misplaced Pages's. It is fully reserved: "Copyright 2007, The Lighthouse of Houston. All Rights Reserved." In accordance with our Terms of Use, we can only import content compatible with Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike. Under some circumstances, it must also be compatible with GNU Free Documentation license. Both of these licenses permit modification and reuse elsewhere, even commercially, with proper attribution and both forbid reusers to try to impose new copyright over derivatives of the work.
The simplest way to resolve this is to ask the webmaster to change the copyright statement at the website. We recommend a statement such as the following:
If this text is added, let me know, and I can restore the article and note the release. (Please do note, however, that we can't guarantee that content will remain on Misplaced Pages; if there are other issues, the community may change or even delete the article in accordance with policies and guidelines, an overview of which can be found at WP:5P.)
If you would prefer not to release the content at the website, you can communicate your release privately to the Wikimedia Foundation via e-mail, so long as you contact us through an e-mail address that can be clearly connected to the cite. The procedure for doing this is at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. We strongly recommend that you use the language at Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for your release. Frequently, we must go through several rounds of e-mail before all aspects are covered, and that release form takes care of most issues we encounter.
If you decide to release the content through e-mail, you can typically expect a response within a week or so. If your release is sufficient, the article should then be restored. If you don't want to wait the week, I can look for the e-mail to see if I can expedite the matter if you tell me once it's been sent. --Moonriddengirl16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I think we will start with an email from the President (with the recommended language) to the above address. If it is OK, as suggested above, I will let you know when I send it. Thank you again!!!!DoubleDimond (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi...one more quick question. I am helping the Lighthouse fill out the form to submit and just would like to please know the URL that I should submit to them. I'm assuming I submit the URL to the page you removed? If so, can you please provide me with this? I cannot find it anywhere now. Thank you!DoubleDimond (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Saw you had done some great work on this one. Re this edit, isn't the whole article a biography? In fact I was discussing this very issue on my talk page yesterday... – ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) I'm rather forced to it, to address longstanding close paraphrasing issues, but at least I've learned a lot about the man. :) As to the header, true enough. :) I don't know what else to call it, though, to cluster biographical details as distinct from his legacy. Do you have a suggestion, or do you prefer level 2 headers throughout? --Moonriddengirl18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Duponts are certainly an interesting family! I prefer level 2 throughout, unless the number of level 2 headings would otherwise be overwhelming. I think level 3, 4 et seq headings are overused, so my methodology is to keep heading text and levels as simple as possible. – ukexpat (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
So where is the other administrator input? The Misplaced Pages article has be around for about 3 years, and no other administrator has flagged it as a problem.
You editing is overly aggressive. There is no copyright infringement. There is very little public material on Joe Columbe. A lot of it is work of mouth. So information has to come mostly from one source. Copyright rule said that you have to change 30% of the original article. I have done that.
I will stop contributing to the Misplaced Pages fund until this over aggressive editing is reversed. WLee (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, MRG. On this US Army webpage there is a copyright stamp on the bottom. Normally/Often, Department of Defense and US Military webpages are public domain, but it appears the DoD also hosts webpages which are copyrighted. (This disclaimer stating United States Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial control over the information seems to confirm that it is not part of their public domain material.) Also, this notice on the Army website indicates that they do use copyrighted material on their pages -- but will provide specific copyright notices when it is. Would that be your understanding, too? — CactusWriter 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Ma'am. Thank you, Ma'am (what's the emoticon for a crisp salute?)... but , ugh, this might require opening a CCI case on a rather large number of our military unit articles. A question on my talk page led me to start this discussion. Right now, I think this first group of articles can be knocked off without CCI -- Ed!'s an experienced editor who is very forthcoming in getting this set corrected. But there are others... why, oh why did I go looking for trouble today? — CactusWriter 00:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Wow. I bow to your communication skills. Very nicely handled, both. :O Perhaps at some point we'll need to officially expand CCI (via VPP and other points) to incorporate source checks. We're doing Banglapedia now. Is it specifically articles in the http://www.hood.army.mil are that are of concern? Or is it http://www.globalsecurity.org? (I've removed a good many copyvios from that site over the years.)
