![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
2011 Norway attacks (Reactions). Just wondering what your opinion might be. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I am reviewing a GAN and I have a question regarding fair use of block quotes. Here is the edit where I said my thoughts, and stated that I will seek expert advice (that's you). The comments regard the text shown in the references section of the article I am reviewing. Please comment at the bottom of this section and if I was wrong in my counsel, correct me with the kindness of tact few others have achieved. With esteem, My76Strat ( talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as there has been multiple repeated additions of the same copyright material to Bollywood films of 2011 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), do you have a view on raising protection from non-confirmed indef to, say, a week at a time of admin only protection whilst there is active discussion or research on finding a resolution to the copyright problem (assuming that this is still considered on-going)? Particularly given the context of the sock activity we have seen recently plus that the article is a bit of an unfortunate bear trap for less aware newer contributors. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 04:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
[1] is clearly from the German article. I'm assuming it's a machine translation but it might just be a bad manual one. Not sure what to do about it. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi 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 talk 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear 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)
Hey, 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)
Hi, 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 Wikipedia. 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)
Hi MRG :)
I've received a reply from the BOI admin. He has some trouble filling in the blanks of one paragraph:
"I agree to [STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]"
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 • Talk2me 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, 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)
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 [3] 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: Wikipedia: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 [my] 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 [4] 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)
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 - Wikipedia 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)
Margaret, Have you been following what's been happening on ANI? They have now started removing other editors' comments from the page. Can you step in and restore order? 94.194.158.164 ( talk) 15:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. There are two addresses on the link:
and
Which one of the two will handle the matter?
The following is a draft of the letter I propose to send. Do you have any comments? <snip> 217.169.37.146 ( talk) 15:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that good chunks of this article: Anatolia are copy/pasted from this copyrighted source: [5]. 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 [6]. I haven't checked the other sources used in the article. Since this is a GA I listed it for review [7] (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 [8]. 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 [9] 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)
In addition to the GAs I brought up above [10], Gazette Building (Little Rock, Arkansas) also appears to be mostly copied verbatim from here (DD: [11]), which predates the creation of the article on Wikipedia ( May 2008 vs. Nov 2007), and which is a copyrighted source [12]. I think. I really could use a second pair of eyes to make sure I'm checking these things correctly.
Hi 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. [13] 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)
If you look at Mathsci's edit the last 3 days he has done little except followed me around Wikipedia. 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)
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)
Hello 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.
Description |
This is a picture from the movie, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. © Warner Brothers Pictures |
---|---|
Source |
This image can be found at the website, www.movies.about.com ( [18]) |
Article | |
Portion used |
The entire image is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended purpose of the image. |
Low resolution? |
This image is of a caertain size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily in high resolution. |
Purpose of use |
An images that specifys other characters in the film. This should be adressed to readers when reading the plot to identify the characters with their names, (with the exeption of one character in the image). Other than the current image in the infobox, this picture gives clear names to define the four main characters in the film. |
Replaceable? |
Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. |
Other information |
© Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, is a copyright of Warner Brothers Entertainment All rights reserved. |
Fair use Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_38true |
Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'd go that far. :) If I were you, I would at least try asking at WT:NFC. If they say it doesn't work, they may be able to explain why. And you may be able to explain it to me someday. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
(Yeah, I was too lazy to make up a section name) I keep forgetting to ask this, but I just wanted to make sure of this for once. This user was a alt account I made, simply because that username is what I use on youtube. (not trying to advertise) (basically, I don't want someone impersonating me by using my youtube username) Since this is the case, would it be a allowed legit alt account, even though I'll likely never use it? LikeLakers2 ( talk) 00:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not so much for MRG as for her knowledgeable TPS. I want to do something, while preserving the history, and I have no experience with the cut and paste and merge techniques designed to preserve editing history.
I'll try to give a short summary here, but the longer details are at my talk page: here
Short version: The current text in Haroon Rashid was added by a single editor with two edits in history, both on 4 July 2011. The first edit blanked the page, the second add the text you see now. (other minor edits has added cats etc.) I don't think it would survive a BLProd, but if it did, it would almost certainly fail an AfD. I do think the redirect of Haroon Rashid Harun al-Rashid. However, if the current version is deleted, the edit history would be lost. What I would like to do is carve out the existing text into a new article, Haroon Rashi (engineer), let that one stand or fall on its own merits (BLProd, and AfD if needed), and restore the main article to the status of a redirect.
I don't know how to do that and preserve the edit "history" of User:Cutehr.
Suggestions?-- SPhilbrick T 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Understood. :) I've had to do a fair number of them; for some reason, I've come upon a lot of article hijacking in my career! -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason you have chosen to gut this article rather than address copyright issues? Thanks Djflem ( talk) 19:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not find an explanation for why an entire article would be gutted of content and references including all parts which were not subject to questions of copyright. Can you point out that policy on the page you've cited. Thanks Djflem ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Both of the above seem to indicate that the investigator should thoroughly investigate each article before deciding to keep, alter, or delete it and that if there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. As the copyright clerk specifically cited the sources where there were copyright issues, why would you choose to delete material where there were was none? Djflem ( talk) 19:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
One presumes a copyright clerk has does his or her work before tagging an article, would properly identify the section and/or text at contention, and then tag it correctly if a s(he) felt there was an issue. One would presume that the investigator would look at the text and sources noted by the clerk and report provided in the tag. Do you believe that has been done w/ the above or any other articles? Incidentally, where and why does the opening of an investigation establish a policy that presumes anything? How does remove the infringing text from the article translate to gutting a article? Djflem ( talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man named Martin, angered by his earlier imprisonment in the City Hall on debt charges, allegedly set fire to the building.
It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man angered by his earlier imprisonment on debt charges allegedly set the building afire..
Would you mind adding your observations concerning Paul's inquiry about the COI tag on the article talk page Talk:Paul S. Farmer? Thanks Opbeith ( talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am one of Vic Reinemer's sons. I did not create the Vic Reinemer entry and was not aware of its existence. So now that I've come across an apparent deletion of it, I'm curious to know what it said, who had posted it and, specifically, why it was deleted. Is any of this information available?
Thanks very much,
Steve Reinemer
168.103.225.22 ( talk) 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a transcript of what had been posted for Vic Reinemer?
168.103.225.22 ( talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If someone was planning to {{ trout}} Jimbo Wales, what would they use? I'd say they could use a barnstar on him, since he is a/the founder of Wikipedia. LikeLakers2 ( talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's been suggested that, either in a volunteer or WMF position (use whichever is more appropriate), that you might want to observe this proceeding. A BLP is complaining about a photograph taken of her; meanwhile, the copyright holder of the photograph took it legally at an event with about eight other pictures (see Commons discussion). It seems that this BLP isn't aware of how Wikipedia works and is not happy with the fact that a picture and article about her are present on Wikipedia. Might it be prudent to take this one over? Your comments at AN/I are welcome. CycloneGU ( talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Depends on how you define famous. There's David Eppstein/ User:David Eppstein (an admin), but I doubt he has too m any photo ops, being a mathematician. :D (That said, there are a surprising number of transclusions to connected contributor. 1914!) You're probably right about that; that's why one of the first things we usually do at OTRS is explain how Wikipedia works. Since I started my contract with the Foundation, I've been surprised by how many people call or write it, thinking that Wikipedia is professionally written and maintained! I thought everybody knew that Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, MRG. Could you take a look at User talk:Ken keisel and either explain to him or the other editors who've chimed in (including me) what's wrong with their understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi MRG, you may remember a while back the issue we had with foundational copyvio at Vivian Balakrishnan, where we found text in the first diff identical to that on a government biography in 2004. It now appears this same text is available on his personal website licensed under a CC license. A number of anonymous IPs, likely the same user on a (very) dynamic IP, has repeatedly reinserted this material, going as far as to claim that the text "was obviously written by him too". My opinion is that we should err on the side of copyright and I absolutely do not buy what the anon editor is saying (there has been a much larger issue of pro-government POV pushing going on), but I will defer to your copyright expertise on whether or not this text is legit. Please be aware that the article currently contains this text, as it was readded today.
Thanks, Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that the content has been rewritten; this is always a good alternative when we can't be sure of the copyright status of the original. We can't assume that "the government must be aware" and that their lack of reaction indicates they don't care. The stakes particularly for our reusers are too high if we are wrong.
In terms of protection, if the page is semi-protected, you have the option to use your named account to edit it. You have no explicit right to expect others to edit it on your behalf if you're not willing to do so.
"Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" is specifically mentioned as a form of sock puppetry. If you believe that any administrator is abusing his or her authority, you need to take action under Wikipedia:ADMIN#Disputes or complaints rather than violating policy yourself. Please be careful to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's rather tenuous to suggest that EditorA must be biased because she is a lesbian and EditorB must be biased because he may know EditorA. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I left a question about a copyright issue at User talk:Worm That Turned#Copyright question 2 and thought you might be able to provide an answer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol is a trainwreck and has been for a long time. It is most unlikely that the majority of those who purport to patrol new pages even bother to carry out the most simple of checks requested in the task list at WP:NPP. The only way to fix the copyvio problem is to turn New Page Patroller into a user right, for experienced editors only. CorenBot will just have to be fixed very urgently, while those of us in the minority who are admins and experienced users who occasionally have a stab at NPP, generally carry out the controls you suggested. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked Arfaz ( talk · contribs) for continued copyvio (following an OTRS complaint). He's edited/created a lot of articles which may need review. Dougweller ( talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am struggling to convince an experienced contributor on my talk page that GBooks is not the same worldwide. They cannot believe that this applies to out-of-copyright, "full view" books, with my point being that the book in question is not full view here in the UK even though it might be in India or wherever the contributor is. I tried pointing to Uncle G's essay and that hasn't worked; I even mentioned AGF. Bit of a mess, really, since this person seems to be claiming that their having had no previous sighting of this issue (in five years of experience and something to do with FAC) is a reason why I am doubted.
