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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Hi, Moonriddengirl. Regarding the LaBianca page, I remember working on it years ago but I don't recall specifics except it was probably poorly written as I was a newish editor. If there is close paraphrasing/copy pasted content, I do apologize but again, I don't recall setting out to do that. My PC is currently broken so I'm only able to edit through mobile devices which makes editing a large article difficult. I'll attempt to go through and rewrite the content I added but it may be slow going. I apologize for this issue. 24.72.173.203 ( talk) 21:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gunkarta. I've marked off those two from the CCI. MER-C 02:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Thanks for all your effort researching the copyvio situations at Players' Theatre and elsewhere. I'm deeply impressed by the quality of your work and your interactions with other editors. You are a great asset to wikipedia. All the best - Pointillist ( talk) 06:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
I'm not sure what the problem is, since this one source, "Saracen archery," seems to have been used by some of the other authors I've cited, and you indicate I have a copyright problem in quoting or using their materials. Also, Latham's 1970 work is based on a 14th century manuscript, which is certainly free from copyright as well.
In the section about using the thumb ring, this is a major difference between Arab Archery and archery in the West. The item is explained by Latham in Saracen Archery, and by other sources as well, including the Wiki link for "Thumb ring." The engineering between using the thumb to hold the arrow and string, and the use of three fingers, is also self-evident in the reason why Arabs shoot on the right hand of the bow, and Westerners shoot on the left hand of the bow. And indeed, the indication and citation to the section of Latham is taken from only one paragraph, which certainly falls within the legal stricture of "Fair Use."
However, if you want to cut the entire section out, go ahead. However, I don't understand the other copyvio hits, such as the image of Darius, which is taken from another Wiki page on archery.
One of the main concerns with Wikipedia is that it has a Western orientation and bias, and while there are several items on archery, nothing on Arab archery itself, only on Turkish and Japanese archery, which are very different traditions.
However, if you want to eliminate the entire page on Arab archery, so be it. I believe that I am within the copyright guideline and fair use, but you are the WIKI editor, so your judgment is final. Hadden ( talk) 18:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I need help from an admin, an editor was adding copyrighted content and moved an article without discussion. I tried to revert and then manually moved, BUT, I mistakenly moved it to the title with the bracket at the end, can someone move it to Dabba (film))--> Dabba (film), article. I mean, delete the last bracket. You can revert recent re-addition of copyvio too. Tito☸ Dutta 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A plate of Dosa for you | ||
Here is a plate of
Dosa for you. Dosa is a South Indian food and is a fermented crepe or pancake made from rice batter and black lentils. Hope you'll like it. Thank you.
Tito☸
Dutta 12:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
I understand you specialize in copyright issues. I would be grateful if you could take a look at a copyright issue that I have attempted to summarize here. This started when Agilista ( talk · contribs) posted the message "The main image on this site is a direct copy of my company's original material. I want it taken down immediately." I am not sure whether "my company" is meant to indicate ownership. Thank you. -- Boson ( talk) 23:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Got your message. Thanks for the info. -- Michael Haephrati ( talk) 02:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
please advise who changed my husbands page.(drastically) We know all of his history is verified. It is as if someone wanted to cash in on all Artie's achievements. The change history does not show anything done in 2013,but we know it has..... Please help.
CAroline Kornfeld (<redacted>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.52.195 ( talk) 13:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As an admin well respected for their copyright infringement work I was wondering if you could provide an impartial opinion here: User_talk:Other_Choices#Plagiarism about whether copying the text highlighted in bold here: [2] constitutes plagiarism/inappropriate copying (there is no real noticeboard for discussions of this type as far as I can see). Cheers, IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the copyvio report regarding Los Alas Chapel that I've posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 August 28? It appears to me that the content at the cited Web site antedates our article, but I can find no definite indication that this is so. I'm especially confused because the bottom posting on the site's blog page announces the existence of Spanish and English Wikipedia articles, but it is dated April 7, 2010, which is before the creation of the en.wp article (and before the extensive expansion of the es.wp article with the content that's in question). On the other hand, the earliest record of the site at the Wayback Machine is for February 2011, but that archive just may not have gotten around to the site before then. The article's creator is blocked (by you!) for a user-name violation, so I don't know where else to turn. Deor ( talk) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG. There are still revisions that include a straight cut-and-paste from this review from the Times of India - if there was similar text from a blog, it might have been copied from that source. Pete aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I can't really remember visiting that page. I haven't even once copied text from another website, I don't do that sort of thing. And, I have created over 20 articles and absolutely none of them have been popped up with the copyright situation.
ActorBoss ( talk) 13:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Thank you for your message regarding copyright issues for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area page. I am, however, a designated agent of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. I work for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area initiative through the New England Aquarium, a collaborating partner, and am in charge of administering the social media and online content for PIPA (for example, I am an administrator for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Facebook page and regularly contribute posts to the Phoenix Islands Protected Area blog on the New England Aquarium website, pipa.neaq.org). Therefore, I am authorized to use the text from our website, www.phoenixislands.org (as I am, myself, partially responsible for that content, including editing and maintaining the text for the pages and managing the photo gallery). If you need me to send you an email from my Aquarium email address, please let me know where to send it. Otherwise, please reinstate the page with my additions. Next time, I kindly ask for at least a small advanced warning, as I had been actively editing the page for some time and I believe that all of those changes will now be lost.
Thank you for your understanding!
Sincerely,
Etaylorneaq ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Erin Taylor Conservation Projects Assistant, Phoenix Islands Protected Area Initiative New England Aquarium 1 Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617-226-2185 etaylor@neaq.org
Etaylorneaq ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I was forwarded your message to Ocean.conservation by my boss, who is the owner of the Ocean.conservation account (she is the manager of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Initiative through the Aquarium). We are working on taking the appropriate steps to donate our copyrighted materials from www.phoenixislands.org for use on the PIPA Wikipedia page.
However, for the documents you cited as having been sources of material in your message to Ocean.conservation, I'd like to know how to go about licensing that material. We are authorized to duplicate that content because the New England Aquarium was a contributor/co-author to those documents (such as the UNESCO World Heritage Nomination dossier), but obviously we are not in charge of the whole UNESCO website and so can't add text to the webpage. Should we just include those documents in an email donating copyrighted materials affirming that we own copyright to those documents? Please advise on that process.
Also, could you please identify the exact text you found to be directly taken from those documents? I ask because all of the duplicated material that I had added to the PIPA Wiki page came straight from the www.phoenixislands.org website. I'd just like to be on the same page about the other portions of the article you found to be from the sources you cited in your message to Ocean.conservation (your statement: "Research into the issue disclosed that quite a lot of it seems to be taken from official publications such as [1], [2], and [3].").
Thanks!
Erin
Etaylorneaq ( talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I've afraid I've been procrastinating on this, but wanted to give you an update. I received email in July verifying that, as of the end of July, all lyrics that are licensed from LyricFind now feature a prominent LyricFind "LF" logo (see e.g. [6]). They also assured me that although they accept corrections on these pages, any corrections they accept will be delivered to the licensor, and not merely republished without any scrutiny. That's all the information I need to correctly filter the links - just need a little bot work to clean things up. Dcoetzee 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Would someone please take a look at WP:ANI#Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles? There's some standard copyvio going on but also the use of categories/labels taken from a strategy game without attribution, is that copyvio? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully you might know -- I'm going to use a sentence of public domain content from an NIH website
here, it states that it's PD. Isn't there a template I can use to tag that content as copied verbatim? I've seen it before but can't find it now...
Zad
68
03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Moondriddengirl, me again. I found we have a page for one Saki kaskas (he composed the song calista), but the page format and language suggest a copyright issue. I can find no immediate copyvio int he article through a google, search, but I definitely want a second opinion here before I right this one off. When you get a moment, can you (or tps'ers) check it out? I would appreciate it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Puzzled why you reverted my attempt to fix a typo in my own answer on a talk page? [7] I'm trying to sort out how one gets to the bottom of the mess at the article over mere links and some people who were quite rude to me and very uncivil. I've been editing wiki a very long time (7 years, over 50,000 edits 100% clean block log, all should mean something around this place) and I really am rather frustrated at the attitude of people around here these days. I've done a bit with fair use of images and also have done my share of working on copyvio issues (I helped clean up the ItsLassietime sock) for god's sake. I'm not stupid. You and I have even worked on some issues. What is with the feeding frenzy all of a sudden? Montanabw (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
May I draw on your boundless knowledge of copyright issues?
I recently found that
Kaapvaal Craton seemed to contain copyvio. I went to the
article creator's talkpage and found that they are now inactive, but you had warned them (in April 2012) about copyvio problems on
Pilbara craton. Scrolling further back up the talkpage there were other copyright concerns raised by other editors. So, I went and picked a large addition at random; I picked
this. Turns out it's copied from
this paper. So, it's fair to assume that there's a broader copyright problem here. What's the best way forward now, in your view? Is a CCI necessary? I certainly think it's worth revisiting anything substantial written by Valich.
bobrayner (
talk) 14:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Text to Speech in Digital Television
Hi,
I noticed you have deleted my page on Text to Speech for Digital Television and I have to say I am baffled as to why. I have personally been involved for many years in that topic, something of key importance to blind people, and steered an international standard through a complicated negotiation with industry. I have an interest in the topic but not financially and as the article was very much neutral and non-commercial, I can't for the life of me understand why it got deleted. It has proven very useful in raising awareness of the need, including with audiences like the BBC Trust who only a few years ago was convinced by manufacturers as part of the YouView negotiations that TTS in a telly was not feasible technically or economically. I would therefore politely, but with insistence, request that this page is restored. Do note that the policy you quote (G6) under which you deleted the article does IMHO not at all apply to this page.
Guido GuidoGY ( talk) 20:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I could use your input. Short version: after removing some material as a close paraphrase, the editor arranged to get permission from the copyright owner. However, that permission statement is not the usual, it permits material to be used only if it is used exactly. That clearly conflicts with our requirements, but rather than simply say no, I'm trying to see if there is a middle ground. I think we can accept that if material is in quotes, and has a reference, it clearly identifies that it is the words of others, and other editors here will respect the quotes and not edit within the quotes or remove the quotes. However, we cannot make such a requirement for downstream users. I don't know whether that will change the view of the copyright holder.
The entire exchange is at my talk page. You can skip down to the "To Whom it May Concern:" line without missing much, but I'll understand if you need to read the whole thing.
My hope is that if the permission statement were on file with OTRS, we could use longer passages than we otherwise might.But I worry that I'm trying to be too clever.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey MRG, how are you? Question--what do you make of all the images in Charles Keeping? It could be argued that they illustrated the subject's work, but not that they "illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to check whether the advice I have tentatively given at Talk:Grand Pacific Glacier is correct? Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 18:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You're mentioned here and I don't think the editor bothered to let you know as I wasn't notified either. We hope ( talk) 10:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, MRG, good to talk to you again. I have a NFC question. I'm looking for an image to insert in an article I have up for GA review and cannot find any which are not copyrighted. Since the person the article is about is dead, then a NFC photo can probably be used but the problem is that all the photos I can find are on websites where they're probably used there in violation of copyright law. Can an image satisfy NFC if its source is itself a copyright violation? I can't find anything which specifically says no, but the provisions of the copyright policy which say that we can't link to copyright violations would, in spirit at least, seem to cover this, too. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) PS: What if it's at least arguably used under fair use at that site? — TM
See here. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl,
My contributions on Gayelle & Trinidad & Tobago Television, could you restore my last edits? I am aware of some of the violations and willing to clean it up. The problem is that I don't want to type over all that I written before. The plan is for the edits to be restored and then clean up everything.
My country does not have a good record in preserving history so acquiring history about Television before the year 2000 in our country is scarce.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyronR ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering, is the licensing claim for this image (an old press photo being sold on eBay) correct? I've seen a few other uploads like this, but it all seems too good to be true. Thanks. Zagalejo ^^^ 01:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It is likely that promotional materials, including production stills or posters released to promote a movie, released before 1978 are in the public domain. Public domain status can be ascertained by asking several questions:
Did the image contain a copyright notice? How was the exact image released?
Was the image release “general” or “limited?”
Hi Moonriddengirl.
I've asked for a page move at Talk:Portrait_of_a_Young_Woman_of_Frankfurt_(Botticelli) because this young lady really wasn't from Frankfurt.
Sterling work on copyright. I'll have a good read. 185.29.167.60 ( talk) 14:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ron Stewart may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thanking you kindly Emina ninadenovo@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.43.170 ( talk) 20:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I've also left a comment at Talk:Amaryllidoideae. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw your comments on the SHUAA Capital wp page from Sept 14th. I work for the company and was wondering what we need to do in order to create a 'normal' corporate wikipedia page with content that is correctly referenced and not in breach of any copyright law/wp policies. I am not familiar with wp and have not created or edited articles here before so would really appreciate some guidance. Is it the case that only persons not associated with a particular company can contribute to that same company's wp page? Fanny Modin ( talk) 09:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
'Cause you're dilligently awesome with what you do for the 'pedia. Best! Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
Zad
68
19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG, there's a discussion happening
here on Commons regarding the copyright status of CT scan. Every so often there's a deletion discussion like this over medical imaging. According to
this essay on Commons, it's an unsettled issue as to whether such images are copyright-able, and if so who holds the copyright. Is this an area you know anything about? If so it'd be great to have your input. The thinking that I agree with so far is that such images are made mechanically and without any creative or artistic intent or input, and as such would not be copyright-able. Thoughts?
