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 Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 17:14, 23 September 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Noticeboard discussion
I appreciate you opening the discussion up and all, but I really feel like its not neutral the way User:Dlabtot and Jrod2 are commenting, the latter at my talk page as well. They quote/cite the same guideline(s) and don't consider my comment, responding defensively rather than to the actual comment. Others' comments as well, particularly the few in support. At times, they make unjustified claims, like the recent one Dlabtot made about one source not being self-publised and giving me a link to a guideline he was citing. Then I responded with a comment that expressed an opposing claim based on a policy I cited from a wikilink available at his link, but then he tells me I am being disruptive and that the policy hasnt anything to do with his link. Its nothing but verbiage and sly remarks, even in the edit summaries of their comments. It really feels like I am just dealing with these two, and I have asked several users recently, pending of course. Sure, other editors have commented, but that was before I cleared up the authorship issue with the source, which some editors expressed as the initial problem. In short, I dont believe it fair for the discussion to be left up to anyone of us since its looking like a 2:1 consensus, if that even is a consensus. If this message did not make much sense or shows me in a troubled light, then you can understand how much I need help with this matter. If there is anything more u can do, I would appreciate it. Dan56 (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Dan. The neutrality of the board doesn't necessarily mean that the people there will remain neutral in their opinion on a question. It means that they start out without any preconceived ideas of the position they want to support and they aren't drafted for the purpose of supporting one side or another. Bringing others into disussion on Wikipedia is always a tricky business; we can't all monitor all conversations, so we try to get a cross-section of interested editors to help get a sense of community consensus. You took a good first step asking at the Wikiproject, but I've long known that our project is hit or miss. I figure we must be a pretty introverted bunch, because not a lot of us like to talk. :) People who go to WP:RSNB generally do. If the discussion there doesn't bring clear consensus, it may be possible to bring wider participation by asking for feedback at another point as well, but you have to do it in a way that doesn't sway your readers to one side or the other. Usually, it's better to just briefly announce the discussion and ask for feedback.
I'll come take a look at the conversation at RSNB and see what's going on, if I can. I'm expecting a computer technician any minute to fix my tricky internet issues, though, so I may be interrupted. (With any luck, once he's gone, I won't be interrupted anymore!) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Girl, wuz up? Ya know Moon, i think the discussion at the noticeboard is come to full stop. In part, 'cause of the lengthy opinions now and before (myself included) of users like Johnuniq, Binksternet (which had nothing to do with Elevado's anecdotal comments) and part 'cause this kinda thing bout forums has been discussed already many times. BTW, I'm pretty sure what Jayjg was saying 'bout WP:SPS had nothing to do with the Red Bull video....So i just wanna ask you what ya think of all this. Do you believe that this loophole with personal forums should permit WP users to add new (anecdotal & personal research) content or should we enforce the notion that our predecessors had when they wrote the exemptions for personal blogs?? Im sure they never realized that a public forum would host sub-forums with experts who, because of their backlinks to their personal sites, their thoughts and ideas can be used as content for Wikipedia. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Joe. :) Personally, I think forums would need to be used with extreme care. I started off thinking that they should not be used at all, but I am persuaded by the arguments that if it can be positively verified that the person who posted is the individual, it's as reliable as any WP:SPS. I wonder if this is worth an WP:RFC so we can get something codified in WP:RS (either for or against) and stop the constant conversations. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im right there wit ya, Girl....U read my mind. This is a serious *loophole* and we gotta bring this up for a more serious discussion to make these change on all our guidelines and policy articles (like this one) that will be effected by these new caveats. IMO whats more at risk here is the inclusion of a ton of trivial content supported by forum links that will create edit disputes and wide spread of vandalism regardless whether editors are using due diligence identifying the source or not. Jrod2 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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). Theleftorium(talk)18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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? :-) Theleftorium(talk)20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. :/) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Request for Comment
The other day I got a CorenSearchBot warning on Patrick Karegeya. The article is just a first cut and needs a lot of work, but there is no copyright violation. I start quite a lot of articles and have got these notices before, but this one really bugged me. I pounded out an draft essay at User:Aymatth2/CorenSearchBot. Before I put it into a more public forum, I would appreciate sane advice. Maybe I should just let it go. I suppose the bot has some value and the occasional warnings can be ignored. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry. :( I know that false positives can be very frustrating to the contributors who receive them, but, really, the bot does have great value. Looking at the day you were tagged alone, there were 48 hits. Of the ones that were not copyvios (5? 6? It's late here, so I'm tired. :)), 3 look to be false positives. 2 weren't false positives, but weren't copyvios, either, because the content was either not copyrightable or was correctly attributed, and another was correctly repaired at the external site in accordance with the Bot's instructions. 5 were not problems; it seems that 43 (give or take :)) were. On the day you mention, it seems that 67 were.