I have taken a screenshot to demo the GBooks page that I see but am unsure whether or not I can upload it, even for ten minutes or so. I rather think that FUR would have to be deployed. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush ( talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've just done this. Not sure if it represents an ongoing pattern or not. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
please can I have a copy of the article 'Surveyjet.net' so I can put it on WikiAlpha. Thanks Alicianpig ( talk) 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, 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)
In your eminently knowledgeable opinion, is this article too close of a paraphrase of the bio from this website? From what I've compared there appears to be entire phrases lifted verbatim. The material was added in a series of edits beginning here. Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
hello moonriddengirl
I am the managing director of the dance company of Yoshiko Chuma, called The School of Hard Knocks. Several months ago, I submitted an article about Yoshiko Chuma, which you deleted since it resembled her webpage. I am also the author (uncited) of her website pages, so I would like to please request that the article about Ms Chuma be submitted to wikipedia again. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashadetroit ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. I know you're the expert around here about investigating copyvios and related matters. If not you maybe a talk page stalker could investigate but it seems that The Cloud (poem) might have some copyvio material (text) added in it by Carl savich ( talk · contribs). The (many) IPs that have been editing that article also appear to be "in" on it and may or may not be Carl whilst logged out. Killiondude ( talk) 19:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my talk page regarding the article I wrote on Anthony A. Mitchell. I have taken your suggestions to heart and have fully revised the text so that not a single sentence bares any resemblance to the original sources. Please review my updated text and offer comments on the new version. - Ken keisel ( talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Patelurology2 ( talk) 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyper Island is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Albacore ( talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere here which tells whether images from websites of different national governments are public domain? The images at [32] would be possibilities for our new article on Hylesia nigricans, but I have no idea whether they are PD or not. Can you (or a TPS) enlighten me? Ladyof Shalott 23:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could clear this up for me. In cases where a source is old enough to be in public domain, and where the article pretty much copies it verbatim what level of attribution is necessary? I'm thinking specifically of this article Hayyim Selig Slonimski which is copied verbatim from here, which was originally published 1901 and 1906. The article does have some inline citations for particular sentences to the original source but nowhere does it say, "this has been copied-pasted from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906)". How do we deal with stuff like this? Thanks (and I know you're over worked and I very much appreciate your work here) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Delayed reply - I was on holidays :) Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry for the confusion - I will put next time all details on the related Copyright problems day page. I'm learning every time more :) -- SchreyP ( messages) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You know whats fun? Making personal templates, userboxes, books made with Special:Book, and stuff like that, inside my userspace. I wish to say that the one personal template I do have is like Template:Subpages, but the difference? It actually shows a dynamic listing instead of a simple link. All it simply uses is "{{Special:PrefixIndex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}}". Perhaps you could take a look at what I have made and tell me what you think? (or you could even help make them better and stuff by editting them with some things that will, well, make it better. (or at least fix any problems one may have) I don't mind anyone doing so, so long as it isn't intentional vandalism) LikeLakers2 ( talk) 02:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi I have just logged onto my account after a long time not active - in part because of frustration at increasing bureaucracy to do anything, and in part that hard work was all to easily deleted by people who knew nothing about the topic. I see unfortunately the images were deleted in the meantime. Having read both your polite note on my page and your web page notes about copyright and deletionism, I see you have actually thought about the matter. I would like to belated provide an answer to you.
Let me give you some background to my views and why this sort of thing frustrates me.
AS you mentioned, you are not a lawyer. As you may or may have not noticed from the profile page I was a lawyer, though neither an IP nor a US one, so I wouldn't pretend any great expertise. However I do know enough to know the threat of a New Zealand copyright holder's first approach being to sue Wikipedia over hosting an image (rather than proving ownership and requesting it be taken down) is virtually nil - we simply lack the legalistic culture of the US.
As you are no doubt aware, Wikipedia tends to have an American bias in content. One of the ways this shows in insisting upon applying American law - and in particular American intellectual property law - to postings from the rest of the world about the rest of the world - in the past other deletionists have justified that by the all but irrelevant to the rest of the world fact the servers are located in the US.
One of the problems driving the US bias is Wikipedia's "Free Use" policy dovetails with the way the US government has released many historical government images into the public domain - but not with other countries. Most commonwealth nations have also allowed free publication of historic government images but in a slightly different way that hardline wikipedia policy makers are not flexible enough to allow use on Wikipedia; Commonwealth nations have "crown copyright", which usually allows reproduction free of charge, but unfortunately for the free use policy, with some trivial conditions which vary from place to place - typically these are noting the crown copyright, not altering the image so as to mislead, or misrepresent what it shows. Often commercial use is also banned.
Now - as is also the case in the US - all images taken by government employees are the intellectual property of the government. Therefore finding any images which are not crown copyright to illustrate a New Zealand article is almost impossible. To me the logical thing would be to create a category for crown copyright images but this has been suggested before by others and I understand from my point of view voted down by American free use ideologues who don't care if Wikipedia is unrepresentative provided corporations can use images off it in advertisements :-).
Even when - as a colleague did - permission was with great difficulty obtained from the crown to release an image for free use on Wikipedia, it was promptly deleted again because the deletionist could find it elsewhere on the web with crown copyright tagged on it. One reason why this is not a bigger issue is in commonwealth articles many clearly crown copyright images have been added and have gone unnoticed by deletionists.
Anyway as a New Zealand aircraft article writer frustrated by this, I was delighted to find a whole filing cabinet of aircraft photos from the 1920s to 1950s for sale amongst the estate effects of a PRIVATE photographer. Furthermore, after a lot of explanation about your policy and essentially WTFing from the vendor, they were quite happy to release the images of the photos I purchased into the public domain.
Naturally the 'tick which box of American Intellectual Property Law Applies to your image" was too simplistic to cope with this reality, hence my explanation. I have no idea what the usual WP:OTRS procedures are, had never heard of them when I added the material and searching Wikipedia for that produces a lot of German and no answer. Frankly I don't care; the images are no longer easily accessible and frankly my frustration with the increasing number of hoops to go through to add content and this sort of accidental well intentioned entirely within policy vandalism and has seen me give up.
I still think Wikipedia is a great idea, but since I see you are paid staff, can I leave with a plea you consider making it easier for new and occasional contributors, especially from outside the US, because it seems to my frustrated mind that the only thing not being deleted is the 9/10s of Byzantine pedantic policies comprehensible that just serve the tiny shrinking core of regular editors. Winstonwolfe ( talk) 03:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll be watching your talk page for about a week or so, if you want to talk about the best ways to move forward. You are also always welcome to come by mine. Thanks, and sorry for the red tape, but when it comes to copyright we do try to keep everything on the record. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Other photographs seem to be in similar condition: File:Fariey IIIF of NZPAF.JPG, File:ZK-AFH Miles Whitney Straight.jpg, File:Gloster Grebe and Bristol Fighters NZPAF.JPG. File:Etrich Taube replica.JPG is also lacking evidence of permission. Given the breadth of the issue, I double-checked with an admin at Commons, who agreed that the tag was the best way to move forward here (at my talk page). Accordingly, these images have also been now tagged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you are probably interested in discussions regarding NFC, reading through the following discussions might be fun:
2. Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#"All user-created images must be licensed under a free license"
NFC can result in some really interesting discussions. :) Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you revisit your comments on the article talk page with regard to the full list being a copyvio? It has since been re-added and we probably should stay consistent, if indeed this is a copyvio. Cheers Fæ ( talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. The paper seems to be freely available for view here to everyone at the second author's previous place of employment. [33] Google scholar points to other freely available versions on academic websites. So I think the worries about piracy that Miradre expressed were unwarranted. Mathsci ( talk) 15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. I'm sure you're very busy, but there's no-one whose opinion on copyright issues I respect more, so if you could quickly cast your eye over something for me, I'd appreciate it. This section was something I wrote a while back, heavily quoting from an academic article, in bullet point form. It was supposed to be the ground work for a proper prose section, but I never got round to it. Recently someone claimed that this section was a copyright violation [34], though the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think. Anyway, is there a real concern here or not? PS Just so you know, this is currently an issue in an ANI thread, but don't worry about that, I just want your opinion here. Thanks. Rd232 talk 09:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have rewritten it and closed the CP listing. "Intext" means that when we directly quote somebody, we don't just cite them, we name them before the quote. "John said...." :) When we do a lot of direct quotation, that can get a bit redundant, but it's hard to avoid. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, MRG, I examined the source and was alarmed at seeing so many paragraphs from Giavonne's page reviewing previous studies. I was surprised that the matchings were so low, when I consulted the tool, but reported its results because the tool's output is standard. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Following your clean-up of Freedom in the World (by Freedom House), I did a rewrite of my own.
Just press "Show" (on the right) for the details!
I tried to correct the unreliable/POV problems.
To make the section more readable. I moved the most interesting and controversial section, alleging ideological bias, to the top. I added explanations of unfamiliar terms. I would appreciate your criticism.
There are some criticisms of the methods by the Italian fellow that are about specifics of Freedom House's reporting, which should stay, of course.
There are other criticisms that apply to all such indices; because a proper (expanded) discussion of any of them is rather technical and dull, I would rather drop everything that applies generally. (Perhaps such items could be moved to the article on such indices.) If you agree or don't object,then I/we could discuss this more formally on the article's talk page.
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 07:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Moon! Over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#poppy tea article, a writer named Peter Thompson alleged that our Poppy tea article "draws a lot from" his widely published Confessions of an eBay Opium Addict. Thompson's report and our article are both rather lengthy, so I haven't been able to tell if there's plagiarism or copyright violation going on there. Would you be willing to look at it for me? All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Moon! – Quadell ( talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: on the same page in the "cc-by?" section, a user wants to know the proper protocol for reusing text from another website, where that text says "The material in this publication may be reproduced if [publisher and authors] is acknowledged as the source". He wants to know how to properly attribute in a Wikipedia article in this situation. I don't want to inadvertently mislead him, so I was hoping you might give a more definitive answer. Thanks! – Quadell ( talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl! I just want to give you a personal thanks for your rewriting of Freedom in the World. I shall have to read up on WP's policies, because I apparently applied the copyvio template(s) roughly. I really appreciate your help, which has ended the debate about whether there was a problem. Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to run the Russell Woollen article by someone with more copyright violation experience. The original article was deleted due to being a copyvio (I was the original CSD tagger). The article's creator created a new version of the article. At the bottom of the article, the editor notes "This article is substantially drawn from Patrick M. O'Shea's A Stylistic and Structural Analysis of Russell Woollen's La Corona, DMA dissertation, Arizona State University, 1995, and is used by permission." Of course, this does not meet WP:DCM. I also note that I believe the creator of the article previously identified himself as Patrick O'Shea (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick O'Shea). Anyway, without seeing the O'Shea dissertion, I cannot say that this is a copyright violation. But given that the creator has had prior issues with copyright violations on this subject, states that he substantially drew matarial from a dissertation, and is probably the author of that dissertation, I think this needs further follow-up as a potential copyright violation. Singularity42 ( talk) 23:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Ticket is 2011080810006695 and they want an interview on women contributors in 3 hours (you may have seen my email). You'd be good for this! Dougweller ( talk) 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2011080810006695 2011080810006695
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Many thanks for your work on copyright matters RFD ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hey MRG... I know, I know, I only call when I need something.