Zad
68
19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Please restore User:My76Strat/Accolades. Thank you!— John Cline ( talk) 11:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. Thanks very much for all your help with the Transwiki request last year. It was a heck of a lot of work and I sincerly appreciate your efforts and everybody else who helped. I'd like to ask another favor if you don't mind. I have something of a concern regarding these four edits ( one, two, three and four), which are related to this conversation where I was trying to help the person avoid something like this. I obviously have no interest in being involved with it anymore. Would you mind taking a look to see if the edits are appropriate? Thanks very much for your help. 64.40.54.237 ( talk) 02:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
144.137.67.12 ( talk · contribs) has returned, and seems to be again adding copyvio culled from various sources and patched together, eg [10] and [11]. I can't recall if these are copyright free or not. Dougweller ( talk) 11:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about recent additions to Nerine which were translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure how to use the plagiarism detection tools (is there an explanation somewhere?). You might like to check this article before I or others work at copy-editing it into passable English. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Occasional editor User talk:MarVelo left a note on Talk:St. Thomas the Apostle's Church (Detroit, Michigan), claiming to have received permission to use a historic (but, I assume, copyrighted) photo of the church, and wanting help sorting out how to correctly upload it. The page is on my watchlist, but probably not too many other people's; I don't have the expertise to help, and I'm not really even sure where to send him. You happened to be that last person to post on his talk page, and I recognize your name - could you drop him a note to at least tell him where the right place is to ask? Thanks. Andrew Jameson ( talk) 13:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I wished to clarify that my change on the list affected only Pearl Jam's RIAA certified sales. If you count these certified sales, you'd coem up with 32 millions (including EP "Merkin'Ball").
Thank you MARSELIMADHE ( talk) 10:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Maggie :) Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group” looks very suspicious to me, but I don't quite know how to investigate it. It was created on 17 September in a single large chunk by the same editor who created it:Il Gruppo del Rosario di Amantea, which was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia as copyvio, also on 17 September. The book from which the copy is alleged to have been made is no-preview. The English article has been prodded by reason of all sorts of other problems. What's the best thing to do here? -- Stfg ( talk) 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Some months after the murder, Lidia Naccarato said that everything had happened in accordance with Daniel’s prophecy (“And after sixty-two weeks, a Consecrated one will be killed, without there being in him any sin” 9, 26).
The same had been said by the theologian of the group, Felice Naccarato: “the episode well fits the prophecy of Daniel according to whom a consecrated one would be killed because he was possessed by the devil. That is the fruit of reflections subsequent to the event.”
“And after sixty-two weeks an Anointed shall lose his life, in whom there is no sin.” Daniel 9, 26
On 6 December, 1988, 47 adepts of Turin confessed their Creed in a letter to the examining magistrate: “...
Lidia Naccarato alcuni mesi dopo l'omicidio dirà che tutto è avvenuto secondo la profezia di Daniele ("E dopo sessantadue settimane sarà ucciso un Consacrato, senza che in lui sia colpa" 9, 26)
Lo stesso ha dichiarato il teologo del gruppo Felice Naccarato: "all'episodio ben si attaglia la profezia di Daniele secondo cui un consacrato sarebbe stato ucciso perchè di lui se ne sarebbe impossessato il male. Ciò è frutto di riflessioni successive all'evento verificatosi".
Il 6 Dicembre 1988 47 adepti di Torino hanno confessato il loro Credo in una lettera al Giudice istruttore: "..
Hey, Moonriddengirl,
You may recall from some while back (largely 2010) and editor named Roman888 against whom there was both a significant CCI case related to copyvios on various Malaysia-related articles and a concurrent sockpuppetry case where a sizable sockfarm was identified editing both the Malaysia articles and several related to shows with Gordon Ramsay; the latter were where I became involved. Roman was site banned in March, 2011, when the two hit critical mass at the same time. Some time thereafter, he relocated to Australia and began socking using IPs registered to Telestra. Mkativerata and I began collecting evidence he was running a second IP sock farm, and those accounts were blocked as well. One of his favorite topics apart from Malaysia was the question of whether updates on the status of restaurants featured on Ramsay's shows Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (UK) and Kitchen Nightmares (US); he initiated or was party to several long, often disruptive discussions regarding including the open/closed status of the various restaurants (see Archive 2 for the bulk of them; Archive 3 for his return as the IP sock). Despite a lack of consensus, attempts at canvassing on his part, blocks galore and a litany of WP:RS and other policy-based reasons for not including the updates, he continued to push the issue from time-to-time before finally going quiet.
And now he's back. He just started a new discussion, crafted to follow his line of thought while sidestepping policy, including an exhortation to ignore the archived discussions, regarding updates on the Kitchen Nightmares article. I happened to check in shortly after he posted it, before there were any responses, so I reverted it and tagged the newest Telestra IP's talk page. But I doubt he'll give up with out more fuss than that.
Sorry to be long winded! I wanted to give you a heads up because Mkativerata is gone now, and I know you were very involved in the CCI case. History says he'll head for the Malaysia articles shortly, and try to stir more (ahem!) on the KN and RKN article before he's done. I'm going to let the admins who indeffed him and enforced the ban know he's around as well, and if need be, head to SPI. -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You seem to know a lot about copyright issues, could you take a look at this user's question? AioftheStorm ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Thetruthonly is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
Such a small one, yet such a pain to get through. Glad it's done. Wizardman 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Commons_is_really_messed_up and related discussions. There's an interesting (to me) suggestion that the WMF tell us exactly what it's prepared to defend as reasonable in court, and what it's not, so that people can suit their practice to this stance, but I'm not expecting that to happen any time soon. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think this may need to be looked at: Trevj has noted on the talkpage of Frances de la Tour the possibility of an ancient copyvio, even though archive.org doesn't have her website archived far enough back to be sure. I think the suspicious edit is this one from 9 September 2006, given that (a) some of it is word-for-word the text now on her webpage and (b) Orbicle seems to have been a serial copyright violator, on a quite impressive scale (mostly image uploads). Questions: what to do about that article (if anyone agrees, that is); and whether her/his other contributions also need to be checked? I hope, of course, that this is just a false alarm. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. :) It can be a little startling to encounter a backwards copy on an official website, but it occasionally happens. When I look at the edit that Justlettersandnumbers, I look for content that was already in the article at the time it was expanded, and I note this:
She is best remembered for playing spinster Ruth Jones in the hit Yorkshire Television comedy Rising Damp. De la Tour did not get on well with her Rising Damp co-star Leonard Rossiter, and subsequently she has declined, for the most part, to be interviewed about this period of her life. But she told Richard Webber, when he wrote his book about the series in 2001 ('Rising Damp: A Celebration'), that Miss Jones "was an interesting character to play. We laughed a lot on set, but comedy is a serious business and Leonard took it particularly seriously, and rightly so. Comedy, which is so much down to timing, is exhausting work. But it was a happy time."
I look at the suspected source and see this:
she is best-known for playing spinster Ruth Jones in the successful Yorkshire Television comedy Rising Damp. De la Tour told Richard Webber, who penned a 2001 book about the series, that Ruth Jones "was an interesting character to play. We laughed a lot on set, but comedy is a serious business and Leonard took it particularly seriously, and rightly so. Comedy, which is so much down to timing, is exhausting work. But it was a happy time."
That raises flags for me. Looking back further, I see that the quote was introduced here, a couple of weeks before the rest of the content. This is a big sign to me of backwards copying, since it is unlikely that the editor copied the quote first (as an IP perhaps) and then returned weeks later to copy the rest. :)
A few more signs of natural evolution would make me confident in asserting this. So I look next for content in the suspected source that postdates its September 2006 placement on Wikipedia, and I find, "In 2007 she appeared in a West End revival of the farce Boeing-Boeing." That sentence was added to our article in February 2009. I can scan a bit forward from there, and I find this edit - the "source" reflects that change. And this edit. The "source" reflects that change.
The earliest archived version I can find of that article is October 2009. This can be off by six months or so, but I believe that they copied the article from Wikipedia sometime between that archived date and mid-July, when the last substantial edit before their archive was made.
Thanks much for finding the issue, Trevj, and for noting the point of introduction of the text, Justlettersandnumbers. :) It's almost as important to rule out copying as it is to confirm it, since it may save us losing the text unnecessarily at a later time. I'll put the backwardscopy template on the article's talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts and click on "Create a new draft", don't save, at the top of the page you'll find few quick links which are being displayed by "preloaded text". A group edit-notice is needed to apply it in every draft subpage, Might be very helpful to work quickly. Could you create a group edit notice for Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts taking content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Templates/Draft-editintro? If you do, delete Draft-editintro page under G6 or G7, else, again I need to request someone. -- Tito☸ Dutta 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl
Today I noticed that back in April 2013 an IP editor copy/pasted the contents of one of my sandboxes into an article without attribution to me. It's been a while since I've done much editing, so I'm not sure if I can undo the edits now, because the page has since been edited. The article is Will Young, my sandbox is User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/Will Young, which I last edited in November 2011, and the offending insertions to the article are http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Will_Young&diff=548196797&oldid=547079498 .
What can be done to rectify this? Thanks Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I've come across what appears to be a very thin line copyright-wise. I was looking through Richard's images and game across a grouping where the CC license was added with the rationale, "I authorize anyone to use my Find a Grave images in Wikipedia or their own family research, under the creative commons attribution license cc-by-2.5, where the attribution is 'Richard Hrazanek'." To me, that sounds like you can only use the images on Wikipedia, and they would qualify under the F3 deletion criteria. However, a look at Hrazanek's find a grave profile notes that he wishes to use the CC-BY 2.5 license, which is fine for wikipedia use. Is it a simple rewording for all of them, or should I delete them? I deleted about 4 or 5 until one on commons noted the discrepancy, which brings me to here. They are good images, and hopefully they can be kept, but I'd want a second opinion. Wizardman 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, have created a temporary entry for the SHUAA page that was placed under investigation a few weeks ago due to copyright issues. Would you be able to have a look please? Many thanks Fanny Modin ( talk) 06:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw yesterday that Rules of Acquisition was up for deletion and went to comment on it, when I realized that the article was fully reprinting (in exact words) all the known Rules developed through the Trek fiction universe. This screamed the same type of problems we have with Top 100 lists - the "rules" (though at times may mirror real-word adages) are creatively generated as part of the copyrighted Trek fiction, and two licensed book republish these. Irregardless of the AFD, I removed the list but that change was reverted. Could I get your opinion if that list is a copyright violation? -- MASEM ( t) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Who would be a good WMF staffer to ask about this, aside from Eric? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
While reviewing Aaron Ruben, I concluded it was a backwards copy. I tried to explain on the talk page, but the site is blacklisted and would not let me identify it. I tried converting "." to "(dot)" and that failed. I was even unable to use the Wayback link. I tried the backwardscopy template and it failed.
If there a work around?
I'll provide a link to the Wayback page in the edit summary.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just a note: I removed this stuff from the article Aatish Taseer and have done nothing more; just bringing it to your attention in case you're interested in checking whether it was indeed copyvio, or something like that. I'm not too interested myself (it was unencyclopedic content anyway), so feel free to ignore this. Thanks for all your help ridding Wikipedia of copied content. Shreevatsa ( talk) 02:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. I left a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, but no one responded. It might be a copyright problem, so I'm going to ask you, if that's OK. The page Hot Rize uses a scan of one of the band's album covers in an infobox. It is my reading of the fair use rationale that such scans are acceptable for an article about the album, but what about an article about the band? Cnilep ( talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi an IP editor has marked Capture of Damascus (1918) with the copyvio tag, but then did nothing else but update the talk page. The main editor has tried to remove the tag, which has been reverted in an attempt to allow the IP editor to respond. It now seems that the IP is not a regular contributor so the article is in limbo. Can you give some advice on how to move forward, possibly on the talk page where a discussion has began. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl: I am writing about several articles that have been tagged by Psychonaut, specifically this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwendolyn_Audrey_Foster
The text here is public domain, from a website I created for Foster many years ago, and can be used by anyone. I release it here, if that does any good, as being absolutely public domain with no copyright violation even possible, since it was my own original work, and was never copyrighted in the first place. It's simply text I wrote for the piece.
I am aware that the article lacks inline references, but these can easily be found on the web, and I am not an experienced Wiki editor. Perhaps someone can come in and clean this up, which would be nice. But there is no copyright violation here. - Best, Wdixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.67.125 ( talk) 14:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UCSI University 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/UCSI University 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for leaving a message on the talk page. But there's three choices with the Monsignor Fraser College article like delete, rewrite, or merge, but merging the school with the board article is plain easy. Discuss this in the Talk:Monsignor Fraser College page. Happy Thanksgiving from the North! FreshCorp619 ( talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
To impress you, i've clarified St. Mary's Catholic Secondary School as blank. Thanks for the method! :D FreshCorp619 ( talk) 16:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Monsignor Fraser College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/f/fraser-john-andrew-mary.php http://www.tcdsb.org/schools/msgrfrasercollege/aboutus/SchoolHistoryandTradition/Pages/default.aspx https://www.tcdsb.org/schools/msgrfrasercollege/Academics/Pages/default.aspx and likely others. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
That article could be deleted or redirected. FreshCorp619 ( talk) 21:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What's up there MoonRiddenGirl, i've gathered a team of Wikipedians: User:Secondarywaltz,
User:PKT,
User:Bearcat,
User:ClueBot Commons, and
User:WhisperToMe to form the Article Clean-Up Task Force to rewrite and cite sources I listed from the Copyright investigations page. That way, the articles people or I wrote/created, could prevent copyright issues or deletion. Thanks!