Copyright problems can be pretty serious for our website and for copyright holders, particularly since our content is so quickly mirrored. By the time we receive a take-down notice two days later, that content is already spread internationally. If we don't receive the take-down notice until two years later (when the copyright holder notices), it could well be in print...and with our encouragement. We not only owe it to copyright holders, but also to the downstream content reusers who accept our offer to reuse our content to try to deal with this material as quickly as possible. We might spare them considerable trouble and potential expense. Not to mention that quick action is part of our protection under OCILLA. Our due diligence in the face of "red flags" will serve us well in case we ever do face action.
Do you think perhaps there's some change to the template that can help take the sting out of the notice? I am myself pretty clueless about bots and suchlike, so I don't know if anything can be done to reduce the number of false positives, but I share your concern about the discouragement for good contributors, while at the same time thinking that CorenSearchBot is something we really need. --Moonriddengirl(talk)03:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I had not thought about the mirroring issue. I assume that our invitation to reuse includes a careful disclaimer of responsibility for any copyright issues. Knowing the quality of some of the articles, a publisher should check them very carefully before putting them into print. But I suppose it does happen...
I am not advocating closing down CorenSearchBot, and in fact suggest it should be expanded to review significant edits to existing articles, since these will often introduce copyright violations that would not at present be detected.
There is no way to avoid false positives altogether. An imaginary example:
John Smith was born on 13 March 1949 in Willowdale, Rhode Island and attended Willowdale High School, where he was captain of the football team. He was admitted to Harvard in 1967 and gained a degree in Economics in 1970. Going on to the Harvard Business School, he obtained an MBA degree in 1972.
Assuming John Smith became highly notable, several reference sources are likely to hold text very similar to the above, and the bot may well report a possible copyright violation. That is reasonable, and the editor will find it understandable if they are given a polite warning.
My concern is that the bot has got over-elaborate. The false positive that bugged me reported a copyright violation that seemed to be related to two sentences:
Article: Karegeya was arrested and served an 18-month sentence for desertion and insubordination.[3] He was stripped of his rank of Colonel on 13 July 2006 by a military tribunal and fled the country in 2007.[1]
Web source: Former spy chief Patrick Karegeya yesterday walked out of the coolers after completing his 18-month sentence. Karegeya, who was also stripped of his military Colonel rank on July 13, 2006 by the Military Tribunal, has been serving time for desertion and insubordination.
The facts are of course the same since the article drew from the web source, citing it, and inevitably some of the words and phrases are the same, but the bot is being far too sensitive. I checked two other false positives, Charles-Auguste Questel and Robinson (Paris RER), and they had even less in common with the source. The Robinson one is amusing: a very short article on a railway station matched to a very short web source on a helicopter company, with the one word "Robinson" in common.
So what I am advocating is to expand the scope of checks by CorenSearchBot to include edits to existing articles and to check more online sources, which will greatly increase the number of violations detected although many will still slip through. But in parallel review false positives like the ones given above and either remove logic that is creating them or add logic to weed out similar ones. E.g. "If the article and source have only one word in common, there is no violation."