But you're just so helpful!
Okay, so, I ran into this conversation at PUF. The contributor uploaded a large number of high-quality photos and licensed them under a free license. These same photos are at his website, without notice of a free license there. He got a lot of notices about these uploads and gave up on Wikipedia in disgust, sadly enough. I e-mailed him through his website (as I detailed in that conversation), and he verified that he was the same person as User:Dmitri1999 (which is kinda obvious if you look at his user page). Does something more need to be done here? Thanks again, – Quadell ( talk) 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I was wondering if you could check Herb Kawainui Kane to see if the paraphrasing is too close. I have already used the Duplication Detector (results posted at the DYK nomination), but I am not sure if it is too close or not. Could you leave the feedback at the nomination page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Happy to help. Sorry for the delay. :) And the tool should probably default to the 5 word minimum. I may speak to Derrick about that. The smaller stretch is sometimes useful, but most of the time not needed. -- User:Moonriddengirl 15:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
For your work in helping to save many, many excellent images, including a few I brought to your attention, please accept this Wikilove balloon! You're a shining star of Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) |
I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob as he's started user accounts again.— Spaceman Spiff 16:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
While trying to improve sources for Alliaria petiolata, I saw that the first part of the "Description" section is word-for-word identical to this article at CitSci.org. They list four sources, but Wikipedia isn't one. At first, I thought we plagiarized them, but after carefully inspecting the history, it's clear that they plagiarized us. Is there a list of pages that are known to have plagiarized Wikipedia, so that we don't accuse our own articles of plagiarism when they are similar to one of those sources? – Quadell ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, there is a discussion here about certain movie trailers and the public domain. I saw that you discussed it a few months ago here, but there does not seem to have been a final answer. Any suggestions on how to follow up? Please comment at the new discussion! Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody check Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls? I'm considering looking for a nominator after the snafu at DYK settles down, but it would be nice to know that I may have someone looking into me. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to do a copyright check on some of the articles I have created or improved. Is there something similar to the duplication checker which checks an article against the web? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, MRG. I'm reviewing the GA nomination of John Neild, and I was wondering if you could help me determine if there are copyright problems. The author has heavily used this biography, and adequately credits the source. None of the information is copied word-for-word... but there are many tracts in which each sentence of the article corresponds to consecutive sentences in the source. Check out the three paragraphs in the "Early life" section of our article, and compare to the first two paragraphs (and first two sentences of the third paragraph) in the source. See what I mean?
On the one hand, we can't allow close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source, especially in Good Articles. On the other hand, there are only so many ways to state facts in someone's life, and we kinda have to order biographical statements sequentially, just as the source does. So is this (A) a serious problem meriting a {{
Copyvio}}
tag, (B) a minor problem that should be fixed before GA status is attained, or (C) not a problem?
(As an added concern, his other principle source is a hardcover book which is not available online, even in snippets, and I have no way of knowing how close the text is followed at this source.)
Thanks again for your help, – Quadell ( talk) 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bug you but I have a something I want a seond pair of eyes on. User:HighKing has been one of many parties involved with the disute over the inclusion/removal/alteration the term 'British Isles' from WP articles. This dispute is covered by
WP:GS/BI. HighKing has a series of cautions from me about edits from June of this year to present
[37]
[38]. He was formally warned to stop edit warring with user Stemonitis in the last 24 hrs (see
[39]) and reverted him on a new article today spilling over from the dispute at the
Myrmica_ruginodis article. However (and this might seem wonky but I know this action will creat a s**t-storm so I want 'all my ducks in a row') he questioned my warning and made this edit while I was in the middle of confirming that warning. Thus I want another uninvolved admin to review and give another POV on whether sanctions are warranted.
I have come to the opinion that it has and have sanction TB01 (topic ban from article but allowed to discuss) from the list of remedies available at
WP:GS/BI in mind. Sorry to dose this on you but I'd really appreciate some input--
Cailil
talk
18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that this latest BIs 'drama' is intimately related to User:MickMacNee's recent 'departure', and his determination to pull down the tent before he left. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
-- Cailil talk 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl!
It's been a while. Hope you've been having fun dealing with copyright concerns. Quick question:
If my company wants to make corrections to their article but, obviously, shouldn't be editing it since we have a conflict, is it appropirate (allowed under conflict policies, etc.) for us to go to a competitor (who appears to be editing their own page I'd say inapropriately but maybe not knowing that they shouldn't be) and suggest that we submit edits to one another in a reciprical fasion, rather than each editing our own pages (since I won't do that, I'm not sure how else I'd get the edits done)?
Thanks!
Ludasaphire ( talk) 06:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You have deleted my article about myself because of copyright issues with the bio that I wrote about myself that is on the Acmeeducatioanal.com website that is owned by me. HOW can I be in copyright violation of my own copyright? There is no such violation under the 18976 copyright act Copyright holders do not self violate the copyright they hold when they use their copyrighted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.156.252 ( talk) 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi MRG,
You probably shouldn't have gotten rid of the 'carotid siphon' article. Emphasis on probably. I'm actually pretty sure the source from which I was accused of copyrighting from actually copied the Wikipedia page. I take responsibility for not defending the page earlier (got a full-time job now, didn't before). Anyway it's no biggie. I don't really care too much. Good work on Wikipedia overall. Jefferson61345 ( talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For your tireless work on copyright problems. :) Obsidi♠n Soul 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
I just came accross some strange uploads and I nominated File:Tenbyoil1996.jpg and File:Sea empress2.jpg for deletion as Copyvios. Amonst the other uploads of the user I found File:Stackpole Elidor Church Wales May 2010.jpg which has the cryptic remark WWP as author which leads me to believe that is a lifted image as well but I can't place the acronym unlike the CCW used on the two images I nominated. Also the user created a rather well written article Sea Empress oil spill in one sitting and then redirected the previously existing article MV Sea Empress as a merge It is not a cut and paste move but I have a stomach feeling that something fishy is going on. Can you have a look? Thanks Agathoclea ( talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
...in case you're running out of work. :) Hi MRG! I decided to look over some recent DYK noms and on the 3rd one ran into Surajt88 ( talk · contribs). It appears that basically every substantive article edit they have made is a copy-paste, with either very minimal or usually no rewriting at all. If you look at my contribs over the last day, you'll see what I've found and removed. Some questions:
I've raised the issue on Surajt88's talk page and they haven't returned to editing yet, so I'm going to wait a while for their response. Just wanted to bring it to your attention for now. Thanks! Franamax ( talk) 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I believe I had contacted you before about my deletion of me - Duane Hitchings "Digital Hitch". I had an article on me and my history as a songwriter and musician when Wikipedia first started. Following is the first letter I sent you. Thank you. Duane Hitchings ( By the way, I no longer want "Captainhit" included in my credits. I have NO idea why Wikipedia put that on their page for me. I use that sometimes to keep my privacy and real name private on music and music business sites before "checking them out" Below is the letter I sent you.
I was shocked to find out I was deleted from Wikipedia for "blatten copyright infringements". I just found out about this recently. Everything that was on my page was/is true. Example. I was a co-writer of the super hit "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" by Rod Stewart. Long story but my name was mistakenly left out as co-writer. It took forever, but my name is now listed in SOME later "best of albums". I have co-written 3 other hits with Rod – “Young Turks”, “Infatuation” and “Crazy Bout Her”. I have also written other hits and have songs for major artist's releases ( Heart, Pat Benetar, Michael Bolton, Dennis Lambert of the Temptations – my bass line and chords have been sampled on over 120 hip hop and rap artists including Tupac , Notorious Big, Snoop Dogg, Lil Wayne, N-Trance ( Europe) etc. . I am a Grammy Award winning song writer with Kim Carnes and Craig Krampf for a movie called Flashdance - "Home Where The Heart Is". I am also a well known musician/keyboard player since 1968 having recording playing/credits with Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Miles, Cactus, etc. Two notes on Rod Stewart's " Blondes Have More Fun" album - John Jarvis, a friend of mine, was not the main keyboard player on that album, I was -- AND David Foster played the Fender Piano on "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" with me playing synth and organ. I wish you would look into this ! I was sent an e-mail from you folks about where to correct this but received a e-mail telling me I had sent my info to the wrong place to your site. I truly hope we can resolve this and I can either be put back on Wikipedia as I was before or left out because the explanation why I was from your site is wrong and very embarrassing to me. I have had quite a few inquiries from friends and powerful people who are also friends that want to know why and what dod I do wrong ! As you surely know, this is the wrong business to have bad information that makes me look like a liar. I would appreciate this being resolved as I am sure you can understand OR take the note OFF Wikipedia that I preformed a dishonest act on your site. The information Wikipedia wrote and claim is blatantly wrong as I am sure you would agree if Wikipedia would REALLY look into my history.
Thanks for your time Regards, Duane Hitchings
615 447-5121 Captainhit@Comcast.net Reverbnation Songwriter Institute of Nashville MySpace.com/duanehitchingsdigitalhitch Facebook If you would , Google my name and you will find many references to me. I am a very well known songwriter and musician since 1968 when I joined the Buddy Miles Express to 2010 AND just started writing for Rod Stewart once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhit ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to encourage a culture-wide change of that sort. :/ I think my own approach besides what I said above has two other major factors in it: (1) I don't believe that all policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are best practice, but I support them anyway because I believe in the consensus model (hence I recognize room for good faith disagreement :)) and (2) I am sadly aware that I myself require patient guidance in some things (even repeated patient guidance :D), and I'm all about the so-called " golden rule". But we have all kinds of policies to try to require people to treat each other well, and they don't seem to work very well.