I wonder, is there any way to get an automated message with an unconfirmed contributor tries to cite one of those sources reminding them not to copy contents? Would that be worthwhile? I wouldn't propose it for established users, even though some of them copy content as well, because I suspect that the level of annoyance it causes prolific contributors would outweigh the benefit. --Moonriddengirl11:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The copying of text from the www.globalsecurity.org website was my initial concern -- and it's cited on about 5400 articles. My suspicion now, though, is that globalsecurity has copied their text from US Military websites (and other sources) that are PD. That idea was claimed by User:CORNELIUSSEON (remember him?) in this copyright discussion back in 2006. I suspect that ol' Corneliusseon was correct (even though he did run afoul of our own copyright policies later down the road). Checking origin dates at globalsecurity is difficult because they have blocked the internet archive bots. But if the same text can be found on the .mil websites -- than it should be PD regardless of globalsecurity's copyright claim. The problem for me was finding the http://www.hood.army.mil site which does not have a clear (to me, at least) "privacy and security statement". The Army's statement says their own home page is PD. Now each fort has their own homepage under the army.mil webring (and this is where the WP text on unit histories is being copied from), but each fort website has its own style -- even in regard to copyright. For example, Fort Bragg's bottom CP stamp is "This is an Official Government Web Site" and their CP statement about is it "is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." Fort Riley places a copyright notice on the bottom of all its pages, but also states "Information presented via this web service is considered public information and may be distributed or copied." On the other hand, Fort Hood's statement only says its info is in accordance with Army and DoD policies and the Army Use of Copyrighted Material.
Sorry for blathering on but I'm still trying to wrap my head around how to interpret all these separate Army websites. Can we say that any military website hosted by the DoD and in compliance with DoD information policies is public domain unless specifically stating otherwise? I don't want to stir up trouble for the milhist group if it isn't necessary. And that would include creating automated messages. — CactusWriter 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and just to confuse the issue more -- the subpages for the military units on the Fort websites also follow their own style rules. For example, 15th Sustainment Brigade] which is hosted by the Fort Hood site which is hosted by the US Army site which is under the DoD policy (which lived in the house that Jack built) -- places a copyright stamp on their page and their own disclaimer. The history section of 15th Sustainment Brigade was copied from there -- so is that a copyright violation? — CactusWriter 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Verno. I also seem to recall a discussion about globalsecurity combining PD unit histories with text from published books. I was hoping that on this current first batch of copyvios copied from globalsecurity, the original unit history could be located on the army site and the text re-attributed -- rather than perform a wholesale deletion. I agree with you about the unlikelihood of the copyright claim for the 15th Brigade, but when I ran across the
If the unit history can be found on an army site (sometimes I've also had luck with archived copies of army sites) then I'd say it's PD in the absence of other evidence. The Army Use of Copyrighted Material states "any use of copyrighted material, for which permission has been obtained, will carry attribution for the source of the material", and the particular page in question does not attribute any non-Federal source. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Almost missed this! It wouldn't be the first time that a government source had tried to impose copyright over pd content, though I think it might be the first time I would ever have seen a US federal source do so. Verno makes sense; in the absence of a specific non-governmental source, they are not complying with their own disclaimer. --Moonriddengirl18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay -- makes sense, Verno -- any copyright on those pages, when attributed to the Army unit, remains PD per US Military and Department of Defense policy. I had already suggested that the editor seek out the copied text on the army sites, and if it is an exact duplicate of the globalsecurity site, than to consider it PD (regardless that it was originally copied from the globalsecurity site) -- but to reattribute it in the edit history to the army site as well as place the US Army template in the reference section. I did this at 7th Sustainment Brigade (United States). Common sense tells me this approach should be good enough to cover our legal requirements. (By the way, the army sites as well as global security have blocked access to the internet archive bots). — CactusWriter 20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Moonriddengirl! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 2 of the articles that you created are currently tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 8 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Thank you, CactusWriter . :) (Even though I didn't actually write those articles and in fact tagged one of them for sources myself, I still would have felt compelled to add them. :D) --Moonriddengirl11:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
Cookies!