FreshCorp619 (
talk) 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you remember Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Scarfaced Charley from over a year ago – I see he was also blocked as a Sockpuppet. I worked a bit on helping fix some of those. Yesterday I found that Scarfaced Charley had made a duplicate Campaignbox template and therefore some relevant articles were using that Template:Campaignbox Little Rock while others were using the preexisting Template:Campaignbox Advance on Little Rock which follows the WP:MILHIST convention of naming campaignboxes in accordance with the campaigns defined by the American Battlefield Protection Program unit of the National Park Service. That site is currently unavailable because of the Government Shutdown, but can be verified in Google's cache.
I merged the content into Template:Campaignbox Advance on Little Rock, updated all the articles to use the correct campaignbox template, blanked the duplicate template and tagged it with db-t3. I had originally also put a redirect to the corrected template, but I couldn't figure out how to make both the redirect and the db-3 tag work... Hopefully I've done it correctly. Does this situation indeed qualify for speedy deletion or does it need to be brought to TfD?
Also, there's one talkpage comment at Template talk:Campaignbox Little Rock. What's the proper way to handle that? Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering if maybe you missed this notification of the discussion. Its a bit complicated as it involves both US public domian / copyright issues, and what to do with images that might be fine in the US and for Wikipedia's purposes, but potentially cause future legal issues for the Australian uploader. - Evad37 ( talk) 02:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl, I attempted to make a page for an American hero by the name of Capt. Charles Cooper. My page was deleted and and I am unsure why. If you could help me out that would be great! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.163.68 ( talk) 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Capt. Charles "Chuck" Cooper was born on 19 September, 1957. He was assigned to the 160th in October, 1989 and served as a 2nd flight platoon leader in Charlie Company, 1st Battalion. He was known as a great leader, destined to command a company and battalion. His easy, "get along with folks" attitude, all-American looks and his constant smile made him a joy to be around. He was a great pilot and officer who loved his job, his soldiers, and this mission.
Do you think you could review the America789 case I added at WP:CCI? I feel like I will have a very productive week if I can start working on this case this weekend. Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 22:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Moonriddengirl, its me again. In what feels like a 'getting too familiar' message, I have another music article I'm concerned about: D-Code (DJ). As with the last two times I thought I'd look into the song's musician, and as with the other two times the material read a little too much like it came from someplace other than Wikiepdia. In this case, that someplace else appears in part to be ovguide.com and biographies.net, both of which have a copyright insignia at the bottom of the page. I'm sorry to lean on you again, but when you (or tps'ers) get a moment, can you follow up on this and see if it is in fact a copyvio? As always, I would appreciate it (and again, sorry for always coming here with suspicious articles). TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For expertly cutting down the questionable content on the page D-Code (DJ) to bring the article in compliance with our article policies and guidelines I hereby award you The Editor's Barnstar. You've definitely earned it :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
This [20] is being used as a reference - is there enough copy at the link to call it a copyvio link? Dougweller ( talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick thanks for your informed (and really rather clever) conclusion regarding this - I was a bit taken aback to find that the University of Westminster had obviously liked my bio so much that they'd copied it over to their new site, and when I realised it meant my contributions (ironically, submitted originally to deal with original copyvio!) had themselves been mistaken for copyvio, I was a bit at a loss. Spotting my grammatical error and using it as evidence was so simple yet so inspired that it could have come out of a modern-day Agatha Christie book! Thanks again. Mabalu ( talk) 16:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl, Thank u for being so kind in editing/checking the article which i created about the International Vedanta Society. Before i start let me introduce myself to you. I am Swami Prahladananda, a Joint General Secretary of the International Vedanta Society- a spiritual charitable organisation. I am a regular reader of wikipedia which i find very useful to find answers to many of my quaries about science, arts, spirituality and different things. u can say i am a fan of wikipedia. I thought that a prominent spiritual organisation whose members are active throughout the world needs to have a mention in wiki. I am not an expert in writing articles specially in websites. I have written this article based on the website and official blogs of my organisation. Although there are many news articles in different vernacular newspapers about this organisation( hindi, bengali, assamese) i didnt mention them because i was not sure whether it is acceptable in wiki or not. Also i am not an expert in writing articles in websites. But since I am authorised by my organisation to deal with media both print and electronic, i try to put as much information which people may find useful to know more about the organisation. I also understand that since I am a part of this organisation u may find my observations a little one sided but I have tried by best be put things in as much neutral perspective as possible. Since I am not a big expert about internet and its tecnical aspects as i have mentioned earlier i invite everybody including u to be a part of editing this article. If u want i can scan and send u the news reports mentioned in different vernacular print medias to u. But i dont know whether u will understand the language or not. Also I can assure u that all the information in this article are from authorised source which are entirely owned by my organisation. So there will be no third party issues. Wish u all the best. 115.250.95.158 ( talk) 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm of the group the Flatlinerz. If you need to verify this I'll give my contact information in private. For years there has been inaccurate information on Wiki (propaganda) about Horrorcore and the Flatlinerz
I want to clarify something and I'll be as brief as possible.
Our concept of Horrorcore is a complete union of rap and horror films. This includes the instrumentation (cinematic horror instrumentation), the lyrics, artwork, especially videos, and style of dress. Redrum created the name Horrorcore to give a handle to this style of entertainment. If an artist doesn't meet the criteria mentioned above which are the components of what Horrorcore is made of, then it's unfair to call them Horrorcore. You can't call Rock music Rock music and no one is playing a guitar.
When it says that "Horrorcore gained prominence when"... it's misleading. Why not write that the first usage of the term Horrorcore was on the Flatlinerz album? This is a fact. A fact in which some people who writing are about what Horrorcore is on the page is trying to hide. (redacted)
There's Acid Rap, Ripgut, the Wicked Sh*t, Grim Reality, and a few other names that the other so called pioneering Horrorcore artists have named their music before the Flatlinerz. The only reason why Horrorcore isn't being respected as our name and style of music (creation) is because of the propaganda that artists spread which people believe. The artists want to be able to use the name for it's notoriety without having to give us credit. Most of them hate us because we were doing something similar to what they were doing and gained more popularity for it. They are envious of us. It not fair that Horrorcore is being used as an umbrella term for everybody and we don't even get credit for it.
Any rapper that is mentioned on the page that never had a song which they called Horrorcore, that was based on horror, had cinematic horror music to it, and video for the song based on horror prior to our release is not Horrorcore because that's what Horrorcore is.
Horrorcore is not just gruesome lyrics, it's an entire package.
If you can help it will be much appreciated.
Dark Hip Hop ( talk) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey all. So, Moonriddengirl hasn't been on in a few days. You know what would be cool? If we all cleaned out the backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems just to surprise her on her return. There's already good progress on that, and it shouldn't take too long to clean if we really work at it over the next few days. Wizardman 04:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, can you ascertain whether the Wikipedia biography preceded that of the subject's website, which is close to a dead-on copy [21]? If not, it's possible that the Wiki article has been a copyright violation from the outset. However, if the subject's website mirrors Wikipedia's then our article would just require clean up and improved sourcing. Thank you, JNW ( talk) 13:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Need some help dealing with this as it's beyond my skill levels. — Spaceman Spiff 03:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Reposted here, from my user talk page, originally posted to me by Ansegam ( talk · contribs), doesn't give a source for the copyvio so I didn't know where else to report it:
Hello, I am the author of the article "Historical inheritance systems" and its related sub-articles, such as "systems of social stratification". I am afraid I may have infringed the copyright of some articles... Please, can you check it out? I do not have the intention of infringing any copyright, If I have done it it's been just a mistake on my part and I would inmediately delete it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam ( talk • contribs)
Thank you very much for your help! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could have a look? — Cirt ( talk) 15:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Moonriddengirl! I reviewed my article "Systems of social stratification" and I found that most of the content I paraphrased was available for free in the Internet -I mean, those works were publicly available for those who wished to read them. I also paraphrased books which were not free; however, I paraphrased those passages that could be read in Google Views of those books, so I think I didn`t publish anything unfree. The only exception are two short sentences from an study made by Adam Kuper about the Sotho people, and of course I marked the two short sentences I was paraphrasing. I hope this means I am not infring any copyright. Thank you very much for your help. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Migrated to Tool Labs and fixed, online at [22]. All on-wiki links to it should be updated. Let me know if you experience any trouble. :-) Dcoetzee 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
If the copyvio was from the first three of the four sources listed then it's not copyvio as those are PD sources. If it was from the last, of course, that's a different matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl,
I noted some questionable text on the article above, and a quickie google search indicates that it may be from globalsecurity.org. When I started to dig into it, I noted that the editor who added it has had previous contact from you. So, I thought you might be interested to take a look. Thanks!
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG, would you please see the discussion at WT:SHIPS#Copyvio problem, Feel free to comment. Mjroots ( talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I included a poem about the subject that was written in 1899. I believe this is now in the public domain? If I am mistaken please remove it. Thank you. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, hope that you are enjoying your edits. I am editing as well (actually creating a new template).
Enjoy. Bangter ( talk) 13:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello MRG, back on the 13th jan 2013 you cleared out a mass of copyvio at Noakhali_District. A lot seems to have been readded see this edit in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Noakhali_District&diff=565732275&oldid=565731411 . Note the tell-tale citation numbering which shows it has been copied back in from another site which has copied/mirrored old WP content such as this blog. If I as an ipaddr try & clean up, it will probably get reverted...perhaps you could take a look? rgds & thks 78.105.28.140 ( talk) 02:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
... at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreshCorp619. I've not looked at the contributions of SPVII DrFresh26, but fear that they may merit scrutiny. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my article. I will work on the copyright issue for Yuko Nii with Immunonuclear. Afterward may be you can clean up that article too. Best Regards, Terrance Lindall ( talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I posted this at the bottom of the bio page on www.wahcenter.net:
"The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."
I hope this does it so the "possible copyright violation" can be removed. Thanks! Immunonuclear ( talk) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is some lunch for you, with Russavia and Trijnstel Bangter ( talk) 10:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
You may have an interest in a Contributor copyright investigation I did at Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Uwatch310.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 16:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Just stumbled upon [23]. Text still present in the article with only a few tweaks. I don't think anon's claim passes our requirements, so - remove most of the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl. Khazar2 kindly gave me your name as a person to run this issue by. It concerns a new George Harrison biography written by Graeme Thomson, which noticeably reflects a lot of content that I've put into Wikipedia's Harrison album and song articles since January 2012. I first brought the matter up with Quadell over on his talk page a week or so back – ( since archived). A few others weighed in there and on my talk page (and the conversations then spilled over onto other users' talk pages). My objections to Thomson's book are stated in an Amazon review for the bio (as user HariG), which is the link I gave on Quadell's page and elsewhere.
I realise that Amazon doesn't offer much of a preview for the book, certainly not sufficient to compare the areas of overlap I'd mentioned. What makes it so obvious to me that this author has used Wikipedia content as a foundation for his text is his use of sources that I brought to the articles and have never seen in any of the (many) existing books and publications discussing George Harrison. In some cases, the actual structure of the author's discussion about a particular event or album mirrors the order of points given in the articles. From what I've seen, at times he's loosely paraphrased text – but it's still close enough for me to recognise the overlap with the articles (admittedly, in part because I wrote them, and the antennas are up, so to speak). Would you have any advice about this, about what could and should be done?
Users Yeepsi and SilkTork have suggested adding Backwardscopy templates to relevant articles, and I intend to write to the publisher with a list of the areas where Thomson's text obviously mirrors the articles on Wikipedia. (With the latter measure, I confess it's just too depressing to even look at the book right now, so it's not something I've exactly jumped on with any urgency. Same with the Backwardscopy option, actually.) I'm confident that there are many more instances of the author's text reflecting Wikipedia's – again, through the give-away of those previously unused sources – than I've detailed in my Amazon review.
As a short-term measure, to at least alert Amazon's customers, I'm hoping that the review remains visible on the page there. It seems that's the only voice we have in the outside world. If you felt inclined to do so, and I'm so grateful that others have, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote "helpful" next to my Amazon review. That's the only way to ensure that the review continues to be featured (helpful equalling "popular", of course). Knowing the book publishing industry as I do, I can't help thinking that some with a professional interest have hit "unhelpful" next to the review, and "helpful" next to others, in an effort to have it demoted and out of sight. That could be slightly paranoid of me – maybe customers just don't find it at all helpful(!). On the other hand, publishers and authors do do this, just as those with a vested interest write "reviews" for movies available on AppleTV, iTunes and elsewhere. Sorry to go on – any advice you've got would be very welcome. Best, JG66 ( talk) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Because I have to share:
[24]
Thank you to everyone who has worked to make that happen. Truly, it's crazy how happy this makes me. It's kind of overwhelming.