Mentorship might do better, but we don't really have a culture that supports that approach. Take adminship, for instance. While the "new admin school" has been vastly improved over the years, it's really a "sink or swim" kind of proposition. I always thought that partnering a new admin with an experienced admin would be a good idea. Many experienced admins encourage new admins to ask for help if needed, but new admins might not even know they need help. :) (Example: I remember one new admin who was closing AFDs not per consensus, but in accordance with what s/he thought best. It was a good faith misunderstanding of the admin's role there.)
I guess as with anything that we have to make people care first, though. Creating a collegial environment isn't easy; it takes a lot more time (beginning, often, with biting one's lip and wiping out the first irritable reply :D). People would need to believe that it's important enough to justify the extra work. :/ -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems#Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first and Talk:Special Forces (United States Army)#Copyright problems
I have identified a book which seems to copy Wikipedia content, but the guidance in "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" does not seem to have any real advise on what to do once it has been identified. After reading Template:Backwardscopy/doc, I think I ought to be using Template:Backwardscopy but I would prefer to discuss it with editors who have used it, before doing so and I am not sure which talk page to use for such a discussion. What I would like to do is know if there is such a place and then to update the section "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" so others who travel in my footsteps know what to do and where to go. If you can help me it would be much appreciated. -- PBS ( talk) 05:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I found and reported a copyvio problem of
205.232.35.3 (
talk) on
New York Academy of Medicine. More details can be found in
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 12. But checking on this IP-address I just found out that it belongs to the New York Academy of Medicine itself! So the copyvio problem becomes also a
COI problem. What is the best way forward? I think we should inform this organization about it. I guess there is some standard email template we can send via OTRS? I looked up on their website an email address we can use: msandersnyam.org of Mary Sanders; she is executive assistant of their president. --
SchreyP (
messages)
21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. I recently came across an article, All-time Allsvenskan table, which I sent to AfD (see AfD) mainly on notability and NOTSTATS grounds (both of which may be fixed). The other issue was a copyvio concern. The article, which is just a table of statistics at the moment, is basically exactly the same as the article's only reference, except that it is in wiki-markup. I know that facts are not copyrightable, but it seem like a copyvio to me to just lay it out in practically the exact same format. So, is that a copyvio? If so, can anything be done to avoid it being a copyvio, or will it need to be deleted? Best, Jenks24 ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding organisation, the format of W (wins), D (draws), L (losses), GF (goals for), GA (goals against), GD (goal difference—goals for minus goals against), Pts (points) is again fairly universal and used in the majority of soccer competitions (as far as I know nearly all soccer competitions have a league table formatted in a similar, if not identical, style).
So, I've confused myself really :) I'm still unsure if the table is creative or not. Sorry to be a bother, but do you have any more advice?
On a related note, I also found All-time Argentine Primera División table, which is similar, but I feel it is creative. The article apparently follows the refs exactly in awarding two points for some wins, while three points for other wins, two points for some draws, one point for other draws, etc. Again, sorry to bother you, but is that a copyvio then, if the table is deemed to be creative? Thanks in advance, Jenks24 ( talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I took the liberty to post this on your talk page because I saw on the Copyright Problems page that you are an active administrator. I don't know what to do exactly, but I have noticed that material from the English article on Thessaloniki (more specifically the section on Historical ethnic statistics) has been copied to the Macedonian wikipedia. Not only is the text not attributed to the original source ( here and here), but there is no mention that the material has been copied from the English wikipedia. Moreover, the statistics have been changed to portray a view of Macedonian nationalism: the word "Bulgarians" was changed to "Macedonians" (see here) while the numbers are the same both in the English and the Macedonian articles, although the original source has nothing to do with Macedonians. This would be a copyright violation of work published by a user on Wikipedia, would it not? I am unsure as to how to procede from here, and I would like your opinion on this. Thanks for your consideration. -- Philly boy92 ( talk) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
regarding your query before I disappeared -- some of the socks have been adding copyvios. Also, checking the contributions of the 59.178.xx.xx range on a regular basis would help as will protecting some of his regular articles. I don't know if adding these to the CCI is necessary right now, but noting the IP range ( Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob) might probably be needed. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 10:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
hello,
can you please check the "In popular culture" section in Otis Redding? It looks like a copyvio of [44], but it could be just a mirror site of Wikipedia. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A lot of Jeff Antebi seems to be copied straight from his Huffington Post bio. Possible deletion-worthy? Jrcla2 ( talk) 22:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Moonriddengirl,
You really deserve this. You're an outstanding contributor, have an answer to everything, and have been helping a lot of people, not to mention writing. :o) Thanks for all your contributions! NehaMich. ( talk) 02:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Here's another one, since they look good together--for your continued efforts to keep the place clean. Drmies ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
I had reverted back for the article "Suppliers Credit" stating that the original source is my article and it is not copyrighted, still the article has been deleted.
Can you please reverse the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.54.148 ( talk) 14:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Twittering Machine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Paul Klee’s Twittering Machine (pictured), now held by MOMA, was designated a work of degenerate art by the Nazi German government and sold for $120 in 1939? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Twittering Machine.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you please direct me to the place where it says you are able to remove User pages? Thanks Djflem ( talk) 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Just saying hi and thanks for jumping in at Bar, Montenegro. Not too many of us will venture into Balkan territory. I haven't bumped in to you in quite a while. Cheers! Toddst1 ( talk) 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not asking that you get involved, (yet), but am I on a correct track with this edit? My76Strat ( talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 18:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 03:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
See [46] and [47]. I was in the proces of checking this new users unsourced additions, when another editor intervened to edit war the material into the article. As it turns out all of this new editor's material was a copyvio. Other editors have now added citations and done a lot of work but copyvio material remains. I'm of the view to revert back to the text before this edit but after having a bruising encounter with the guy edit warring to keep it, I expect there will be further trouble. Would you consider my proposed course of action, the right thing to do? Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. Can you please clean up and block the following page List of Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon Episodes as you did to List of Navya episodes. This page is also copied and pasted from its original source, http://starplus.startv.in/recaps.aspx?sid=124. I believe it should be deleted so no further edits will be made from whoever was pasting the information. Can you please look at this... Thank you! Survir ( talk) 04:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm reviewing the GA nomination of Fair dealing in United Kingdom law (a very interesting topic!), and I'm trying to determine the copyright status of the only image that article uses, File:Carlos de Gales (2011).jpg. It's tagged as PD based on the legal notice from the source here ( here is the official English translation). That doesn't sound PD to me, but I thought I'd ask your opinion, since it could well apply to text or other images from that source. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I was going through the listings at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and I came across this concern. I thought it might be more your cup of tea. – Quadell ( talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please move back Solar–Hydrogen energy cycle back to my userspace so that I can work on the copyright concerns. Thanks. Suraj T 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Please can you inform me of the reason why the page of/about Phillip Coppens is removed/deleted?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
83.84.56.149 ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Yours sincerely Gert-Jan Luis
While working with some editors on the University of Pennsylvania, I have found a fairly substantial amount of close paraphrasing and copyrighted information. I was hoping you could help find which information is copyrighted so we could replace it more quickly. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you have a look at the uplaods of CalvinSays, they all (bar one) appear to be taken form http://www.kondimopoulos.com, the other one ( File:Konstantin Dimopoulos-new.jpg)from http://sisl.tumblr.com/ Thanks. Mt king (edits) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Some aspirin for you |
I haven't seen you around much lately. I hope you're doing okay. Just in case you're dealing with a migraine, here are some pretend aspirin (which probably work about as well as real aspirin for migraines). Hope to see you around soon! – Quadell ( talk) 02:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
This is to say thank you for your patience ,time and attention payed to the issues that matter :) Werbena ( talk) 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
Could you please provide me copies of the deleted articles Napier Mole Bridge and Native Jetty Bridge? I wish to recreate the articles. I hope you can respond to my request. Regards, Drspaz ( talk) 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for someone who could advice and help me to write the article and give the notess to learn about copyright.
could you advice where i can learn Learning to balance quotation and writing in your own words is a tricky proposition on Wikipedia, but it is an important one to master. We do have to make sure that our articles are fully compliant with US copyright law.
I shall be thankful if you could advice and list out my articles where i need to work on copyright issues.regards-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 13:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay well!!!
And i am sorry,but i have to tell that i am confused with your this advice below.
can you please specify what exactly you want me to writhe for???
I tried my best to write this article, if there is any thing you see copyright please advise me ( as you said ) how i can trickily rewrite it but please do not remove the data, its a very hardwork of my ( in this manner i can learn to rewrite). regards-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 13:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot believe you completely deleted the article Royalist rising of 1651 to 1654 ! That was a very important article. Sure there were some copyright problems but that could easily have been amended with deletion of the article! QuintusPetillius ( talk) 14:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes I would like to re-write it. However it might take some time. IT would be useful if someone could tell me exactly where the copyright issues are within the article. Thanks. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 14:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
After the defeat of the Royalist army in Scotland, under James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose, Charles II signed a draft agreement of the Covenant on 1 May 1650. The new King was also forced to agree to a number of humiliating concessions both before and after his return to Scotland. He not only signed both Covenants but was forced into dismissing many members of his household but, against his own beliefs and conscience, renounced his Irish supporters and agreed to impose Presbyterianism throughout the three kingdoms.
Despondent at the recent defeat of his supporters in Ireland and Montrose’s lack of success in Scotland, Charles II signed a draft agreement on 1 May 1650. The new King was forced to agree to a number of humiliating concessions both before and after his return to Scottish land. He not only signed both Covenants and was forced into dismissing many members of his household but, against his own beliefs and conscience, renounced his Irish supporters and agreed to impose Presbyterianism throughout the three kingdoms.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
2011 Norway attacks (Reactions). Just wondering what your opinion might be. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I am reviewing a GAN and I have a question regarding fair use of block quotes. Here is the edit where I said my thoughts, and stated that I will seek expert advice (that's you). The comments regard the text shown in the references section of the article I am reviewing. Please comment at the bottom of this section and if I was wrong in my counsel, correct me with the kindness of tact few others have achieved. With esteem, My76Strat ( talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, as there has been multiple repeated additions of the same copyright material to Bollywood films of 2011 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), do you have a view on raising protection from non-confirmed indef to, say, a week at a time of admin only protection whilst there is active discussion or research on finding a resolution to the copyright problem (assuming that this is still considered on-going)? Particularly given the context of the sock activity we have seen recently plus that the article is a bit of an unfortunate bear trap for less aware newer contributors. Thanks Fæ ( talk) 04:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
[1] is clearly from the German article. I'm assuming it's a machine translation but it might just be a bad manual one. Not sure what to do about it. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi 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 talk 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dear 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)
Hey, 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)
Hi, 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 Wikipedia. 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)
Hi MRG :)
I've received a reply from the BOI admin. He has some trouble filling in the blanks of one paragraph:
"I agree to [STANDARD CHOICE; SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION ON TYPE OF LICENSE: publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).]"