Thanks a lot for fixing up problems of close paraphasing! Hekerui (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
I could cry. This is a really important site, but I've now discovered that although I removed the new copyvio, this edit 4 years ago, most of which is still in the article and makes up the bulk of the article, is from and presumable added by Henshilwood who is one of the main people who has worked on the cave. I should remove it forthwith I guess? I'll try to rewrite it over the next few days. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. :( I feel your pain. Perhaps the thing to do is blank it and e-mail him? He's e-mail enabled and may be able to respond to you. --Moonriddengirl12:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I did not insult anyone here nor here. If you say I did, how did I insult people? Also, "無恥" is "shameless" in Chinese, but I did not say it is you nor any other people. What I did on the page Airbus A340 was extremely reasonable, and in the past I had already explained a lot of times to you. Scania N113 (talk) 07:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello to you both. My thoughts on the subject: WP:RBI only really works when the community agrees that an editor is beyond salvaging. Otherwise, we ourselves run into problems with community behavioral policies, including WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CIVILITY. If you think that an editor is beyond salvaging, you need to convince the community that you are right through one of the processes at WP:DR, quite probably WP:RfC/U, though if a matter is clear-cut WP:ANI can do it. Without spending considerable time (that I don't have at the moment, I'm afraid, my copyright to do list is rather long) investigating, I do not know what avenues have been tried.
As an aside, Scania N113, I'm not sure why your question here went unanswered, but the answer to your question is in two of our core policies at WP:V and WP:NOR. In the former see, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I do not know the details of your content dispute and do not want to as I lack time to help out, but the crux of the matter is that Misplaced Pages is not interested in being the first publisher of truths. That's not our mission.
In terms of civility, whatever the situation may have been at the time you left the above note, the civility line is certainly crossed in this comment, though you did at least soften it by this. Dave, you should not accuse him of vandalism or imply vandalism (cross-Wiki, no less) unless you have good evidence that he is intentionally undermining the encyclopedia. I know you believe he is tendentious, but that's not the same thing.
I have reopened the thread at Talk:Airbus A340. Scania, you should not a close a conversation against the will of another participant, particularly not in the same sequence of edits with "getting the last word." You completed this comment at 10:42. You archived the conversation 9 minutes later. Dave may have said he was leaving the conversation, but this is by no means a binding declaration. Given his objection, I have reopened it. --Moonriddengirl11:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
That's well and good, but also not particularly binding. :) As I said I don't know the history here, but it seems that at least some of the problem may be your method of going about things. Sometimes working on Misplaced Pages gets annoying, and sometimes we may feel that we are being treated rudely by others. Sometimes we are being treated rudely by others. In all circumstances, though, we need to try to hold our own tempers. Getting angry and saying impolite things ourselves is only going to confuse bystanders, who may focus less on the content question and more on behavior. I see you have been blocked for civility issues several times in the past. This is really unproductive for you, presuming that you are interested in working on Misplaced Pages. Restraint in conversation is a really good practice, no matter what aggravations you may encounter.
On the question of tendentiousness, again, I do not know the background of your conflict here or what has been tried. If you disagree with another editor or editors, you can seek help through the methods listed at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. Our project works by consensus, which is not a counting of heads precisely but more a counting of informed opinions. :) There will be instances when you are sure you are right about something where others disagree with you. If you cannot convince a reasonable sampling of uninvolved Wikipedian bystanders that you are correct, you absolutely must let it go. The best interests of the project sometimes mean walking away from disagreements even if you are sure you are right (and, honestly, even if you are). You can always revisit a subject later down the line, when the situation changes. If people oppose the addition of information for lack of sources, for instance, you can come back to it when you find good, reliable sources, and they will likely then agree. (If your sources disagree with others, they may not agree to replace the information, but will probably agree to at least note the discrepancy.) --Moonriddengirl12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Its for you as well, I have had it with him! What would your advice for me be? Or just reporting this to you would suffice? --Dave12:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, some of those incidents are quite stale, and he has been blocked since making them. I agree that his edit to you earlier today was beyond the pale. I do not know if you'd get a block for it from WP:ANI; I would not myself block on that alone. I do agree with you that it's not really promising. User:Scania N113, you need to be conscious of the fact that your behavior could lead to your being banned from the English Misplaced Pages entirely. In that instance, any edit made by you under any username or IP address can be removed from Misplaced Pages without further discussion simply because you are no longer welcome here. To avoid that, please follow civility policy scrupulously, no matter the provocation you encounter, and please respect the consensus process, whether or not you agree with the outcome. --Moonriddengirl12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for giving me advice. However, I would like to tell you that in fact User:Dave1185 personally attacked me as well. For example, he said that I was a "bugga" and a "bloke". Also, he said that I was going to vandalise the Chinese Misplaced Pages. -- Scania N113 (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I explained to you above that this doesn't matter. Even if somebody is rude to you, you must not be rude to him. I happen to believe that civility is good for the project, but even if for no other reason, this is important for self-preservation. Say you retaliate rudely to several users who you think are being rude to you; a fourth user speaks rudely to you and you respond. He takes you to the administrators noticeboard and shows links of you being rude to all those other people. He has only ever been rude to you. Who do you think will be blocked? You, because you've demonstrated a pattern of incivility. Self-defeating behavior. --Moonriddengirl12:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages, but have been using it extensively for information search for my own purposes and make small corrections once in a while. I have particular interest in Bengal history and culture related articles and have been keen watching developments in that area for a long time. Recently I saw that you have marked Annette Akroyd for possible copyright infringement. The author of the article is no more active on Misplaced Pages and I don’t think that anybody else is going to do anything about it. Hang it with dignity. Delete the article.