Now, off to WP:CCI. (oooh! And if I can, I will write an article this weekend!)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I am so proud of you guys. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
On 23:46, 9 November 2013 you did a "rvt. copy[v]io to last clean" for David LaChapelle to a 14,205 byte version of 23:47, 20 March 2012 by ClueBot NG. It appears that your main purpose was respond to Justlettersandnumbers' remark on 21 October 2013 that there was "massive insertion of copyvio material from https://web.archive.org/web/20110203033722/http://www.lachapellestudio.com/about/ by probable WP:COI editor." At /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#David_LaChapelle, Justlettersandnumbers notes that users "Michael Mockler," "PASSIST," "12.40.226.82," and "Dlcstudiony" may have WP:COI.
However, in reverting so far back, you deleted a lot of good-faith edits between 29 March 2012 and 23 May 2013. In particular, you deleted my 9 April 2013 WP:NPOV edits bringing the article from 9,805 bytes to 52,285 bytes, which followed WP:VERIFY and which deleted any previous WP:COPYVIO detected. I have no WP:COI with the David LaChapelle Studios.
Could you please revert the article to its 23 May 2013 version (which looked something like https://web.archive.org/web/20130524115318/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_LaChapelle), not its 20 March 2012 version? TIA. - ArtPhotoLover ( talk) 07:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for using your page as a general noticeboard, MRG. Can anyone see the source used in Kalyani: India's Longest Running Public Health Campaign? I'm pretty sure that the article is a copy of it. - Sitush ( talk) 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I've just been looking at this after seeing Sitush's message. As is typical of the copyvio we found with the IEP, there are chunks copied verbatim or very closely paraphrased and/or overly long direct quotes from multiple sources, e.g. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Given the track record of Indian authors, the book listed may well have plagiarised from these sources too. There are a lot of give-aways that this was cobbled together by combining various chunks, e.g. the ungrammatical "Was the first step towards bringing about change." immediately followed by the highly polished "Kalyani’s research has looked at belief systems and attitudes surrounding certain gender sensitive practices." I think this should be blanked with {{ Copyvio}}. Shall I do it? Voceditenore ( talk) 13:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that you wish to set this article on the correct path. You highlighted a copyright issue and I believe I proved that the material does not have a copyright and gave links to that effect. You then again marked the article as, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." - Perhaps you are right, which leads me to some procedural questions. Can any editor delete an article and mark it with this if he/she feels it requires it? If yes, then is it only up to an administrator to check the copyright and restore or delete the article? For instance, you are not an administrator and you put tag an article, can you then you yourself restore the article or does it have to be an administrator? Finally and more to the point, WHY did you tag the article before discussing it on the talk page? That is what I believe usually happens in Wikipedia, first we discuss and then take action. Thanks for your time. Politis ( talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's perfect. Thanks for your swift response. Politis ( talk) 13:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Denniston may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bigg Boss 6 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been puttering on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium today and have it down to five articles. I'm down to the ones that I don't know what to do with - more presumptive deletion may be necessary? Would you or your talk page stalkers have time to run through the last few? Also, amazing rewrite of International Federation of Eugenics Organizations - above and beyond the call of copyvio cleanup! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer ( talk) 21:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl,
You deleted the page " SMS/800" in 2009 for a copyright-related reason. Do you feel that the entire topic is off-limits to have an article about, or was there something specific in the article that violated copyright? Do you know what the copyright claim is based on? The subject matter of "SMS/800" is a regulated telecommunications entity that subcontracts for an important FCC function of operating toll-free telephone numbers, and for which there is at least a good deal of public information, and I feel that there should definitely be a Wikipedia article about it. Would you have any opposition to re-starting this article?
Thanks, -- Wykypydya ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. According to this message, CASF pass away a couple month ago. Cheers. Ganímedes ( talk) 08:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello once again, i tried to do what you told me about copying within Wikipedia on this article (i have added the template on the talk page too). I hope i did it right? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 12:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
That's good to hear, thank you :). -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 14:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#European Commission editing on own subjects. Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not clear about our policy here. Using the external links template, can we link to for instance [32]? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl- Does this video clip require permission/OTRS approval to upload? I feel like it probably does, but was curious since it's on the White House website. Thanks- Godot13 ( talk) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl- One more question about copyright: could you please point me to resources that will tell me which world paper currencies are public domain and which are copyrighted? I do volunteer research/digital archiving at the Smithsonian and would like to know what to prioritize (i.e., can be uploaded to WP/Commons). Many thanks.- Godot13 ( talk) 06:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see your mention until just now. (I guess mentions show up in Echo but are not sent via e-mail? That kind of sucks.) I will say that the issue with Google was that according to their Terms of Service, searches made via automated means are prohibited, period. I don't know if a grant or the weight of the WMF would be able to change that (though I'm sure Google would be willing to make at least some concessions to the WMF, given their "not evil" philosophy and that I'm pretty sure they've officially shown approval of the WMF's mission/partnered with the WMF in the past).
As far as Yahoo!, which MadmanBot uses, the WMF is charged a small amount per search. Upping the number of searches could obviously increase the financial burden on the WMF considerably, which is why that's never been done (except for Coren's modification made in the past that searches not just the page title but a few excerpts from the page to find violations).
Now, unfortunately there's been little progress with the iThenticate modifications, which is pretty much entirely my fault since I've been so negligent in my MadmanBot rewrite/work has been going so terribly. Hopefully this will change in late December/early January (according to the release schedule at work), at which point I can finish that rewrite and we can start talking about new parameters for the bot in a BRFA. I believe we want to continue doing new articles only for the time being while we test new heuristics and sources, but checking old articles/new edits have been discussed; I think iThenticate was fine with that. You could possibly benefit from discussing that with Ocaasi ( talk · contribs); he's the ideas guy, I'm just the (itinerant) implementer.
Feel free to ask me if you have any questions/more ideas; since I'm semi-away, it might be best to leave me a {{
Talkback}}
or send me an e-mail if you do. Cheers! —
madman 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
In terms of copyright/fair use, where are we about quoting 9 lines of a broadcast news interview? The transcript itself wasn't published, that I could find so far, but its content can be verified by (unreliably) published videos. It helps the reader's understanding of the approach and behavior of the subject of the article. It could be explained with quoting just a line or two, and I wouldn't complain if you recommended that. -- Lexein ( talk) 22:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Recently, User:Oriole85 ( contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps ( contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 ( talk) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've got a rather difficult one I would like your opinion on. At the Ontario highway photos discussion here, there are a couple of arguments. One argues that the US has not adopted the rule of the shorter term, and that therefore Canadian crown copyright expiration doesn't affect copyright status in the US. However, it is also argued that, in this case, the copyright holder (the Canadian government) is, by expiring the crown copyright, explicitly as the copyright holder releasing the images into the public domain, which as the copyright holder it would have every right to do. Both arguments have merit and this is a tough one, what do you think? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
When Crown copyright expires on a work in its country of origin, the work enters the public domain in that country, but it may still be copyrighted in other signatory countries of the Berne Convention because these other countries apply their own laws, which may have longer copyright terms and not even know the concept of a "Crown copyright". (See e.g. Sterling 1995 towards the end, section titled "Protection of Crown copyright in other countries".) An exception to this is UK Crown copyright. Although UK works on which the Crown copyright has expired also could still be copyrighted elsewhere, the British Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), which manages all Crown copyrights on behalf of the copyright holder ( the Crown), has explicitly stated in an e-mail to Wikipedia that they consider UK Crown copyright expiry to apply world-wide.
Eye On The Past? It seems way out of scope to me. ww2censor ( talk) 20:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I recall that as part of my CCI, you were able to contact a WP attorney to clarify some issues. Am I able to somehow contact them myself, or via WMF, to clarify some new issues which I feel are very significant? Thanks. -- Light show ( talk) 21:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Taking a photograph does not give you ownership of the painting. The photo Francis de Erdely.jpg was deleted. I took the photo of the painting that I own. Nate2808 ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conquest (1937 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Conquest (1937 film). The plot is very much like the one at IMDB and appears to have been there since the article was started. Thanks, We hope ( talk) 14:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
What's your take on how attribution and copyrights should be handled cross-wiki? I've recently come across Old revision of Nam Kỳ Lục tỉnh which is a a cut and paste article on the article of the same name on viwiki (with the unused template transclusions making it quite obvious) and I'd like to know what actions are typically taken when associated with the various levels of severity in copyvios. For example, is this egregious enough for revdel, or does it have to be more blatantly obvious with a Google search, or should this be left alone in edit history with the changes noted; in short what actions/judgements do you normally take wrt copyright policy? TeleComNasSprVen ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have sent you an email; to consider at your leisure. Best regards.— John Cline ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl :-), I was looking at a G12 speedy on Environmental noise directive - it takes data from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm, and the link at the top of that page leads to http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm and the PDF - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF - which does say (Article 4) - commercial use, and (Article 6) needs acknowledgement. Thus it's very close to CC-BY - Can you give me your opinion whether that PDF does enough to release for Wikipedia use? Ronhjones (Talk) 14:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to rewrite several copyvios that had been in the article for years. I will now have to get to work to include other perspectives about the National Arbitration Forum to satisfy WP:NPOV. Again, thank you for your help in removing the copyright problems. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl,
We would like to advocate for MusicBlvd.com, a competitor to MetroLyrics, both licensed lyrics providers. We are trying to get Wikipedia to verify that MusicBlvd.com is indeed compliant with copyright and and lyric licensing laws.
You can see MusicBlvd's response here - Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers.
This is in response to this Wikipedia thread by other editors /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Blvd_lyrics_Links
MusicBlvd.com should be added under the "Lyrics and Video" section in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs
Can you please help us in setting the record straight?
Thanks
I'll try to start a new page on Arab Archery without the copyright problems. Can you send me the previous deleted page on "Arab Archery" without copyright questions so I can start again with the external links and other housekeeping items?
Thanks in advance.
Hadden ( talk) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-creative content from the article
|
---|
{{Archery}} [[Category:Archery]] [[Category:History of archery]] [[Category:Weapon history]] |
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
Am I allowed to use the second image in this article? I want it for the propaganda section on an article I am writing on the sexual violence during the Rwandan genocide. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy solstice-related (aka winter-in-the-Northern Hemisphere) holiday(s)! | ||
To my very good Wikipedia friend, I wish you a joyful "winter in the northern hemisphere holiday" or "northern solstice day(s) in the southern hemisphere holiday", whichever of the holiday or holidays you celebrate (all or any)! Invertzoo ( talk) 19:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
Jayadevp
13 is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp 13 06:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.
Dougweller ( talk) 09:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
Happy New Year! MER-C 09:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Lol, not sure where to post. Anyhow, Happy New Year and a question. Are there guidelines for an editor to delete another editor's comment in the talk page, if that other editor created a user name to post a single inane comment and then unsubscribed from their temporary username? Politis ( talk) 16:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The inane comment is not offensive, just inane. The user who wrote on 27 December was, "Idaeananvil". But two days later (29 December), that user does not exist anymore. Therefore since that user is probably a troll or a practical joker, I was wondering whether we could delete his comment on the talk page. If any doubt, no problem if we cannot. Politis ( talk) 00:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I added some refs and fixed some dates. I was surprised that the Greek sites say that he was born in 1916, while the Greek Wikipedia says it as 1915, which should I trust? For now, I established it as 1916, therefore to avoid future confusion, however your input is needed. If you want to, you can move this discussion to the article talkpage. Also, I have translated some sources, though my Greek is bad. Do however check for copyvio please, although I am certain that I did the correct way. Many thanks in advance!-- Mishae ( talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Greek media obituaries give for his DOB 1916 [34]. I therefor think English Wikipedia has the correct date. Politis ( talk) 11:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry this got archived while you were having festive fun. Am I allowed to use the second image in this article? I want it for the propaganda section on an article I am writing on the sexual violence during the Rwandan genocide. The paper which printed it is now defunct, as the editors and staff are in prison for genocide. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Since you are awoken, can be so kind to test the above article for copyvio and/or close paraphrasing? You see, a bot have labeled it for copyvio, but another user removed the tag, while another user issued a concern that it was legit and not bots mistake as I mentioned on @ Ironholds: talkpage, who mentioned you there, but I decided to ask you it myself instead... Either way, in my opinion the bot was wrong, and two admins have no doubt to believe that he is, but one admin believes that the bot was right and everyone around him is wrong. Can you check for close paraphrasing (which was user @ Mogism:'s main concern), and let me know if there are any too-close paraphrasing. Many thanks in advance.-- Mishae ( talk) 15:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
In the article Economic history of the United States, section on the Gilded Age [35], beginning with the sentence The "Gilded Age" of the second half of the 19th century was the epoch of tycoons. It's copy pasted from a book, according to this site [36] from "Outline of the U.S. Economy" by Conte and Carr. It's also on other sites such as this [37]. The book is apparently a US gov publication but I don't know if that puts it in public domain. The linked site states "has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.", which would imply that permission to copy is needed.
Is it a copy vio? Volunteer Marek 06:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG, I hope all is well and you had a good Christmas etc. I wonder if you could advise on a matter of copyright in lists. Crisco has pointed out (in this thread) that a list page I've done some work on may fall foul of copyright rules. Could I ask if you'd be good enough to comment on my talk page about whether using the BFI list is acceptable or not? Many thanks indeed! - SchroCat ( talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.