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 • Talk2me 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, 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)
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 [3] 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: Wikipedia: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 [my] 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 [4] 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)
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 - Wikipedia 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)
Margaret, Have you been following what's been happening on ANI? They have now started removing other editors' comments from the page. Can you step in and restore order? 94.194.158.164 ( talk) 15:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the headsup. There are two addresses on the link:
and
Which one of the two will handle the matter?
The following is a draft of the letter I propose to send. Do you have any comments? <snip> 217.169.37.146 ( talk) 15:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems that good chunks of this article: Anatolia are copy/pasted from this copyrighted source: [5]. 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 [6]. I haven't checked the other sources used in the article. Since this is a GA I listed it for review [7] (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 [8]. 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 [9] 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)
In addition to the GAs I brought up above [10], Gazette Building (Little Rock, Arkansas) also appears to be mostly copied verbatim from here (DD: [11]), which predates the creation of the article on Wikipedia ( May 2008 vs. Nov 2007), and which is a copyrighted source [12]. I think. I really could use a second pair of eyes to make sure I'm checking these things correctly.
Hi 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. [13] 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)
If you look at Mathsci's edit the last 3 days he has done little except followed me around Wikipedia. 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)
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)
Hello 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.
Description |
This is a picture from the movie, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. © Warner Brothers Pictures |
---|---|
Source |
This image can be found at the website, www.movies.about.com ( [18]) |
Article | |
Portion used |
The entire image is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended purpose of the image. |
Low resolution? |
This image is of a caertain size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily in high resolution. |
Purpose of use |
An images that specifys other characters in the film. This should be adressed to readers when reading the plot to identify the characters with their names, (with the exeption of one character in the image). Other than the current image in the infobox, this picture gives clear names to define the four main characters in the film. |
Replaceable? |
Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. |
Other information |
© Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole, is a copyright of Warner Brothers Entertainment All rights reserved. |
Fair use Fair use of copyrighted material in the context of Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive_38true |
Monkeys 9711 ( talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'd go that far. :) If I were you, I would at least try asking at WT:NFC. If they say it doesn't work, they may be able to explain why. And you may be able to explain it to me someday. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
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)
(Yeah, I was too lazy to make up a section name) I keep forgetting to ask this, but I just wanted to make sure of this for once. This user was a alt account I made, simply because that username is what I use on youtube. (not trying to advertise) (basically, I don't want someone impersonating me by using my youtube username) Since this is the case, would it be a allowed legit alt account, even though I'll likely never use it? LikeLakers2 ( talk) 00:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
This is not so much for MRG as for her knowledgeable TPS. I want to do something, while preserving the history, and I have no experience with the cut and paste and merge techniques designed to preserve editing history.
I'll try to give a short summary here, but the longer details are at my talk page: here
Short version: The current text in Haroon Rashid was added by a single editor with two edits in history, both on 4 July 2011. The first edit blanked the page, the second add the text you see now. (other minor edits has added cats etc.) I don't think it would survive a BLProd, but if it did, it would almost certainly fail an AfD. I do think the redirect of Haroon Rashid Harun al-Rashid. However, if the current version is deleted, the edit history would be lost. What I would like to do is carve out the existing text into a new article, Haroon Rashi (engineer), let that one stand or fall on its own merits (BLProd, and AfD if needed), and restore the main article to the status of a redirect.
I don't know how to do that and preserve the edit "history" of User:Cutehr.
Suggestions?-- SPhilbrick T 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Understood. :) I've had to do a fair number of them; for some reason, I've come upon a lot of article hijacking in my career! -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason you have chosen to gut this article rather than address copyright issues? Thanks Djflem ( talk) 19:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not find an explanation for why an entire article would be gutted of content and references including all parts which were not subject to questions of copyright. Can you point out that policy on the page you've cited. Thanks Djflem ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Both of the above seem to indicate that the investigator should thoroughly investigate each article before deciding to keep, alter, or delete it and that if there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. As the copyright clerk specifically cited the sources where there were copyright issues, why would you choose to delete material where there were was none? Djflem ( talk) 19:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
One presumes a copyright clerk has does his or her work before tagging an article, would properly identify the section and/or text at contention, and then tag it correctly if a s(he) felt there was an issue. One would presume that the investigator would look at the text and sources noted by the clerk and report provided in the tag. Do you believe that has been done w/ the above or any other articles? Incidentally, where and why does the opening of an investigation establish a policy that presumes anything? How does remove the infringing text from the article translate to gutting a article? Djflem ( talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man named Martin, angered by his earlier imprisonment in the City Hall on debt charges, allegedly set fire to the building.
It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man angered by his earlier imprisonment on debt charges allegedly set the building afire..
Would you mind adding your observations concerning Paul's inquiry about the COI tag on the article talk page Talk:Paul S. Farmer? Thanks Opbeith ( talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am one of Vic Reinemer's sons. I did not create the Vic Reinemer entry and was not aware of its existence. So now that I've come across an apparent deletion of it, I'm curious to know what it said, who had posted it and, specifically, why it was deleted. Is any of this information available?
Thanks very much,
Steve Reinemer
168.103.225.22 ( talk) 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to get a transcript of what had been posted for Vic Reinemer?
168.103.225.22 ( talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
If someone was planning to {{ trout}} Jimbo Wales, what would they use? I'd say they could use a barnstar on him, since he is a/the founder of Wikipedia. LikeLakers2 ( talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
It's been suggested that, either in a volunteer or WMF position (use whichever is more appropriate), that you might want to observe this proceeding. A BLP is complaining about a photograph taken of her; meanwhile, the copyright holder of the photograph took it legally at an event with about eight other pictures (see Commons discussion). It seems that this BLP isn't aware of how Wikipedia works and is not happy with the fact that a picture and article about her are present on Wikipedia. Might it be prudent to take this one over? Your comments at AN/I are welcome. CycloneGU ( talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Depends on how you define famous. There's David Eppstein/ User:David Eppstein (an admin), but I doubt he has too m any photo ops, being a mathematician. :D (That said, there are a surprising number of transclusions to connected contributor. 1914!) You're probably right about that; that's why one of the first things we usually do at OTRS is explain how Wikipedia works. Since I started my contract with the Foundation, I've been surprised by how many people call or write it, thinking that Wikipedia is professionally written and maintained! I thought everybody knew that Wikipedia was the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hey, MRG. Could you take a look at User talk:Ken keisel and either explain to him or the other editors who've chimed in (including me) what's wrong with their understanding of Wikipedia copyright policy? Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi MRG, you may remember a while back the issue we had with foundational copyvio at Vivian Balakrishnan, where we found text in the first diff identical to that on a government biography in 2004. It now appears this same text is available on his personal website licensed under a CC license. A number of anonymous IPs, likely the same user on a (very) dynamic IP, has repeatedly reinserted this material, going as far as to claim that the text "was obviously written by him too". My opinion is that we should err on the side of copyright and I absolutely do not buy what the anon editor is saying (there has been a much larger issue of pro-government POV pushing going on), but I will defer to your copyright expertise on whether or not this text is legit. Please be aware that the article currently contains this text, as it was readded today.
Thanks, Strange Passerby ( talk • cont) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I see that the content has been rewritten; this is always a good alternative when we can't be sure of the copyright status of the original. We can't assume that "the government must be aware" and that their lack of reaction indicates they don't care. The stakes particularly for our reusers are too high if we are wrong.
In terms of protection, if the page is semi-protected, you have the option to use your named account to edit it. You have no explicit right to expect others to edit it on your behalf if you're not willing to do so.
"Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" is specifically mentioned as a form of sock puppetry. If you believe that any administrator is abusing his or her authority, you need to take action under Wikipedia:ADMIN#Disputes or complaints rather than violating policy yourself. Please be careful to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's rather tenuous to suggest that EditorA must be biased because she is a lesbian and EditorB must be biased because he may know EditorA. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I left a question about a copyright issue at User talk:Worm That Turned#Copyright question 2 and thought you might be able to provide an answer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
New Page Patrol is a trainwreck and has been for a long time. It is most unlikely that the majority of those who purport to patrol new pages even bother to carry out the most simple of checks requested in the task list at WP:NPP. The only way to fix the copyvio problem is to turn New Page Patroller into a user right, for experienced editors only. CorenBot will just have to be fixed very urgently, while those of us in the minority who are admins and experienced users who occasionally have a stab at NPP, generally carry out the controls you suggested. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I've indefinitely blocked Arfaz ( talk · contribs) for continued copyvio (following an OTRS complaint). He's edited/created a lot of articles which may need review. Dougweller ( talk) 18:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I am struggling to convince an experienced contributor on my talk page that GBooks is not the same worldwide. They cannot believe that this applies to out-of-copyright, "full view" books, with my point being that the book in question is not full view here in the UK even though it might be in India or wherever the contributor is. I tried pointing to Uncle G's essay and that hasn't worked; I even mentioned AGF. Bit of a mess, really, since this person seems to be claiming that their having had no previous sighting of this issue (in five years of experience and something to do with FAC) is a reason why I am doubted.