As for the wording of the notice, the talk page message is probably o.k., although "and it appears to include a substantial copy of [url]" could perhaps be replaced by "and it appears to copy content from [url]". The banner placed on the article page is far too aggressive, particularly given the current level of inaccuracy of the bot. It should be more like a warning:
It would be great if we could get something like CorenSearchBot to review other major expansions...particularly to articles that are prone to issues. After slightly more than two years of full time copyright on Wikipedia, I'm starting to feel like some articles are old friends. :) On the other hand, it's also quite a daunting thought to me. We have constant and overwhelming backlog in copyright work. We've got enough volunteers going now to keep up with WP:SCV and WP:CP, but WP:CCI has listings over a year old, and I'm pretty sure that WP:SCV would rapidly be overwhelmed if we tried to review all potentially problematic text. Which doesn't mean we don't need to. I just couldn't fathom how we can. :/
As I said above, I'm not really the bot type (or remotely), so I don't know how Coren has this thing set or how its sensitivity can be adjusted, but perhaps if we modify the warnings we can soften the blow. Coren has been missing for a while—at least from Wikipedia. (I don't know where he is and hope all is well with him!) He's always been very gracious about my making changes to the bot's notices, so I'll go take a look. I'm conservative about overhauling things in the absence of their creators, but maybe incremental modifications can get us in that direction. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new wording better, although the article banner is still very aggressive. The change I propose could in fact help the review process. If the bot checked significant changes (whatever that means) as well as new pages, but focussed on blatant copies where large chunks of text are almost exactly the same as the source, it would not just reduce the false positives but would also increase the number of serious violations caught, which are the ones most likely to cause trouble and also the ones most easily reviewed. The more subtle ones where a shorter amount of text is involved and there has been an attempt at paraphrasing are harder to review and less likely to cause problems. With limited resources, better to work on the obvious ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least it seems to be a step in the right direction. :) I've alerted some others about the conversation here; maybe we can arrive at some additional changes. The problem is that the template on the article needs to retain directions for addressing the problem. Maybe those could be collapsed to make the whole thing less "in your face"? I'd prefer to get additional feedback on that one before implementing, though.
I have no idea the feasibility of bot reivew of major contributions. I've heard talk of it bandied about, but since I am so not a coder, I've stayed out of it. :) A couple of the people I've talked to do code, though, so maybe they have feedback on that. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this mock-up? The linked guidelines can be expanded to give a much more complete explanation, and the warning banner is no longer the most dramatic one in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really think the instructions should stay on the template. This just makes it more confusing for the article creators (who may even miss the wikilink). What is it about the instructions that make the template aggressive, anyway? Theleftorium(talk)19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template just has to link to a page that gives directions. The page can give a much more complete explanation than can reasonably be put into the template. I can't see any reason a bot should not review major contributions. Maybe it could piggyback on ClueBot, which checks all edits for vandalism anyway. ClueBot would pass selected pages or diffs over to CorenSearchBot to check for copyvios. CorenSearchBot would have to be made less sensitive to avoid flooding the review queue, or else should sort out reports into different headings: "Red", "Orange", "Yellow", "Gray" etc., which could be useful anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the list of options/instructions needs to be on the template, since most of the people who's articles get tagged are new contributors and may not bother clicking through to read lengthy explanations. The option to "revert to one of the previous versions of the article" does strike me as absurd though, since it's only new pages which are checked. While we may be short of contributors, I think we're shorter on copyright cleaners. Onto the other topic, having a bot checking major contributions for copyvio is something that would be great to do (and is one of the many things on my wishlist for the bot I'm working on) but it would probably take a lot of tweaking to do it right, even using CSBot or EarwigBot as a base, since as MRG says, it may start overwhelming the CopyCleanCrew's daily workload, so we'd need to find the most likely vios and make the least work for human follow-up. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is just me, but I find the size of the template, plus the colors, very intense. It takes up most of my screen when I open the page. Most warning templates are smaller, quieter, and point to another page with instructions. The page is going to be reviewed anyway and either marked clean, fixed or deleted. I prefer not to jolt the editor too hard since they may well become a valuable contributor. We should assume good faith. Now, if there were very few false positives I would much less concerned about the appearance of the warning, and it is not the most important issue anyway.