I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world.
All the very best from
Invertzoo (
talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi MRG. Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've taken this user's unblock appeal to AN, under the standard offer. All the best - and a happy new year! Yunshui 雲 水 09:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I vaguely recall seeing a template for situations where an external source mirrors our article. I've just come across what may be an example - compare this source to our article - but am unsure whether (a) this is actually confirmation that the source mirrors us and (b) if it is, then what the template should be.
The article is not good even now and it seems possible (gut feeling) that we've actually lifted it from the source at a date prior to it first being archived by Wayback. I'm unsure how to confirm/deny this. - Sitush ( talk) 11:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I see you are active at WP:SCV; I was wondering if you wouldn't mind closing this discussion at WP:NCR. Consensus has been met, we just need official closure so I can promote the article in question to GA status. Here is Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/guidelines#How_to_close should you need it. Thank you! — MusikAnimal talk 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Trying to clear out the SCV from 4 December and would like a second opinion on this one. Personally I think it's still close enough to constitute a copyright problem but as someone other than the original creator has tried cleaning it I'd like a second opinion if you'd be as kind as to supply one. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
See [39]. I also think it's too long in general, but the editor insists it all has to be in the article. Thanks. Hope you had a good break during the holidays! Dougweller ( talk) 14:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
what the what? Honestly, I think it all needs to go away. Tell me what you think. Dloh cierekim 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Setting aside for a moment the whole sock puppetry thing (both the 108 and 170 IP editors are pretty well implicated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawline), the move seems to have messed up a couple of links. Talk:Louis_J._Posner - the Talk page for the newly renamed page - redirects to the article; and in addition does not carry over the (fairly extensive) discussion that existed at the Talk page under the prior article name, Talk:Louis_Joseph_Posner. There is also much older discussion material in the history at Talk:Louis_J._Posner. I don't know what needs to be done, but it seems to be something! Otherwise, the move is fine with me; what's really stunning is how by dint of sheer persistence and puppetry, this blocked editor seems to be able to muck things up enough that he's able to restore several articles to his preferred versions! JohnInDC ( talk) 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for helping improve the article. Would you be open to considering restoring the external link to the blacklisted webpage. The webpage is only used in the 'External links' section of the article. In my view the webpage provides a highly educational, informative and insightful practical example of the Abilene paradox. This practical example is also fun and entertaining to read. In my view, restoring the external link would not damage the article in any way, and would only help improve and strengthen the article. Thanks and warm regards, IjonTichy ( talk) 20:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi MRG, I reverted this edit earlier today as I think it may be in contravention of our WP:LINKVIO policies. Can you let me know if I've taken the right course here, or if I'm justified in the revert? Many thanks! - SchroCat ( talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MRG, Happy New Year! Sorry to bother you yet again. I came here to say three things, but I see that JohnInDC has already said one of them, about the Posner talkpage. I posted here a while ago about what appeared to be a copyvio at Carlos Lopes (Guinea Bissau) and Atameru. I've just removed what is (I think) more or less the same copyvio screed from that article for the second time; Crisco 1492 dealt with it the time before that. Two questions: should the user be discouraged in some way from continuing to add the same sort of stuff? And do you think that it is likely that the copyvio is in fact foundational, that this version was copied from here or an earlier version thereof? In case that isn't enough, could I ask you or one of the faithful watchers to take a look at Academy of Art University? It seems to me very probable that this edit in 2006 was copied from here rather than vice versa, but I can't prove it through archive.org. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
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 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | → | Archive 60 |
Hi, Moonriddengirl. Regarding the LaBianca page, I remember working on it years ago but I don't recall specifics except it was probably poorly written as I was a newish editor. If there is close paraphrasing/copy pasted content, I do apologize but again, I don't recall setting out to do that. My PC is currently broken so I'm only able to edit through mobile devices which makes editing a large article difficult. I'll attempt to go through and rewrite the content I added but it may be slow going. I apologize for this issue. 24.72.173.203 ( talk) 21:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Gunkarta. I've marked off those two from the CCI. MER-C 02:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Thanks for all your effort researching the copyvio situations at Players' Theatre and elsewhere. I'm deeply impressed by the quality of your work and your interactions with other editors. You are a great asset to wikipedia. All the best - Pointillist ( talk) 06:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC) |
I'm not sure what the problem is, since this one source, "Saracen archery," seems to have been used by some of the other authors I've cited, and you indicate I have a copyright problem in quoting or using their materials. Also, Latham's 1970 work is based on a 14th century manuscript, which is certainly free from copyright as well.
In the section about using the thumb ring, this is a major difference between Arab Archery and archery in the West. The item is explained by Latham in Saracen Archery, and by other sources as well, including the Wiki link for "Thumb ring." The engineering between using the thumb to hold the arrow and string, and the use of three fingers, is also self-evident in the reason why Arabs shoot on the right hand of the bow, and Westerners shoot on the left hand of the bow. And indeed, the indication and citation to the section of Latham is taken from only one paragraph, which certainly falls within the legal stricture of "Fair Use."
However, if you want to cut the entire section out, go ahead. However, I don't understand the other copyvio hits, such as the image of Darius, which is taken from another Wiki page on archery.
One of the main concerns with Wikipedia is that it has a Western orientation and bias, and while there are several items on archery, nothing on Arab archery itself, only on Turkish and Japanese archery, which are very different traditions.
However, if you want to eliminate the entire page on Arab archery, so be it. I believe that I am within the copyright guideline and fair use, but you are the WIKI editor, so your judgment is final. Hadden ( talk) 18:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
I need help from an admin, an editor was adding copyrighted content and moved an article without discussion. I tried to revert and then manually moved, BUT, I mistakenly moved it to the title with the bracket at the end, can someone move it to Dabba (film))--> Dabba (film), article. I mean, delete the last bracket. You can revert recent re-addition of copyvio too. Tito☸ Dutta 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
A plate of Dosa for you | ||
Here is a plate of
Dosa for you. Dosa is a South Indian food and is a fermented crepe or pancake made from rice batter and black lentils. Hope you'll like it. Thank you.
Tito☸
Dutta 12:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
I understand you specialize in copyright issues. I would be grateful if you could take a look at a copyright issue that I have attempted to summarize here. This started when Agilista ( talk · contribs) posted the message "The main image on this site is a direct copy of my company's original material. I want it taken down immediately." I am not sure whether "my company" is meant to indicate ownership. Thank you. -- Boson ( talk) 23:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Got your message. Thanks for the info. -- Michael Haephrati ( talk) 02:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
please advise who changed my husbands page.(drastically) We know all of his history is verified. It is as if someone wanted to cash in on all Artie's achievements. The change history does not show anything done in 2013,but we know it has..... Please help.
CAroline Kornfeld (<redacted>) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.87.52.195 ( talk) 13:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
As an admin well respected for their copyright infringement work I was wondering if you could provide an impartial opinion here: User_talk:Other_Choices#Plagiarism about whether copying the text highlighted in bold here: [2] constitutes plagiarism/inappropriate copying (there is no real noticeboard for discussions of this type as far as I can see). Cheers, IRWolfie- ( talk) 14:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the copyvio report regarding Los Alas Chapel that I've posted at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 August 28? It appears to me that the content at the cited Web site antedates our article, but I can find no definite indication that this is so. I'm especially confused because the bottom posting on the site's blog page announces the existence of Spanish and English Wikipedia articles, but it is dated April 7, 2010, which is before the creation of the en.wp article (and before the extensive expansion of the es.wp article with the content that's in question). On the other hand, the earliest record of the site at the Wayback Machine is for February 2011, but that archive just may not have gotten around to the site before then. The article's creator is blocked (by you!) for a user-name violation, so I don't know where else to turn. Deor ( talk) 21:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG. There are still revisions that include a straight cut-and-paste from this review from the Times of India - if there was similar text from a blog, it might have been copied from that source. Pete aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 11:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I can't really remember visiting that page. I haven't even once copied text from another website, I don't do that sort of thing. And, I have created over 20 articles and absolutely none of them have been popped up with the copyright situation.
ActorBoss ( talk) 13:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Thank you for your message regarding copyright issues for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area page. I am, however, a designated agent of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area. I work for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area initiative through the New England Aquarium, a collaborating partner, and am in charge of administering the social media and online content for PIPA (for example, I am an administrator for the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Facebook page and regularly contribute posts to the Phoenix Islands Protected Area blog on the New England Aquarium website, pipa.neaq.org). Therefore, I am authorized to use the text from our website, www.phoenixislands.org (as I am, myself, partially responsible for that content, including editing and maintaining the text for the pages and managing the photo gallery). If you need me to send you an email from my Aquarium email address, please let me know where to send it. Otherwise, please reinstate the page with my additions. Next time, I kindly ask for at least a small advanced warning, as I had been actively editing the page for some time and I believe that all of those changes will now be lost.
Thank you for your understanding!
Sincerely,
Etaylorneaq ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Erin Taylor Conservation Projects Assistant, Phoenix Islands Protected Area Initiative New England Aquarium 1 Central Wharf Boston, MA 02110 617-226-2185 etaylor@neaq.org
Etaylorneaq ( talk) 16:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl,
I was forwarded your message to Ocean.conservation by my boss, who is the owner of the Ocean.conservation account (she is the manager of the Phoenix Islands Protected Area Initiative through the Aquarium). We are working on taking the appropriate steps to donate our copyrighted materials from www.phoenixislands.org for use on the PIPA Wikipedia page.
However, for the documents you cited as having been sources of material in your message to Ocean.conservation, I'd like to know how to go about licensing that material. We are authorized to duplicate that content because the New England Aquarium was a contributor/co-author to those documents (such as the UNESCO World Heritage Nomination dossier), but obviously we are not in charge of the whole UNESCO website and so can't add text to the webpage. Should we just include those documents in an email donating copyrighted materials affirming that we own copyright to those documents? Please advise on that process.
Also, could you please identify the exact text you found to be directly taken from those documents? I ask because all of the duplicated material that I had added to the PIPA Wiki page came straight from the www.phoenixislands.org website. I'd just like to be on the same page about the other portions of the article you found to be from the sources you cited in your message to Ocean.conservation (your statement: "Research into the issue disclosed that quite a lot of it seems to be taken from official publications such as [1], [2], and [3].").
Thanks!
Erin
Etaylorneaq ( talk) 19:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I've afraid I've been procrastinating on this, but wanted to give you an update. I received email in July verifying that, as of the end of July, all lyrics that are licensed from LyricFind now feature a prominent LyricFind "LF" logo (see e.g. [6]). They also assured me that although they accept corrections on these pages, any corrections they accept will be delivered to the licensor, and not merely republished without any scrutiny. That's all the information I need to correctly filter the links - just need a little bot work to clean things up. Dcoetzee 19:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Would someone please take a look at WP:ANI#Editor(s) adding categories from strategy games to articles? There's some standard copyvio going on but also the use of categories/labels taken from a strategy game without attribution, is that copyvio? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hopefully you might know -- I'm going to use a sentence of public domain content from an NIH website
here, it states that it's PD. Isn't there a template I can use to tag that content as copied verbatim? I've seen it before but can't find it now...
Zad
68
03:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Moondriddengirl, me again. I found we have a page for one Saki kaskas (he composed the song calista), but the page format and language suggest a copyright issue. I can find no immediate copyvio int he article through a google, search, but I definitely want a second opinion here before I right this one off. When you get a moment, can you (or tps'ers) check it out? I would appreciate it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 07:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Puzzled why you reverted my attempt to fix a typo in my own answer on a talk page? [7] I'm trying to sort out how one gets to the bottom of the mess at the article over mere links and some people who were quite rude to me and very uncivil. I've been editing wiki a very long time (7 years, over 50,000 edits 100% clean block log, all should mean something around this place) and I really am rather frustrated at the attitude of people around here these days. I've done a bit with fair use of images and also have done my share of working on copyvio issues (I helped clean up the ItsLassietime sock) for god's sake. I'm not stupid. You and I have even worked on some issues. What is with the feeding frenzy all of a sudden? Montanabw (talk) 19:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
May I draw on your boundless knowledge of copyright issues?
I recently found that
Kaapvaal Craton seemed to contain copyvio. I went to the
article creator's talkpage and found that they are now inactive, but you had warned them (in April 2012) about copyvio problems on
Pilbara craton. Scrolling further back up the talkpage there were other copyright concerns raised by other editors. So, I went and picked a large addition at random; I picked
this. Turns out it's copied from
this paper. So, it's fair to assume that there's a broader copyright problem here. What's the best way forward now, in your view? Is a CCI necessary? I certainly think it's worth revisiting anything substantial written by Valich.
bobrayner (
talk) 14:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Text to Speech in Digital Television
Hi,
I noticed you have deleted my page on Text to Speech for Digital Television and I have to say I am baffled as to why. I have personally been involved for many years in that topic, something of key importance to blind people, and steered an international standard through a complicated negotiation with industry. I have an interest in the topic but not financially and as the article was very much neutral and non-commercial, I can't for the life of me understand why it got deleted. It has proven very useful in raising awareness of the need, including with audiences like the BBC Trust who only a few years ago was convinced by manufacturers as part of the YouView negotiations that TTS in a telly was not feasible technically or economically. I would therefore politely, but with insistence, request that this page is restored. Do note that the policy you quote (G6) under which you deleted the article does IMHO not at all apply to this page.