I have taken a screenshot to demo the GBooks page that I see but am unsure whether or not I can upload it, even for ten minutes or so. I rather think that FUR would have to be deployed. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush ( talk) 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I've just done this. Not sure if it represents an ongoing pattern or not. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
please can I have a copy of the article 'Surveyjet.net' so I can put it on WikiAlpha. Thanks Alicianpig ( talk) 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, 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)
In your eminently knowledgeable opinion, is this article too close of a paraphrase of the bio from this website? From what I've compared there appears to be entire phrases lifted verbatim. The material was added in a series of edits beginning here. Jezebel'sPonyo bons mots 18:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
hello moonriddengirl
I am the managing director of the dance company of Yoshiko Chuma, called The School of Hard Knocks. Several months ago, I submitted an article about Yoshiko Chuma, which you deleted since it resembled her webpage. I am also the author (uncited) of her website pages, so I would like to please request that the article about Ms Chuma be submitted to wikipedia again. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bashadetroit ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. I know you're the expert around here about investigating copyvios and related matters. If not you maybe a talk page stalker could investigate but it seems that The Cloud (poem) might have some copyvio material (text) added in it by Carl savich ( talk · contribs). The (many) IPs that have been editing that article also appear to be "in" on it and may or may not be Carl whilst logged out. Killiondude ( talk) 19:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments on my talk page regarding the article I wrote on Anthony A. Mitchell. I have taken your suggestions to heart and have fully revised the text so that not a single sentence bares any resemblance to the original sources. Please review my updated text and offer comments on the new version. - Ken keisel ( talk) 20:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Patelurology2 ( talk) 00:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hyper Island is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyper Island until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Albacore ( talk) 22:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Is there a list somewhere here which tells whether images from websites of different national governments are public domain? The images at [32] would be possibilities for our new article on Hylesia nigricans, but I have no idea whether they are PD or not. Can you (or a TPS) enlighten me? Ladyof Shalott 23:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you could clear this up for me. In cases where a source is old enough to be in public domain, and where the article pretty much copies it verbatim what level of attribution is necessary? I'm thinking specifically of this article Hayyim Selig Slonimski which is copied verbatim from here, which was originally published 1901 and 1906. The article does have some inline citations for particular sentences to the original source but nowhere does it say, "this has been copied-pasted from the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906)". How do we deal with stuff like this? Thanks (and I know you're over worked and I very much appreciate your work here) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Delayed reply - I was on holidays :) Hi Moonriddengirl, sorry for the confusion - I will put next time all details on the related Copyright problems day page. I'm learning every time more :) -- SchreyP ( messages) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
You know whats fun? Making personal templates, userboxes, books made with Special:Book, and stuff like that, inside my userspace. I wish to say that the one personal template I do have is like Template:Subpages, but the difference? It actually shows a dynamic listing instead of a simple link. All it simply uses is "{{Special:PrefixIndex/{{FULLPAGENAME}}/}}". Perhaps you could take a look at what I have made and tell me what you think? (or you could even help make them better and stuff by editting them with some things that will, well, make it better. (or at least fix any problems one may have) I don't mind anyone doing so, so long as it isn't intentional vandalism) LikeLakers2 ( talk) 02:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi I have just logged onto my account after a long time not active - in part because of frustration at increasing bureaucracy to do anything, and in part that hard work was all to easily deleted by people who knew nothing about the topic. I see unfortunately the images were deleted in the meantime. Having read both your polite note on my page and your web page notes about copyright and deletionism, I see you have actually thought about the matter. I would like to belated provide an answer to you.
Let me give you some background to my views and why this sort of thing frustrates me.
AS you mentioned, you are not a lawyer. As you may or may have not noticed from the profile page I was a lawyer, though neither an IP nor a US one, so I wouldn't pretend any great expertise. However I do know enough to know the threat of a New Zealand copyright holder's first approach being to sue Wikipedia over hosting an image (rather than proving ownership and requesting it be taken down) is virtually nil - we simply lack the legalistic culture of the US.
As you are no doubt aware, Wikipedia tends to have an American bias in content. One of the ways this shows in insisting upon applying American law - and in particular American intellectual property law - to postings from the rest of the world about the rest of the world - in the past other deletionists have justified that by the all but irrelevant to the rest of the world fact the servers are located in the US.
One of the problems driving the US bias is Wikipedia's "Free Use" policy dovetails with the way the US government has released many historical government images into the public domain - but not with other countries. Most commonwealth nations have also allowed free publication of historic government images but in a slightly different way that hardline wikipedia policy makers are not flexible enough to allow use on Wikipedia; Commonwealth nations have "crown copyright", which usually allows reproduction free of charge, but unfortunately for the free use policy, with some trivial conditions which vary from place to place - typically these are noting the crown copyright, not altering the image so as to mislead, or misrepresent what it shows. Often commercial use is also banned.
Now - as is also the case in the US - all images taken by government employees are the intellectual property of the government. Therefore finding any images which are not crown copyright to illustrate a New Zealand article is almost impossible. To me the logical thing would be to create a category for crown copyright images but this has been suggested before by others and I understand from my point of view voted down by American free use ideologues who don't care if Wikipedia is unrepresentative provided corporations can use images off it in advertisements :-).
Even when - as a colleague did - permission was with great difficulty obtained from the crown to release an image for free use on Wikipedia, it was promptly deleted again because the deletionist could find it elsewhere on the web with crown copyright tagged on it. One reason why this is not a bigger issue is in commonwealth articles many clearly crown copyright images have been added and have gone unnoticed by deletionists.
Anyway as a New Zealand aircraft article writer frustrated by this, I was delighted to find a whole filing cabinet of aircraft photos from the 1920s to 1950s for sale amongst the estate effects of a PRIVATE photographer. Furthermore, after a lot of explanation about your policy and essentially WTFing from the vendor, they were quite happy to release the images of the photos I purchased into the public domain.
Naturally the 'tick which box of American Intellectual Property Law Applies to your image" was too simplistic to cope with this reality, hence my explanation. I have no idea what the usual WP:OTRS procedures are, had never heard of them when I added the material and searching Wikipedia for that produces a lot of German and no answer. Frankly I don't care; the images are no longer easily accessible and frankly my frustration with the increasing number of hoops to go through to add content and this sort of accidental well intentioned entirely within policy vandalism and has seen me give up.
I still think Wikipedia is a great idea, but since I see you are paid staff, can I leave with a plea you consider making it easier for new and occasional contributors, especially from outside the US, because it seems to my frustrated mind that the only thing not being deleted is the 9/10s of Byzantine pedantic policies comprehensible that just serve the tiny shrinking core of regular editors. Winstonwolfe ( talk) 03:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll be watching your talk page for about a week or so, if you want to talk about the best ways to move forward. You are also always welcome to come by mine. Thanks, and sorry for the red tape, but when it comes to copyright we do try to keep everything on the record. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC) Other photographs seem to be in similar condition: File:Fariey IIIF of NZPAF.JPG, File:ZK-AFH Miles Whitney Straight.jpg, File:Gloster Grebe and Bristol Fighters NZPAF.JPG. File:Etrich Taube replica.JPG is also lacking evidence of permission. Given the breadth of the issue, I double-checked with an admin at Commons, who agreed that the tag was the best way to move forward here (at my talk page). Accordingly, these images have also been now tagged. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you are probably interested in discussions regarding NFC, reading through the following discussions might be fun:
2. Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#"All user-created images must be licensed under a free license"
NFC can result in some really interesting discussions. :) Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 05:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, could you revisit your comments on the article talk page with regard to the full list being a copyvio? It has since been re-added and we probably should stay consistent, if indeed this is a copyvio. Cheers Fæ ( talk) 11:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. The paper seems to be freely available for view here to everyone at the second author's previous place of employment. [33] Google scholar points to other freely available versions on academic websites. So I think the worries about piracy that Miradre expressed were unwarranted. Mathsci ( talk) 15:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. I'm sure you're very busy, but there's no-one whose opinion on copyright issues I respect more, so if you could quickly cast your eye over something for me, I'd appreciate it. This section was something I wrote a while back, heavily quoting from an academic article, in bullet point form. It was supposed to be the ground work for a proper prose section, but I never got round to it. Recently someone claimed that this section was a copyright violation [34], though the decoration of the section with POV tags is indicative of their real complaint, I think. Anyway, is there a real concern here or not? PS Just so you know, this is currently an issue in an ANI thread, but don't worry about that, I just want your opinion here. Thanks. Rd232 talk 09:44, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I have rewritten it and closed the CP listing. "Intext" means that when we directly quote somebody, we don't just cite them, we name them before the quote. "John said...." :) When we do a lot of direct quotation, that can get a bit redundant, but it's hard to avoid. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
BTW, MRG, I examined the source and was alarmed at seeing so many paragraphs from Giavonne's page reviewing previous studies. I was surprised that the matchings were so low, when I consulted the tool, but reported its results because the tool's output is standard. Kiefer. Wolfowitz 02:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Following your clean-up of Freedom in the World (by Freedom House), I did a rewrite of my own.
Just press "Show" (on the right) for the details!
I tried to correct the unreliable/POV problems.
To make the section more readable. I moved the most interesting and controversial section, alleging ideological bias, to the top. I added explanations of unfamiliar terms. I would appreciate your criticism.
There are some criticisms of the methods by the Italian fellow that are about specifics of Freedom House's reporting, which should stay, of course.
There are other criticisms that apply to all such indices; because a proper (expanded) discussion of any of them is rather technical and dull, I would rather drop everything that applies generally. (Perhaps such items could be moved to the article on such indices.) If you agree or don't object,then I/we could discuss this more formally on the article's talk page.
Cheers, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 07:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Moon! Over at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#poppy tea article, a writer named Peter Thompson alleged that our Poppy tea article "draws a lot from" his widely published Confessions of an eBay Opium Addict. Thompson's report and our article are both rather lengthy, so I haven't been able to tell if there's plagiarism or copyright violation going on there. Would you be willing to look at it for me? All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, Moon! – Quadell ( talk) 16:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: on the same page in the "cc-by?" section, a user wants to know the proper protocol for reusing text from another website, where that text says "The material in this publication may be reproduced if [publisher and authors] is acknowledged as the source". He wants to know how to properly attribute in a Wikipedia article in this situation. I don't want to inadvertently mislead him, so I was hoping you might give a more definitive answer. Thanks! – Quadell ( talk) 16:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl! I just want to give you a personal thanks for your rewriting of Freedom in the World. I shall have to read up on WP's policies, because I apparently applied the copyvio template(s) roughly. I really appreciate your help, which has ended the debate about whether there was a problem. Best regards, Kiefer. Wolfowitz 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to run the Russell Woollen article by someone with more copyright violation experience. The original article was deleted due to being a copyvio (I was the original CSD tagger). The article's creator created a new version of the article. At the bottom of the article, the editor notes "This article is substantially drawn from Patrick M. O'Shea's A Stylistic and Structural Analysis of Russell Woollen's La Corona, DMA dissertation, Arizona State University, 1995, and is used by permission." Of course, this does not meet WP:DCM. I also note that I believe the creator of the article previously identified himself as Patrick O'Shea (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick O'Shea). Anyway, without seeing the O'Shea dissertion, I cannot say that this is a copyright violation. But given that the creator has had prior issues with copyright violations on this subject, states that he substantially drew matarial from a dissertation, and is probably the author of that dissertation, I think this needs further follow-up as a potential copyright violation. Singularity42 ( talk) 23:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Ticket is 2011080810006695 and they want an interview on women contributors in 3 hours (you may have seen my email). You'd be good for this! Dougweller ( talk) 13:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC) 2011080810006695 2011080810006695
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Many thanks for your work on copyright matters RFD ( talk) 16:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC) |
Hey MRG... I know, I know, I only call when I need something.