I have been observing there are two sets of extreme administrators – one goes round placing Original Research tags and the other goes around searching for copyvio. The ordinary contributor is lost in between but the wily propagandists misusing Misplaced Pages to their heart’s content gets around merrily. See what happened to Bhurshut. You marked it copyvio and the editor (name changed) has quickly posted all the material on a new page Bhurshut Rajya. You probably don’t even have the time to do all the chasing. And what about the content? It is mostly bogus content, so badly written that few would be attracted to go through it. Is this article really fit for Misplaced Pages? And what about the numerous edits this fellow makes on other pages to propagate his point of view? Who reins him in? No administrator bothers.
Take another case. User:Ronosen and some his sock-puppets have been blocked but he goes on creating new sock puppets and works on Misplaced Pages at ease. He has an article titled Adi Dharm. It is a bogus article, developed and maintained by Ronosen, his sock-puppets or anonymous contributors (mostly he himself). You have access to David Koff’s book. Does he talk about Adi Dharm? You check Shivanath Shastri. There is not a word about it. But Misplaced Pages merrily hosts one and the intelligent and hard-working administrators are helpless in the face of active propagandists. And you take great pride in chasing out the ordinary contributor who copies a few sentences unwittingly from some book or website. Great work!
Gosh. Thank you for your note. Focusing heavily on copyright as I do, I zero in on that issue, and on that in itself I say it seems like we have a pretty big problem here. You say the author has changed his name; do you know what his name used to be? It is very obvious to me at this point that he is operating under various IP addresses and has been violating our copyright policies in a number of ways. I'm pretty concerned about this. :/ --Moonriddengirl12:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The Bhurshut page has gone through a lot of ups and downs in the last few days. I was a bit worried when everything went under copyvio. To be very frank, we are not always careful about copyright rules and do sometimes resort to copying straight away. This incident has made me wiser and I shall certainly be more careful in future. However, I can assure you that even when we unknowingly break the rules, we do not have bad intentions. Thanks for restoring some of the old work. Keep up the good work. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much. :) I think one of the real problems that contributors may not recognize with copyright problems is the damage they can cause down the road. I really hate to see the work of contributors wasted when they've been building off of content we can't keep. This, if for no other reason, makes it a really good idea to keep an eye out for this material when it appears. If it's not discovered until months or even years down the road, we can lose so much good work, and discourage contributors from continuing. As far as articles like Bhurshut, I usually like to give contributors who work in the area a chance to help resolve the issue, maybe by rewriting content, but if they don't I try to salvage what I can. It was easier before we knew how many copyright problems we had. :/ --Moonriddengirl15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for 1. Wecome 2. Message 3. Action taken on Bhurshut. Sorry for the delay in responding. I do not have a PC at home and have to travel to a cyber cafe for working on a hired PC.
I have tried to revise Annette Akroyd and make it free from copyvio. I have put it up on the temporary page provided for this. Please go through the same and if you are not satisfied about copyvio, I will work on it further. My draw back is that although I have read Davod Kopf's book, I don't have it for ready reference.
I am quite surpised by your tough action and feel sorry for my hard words. Please don't take it to heart.