Guido GuidoGY ( talk) 20:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I could use your input. Short version: after removing some material as a close paraphrase, the editor arranged to get permission from the copyright owner. However, that permission statement is not the usual, it permits material to be used only if it is used exactly. That clearly conflicts with our requirements, but rather than simply say no, I'm trying to see if there is a middle ground. I think we can accept that if material is in quotes, and has a reference, it clearly identifies that it is the words of others, and other editors here will respect the quotes and not edit within the quotes or remove the quotes. However, we cannot make such a requirement for downstream users. I don't know whether that will change the view of the copyright holder.
The entire exchange is at my talk page. You can skip down to the "To Whom it May Concern:" line without missing much, but I'll understand if you need to read the whole thing.
My hope is that if the permission statement were on file with OTRS, we could use longer passages than we otherwise might.But I worry that I'm trying to be too clever.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 13:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey MRG, how are you? Question--what do you make of all the images in Charles Keeping? It could be argued that they illustrated the subject's work, but not that they "illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 16:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to check whether the advice I have tentatively given at Talk:Grand Pacific Glacier is correct? Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 18:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
You're mentioned here and I don't think the editor bothered to let you know as I wasn't notified either. We hope ( talk) 10:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, MRG, good to talk to you again. I have a NFC question. I'm looking for an image to insert in an article I have up for GA review and cannot find any which are not copyrighted. Since the person the article is about is dead, then a NFC photo can probably be used but the problem is that all the photos I can find are on websites where they're probably used there in violation of copyright law. Can an image satisfy NFC if its source is itself a copyright violation? I can't find anything which specifically says no, but the provisions of the copyright policy which say that we can't link to copyright violations would, in spirit at least, seem to cover this, too. Best regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC) PS: What if it's at least arguably used under fair use at that site? — TM
See here. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl,
My contributions on Gayelle & Trinidad & Tobago Television, could you restore my last edits? I am aware of some of the violations and willing to clean it up. The problem is that I don't want to type over all that I written before. The plan is for the edits to be restored and then clean up everything.
My country does not have a good record in preserving history so acquiring history about Television before the year 2000 in our country is scarce.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KyronR ( talk • contribs) 07:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering, is the licensing claim for this image (an old press photo being sold on eBay) correct? I've seen a few other uploads like this, but it all seems too good to be true. Thanks. Zagalejo ^^^ 01:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
It is likely that promotional materials, including production stills or posters released to promote a movie, released before 1978 are in the public domain. Public domain status can be ascertained by asking several questions:
Did the image contain a copyright notice? How was the exact image released?
Was the image release “general” or “limited?”
Hi Moonriddengirl.
I've asked for a page move at Talk:Portrait_of_a_Young_Woman_of_Frankfurt_(Botticelli) because this young lady really wasn't from Frankfurt.
Sterling work on copyright. I'll have a good read. 185.29.167.60 ( talk) 14:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ron Stewart may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 19:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thanking you kindly Emina ninadenovo@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.224.43.170 ( talk) 20:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I've also left a comment at Talk:Amaryllidoideae. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw your comments on the SHUAA Capital wp page from Sept 14th. I work for the company and was wondering what we need to do in order to create a 'normal' corporate wikipedia page with content that is correctly referenced and not in breach of any copyright law/wp policies. I am not familiar with wp and have not created or edited articles here before so would really appreciate some guidance. Is it the case that only persons not associated with a particular company can contribute to that same company's wp page? Fanny Modin ( talk) 09:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
'Cause you're dilligently awesome with what you do for the 'pedia. Best! Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC) |
Zad
68
19:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG, there's a discussion happening
here on Commons regarding the copyright status of CT scan. Every so often there's a deletion discussion like this over medical imaging. According to
this essay on Commons, it's an unsettled issue as to whether such images are copyright-able, and if so who holds the copyright. Is this an area you know anything about? If so it'd be great to have your input. The thinking that I agree with so far is that such images are made mechanically and without any creative or artistic intent or input, and as such would not be copyright-able. Thoughts?
Zad
68
19:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Please restore User:My76Strat/Accolades. Thank you!— John Cline ( talk) 11:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Maggie. Thanks very much for all your help with the Transwiki request last year. It was a heck of a lot of work and I sincerly appreciate your efforts and everybody else who helped. I'd like to ask another favor if you don't mind. I have something of a concern regarding these four edits ( one, two, three and four), which are related to this conversation where I was trying to help the person avoid something like this. I obviously have no interest in being involved with it anymore. Would you mind taking a look to see if the edits are appropriate? Thanks very much for your help. 64.40.54.237 ( talk) 02:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
144.137.67.12 ( talk · contribs) has returned, and seems to be again adding copyvio culled from various sources and patched together, eg [10] and [11]. I can't recall if these are copyright free or not. Dougweller ( talk) 11:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about recent additions to Nerine which were translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm not quite sure how to use the plagiarism detection tools (is there an explanation somewhere?). You might like to check this article before I or others work at copy-editing it into passable English. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi! Occasional editor User talk:MarVelo left a note on Talk:St. Thomas the Apostle's Church (Detroit, Michigan), claiming to have received permission to use a historic (but, I assume, copyrighted) photo of the church, and wanting help sorting out how to correctly upload it. The page is on my watchlist, but probably not too many other people's; I don't have the expertise to help, and I'm not really even sure where to send him. You happened to be that last person to post on his talk page, and I recognize your name - could you drop him a note to at least tell him where the right place is to ask? Thanks. Andrew Jameson ( talk) 13:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I wished to clarify that my change on the list affected only Pearl Jam's RIAA certified sales. If you count these certified sales, you'd coem up with 32 millions (including EP "Merkin'Ball").
Thank you MARSELIMADHE ( talk) 10:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Maggie :) Italian Apocalyptic Cult "Rosary Prayer Group” looks very suspicious to me, but I don't quite know how to investigate it. It was created on 17 September in a single large chunk by the same editor who created it:Il Gruppo del Rosario di Amantea, which was deleted from the Italian Wikipedia as copyvio, also on 17 September. The book from which the copy is alleged to have been made is no-preview. The English article has been prodded by reason of all sorts of other problems. What's the best thing to do here? -- Stfg ( talk) 12:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
Some months after the murder, Lidia Naccarato said that everything had happened in accordance with Daniel’s prophecy (“And after sixty-two weeks, a Consecrated one will be killed, without there being in him any sin” 9, 26).
The same had been said by the theologian of the group, Felice Naccarato: “the episode well fits the prophecy of Daniel according to whom a consecrated one would be killed because he was possessed by the devil. That is the fruit of reflections subsequent to the event.”
“And after sixty-two weeks an Anointed shall lose his life, in whom there is no sin.” Daniel 9, 26
On 6 December, 1988, 47 adepts of Turin confessed their Creed in a letter to the examining magistrate: “...
Lidia Naccarato alcuni mesi dopo l'omicidio dirà che tutto è avvenuto secondo la profezia di Daniele ("E dopo sessantadue settimane sarà ucciso un Consacrato, senza che in lui sia colpa" 9, 26)
Lo stesso ha dichiarato il teologo del gruppo Felice Naccarato: "all'episodio ben si attaglia la profezia di Daniele secondo cui un consacrato sarebbe stato ucciso perchè di lui se ne sarebbe impossessato il male. Ciò è frutto di riflessioni successive all'evento verificatosi".
Il 6 Dicembre 1988 47 adepti di Torino hanno confessato il loro Credo in una lettera al Giudice istruttore: "..
Hey, Moonriddengirl,
You may recall from some while back (largely 2010) and editor named Roman888 against whom there was both a significant CCI case related to copyvios on various Malaysia-related articles and a concurrent sockpuppetry case where a sizable sockfarm was identified editing both the Malaysia articles and several related to shows with Gordon Ramsay; the latter were where I became involved. Roman was site banned in March, 2011, when the two hit critical mass at the same time. Some time thereafter, he relocated to Australia and began socking using IPs registered to Telestra. Mkativerata and I began collecting evidence he was running a second IP sock farm, and those accounts were blocked as well. One of his favorite topics apart from Malaysia was the question of whether updates on the status of restaurants featured on Ramsay's shows Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares (UK) and Kitchen Nightmares (US); he initiated or was party to several long, often disruptive discussions regarding including the open/closed status of the various restaurants (see Archive 2 for the bulk of them; Archive 3 for his return as the IP sock). Despite a lack of consensus, attempts at canvassing on his part, blocks galore and a litany of WP:RS and other policy-based reasons for not including the updates, he continued to push the issue from time-to-time before finally going quiet.
And now he's back. He just started a new discussion, crafted to follow his line of thought while sidestepping policy, including an exhortation to ignore the archived discussions, regarding updates on the Kitchen Nightmares article. I happened to check in shortly after he posted it, before there were any responses, so I reverted it and tagged the newest Telestra IP's talk page. But I doubt he'll give up with out more fuss than that.
Sorry to be long winded! I wanted to give you a heads up because Mkativerata is gone now, and I know you were very involved in the CCI case. History says he'll head for the Malaysia articles shortly, and try to stir more (ahem!) on the KN and RKN article before he's done. I'm going to let the admins who indeffed him and enforced the ban know he's around as well, and if need be, head to SPI. -- Drmargi ( talk) 13:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You seem to know a lot about copyright issues, could you take a look at this user's question? AioftheStorm ( talk) 14:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Thetruthonly is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
Such a small one, yet such a pain to get through. Glad it's done. Wizardman 03:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
You might be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Commons_is_really_messed_up and related discussions. There's an interesting (to me) suggestion that the WMF tell us exactly what it's prepared to defend as reasonable in court, and what it's not, so that people can suit their practice to this stance, but I'm not expecting that to happen any time soon. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think this may need to be looked at: Trevj has noted on the talkpage of Frances de la Tour the possibility of an ancient copyvio, even though archive.org doesn't have her website archived far enough back to be sure. I think the suspicious edit is this one from 9 September 2006, given that (a) some of it is word-for-word the text now on her webpage and (b) Orbicle seems to have been a serial copyright violator, on a quite impressive scale (mostly image uploads). Questions: what to do about that article (if anyone agrees, that is); and whether her/his other contributions also need to be checked? I hope, of course, that this is just a false alarm. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 16:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. :) It can be a little startling to encounter a backwards copy on an official website, but it occasionally happens. When I look at the edit that Justlettersandnumbers, I look for content that was already in the article at the time it was expanded, and I note this:
She is best remembered for playing spinster Ruth Jones in the hit Yorkshire Television comedy Rising Damp. De la Tour did not get on well with her Rising Damp co-star Leonard Rossiter, and subsequently she has declined, for the most part, to be interviewed about this period of her life. But she told Richard Webber, when he wrote his book about the series in 2001 ('Rising Damp: A Celebration'), that Miss Jones "was an interesting character to play. We laughed a lot on set, but comedy is a serious business and Leonard took it particularly seriously, and rightly so. Comedy, which is so much down to timing, is exhausting work. But it was a happy time."
I look at the suspected source and see this:
she is best-known for playing spinster Ruth Jones in the successful Yorkshire Television comedy Rising Damp. De la Tour told Richard Webber, who penned a 2001 book about the series, that Ruth Jones "was an interesting character to play. We laughed a lot on set, but comedy is a serious business and Leonard took it particularly seriously, and rightly so. Comedy, which is so much down to timing, is exhausting work. But it was a happy time."
That raises flags for me. Looking back further, I see that the quote was introduced here, a couple of weeks before the rest of the content. This is a big sign to me of backwards copying, since it is unlikely that the editor copied the quote first (as an IP perhaps) and then returned weeks later to copy the rest. :)
A few more signs of natural evolution would make me confident in asserting this. So I look next for content in the suspected source that postdates its September 2006 placement on Wikipedia, and I find, "In 2007 she appeared in a West End revival of the farce Boeing-Boeing." That sentence was added to our article in February 2009. I can scan a bit forward from there, and I find this edit - the "source" reflects that change. And this edit. The "source" reflects that change.
The earliest archived version I can find of that article is October 2009. This can be off by six months or so, but I believe that they copied the article from Wikipedia sometime between that archived date and mid-July, when the last substantial edit before their archive was made.
Thanks much for finding the issue, Trevj, and for noting the point of introduction of the text, Justlettersandnumbers. :) It's almost as important to rule out copying as it is to confirm it, since it may save us losing the text unnecessarily at a later time. I'll put the backwardscopy template on the article's talk page. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts and click on "Create a new draft", don't save, at the top of the page you'll find few quick links which are being displayed by "preloaded text". A group edit-notice is needed to apply it in every draft subpage, Might be very helpful to work quickly. Could you create a group edit notice for Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Drafts taking content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Swami Vivekananda/Templates/Draft-editintro? If you do, delete Draft-editintro page under G6 or G7, else, again I need to request someone. -- Tito☸ Dutta 19:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl
Today I noticed that back in April 2013 an IP editor copy/pasted the contents of one of my sandboxes into an article without attribution to me. It's been a while since I've done much editing, so I'm not sure if I can undo the edits now, because the page has since been edited. The article is Will Young, my sandbox is User:Matthewedwards/Sandbox/Will Young, which I last edited in November 2011, and the offending insertions to the article are http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Will_Young&diff=548196797&oldid=547079498 .