But you're just so helpful!
Okay, so, I ran into this conversation at PUF. The contributor uploaded a large number of high-quality photos and licensed them under a free license. These same photos are at his website, without notice of a free license there. He got a lot of notices about these uploads and gave up on Wikipedia in disgust, sadly enough. I e-mailed him through his website (as I detailed in that conversation), and he verified that he was the same person as User:Dmitri1999 (which is kinda obvious if you look at his user page). Does something more need to be done here? Thanks again, – Quadell ( talk) 00:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I was wondering if you could check Herb Kawainui Kane to see if the paraphrasing is too close. I have already used the Duplication Detector (results posted at the DYK nomination), but I am not sure if it is too close or not. Could you leave the feedback at the nomination page? Thanks. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Happy to help. Sorry for the delay. :) And the tool should probably default to the 5 word minimum. I may speak to Derrick about that. The smaller stretch is sometimes useful, but most of the time not needed. -- User:Moonriddengirl 15:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
For your work in helping to save many, many excellent images, including a few I brought to your attention, please accept this Wikilove balloon! You're a shining star of Wikipedia. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) |
I've filed an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vrghs jacob as he's started user accounts again.— Spaceman Spiff 16:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
While trying to improve sources for Alliaria petiolata, I saw that the first part of the "Description" section is word-for-word identical to this article at CitSci.org. They list four sources, but Wikipedia isn't one. At first, I thought we plagiarized them, but after carefully inspecting the history, it's clear that they plagiarized us. Is there a list of pages that are known to have plagiarized Wikipedia, so that we don't accuse our own articles of plagiarism when they are similar to one of those sources? – Quadell ( talk) 19:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello, there is a discussion here about certain movie trailers and the public domain. I saw that you discussed it a few months ago here, but there does not seem to have been a final answer. Any suggestions on how to follow up? Please comment at the new discussion! Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody check Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls? I'm considering looking for a nominator after the snafu at DYK settles down, but it would be nice to know that I may have someone looking into me. Crisco 1492 ( talk) 09:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I would like to do a copyright check on some of the articles I have created or improved. Is there something similar to the duplication checker which checks an article against the web? Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, MRG. I'm reviewing the GA nomination of John Neild, and I was wondering if you could help me determine if there are copyright problems. The author has heavily used this biography, and adequately credits the source. None of the information is copied word-for-word... but there are many tracts in which each sentence of the article corresponds to consecutive sentences in the source. Check out the three paragraphs in the "Early life" section of our article, and compare to the first two paragraphs (and first two sentences of the third paragraph) in the source. See what I mean?
On the one hand, we can't allow close paraphrasing of a copyrighted source, especially in Good Articles. On the other hand, there are only so many ways to state facts in someone's life, and we kinda have to order biographical statements sequentially, just as the source does. So is this (A) a serious problem meriting a {{
Copyvio}}
tag, (B) a minor problem that should be fixed before GA status is attained, or (C) not a problem?
(As an added concern, his other principle source is a hardcover book which is not available online, even in snippets, and I have no way of knowing how close the text is followed at this source.)
Thanks again for your help, – Quadell ( talk) 20:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bug you but I have a something I want a seond pair of eyes on. User:HighKing has been one of many parties involved with the disute over the inclusion/removal/alteration the term 'British Isles' from WP articles. This dispute is covered by
WP:GS/BI. HighKing has a series of cautions from me about edits from June of this year to present
[37]
[38]. He was formally warned to stop edit warring with user Stemonitis in the last 24 hrs (see
[39]) and reverted him on a new article today spilling over from the dispute at the
Myrmica_ruginodis article. However (and this might seem wonky but I know this action will creat a s**t-storm so I want 'all my ducks in a row') he questioned my warning and made this edit while I was in the middle of confirming that warning. Thus I want another uninvolved admin to review and give another POV on whether sanctions are warranted.
I have come to the opinion that it has and have sanction TB01 (topic ban from article but allowed to discuss) from the list of remedies available at
WP:GS/BI in mind. Sorry to dose this on you but I'd really appreciate some input--
Cailil
talk
18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It should also be noted that this latest BIs 'drama' is intimately related to User:MickMacNee's recent 'departure', and his determination to pull down the tent before he left. RashersTierney ( talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
-- Cailil talk 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl!
It's been a while. Hope you've been having fun dealing with copyright concerns. Quick question:
If my company wants to make corrections to their article but, obviously, shouldn't be editing it since we have a conflict, is it appropirate (allowed under conflict policies, etc.) for us to go to a competitor (who appears to be editing their own page I'd say inapropriately but maybe not knowing that they shouldn't be) and suggest that we submit edits to one another in a reciprical fasion, rather than each editing our own pages (since I won't do that, I'm not sure how else I'd get the edits done)?
Thanks!
Ludasaphire ( talk) 06:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
You have deleted my article about myself because of copyright issues with the bio that I wrote about myself that is on the Acmeeducatioanal.com website that is owned by me. HOW can I be in copyright violation of my own copyright? There is no such violation under the 18976 copyright act Copyright holders do not self violate the copyright they hold when they use their copyrighted material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.156.252 ( talk) 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi MRG,
You probably shouldn't have gotten rid of the 'carotid siphon' article. Emphasis on probably. I'm actually pretty sure the source from which I was accused of copyrighting from actually copied the Wikipedia page. I take responsibility for not defending the page earlier (got a full-time job now, didn't before). Anyway it's no biggie. I don't really care too much. Good work on Wikipedia overall. Jefferson61345 ( talk) 02:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar |
For your tireless work on copyright problems. :) Obsidi♠n Soul 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC) |
I just came accross some strange uploads and I nominated File:Tenbyoil1996.jpg and File:Sea empress2.jpg for deletion as Copyvios. Amonst the other uploads of the user I found File:Stackpole Elidor Church Wales May 2010.jpg which has the cryptic remark WWP as author which leads me to believe that is a lifted image as well but I can't place the acronym unlike the CCW used on the two images I nominated. Also the user created a rather well written article Sea Empress oil spill in one sitting and then redirected the previously existing article MV Sea Empress as a merge It is not a cut and paste move but I have a stomach feeling that something fishy is going on. Can you have a look? Thanks Agathoclea ( talk) 22:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
...in case you're running out of work. :) Hi MRG! I decided to look over some recent DYK noms and on the 3rd one ran into Surajt88 ( talk · contribs). It appears that basically every substantive article edit they have made is a copy-paste, with either very minimal or usually no rewriting at all. If you look at my contribs over the last day, you'll see what I've found and removed. Some questions:
I've raised the issue on Surajt88's talk page and they haven't returned to editing yet, so I'm going to wait a while for their response. Just wanted to bring it to your attention for now. Thanks! Franamax ( talk) 18:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I believe I had contacted you before about my deletion of me - Duane Hitchings "Digital Hitch". I had an article on me and my history as a songwriter and musician when Wikipedia first started. Following is the first letter I sent you. Thank you. Duane Hitchings ( By the way, I no longer want "Captainhit" included in my credits. I have NO idea why Wikipedia put that on their page for me. I use that sometimes to keep my privacy and real name private on music and music business sites before "checking them out" Below is the letter I sent you.
I was shocked to find out I was deleted from Wikipedia for "blatten copyright infringements". I just found out about this recently. Everything that was on my page was/is true. Example. I was a co-writer of the super hit "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" by Rod Stewart. Long story but my name was mistakenly left out as co-writer. It took forever, but my name is now listed in SOME later "best of albums". I have co-written 3 other hits with Rod – “Young Turks”, “Infatuation” and “Crazy Bout Her”. I have also written other hits and have songs for major artist's releases ( Heart, Pat Benetar, Michael Bolton, Dennis Lambert of the Temptations – my bass line and chords have been sampled on over 120 hip hop and rap artists including Tupac , Notorious Big, Snoop Dogg, Lil Wayne, N-Trance ( Europe) etc. . I am a Grammy Award winning song writer with Kim Carnes and Craig Krampf for a movie called Flashdance - "Home Where The Heart Is". I am also a well known musician/keyboard player since 1968 having recording playing/credits with Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Miles, Cactus, etc. Two notes on Rod Stewart's " Blondes Have More Fun" album - John Jarvis, a friend of mine, was not the main keyboard player on that album, I was -- AND David Foster played the Fender Piano on "Do Ya Think I'm Sexy" with me playing synth and organ. I wish you would look into this ! I was sent an e-mail from you folks about where to correct this but received a e-mail telling me I had sent my info to the wrong place to your site. I truly hope we can resolve this and I can either be put back on Wikipedia as I was before or left out because the explanation why I was from your site is wrong and very embarrassing to me. I have had quite a few inquiries from friends and powerful people who are also friends that want to know why and what dod I do wrong ! As you surely know, this is the wrong business to have bad information that makes me look like a liar. I would appreciate this being resolved as I am sure you can understand OR take the note OFF Wikipedia that I preformed a dishonest act on your site. The information Wikipedia wrote and claim is blatantly wrong as I am sure you would agree if Wikipedia would REALLY look into my history.
Thanks for your time Regards, Duane Hitchings
615 447-5121 Captainhit@Comcast.net Reverbnation Songwriter Institute of Nashville MySpace.com/duanehitchingsdigitalhitch Facebook If you would , Google my name and you will find many references to me. I am a very well known songwriter and musician since 1968 when I joined the Buddy Miles Express to 2010 AND just started writing for Rod Stewart once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainhit ( talk • contribs) 21:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to encourage a culture-wide change of that sort. :/ I think my own approach besides what I said above has two other major factors in it: (1) I don't believe that all policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are best practice, but I support them anyway because I believe in the consensus model (hence I recognize room for good faith disagreement :)) and (2) I am sadly aware that I myself require patient guidance in some things (even repeated patient guidance :D), and I'm all about the so-called " golden rule". But we have all kinds of policies to try to require people to treat each other well, and they don't seem to work very well.