On the bot question, I don't think it is all that big a change (easy for me to say!). The main change would be to have it check pages reported by ClueBot as being suspicious instead of checking new pages. As far as I can tell, CorenSearchBot scores articles and then reports ones above a certain threshold. Push up the threshold, which is probably in a config file, and there would be fewer reports and presumably many fewer false positives. Or else just have the bot add an icon to the message in the review queue that indicates how high the score is. When there is a backlog the crew could skip the lower-scoring ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the colors as being that big of an issue, since it's only the line down the side, not like a speedy delete tag. Maybe the options part of the could be reduced in size some to shrink it overall?
As far as the bot goes, CSBot does use a threshold system, but it would need to be modified to check only the added text and not the whole page, and may need to have the calculation itself adjusted - I'm not sure since it's been a while since I looked through the code in detail. As far as pushing up the threshold (either for checking major changes or just in general) to reduce false positives, that could work but it might then miss valid close paraphrase issues - a whole series of different articles would probably have to be run and spit out feedback so we could see what the tradeoff is between false positives and false negatives before there can be an informed discussion about tweaking the code. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breakout?
Maybe this should be cut-and-paste moved to a separate discussion page. There seem to be at least three separate threads:
What should the templates look like?
What rules should the bot follow and how should it present results?
How can the bot be adapted to check changes to existing pages?
If my talk page is of use to you, you are welcome to have at it. :) If you want to move it elsewhere, that's fine, too. I've been loosely following, but am trying to wrap up a CCI today. I won't make it, but I'm trying. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a shot at breaking it out it tomorrow. I am really optimistic that a lot can be achieved, but it should be first discussed thoroughly to get consensus. Not a simple problem and we have to stay open minded, but I should make it clear that I am determined to get agreement on the Robinson rule: "If the article and source have only one word in common, there is no copyright violation.". Aymatth2 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Those of us who work copyright certainly agree; we have quite a lot to do as it is. :) I wonder if WT:SCV would be a good place for a conversation about the templates? But, really, you're welcome to keep it here. Those of us who do copyright work tend to congregate anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say at the moment except that the shorter the template is the more likely it is to be read. MER-C11:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia" 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 Wikipedia 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 "Wikipedia 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? --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 "Wikipedia 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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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/wiki/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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 --Moonriddengirl(talk)20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 [1] - 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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a quick glance tells me that there may be older issues that will also need addressing. For instance, [2]: 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 [3], which predates (but it was; that site also has a tell-tale sign of Wikipedia 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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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, --CrohnieGalTalk13:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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~! --Dave♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™18:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
Ah, I did indeed misunderstand. It's not the first case; there are tons. Wikipedia actually encourages reuse of its content (even commercially): see Wikipedia:Reuse. If they did not give proper credit, the content contributors could protest in accordance with the non-compliance processes at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, but it seems like they probably do: [4]. --Moonriddengirl(talk)17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia's editing guideline, policy and rule. Note also the number of image files in question. --Dave♠♣♥♦№1185♪♫™19:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia as well...-- PBS (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)15:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia entry. Lighthouse supporters would very much like to have a presence on Wikipedia, 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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia; 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 Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. We strongly recommend that you use the language at Wikipedia: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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
So where is the other administrator input? The Wikipedia 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.
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 (talk)22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk)00:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk)19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk)19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 [Army Use of Copyrighted Material statement on the hosting website, it gave me pause. So... should we go with common sense and figure "unlikely" is good enough to let that one ride? — CactusWriter (talk)19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 (talk)20:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 688 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
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.[reply]
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 [5] edit 4 years ago, most of which is still in the article and makes up the bulk of the article, is from [6] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia: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.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia entirely. In that instance, any edit made by you under any username or IP address can be removed from Wikipedia 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. --Moonriddengirl(talk)12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a regular contributor to Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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!