What can be done to rectify this? Thanks Matthewedwards ( talk · contribs) 05:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I've come across what appears to be a very thin line copyright-wise. I was looking through Richard's images and game across a grouping where the CC license was added with the rationale, "I authorize anyone to use my Find a Grave images in Wikipedia or their own family research, under the creative commons attribution license cc-by-2.5, where the attribution is 'Richard Hrazanek'." To me, that sounds like you can only use the images on Wikipedia, and they would qualify under the F3 deletion criteria. However, a look at Hrazanek's find a grave profile notes that he wishes to use the CC-BY 2.5 license, which is fine for wikipedia use. Is it a simple rewording for all of them, or should I delete them? I deleted about 4 or 5 until one on commons noted the discrepancy, which brings me to here. They are good images, and hopefully they can be kept, but I'd want a second opinion. Wizardman 18:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, have created a temporary entry for the SHUAA page that was placed under investigation a few weeks ago due to copyright issues. Would you be able to have a look please? Many thanks Fanny Modin ( talk) 06:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw yesterday that Rules of Acquisition was up for deletion and went to comment on it, when I realized that the article was fully reprinting (in exact words) all the known Rules developed through the Trek fiction universe. This screamed the same type of problems we have with Top 100 lists - the "rules" (though at times may mirror real-word adages) are creatively generated as part of the copyrighted Trek fiction, and two licensed book republish these. Irregardless of the AFD, I removed the list but that change was reverted. Could I get your opinion if that list is a copyright violation? -- MASEM ( t) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Who would be a good WMF staffer to ask about this, aside from Eric? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 02:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
While reviewing Aaron Ruben, I concluded it was a backwards copy. I tried to explain on the talk page, but the site is blacklisted and would not let me identify it. I tried converting "." to "(dot)" and that failed. I was even unable to use the Wayback link. I tried the backwardscopy template and it failed.
If there a work around?
I'll provide a link to the Wayback page in the edit summary.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, just a note: I removed this stuff from the article Aatish Taseer and have done nothing more; just bringing it to your attention in case you're interested in checking whether it was indeed copyvio, or something like that. I'm not too interested myself (it was unencyclopedic content anyway), so feel free to ignore this. Thanks for all your help ridding Wikipedia of copied content. Shreevatsa ( talk) 02:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Moonriddengirl. I left a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup, but no one responded. It might be a copyright problem, so I'm going to ask you, if that's OK. The page Hot Rize uses a scan of one of the band's album covers in an infobox. It is my reading of the fair use rationale that such scans are acceptable for an article about the album, but what about an article about the band? Cnilep ( talk) 04:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi an IP editor has marked Capture of Damascus (1918) with the copyvio tag, but then did nothing else but update the talk page. The main editor has tried to remove the tag, which has been reverted in an attempt to allow the IP editor to respond. It now seems that the IP is not a regular contributor so the article is in limbo. Can you give some advice on how to move forward, possibly on the talk page where a discussion has began. Jim Sweeney ( talk) 08:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl: I am writing about several articles that have been tagged by Psychonaut, specifically this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwendolyn_Audrey_Foster
The text here is public domain, from a website I created for Foster many years ago, and can be used by anyone. I release it here, if that does any good, as being absolutely public domain with no copyright violation even possible, since it was my own original work, and was never copyrighted in the first place. It's simply text I wrote for the piece.
I am aware that the article lacks inline references, but these can easily be found on the web, and I am not an experienced Wiki editor. Perhaps someone can come in and clean this up, which would be nice. But there is no copyright violation here. - Best, Wdixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.88.67.125 ( talk) 14:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article UCSI University 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/UCSI University 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for leaving a message on the talk page. But there's three choices with the Monsignor Fraser College article like delete, rewrite, or merge, but merging the school with the board article is plain easy. Discuss this in the Talk:Monsignor Fraser College page. Happy Thanksgiving from the North! FreshCorp619 ( talk) 15:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
To impress you, i've clarified St. Mary's Catholic Secondary School as blank. Thanks for the method! :D FreshCorp619 ( talk) 16:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Monsignor Fraser College requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.bdcconline.net/en/stories/f/fraser-john-andrew-mary.php http://www.tcdsb.org/schools/msgrfrasercollege/aboutus/SchoolHistoryandTradition/Pages/default.aspx https://www.tcdsb.org/schools/msgrfrasercollege/Academics/Pages/default.aspx and likely others. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
That article could be deleted or redirected. FreshCorp619 ( talk) 21:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
What's up there MoonRiddenGirl, i've gathered a team of Wikipedians: User:Secondarywaltz,
User:PKT,
User:Bearcat,
User:ClueBot Commons, and
User:WhisperToMe to form the Article Clean-Up Task Force to rewrite and cite sources I listed from the Copyright investigations page. That way, the articles people or I wrote/created, could prevent copyright issues or deletion. Thanks!
FreshCorp619 (
talk) 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if you remember Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Scarfaced Charley from over a year ago – I see he was also blocked as a Sockpuppet. I worked a bit on helping fix some of those. Yesterday I found that Scarfaced Charley had made a duplicate Campaignbox template and therefore some relevant articles were using that Template:Campaignbox Little Rock while others were using the preexisting Template:Campaignbox Advance on Little Rock which follows the WP:MILHIST convention of naming campaignboxes in accordance with the campaigns defined by the American Battlefield Protection Program unit of the National Park Service. That site is currently unavailable because of the Government Shutdown, but can be verified in Google's cache.
I merged the content into Template:Campaignbox Advance on Little Rock, updated all the articles to use the correct campaignbox template, blanked the duplicate template and tagged it with db-t3. I had originally also put a redirect to the corrected template, but I couldn't figure out how to make both the redirect and the db-3 tag work... Hopefully I've done it correctly. Does this situation indeed qualify for speedy deletion or does it need to be brought to TfD?
Also, there's one talkpage comment at Template talk:Campaignbox Little Rock. What's the proper way to handle that? Thanks. Mojoworker ( talk) 18:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering if maybe you missed this notification of the discussion. Its a bit complicated as it involves both US public domian / copyright issues, and what to do with images that might be fine in the US and for Wikipedia's purposes, but potentially cause future legal issues for the Australian uploader. - Evad37 ( talk) 02:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl, I attempted to make a page for an American hero by the name of Capt. Charles Cooper. My page was deleted and and I am unsure why. If you could help me out that would be great! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.163.68 ( talk) 18:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Capt. Charles "Chuck" Cooper was born on 19 September, 1957. He was assigned to the 160th in October, 1989 and served as a 2nd flight platoon leader in Charlie Company, 1st Battalion. He was known as a great leader, destined to command a company and battalion. His easy, "get along with folks" attitude, all-American looks and his constant smile made him a joy to be around. He was a great pilot and officer who loved his job, his soldiers, and this mission.
Do you think you could review the America789 case I added at WP:CCI? I feel like I will have a very productive week if I can start working on this case this weekend. Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 22:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Moonriddengirl, its me again. In what feels like a 'getting too familiar' message, I have another music article I'm concerned about: D-Code (DJ). As with the last two times I thought I'd look into the song's musician, and as with the other two times the material read a little too much like it came from someplace other than Wikiepdia. In this case, that someplace else appears in part to be ovguide.com and biographies.net, both of which have a copyright insignia at the bottom of the page. I'm sorry to lean on you again, but when you (or tps'ers) get a moment, can you follow up on this and see if it is in fact a copyvio? As always, I would appreciate it (and again, sorry for always coming here with suspicious articles). TomStar81 ( Talk) 10:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar | ||
For expertly cutting down the questionable content on the page D-Code (DJ) to bring the article in compliance with our article policies and guidelines I hereby award you The Editor's Barnstar. You've definitely earned it :) TomStar81 ( Talk) 23:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
This [20] is being used as a reference - is there enough copy at the link to call it a copyvio link? Dougweller ( talk) 14:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, just a quick thanks for your informed (and really rather clever) conclusion regarding this - I was a bit taken aback to find that the University of Westminster had obviously liked my bio so much that they'd copied it over to their new site, and when I realised it meant my contributions (ironically, submitted originally to deal with original copyvio!) had themselves been mistaken for copyvio, I was a bit at a loss. Spotting my grammatical error and using it as evidence was so simple yet so inspired that it could have come out of a modern-day Agatha Christie book! Thanks again. Mabalu ( talk) 16:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl, Thank u for being so kind in editing/checking the article which i created about the International Vedanta Society. Before i start let me introduce myself to you. I am Swami Prahladananda, a Joint General Secretary of the International Vedanta Society- a spiritual charitable organisation. I am a regular reader of wikipedia which i find very useful to find answers to many of my quaries about science, arts, spirituality and different things. u can say i am a fan of wikipedia. I thought that a prominent spiritual organisation whose members are active throughout the world needs to have a mention in wiki. I am not an expert in writing articles specially in websites. I have written this article based on the website and official blogs of my organisation. Although there are many news articles in different vernacular newspapers about this organisation( hindi, bengali, assamese) i didnt mention them because i was not sure whether it is acceptable in wiki or not. Also i am not an expert in writing articles in websites. But since I am authorised by my organisation to deal with media both print and electronic, i try to put as much information which people may find useful to know more about the organisation. I also understand that since I am a part of this organisation u may find my observations a little one sided but I have tried by best be put things in as much neutral perspective as possible. Since I am not a big expert about internet and its tecnical aspects as i have mentioned earlier i invite everybody including u to be a part of editing this article. If u want i can scan and send u the news reports mentioned in different vernacular print medias to u. But i dont know whether u will understand the language or not. Also I can assure u that all the information in this article are from authorised source which are entirely owned by my organisation. So there will be no third party issues. Wish u all the best. 115.250.95.158 ( talk) 19:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm of the group the Flatlinerz. If you need to verify this I'll give my contact information in private. For years there has been inaccurate information on Wiki (propaganda) about Horrorcore and the Flatlinerz
I want to clarify something and I'll be as brief as possible.
Our concept of Horrorcore is a complete union of rap and horror films. This includes the instrumentation (cinematic horror instrumentation), the lyrics, artwork, especially videos, and style of dress. Redrum created the name Horrorcore to give a handle to this style of entertainment. If an artist doesn't meet the criteria mentioned above which are the components of what Horrorcore is made of, then it's unfair to call them Horrorcore. You can't call Rock music Rock music and no one is playing a guitar.
When it says that "Horrorcore gained prominence when"... it's misleading. Why not write that the first usage of the term Horrorcore was on the Flatlinerz album? This is a fact. A fact in which some people who writing are about what Horrorcore is on the page is trying to hide. (redacted)
There's Acid Rap, Ripgut, the Wicked Sh*t, Grim Reality, and a few other names that the other so called pioneering Horrorcore artists have named their music before the Flatlinerz. The only reason why Horrorcore isn't being respected as our name and style of music (creation) is because of the propaganda that artists spread which people believe. The artists want to be able to use the name for it's notoriety without having to give us credit. Most of them hate us because we were doing something similar to what they were doing and gained more popularity for it. They are envious of us. It not fair that Horrorcore is being used as an umbrella term for everybody and we don't even get credit for it.
Any rapper that is mentioned on the page that never had a song which they called Horrorcore, that was based on horror, had cinematic horror music to it, and video for the song based on horror prior to our release is not Horrorcore because that's what Horrorcore is.
Horrorcore is not just gruesome lyrics, it's an entire package.
If you can help it will be much appreciated.
Dark Hip Hop ( talk) 14:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey all. So, Moonriddengirl hasn't been on in a few days. You know what would be cool? If we all cleaned out the backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright problems just to surprise her on her return. There's already good progress on that, and it shouldn't take too long to clean if we really work at it over the next few days. Wizardman 04:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, can you ascertain whether the Wikipedia biography preceded that of the subject's website, which is close to a dead-on copy [21]? If not, it's possible that the Wiki article has been a copyright violation from the outset. However, if the subject's website mirrors Wikipedia's then our article would just require clean up and improved sourcing. Thank you, JNW ( talk) 13:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Need some help dealing with this as it's beyond my skill levels. — Spaceman Spiff 03:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Reposted here, from my user talk page, originally posted to me by Ansegam ( talk · contribs), doesn't give a source for the copyvio so I didn't know where else to report it:
Hello, I am the author of the article "Historical inheritance systems" and its related sub-articles, such as "systems of social stratification". I am afraid I may have infringed the copyright of some articles... Please, can you check it out? I do not have the intention of infringing any copyright, If I have done it it's been just a mistake on my part and I would inmediately delete it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam ( talk • contribs)
Thank you very much for your help! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you could have a look? — Cirt ( talk) 15:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Moonriddengirl! I reviewed my article "Systems of social stratification" and I found that most of the content I paraphrased was available for free in the Internet -I mean, those works were publicly available for those who wished to read them. I also paraphrased books which were not free; however, I paraphrased those passages that could be read in Google Views of those books, so I think I didn`t publish anything unfree. The only exception are two short sentences from an study made by Adam Kuper about the Sotho people, and of course I marked the two short sentences I was paraphrasing. I hope this means I am not infring any copyright. Thank you very much for your help. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ansegam ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Migrated to Tool Labs and fixed, online at [22]. All on-wiki links to it should be updated. Let me know if you experience any trouble. :-) Dcoetzee 03:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
If the copyvio was from the first three of the four sources listed then it's not copyvio as those are PD sources. If it was from the last, of course, that's a different matter. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl,
I noted some questionable text on the article above, and a quickie google search indicates that it may be from globalsecurity.org. When I started to dig into it, I noted that the editor who added it has had previous contact from you. So, I thought you might be interested to take a look. Thanks!