Mentorship might do better, but we don't really have a culture that supports that approach. Take adminship, for instance. While the "new admin school" has been vastly improved over the years, it's really a "sink or swim" kind of proposition. I always thought that partnering a new admin with an experienced admin would be a good idea. Many experienced admins encourage new admins to ask for help if needed, but new admins might not even know they need help. :) (Example: I remember one new admin who was closing AFDs not per consensus, but in accordance with what s/he thought best. It was a good faith misunderstanding of the admin's role there.)
I guess as with anything that we have to make people care first, though. Creating a collegial environment isn't easy; it takes a lot more time (beginning, often, with biting one's lip and wiping out the first irritable reply :D). People would need to believe that it's important enough to justify the extra work. :/ -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Copyright problems#Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first and Talk:Special Forces (United States Army)#Copyright problems
I have identified a book which seems to copy Wikipedia content, but the guidance in "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" does not seem to have any real advise on what to do once it has been identified. After reading Template:Backwardscopy/doc, I think I ought to be using Template:Backwardscopy but I would prefer to discuss it with editors who have used it, before doing so and I am not sure which talk page to use for such a discussion. What I would like to do is know if there is such a place and then to update the section "Backwards copying: when Wikipedia had (or may have had) it first" so others who travel in my footsteps know what to do and where to go. If you can help me it would be much appreciated. -- PBS ( talk) 05:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, I found and reported a copyvio problem of
205.232.35.3 (
talk) on
New York Academy of Medicine. More details can be found in
Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 August 12. But checking on this IP-address I just found out that it belongs to the New York Academy of Medicine itself! So the copyvio problem becomes also a
COI problem. What is the best way forward? I think we should inform this organization about it. I guess there is some standard email template we can send via OTRS? I looked up on their website an email address we can use: msandersnyam.org of Mary Sanders; she is executive assistant of their president. --
SchreyP (
messages)
21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl. I recently came across an article, All-time Allsvenskan table, which I sent to AfD (see AfD) mainly on notability and NOTSTATS grounds (both of which may be fixed). The other issue was a copyvio concern. The article, which is just a table of statistics at the moment, is basically exactly the same as the article's only reference, except that it is in wiki-markup. I know that facts are not copyrightable, but it seem like a copyvio to me to just lay it out in practically the exact same format. So, is that a copyvio? If so, can anything be done to avoid it being a copyvio, or will it need to be deleted? Best, Jenks24 ( talk) 15:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding organisation, the format of W (wins), D (draws), L (losses), GF (goals for), GA (goals against), GD (goal difference—goals for minus goals against), Pts (points) is again fairly universal and used in the majority of soccer competitions (as far as I know nearly all soccer competitions have a league table formatted in a similar, if not identical, style).
So, I've confused myself really :) I'm still unsure if the table is creative or not. Sorry to be a bother, but do you have any more advice?
On a related note, I also found All-time Argentine Primera División table, which is similar, but I feel it is creative. The article apparently follows the refs exactly in awarding two points for some wins, while three points for other wins, two points for some draws, one point for other draws, etc. Again, sorry to bother you, but is that a copyvio then, if the table is deemed to be creative? Thanks in advance, Jenks24 ( talk) 13:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I took the liberty to post this on your talk page because I saw on the Copyright Problems page that you are an active administrator. I don't know what to do exactly, but I have noticed that material from the English article on Thessaloniki (more specifically the section on Historical ethnic statistics) has been copied to the Macedonian wikipedia. Not only is the text not attributed to the original source ( here and here), but there is no mention that the material has been copied from the English wikipedia. Moreover, the statistics have been changed to portray a view of Macedonian nationalism: the word "Bulgarians" was changed to "Macedonians" (see here) while the numbers are the same both in the English and the Macedonian articles, although the original source has nothing to do with Macedonians. This would be a copyright violation of work published by a user on Wikipedia, would it not? I am unsure as to how to procede from here, and I would like your opinion on this. Thanks for your consideration. -- Philly boy92 ( talk) 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
regarding your query before I disappeared -- some of the socks have been adding copyvios. Also, checking the contributions of the 59.178.xx.xx range on a regular basis would help as will protecting some of his regular articles. I don't know if adding these to the CCI is necessary right now, but noting the IP range ( Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vrghs jacob) might probably be needed. cheers. — Spaceman Spiff 10:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 05:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
hello,
can you please check the "In popular culture" section in Otis Redding? It looks like a copyvio of [44], but it could be just a mirror site of Wikipedia. Thank you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ Hey it's me I am dynamite 13:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
A lot of Jeff Antebi seems to be copied straight from his Huffington Post bio. Possible deletion-worthy? Jrcla2 ( talk) 22:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Moonriddengirl,
You really deserve this. You're an outstanding contributor, have an answer to everything, and have been helping a lot of people, not to mention writing. :o) Thanks for all your contributions! NehaMich. ( talk) 02:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Here's another one, since they look good together--for your continued efforts to keep the place clean. Drmies ( talk) 03:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC) |
I had reverted back for the article "Suppliers Credit" stating that the original source is my article and it is not copyrighted, still the article has been deleted.
Can you please reverse the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.104.54.148 ( talk) 14:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | On 20 August 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Twittering Machine, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Paul Klee’s Twittering Machine (pictured), now held by MOMA, was designated a work of degenerate art by the Nazi German government and sold for $120 in 1939? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Twittering Machine.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you please direct me to the place where it says you are able to remove User pages? Thanks Djflem ( talk) 21:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Just saying hi and thanks for jumping in at Bar, Montenegro. Not too many of us will venture into Balkan territory. I haven't bumped in to you in quite a while. Cheers! Toddst1 ( talk) 23:11, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not asking that you get involved, (yet), but am I on a correct track with this edit? My76Strat ( talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 18:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 03:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Zidane tribal ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
See [46] and [47]. I was in the proces of checking this new users unsourced additions, when another editor intervened to edit war the material into the article. As it turns out all of this new editor's material was a copyvio. Other editors have now added citations and done a lot of work but copyvio material remains. I'm of the view to revert back to the text before this edit but after having a bruising encounter with the guy edit warring to keep it, I expect there will be further trouble. Would you consider my proposed course of action, the right thing to do? Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir. Can you please clean up and block the following page List of Iss Pyaar Ko Kya Naam Doon Episodes as you did to List of Navya episodes. This page is also copied and pasted from its original source, http://starplus.startv.in/recaps.aspx?sid=124. I believe it should be deleted so no further edits will be made from whoever was pasting the information. Can you please look at this... Thank you! Survir ( talk) 04:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I'm reviewing the GA nomination of Fair dealing in United Kingdom law (a very interesting topic!), and I'm trying to determine the copyright status of the only image that article uses, File:Carlos de Gales (2011).jpg. It's tagged as PD based on the legal notice from the source here ( here is the official English translation). That doesn't sound PD to me, but I thought I'd ask your opinion, since it could well apply to text or other images from that source. All the best, – Quadell ( talk) 13:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I was going through the listings at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and I came across this concern. I thought it might be more your cup of tea. – Quadell ( talk) 20:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Please move back Solar–Hydrogen energy cycle back to my userspace so that I can work on the copyright concerns. Thanks. Suraj T 04:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Please can you inform me of the reason why the page of/about Phillip Coppens is removed/deleted?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
83.84.56.149 ( talk) 15:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC) Yours sincerely Gert-Jan Luis
While working with some editors on the University of Pennsylvania, I have found a fairly substantial amount of close paraphrasing and copyrighted information. I was hoping you could help find which information is copyrighted so we could replace it more quickly. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Can you have a look at the uplaods of CalvinSays, they all (bar one) appear to be taken form http://www.kondimopoulos.com, the other one ( File:Konstantin Dimopoulos-new.jpg)from http://sisl.tumblr.com/ Thanks. Mt king (edits) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
Some aspirin for you |
I haven't seen you around much lately. I hope you're doing okay. Just in case you're dealing with a migraine, here are some pretend aspirin (which probably work about as well as real aspirin for migraines). Hope to see you around soon! – Quadell ( talk) 02:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
This is to say thank you for your patience ,time and attention payed to the issues that matter :) Werbena ( talk) 03:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC) |
Could you please provide me copies of the deleted articles Napier Mole Bridge and Native Jetty Bridge? I wish to recreate the articles. I hope you can respond to my request. Regards, Drspaz ( talk) 05:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I was looking for someone who could advice and help me to write the article and give the notess to learn about copyright.
could you advice where i can learn Learning to balance quotation and writing in your own words is a tricky proposition on Wikipedia, but it is an important one to master. We do have to make sure that our articles are fully compliant with US copyright law.
I shall be thankful if you could advice and list out my articles where i need to work on copyright issues.regards-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 13:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay well!!!
And i am sorry,but i have to tell that i am confused with your this advice below.
can you please specify what exactly you want me to writhe for???
I tried my best to write this article, if there is any thing you see copyright please advise me ( as you said ) how i can trickily rewrite it but please do not remove the data, its a very hardwork of my ( in this manner i can learn to rewrite). regards-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 13:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I cannot believe you completely deleted the article Royalist rising of 1651 to 1654 ! That was a very important article. Sure there were some copyright problems but that could easily have been amended with deletion of the article! QuintusPetillius ( talk) 14:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, yes I would like to re-write it. However it might take some time. IT would be useful if someone could tell me exactly where the copyright issues are within the article. Thanks. QuintusPetillius ( talk) 14:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
After the defeat of the Royalist army in Scotland, under James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose, Charles II signed a draft agreement of the Covenant on 1 May 1650. The new King was also forced to agree to a number of humiliating concessions both before and after his return to Scotland. He not only signed both Covenants but was forced into dismissing many members of his household but, against his own beliefs and conscience, renounced his Irish supporters and agreed to impose Presbyterianism throughout the three kingdoms.
Despondent at the recent defeat of his supporters in Ireland and Montrose’s lack of success in Scotland, Charles II signed a draft agreement on 1 May 1650. The new King was forced to agree to a number of humiliating concessions both before and after his return to Scottish land. He not only signed both Covenants and was forced into dismissing many members of his household but, against his own beliefs and conscience, renounced his Irish supporters and agreed to impose Presbyterianism throughout the three kingdoms.