This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnInDC (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 30 July 2011 (→Wrestling with the best approach to some apparent copyvios: typos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:45, 30 July 2011 by JohnInDC (talk | contribs) (→Wrestling with the best approach to some apparent copyvios: typos)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
edit count | edit summary usage
DYK reduxHey, MRG. We've got a complete repeat of last year's DYK debacle, no change, DYK regulars denying the problem, a repeat offender with hundreds of DYKs that DYK continues to run to this day, no change whatsoever from the issues of last October. I think a copyvio investigation may need to be opened? Please see WT:DYK and User talk:Billy Hathorn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
RecordsI have informed you how to appeal your ban. It is not through me. I will not be discussing this matter with you any further. --Moonriddengirl 11:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Re this section User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 37#Help! (no. 59, 10th July), I took your advice and look what happened MuZemike, no. 20. You've previously said that it's important for us to keep accurate records, so can you restore my evidence to the record of the community ban discussion? 195.195.89.70 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Margaret, as I have neither a computer nor an email account, the guidance to which you refer is of little use to me. The following remarks are addressed to you as Liaison Officer with the WMF and thus have nothing to do with membership of the project. The following false and damaging claims have been posted on this website: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community ban proposal:Vote (X) for Change and references in the banning log to "vandalism", sockpuppetry and a link to the above. Both documents are permanent records, visible worldwide. They are partisan and inflammatory and the allegations are untrue. In particular, the word "vandalism" nowhere appears in the discussion, and in the log the link is held out to be a full and accurate record of the discussion, which contains not one diff to back the allegations. It is in fact a vote - stacking exercise by corrupt administrators desperate to save their own necks. You say that "removing comments is in keeping with policy". I do not think so. A ban comes into effect when the discussion is closed, and the comments were posted before it was closed. In any event, Courcelles was not qualified to close it, being "involved" as (s)he had a few minutes earlier blocked me while the SPI remained open. The guidance requires the subject of the discussion to be notified for the purpose of filing a response. It is implicit in that that once filed the response must not be tampered with. The "sockpuppetry" allegation should be balanced by reference to the following. No administrator may ban unilaterally. The so - called "indefinite" block was intended to be infinite and therefore invalid. The attempt to validate it by the ban discussion initiated last year failed. As indefinite siteban is the ultimate sanction it can only be enforced if specifically asked for. Consensus is never a simple tally of votes - it is affected by the severity of the sanction proposed and duplicate or involved votes are discounted. Although the guidance does not set a fixed tariff, for bureaucratship the level is 90%, and for an indefinite siteban it must be at least that. Please let me know how you wish to handle this. Can you (in order of preference) provide me with (a) your telephone number (b) your email address (c) your mailing address? If you do not wish to reveal your telephone number publicly it may be possible for me to get someone to email you with my telephone number. If I do not hear from you it will be apparent that you recognise that the "ban" is invalid. Best wishes. 195.195.89.70 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC) By replying to my post Margaret has already indicated that she wishes the thread to remain. Please do not hassle her. Also do not hassle me - comments such as "borderline threatening MRG -- toddle off now" are very juvenile and your removal of her comment is blockable - I would advise you not to try that stunt again. 92.24.107.88 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.Every corporation must provide a physical mailing address to which communications may be sent. Please provide yours, preferably with the name and department of the person who will be handling this. Best wishes. 