The article was created by and subsequently edited only by a banned contributor in violation of his ban, which is grounds for immediate deletion (see User:AlphaGamma1991). Banned contributors may not create new accounts to continue adding content to Misplaced Pages, but must negotiate a lifting of their ban if they wish to continue working here. --Moonriddengirl12:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Noticeboard discussion (2)
Since the discussion about the Gearslutz source and its use has been archived and at an impasse, how should this matter be approached now? Dan56 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. It's always tough when there's no real consensus. :/ User:Jrod2 dropped by, and we briefly discussed the possibility of an WP:RfC to firmly settle some kind of guideline on the use of forums when the identity of the poster can be verified. Have you ever been involved in an RfC? If not, and if you'd like to give it a go, I'd be happy to help you pull one together, though I don't really have time to do any more than that. My copyright work keeps me pretty busy. :) This would be over the larger issue, not the specific incident. With respect to the specific incident, I'm afraid I don't really know at this point what to do. As an editor, I am somewhat conservative and try to avoid things that seem controversial, so I would let that one go, myself. That doesn't mean, though, that there is no other court of appeal. You'd just have to be very careful to be neutral and to clearly link to the WP:RSN discussion about it so that you don't seem to be "forum shopping" (another issue under WP:CANVASS). Your best bet may to be to resolve the larger issue through community discussion (if it can be resolved), which will provide more firm guidance one way or another for the smaller issue. I know that you're primarily a content contributor, though, (and a really good one :)), so I understand if you don't want to take on shaping policy. It can be a time-consuming pain in the neck. --Moonriddengirl12:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Copyvio questions (low priority!)
Shan't be able to help much in the next couple weeks. (The Banglapedia CCI is what I'd most like to work on, but if that's done soon, clearly others will remain or crop up.) The Old Gray Mare still reads and writes Gray Lady-style content pretty well but balks when asked to do more than that. Now she even has problems reading email. So time for a new computer and/or new connection, but installing and transferring will take a while. For when that's done - a couple questions. Any updates on the WP-specific plag-checker tool that got some research attention a while ago? How does a CCI work right now - do you-all, after deciding it's needed, manually copy-paste an individual's contributions, sentence by sentence, into Google? Do you have any recommendations for free tools that check an entire WP article against Google, including Books and Scholar? (if specifying these might be seen as overly promotional, you or a talk page stalker could send me an email, which I'd be able to read eventually). Thanks, Novickas (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, and I am very sorry about the Old Gray Mare's stubborness. :) We have very limited tools at our disposal for copyright work. I don't remember what was around when last we talked (I barely remember yesterday! :D), but the only one we have, really, is this. It's great for finding larger chunks (and avoiding known Misplaced Pages mirrors), but for minute work I still have to do it by hand. I usually don't check sentence by sentence. I look for striking phrases and check those. I also still routinely make use of , which does require me to strip out references. It has one handy feature: when it finds hits (and it almost invariably does, since it doesn't screen Misplaced Pages mirrors), I can then easily transfer it to other google searches. For instance, it found this (randomly selected from the recent changes on my watchlist). (It's a quote, obviously, so the wide publication of it is not a problem. :)) Flip it to Google books, and I get this. This from news, and this from scholar. I frequently check articles against Google books, but do not always check against news or scholar. It depends on the circumstances.
Of course, some CCIs have special circumstances. Policy permits presumptive removal of text, so with thousands of articles (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) waiting review, I seldom continue checking after I've verified copying in a line or two. That's enough for me to presume infringement from a contributor with an established record. And we also sometimes remove content on suspicion if it raises red flags related to the contributor's past behavior. Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations 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 contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." I don't like to go that far, but more egregious infringers do lead to more aggressive clean-up. --Moonriddengirl15:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've been fixing the vandalism from Surajcap (talk·contribs) and his various 117.* ip addresses for quite some time now. His edit patterns are obvious: he copies a large chunk of text from blogs or google books, and then formats that in wikipedia markup, and then copy-pastes in multiple articles. I can't identify the source of some of his edits on Pratapadiya and other pages, but these are very likely to be copyvios as well (large amount of text added by this user).
I have blocked some socks of Surajcap and some IP addresses, but later found it easier to pending-charge-protect the articles instead. He uses a dial-up isp from India, and switches ips every day. So, blocking the IPs will perhaps affect a large section of Indian editors. --Ragib (talk) 23:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Shabazz
Regarding this: since the edit in question is by Piotrus, I have to voice my concern here. If you're looking for a neutral third party, Shabazz really isn't one. He's basically Piotrus' ally, having filed Piotrus' appeal and proxying for him in Eastern European articles while Piotrus is topic banned. It would be interesting to know who exactly recommended Shabazz as a neutral party in this issue. Please, try to find someone else if at all possible. Offliner (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Do you know a neutral, Polish-speaking person who can handle this discreetly? There are real life reputation concerns here that do need to be respected. (What about User:Kotniski?) --Moonriddengirl12:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have concerns regarding Kotninski too, since he supported Piotrus' appeal and also supported Piotrus during the arbitration. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone suitable. Sorry about this. Offliner (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