86.162.234.186, 16:45, 25 July 2011. To SpacemanSpiff -- England 474 - 8 dec & 269 - 6 dec bt India 286 & 261 by 196 runs. (I used to work in the tickertape room). Hope you enjoyed the cricket. The inflammatory material has been taken down but there is still a link to it which needs to be removed as well. Over here we are told to be wary of websites which do not provide a physical mailing address - Misplaced Pages doesn't. There is a local contact, who bid to bring the Wikimania conference to Oxford a few years ago, but it seems that all we can do for the moment is await Margaret's return. I note that ErrantX, who is a key player in this, unsuccessfully ran for the Board a few weeks ago :)93.96.149.196 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC) AnatoliaIt seems that good chunks of this article: Anatolia are copy/pasted from this copyrighted source: . I was going to slap a {{subst:copyvio}} template on the article, but thought I'd ask about it first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, here's another one (two actually), and this one's a GA: Ein Avdat, stuff taken from here and here (both websites indicate their sources which appear to be copyrighted and checking the Wayback Machine at least the first one dates back to 2000, whereas the article was created in 2009), and maybe here . I haven't checked the other sources used in the article. Since this is a GA I listed it for review (I'm not clear on the exact nuts and bolts of the GAR process so I'm not sure if I followed it correctly). However I thought you might want to take a look since the whole GAR process may take time. The same user also created Al-Muallaq Mosque in december 2008, which is verbatim from here - this site existed in December 2007 with that text . In this case though I'm not sure what the exact nature of the site is, it appears to be at least partially user generated content so I'm not sure what the copyright status here is (it may even be possible that the same person created both entries). Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) SkaugumHi MRG: I was wondering whether you could take a look at the Skaugum article please. It looks as if it's a significant copy-vio, and much of it seems to be cut-and-pasted from two of the sources: Skaugum Estate (Kongehuset.no) and Skaugum Estate (Asker Municipality in Norway). I'm not clear how much of it is rescueable. Roger Davies 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Unverified image files
List of highest-grossing Bollywood filmsDear Moonriddengirl, I see you have been actively involved in editing and maintaining one or many similar pages (List of highest-grossing Bollywood films). You would have definitely notice all the films mentioned under various categories on that page are either ranked 1 or 3 or 6 or 10. This instantly brings us to the most possible and predictive question of every reader of that page: Where are the ranks 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and which are those films? Therefore I would just request you to edit the rankings and please list all the movies ranked from 1 to 10 in all their categories. That page is semi-protected and I didn't want to get into any sort of Edit Warring over already a controversial page. I see you are well familiar with the controversies surrounding that page. Thanks --ZoomTV (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The Signpost: 25 July 2011
user:MiradreHi MRG. This user has been adding non-free content to the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Four of their edits have essentially copy-pasted segments from journal articles, where there was no reason not to paraphrase. Miradre's native language is not English and they do not write fluently in English. They have adopted the policy of adding some content to articles by copy pasting content and placing it in quotes, without direct attribution; there has been no attempt at paraphrase. The four edits that were copyvios are all described on the talk page of the article. The fourth edit was made even after the precise policy for directly quoting text had been explained to Miradre. In this fourth edit they simply added quote marks around the copy-pasted passage with no attribution. I have not looked carefully at whethe Miradre's other edits have followed the same patterrn. I do know that exactly the same problem of copy-pasting instead of paraphrasing occurred on Malaria. Because of the quality of Miradre's written English, copy-pasting of this type is easy to detect. After Miradre's wikibreak and enforced change of subject, following a topic ban, I have the nagging doubt that many of their edits are being done in this way. What is the best way to proceed? Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC) Complaints about MathsciIf you look at Mathsci's edit the last 3 days he has done little except followed me around Misplaced Pages. Including to articles he has never edited before and made complaints and reverted my edits (almost never due to copyright claims). As well as making complaints to several different noticeboards. This seems to me to be just another, new part of his harassment campaign. But I welcome any scrutiny. I may certainly on occasion have made unintentional mistakes, such as missing direct attribution for quotes in addition to the footnote, but if so they are IMHO rather minor. I have always marked sources and certainly not copy-pasted lengthy texts.Miradre (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
May I have a deleted article, please?I noticed you are part of this group. I was wondering if it would be possible to get this article (and its history for attribution purposes)? Perhaps it could be placed here for 24 hours so that I may have a chance to recreate it at another website. Thanks for your time. Cogitating (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
AssistanceHello Moonriddengirl, a user has reccomended you to check over my free use rationale... if you don't mind :) My image is not yet uploaded, and I want to place it on a certain article, but a user states that I'm not giving enough reasoning for placing a non free image on the page.
Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC) Is this a case of closeparaphrasing?Ref Sidalcea nelsoniana. Using Duplicate detector on the very first source itself, I found a slew of commonalities of very short phrases. Is it a case of fair use or copyvio? AshLin (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Reminder: New Page Copyright IssueHi, earlier last month we were discussing how to best rewrite an article I was creating in order to answers copyright and notability concerns. I think I have fully addressed those concerns, but since the article had been removed once previously I was hoping to get your opinion before trying to re-create the page. I just wanted to give you a kind reminder that the proposed page is available on my user page. Thanks again for all of your time and assistance. It is sincerely appreciated.Win.monroe (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC) More CV GAsIn addition to the GAs I brought up above , Gazette Building (Little Rock, Arkansas) also appears to be mostly copied verbatim from here (DD: ), which predates the creation of the article on Misplaced Pages (May 2008 vs. Nov 2007), and which is a copyrighted source . I think. I really could use a second pair of eyes to make sure I'm checking these things correctly. Wrestling with the best approach to some apparent copyviosHi, Moonriddengirl – Atama offered your name as someone who might be able to help on a copyvio issue that I’ve encountered. (She did not actually recommend you as a first choice, you being as busy as you are, but her praise was high and I am lazy. Feel free to push me off in another direction if you haven’t got time.) An editor appears to have used too-closely paraphrased copyrighted material in more than one article he has created; but because I’ve been in content and other disputes with him, I think it’s inappropriate for me to try to remedy the situation by myself. In addition, he has already filed one ANI report on concerning me, here, and he’s got a quick trigger finger. I have little appetite for another even if it is swept away as easily as the first. Finally I’m uncertain about where or how to report the problems I suspect but haven’t got evidence for. WP:CCI seems right, broadly, but the instructions seem to counsel against my filing anything based on what I’ve got, and the dispute (which I’m assuming for now to be continuing). The disputes and their resolution are all pretty well laid-out in the ANI. It’s not that long; let me know if you want to see more. User:Ken keisel created an article last week, Anthony A. Mitchell, which was a close paraphrase of Mitchell’s Washington Post obituary. Text was reordered, but sentences or phrases were often left largely intact. Upon realizing this, I blanked the page and put up a template notice. Within a few hours and despite a copyvio warning from SarekOfVulcan, Ken restored the article to more or less the same state it had been in before I'd blanked it, arguing that facts can’t be copyrighted (well, true) and that his (lightly) revised version of the Post’s obit was fine (I disagree). He’s now blocked for a week. Since then Ken, still with access to his Talk page, has challenged Sarek to address Ken's assertion that the reintroduced text is fine under the copyright laws. This unapologetic response made me wonder if perhaps the Mitchell article was not the only instance in which he’d copy & pasted material, and a quick review of just some of the 40+ articles he has created turned up one clear instance of shuffled paraphrasing, Kokosing_Gap_Trail, (the "Nature" section in particular) taken from here, as well as a fragmentary example of close paraphrasing, Olentangy_Park#The_1910s from here. I am guessing that other parts of that page are not original, and came from sources covering other decades. Several other articles, including Noguchi_table and Marshmallow sofa, are written in a style that does not seem to match the (admittedly limited) samples of Ken’s prose that I’ve seen in the course of my dealings with him, and while I’m suspicious of those, they cite extensive off-line sources and aren't as easily checked. The upshot is that I have some but not a lot of evidence, plus some reasonable suspicion, that an editor has over a period of time been pulling together material from various sources, jiggering it around a bit and then adding it to Misplaced Pages. It's also possible that I'm making too much out of this and should find something else to do. In either case I think it’s inappropriate, in light of my history with him, to undertake remedies on my own; not to mention that I lack the expertise to detect and evaluate additional copyvios – if any – in any but the most blatant of cases. What do you think is a proper course of action here? Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Re BOI againHi MRG :) I've received a reply from the BOI admin. He has some trouble filling in the blanks of one paragraph: "I agree to " Also, he wonders whether he really is not going to have any chance of withdrawing the agreement in the future, which he thinks is a little problematic as there can always happen something unexpected. I also think it's a bit weird because after all he's making us a favour and I understand why he would not like to be "trapped" forever. Thank you. Shahid • 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC) Non free use rationaleHi, I don't know if you missed my comment above, but could you please check over my rationale? I need to know if it is good quickly, as I need to respond to another user. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