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (
talk) 05:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG, would you please see the discussion at WT:SHIPS#Copyvio problem, Feel free to comment. Mjroots ( talk) 18:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I included a poem about the subject that was written in 1899. I believe this is now in the public domain? If I am mistaken please remove it. Thank you. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 15:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl, hope that you are enjoying your edits. I am editing as well (actually creating a new template).
Enjoy. Bangter ( talk) 13:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello MRG, back on the 13th jan 2013 you cleared out a mass of copyvio at Noakhali_District. A lot seems to have been readded see this edit in particular http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Noakhali_District&diff=565732275&oldid=565731411 . Note the tell-tale citation numbering which shows it has been copied back in from another site which has copied/mirrored old WP content such as this blog. If I as an ipaddr try & clean up, it will probably get reverted...perhaps you could take a look? rgds & thks 78.105.28.140 ( talk) 02:53, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
... at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FreshCorp619. I've not looked at the contributions of SPVII DrFresh26, but fear that they may merit scrutiny. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up my article. I will work on the copyright issue for Yuko Nii with Immunonuclear. Afterward may be you can clean up that article too. Best Regards, Terrance Lindall ( talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I posted this at the bottom of the bio page on www.wahcenter.net:
"The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."
I hope this does it so the "possible copyright violation" can be removed. Thanks! Immunonuclear ( talk) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is some lunch for you, with Russavia and Trijnstel Bangter ( talk) 10:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC) |
You may have an interest in a Contributor copyright investigation I did at Commons: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Uwatch310.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 16:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on this question I've posed? I could really use your thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 15:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Just stumbled upon [23]. Text still present in the article with only a few tweaks. I don't think anon's claim passes our requirements, so - remove most of the article? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl. Khazar2 kindly gave me your name as a person to run this issue by. It concerns a new George Harrison biography written by Graeme Thomson, which noticeably reflects a lot of content that I've put into Wikipedia's Harrison album and song articles since January 2012. I first brought the matter up with Quadell over on his talk page a week or so back – ( since archived). A few others weighed in there and on my talk page (and the conversations then spilled over onto other users' talk pages). My objections to Thomson's book are stated in an Amazon review for the bio (as user HariG), which is the link I gave on Quadell's page and elsewhere.
I realise that Amazon doesn't offer much of a preview for the book, certainly not sufficient to compare the areas of overlap I'd mentioned. What makes it so obvious to me that this author has used Wikipedia content as a foundation for his text is his use of sources that I brought to the articles and have never seen in any of the (many) existing books and publications discussing George Harrison. In some cases, the actual structure of the author's discussion about a particular event or album mirrors the order of points given in the articles. From what I've seen, at times he's loosely paraphrased text – but it's still close enough for me to recognise the overlap with the articles (admittedly, in part because I wrote them, and the antennas are up, so to speak). Would you have any advice about this, about what could and should be done?
Users Yeepsi and SilkTork have suggested adding Backwardscopy templates to relevant articles, and I intend to write to the publisher with a list of the areas where Thomson's text obviously mirrors the articles on Wikipedia. (With the latter measure, I confess it's just too depressing to even look at the book right now, so it's not something I've exactly jumped on with any urgency. Same with the Backwardscopy option, actually.) I'm confident that there are many more instances of the author's text reflecting Wikipedia's – again, through the give-away of those previously unused sources – than I've detailed in my Amazon review.
As a short-term measure, to at least alert Amazon's customers, I'm hoping that the review remains visible on the page there. It seems that's the only voice we have in the outside world. If you felt inclined to do so, and I'm so grateful that others have, I'd really appreciate it if you could vote "helpful" next to my Amazon review. That's the only way to ensure that the review continues to be featured (helpful equalling "popular", of course). Knowing the book publishing industry as I do, I can't help thinking that some with a professional interest have hit "unhelpful" next to the review, and "helpful" next to others, in an effort to have it demoted and out of sight. That could be slightly paranoid of me – maybe customers just don't find it at all helpful(!). On the other hand, publishers and authors do do this, just as those with a vested interest write "reviews" for movies available on AppleTV, iTunes and elsewhere. Sorry to go on – any advice you've got would be very welcome. Best, JG66 ( talk) 03:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Because I have to share:
[24]
Thank you to everyone who has worked to make that happen. Truly, it's crazy how happy this makes me. It's kind of overwhelming.
Now, off to WP:CCI. (oooh! And if I can, I will write an article this weekend!)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
I am so proud of you guys. :) -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
On 23:46, 9 November 2013 you did a "rvt. copy[v]io to last clean" for David LaChapelle to a 14,205 byte version of 23:47, 20 March 2012 by ClueBot NG. It appears that your main purpose was respond to Justlettersandnumbers' remark on 21 October 2013 that there was "massive insertion of copyvio material from https://web.archive.org/web/20110203033722/http://www.lachapellestudio.com/about/ by probable WP:COI editor." At /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_67#David_LaChapelle, Justlettersandnumbers notes that users "Michael Mockler," "PASSIST," "12.40.226.82," and "Dlcstudiony" may have WP:COI.
However, in reverting so far back, you deleted a lot of good-faith edits between 29 March 2012 and 23 May 2013. In particular, you deleted my 9 April 2013 WP:NPOV edits bringing the article from 9,805 bytes to 52,285 bytes, which followed WP:VERIFY and which deleted any previous WP:COPYVIO detected. I have no WP:COI with the David LaChapelle Studios.
Could you please revert the article to its 23 May 2013 version (which looked something like https://web.archive.org/web/20130524115318/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_LaChapelle), not its 20 March 2012 version? TIA. - ArtPhotoLover ( talk) 07:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for using your page as a general noticeboard, MRG. Can anyone see the source used in Kalyani: India's Longest Running Public Health Campaign? I'm pretty sure that the article is a copy of it. - Sitush ( talk) 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) I've just been looking at this after seeing Sitush's message. As is typical of the copyvio we found with the IEP, there are chunks copied verbatim or very closely paraphrased and/or overly long direct quotes from multiple sources, e.g. [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Given the track record of Indian authors, the book listed may well have plagiarised from these sources too. There are a lot of give-aways that this was cobbled together by combining various chunks, e.g. the ungrammatical "Was the first step towards bringing about change." immediately followed by the highly polished "Kalyani’s research has looked at belief systems and attitudes surrounding certain gender sensitive practices." I think this should be blanked with {{ Copyvio}}. Shall I do it? Voceditenore ( talk) 13:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that you wish to set this article on the correct path. You highlighted a copyright issue and I believe I proved that the material does not have a copyright and gave links to that effect. You then again marked the article as, "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." - Perhaps you are right, which leads me to some procedural questions. Can any editor delete an article and mark it with this if he/she feels it requires it? If yes, then is it only up to an administrator to check the copyright and restore or delete the article? For instance, you are not an administrator and you put tag an article, can you then you yourself restore the article or does it have to be an administrator? Finally and more to the point, WHY did you tag the article before discussing it on the talk page? That is what I believe usually happens in Wikipedia, first we discuss and then take action. Thanks for your time. Politis ( talk) 13:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
That's perfect. Thanks for your swift response. Politis ( talk) 13:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robin Denniston may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 13:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bigg Boss 6 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 12:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been puttering on Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Imtitanium today and have it down to five articles. I'm down to the ones that I don't know what to do with - more presumptive deletion may be necessary? Would you or your talk page stalkers have time to run through the last few? Also, amazing rewrite of International Federation of Eugenics Organizations - above and beyond the call of copyvio cleanup! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer ( talk) 21:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl,
You deleted the page " SMS/800" in 2009 for a copyright-related reason. Do you feel that the entire topic is off-limits to have an article about, or was there something specific in the article that violated copyright? Do you know what the copyright claim is based on? The subject matter of "SMS/800" is a regulated telecommunications entity that subcontracts for an important FCC function of operating toll-free telephone numbers, and for which there is at least a good deal of public information, and I feel that there should definitely be a Wikipedia article about it. Would you have any opposition to re-starting this article?
Thanks, -- Wykypydya ( talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi. According to this message, CASF pass away a couple month ago. Cheers. Ganímedes ( talk) 08:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello once again, i tried to do what you told me about copying within Wikipedia on this article (i have added the template on the talk page too). I hope i did it right? -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 12:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
That's good to hear, thank you :). -- HistoryofIran ( talk) 14:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#European Commission editing on own subjects. Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm not clear about our policy here. Using the external links template, can we link to for instance [32]? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 10:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl- Does this video clip require permission/OTRS approval to upload? I feel like it probably does, but was curious since it's on the White House website. Thanks- Godot13 ( talk) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl- One more question about copyright: could you please point me to resources that will tell me which world paper currencies are public domain and which are copyrighted? I do volunteer research/digital archiving at the Smithsonian and would like to know what to prioritize (i.e., can be uploaded to WP/Commons). Many thanks.- Godot13 ( talk) 06:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see your mention until just now. (I guess mentions show up in Echo but are not sent via e-mail? That kind of sucks.) I will say that the issue with Google was that according to their Terms of Service, searches made via automated means are prohibited, period. I don't know if a grant or the weight of the WMF would be able to change that (though I'm sure Google would be willing to make at least some concessions to the WMF, given their "not evil" philosophy and that I'm pretty sure they've officially shown approval of the WMF's mission/partnered with the WMF in the past).
As far as Yahoo!, which MadmanBot uses, the WMF is charged a small amount per search. Upping the number of searches could obviously increase the financial burden on the WMF considerably, which is why that's never been done (except for Coren's modification made in the past that searches not just the page title but a few excerpts from the page to find violations).
Now, unfortunately there's been little progress with the iThenticate modifications, which is pretty much entirely my fault since I've been so negligent in my MadmanBot rewrite/work has been going so terribly. Hopefully this will change in late December/early January (according to the release schedule at work), at which point I can finish that rewrite and we can start talking about new parameters for the bot in a BRFA. I believe we want to continue doing new articles only for the time being while we test new heuristics and sources, but checking old articles/new edits have been discussed; I think iThenticate was fine with that. You could possibly benefit from discussing that with Ocaasi ( talk · contribs); he's the ideas guy, I'm just the (itinerant) implementer.
Feel free to ask me if you have any questions/more ideas; since I'm semi-away, it might be best to leave me a {{
Talkback}}
or send me an e-mail if you do. Cheers! —
madman 01:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
In terms of copyright/fair use, where are we about quoting 9 lines of a broadcast news interview? The transcript itself wasn't published, that I could find so far, but its content can be verified by (unreliably) published videos. It helps the reader's understanding of the approach and behavior of the subject of the article. It could be explained with quoting just a line or two, and I wouldn't complain if you recommended that. -- Lexein ( talk) 22:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Recently, User:Oriole85 ( contribs) has been sporadically popping up on my watchlist for category-related changes. A lot of new users do that, so it wasn't a particularly noteworthy thing for me. But then he kept showing up with a higher frequency, oftentimes making (what I thought to be) completely unnecessary over-categorizations to articles. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know that User:Levineps ( contribs) is one of the most notorious over-categorizers we've ever seen (and has the community sanctions, block records, and bans to show for it). So, I did about two minutes' worth of research and discovered that Oriole85's account was created / his edits began on November 5, 2013. When was the last edit by Levineps? November 4, 2013. That is not a coincidence IMO. I don't have (a) the time right now, nor (b) the motivation to formally open an SPI, but I'm hoping that one of the many people I'm notifying about this does. If you're wondering why you're being pinged about this, it's because I saw where you were one of the people who has left messages on Levineps' talk page at some point regarding his inappropriate editing. So now, in addition to all of the aforementioned issues with Levineps, it looks like a probably sockpuppet to throw into the mix. Jrcla2 ( talk) 05:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've got a rather difficult one I would like your opinion on. At the Ontario highway photos discussion here, there are a couple of arguments. One argues that the US has not adopted the rule of the shorter term, and that therefore Canadian crown copyright expiration doesn't affect copyright status in the US. However, it is also argued that, in this case, the copyright holder (the Canadian government) is, by expiring the crown copyright, explicitly as the copyright holder releasing the images into the public domain, which as the copyright holder it would have every right to do. Both arguments have merit and this is a tough one, what do you think? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
When Crown copyright expires on a work in its country of origin, the work enters the public domain in that country, but it may still be copyrighted in other signatory countries of the Berne Convention because these other countries apply their own laws, which may have longer copyright terms and not even know the concept of a "Crown copyright". (See e.g. Sterling 1995 towards the end, section titled "Protection of Crown copyright in other countries".) An exception to this is UK Crown copyright. Although UK works on which the Crown copyright has expired also could still be copyrighted elsewhere, the British Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), which manages all Crown copyrights on behalf of the copyright holder ( the Crown), has explicitly stated in an e-mail to Wikipedia that they consider UK Crown copyright expiry to apply world-wide.
Eye On The Past? It seems way out of scope to me. ww2censor ( talk) 20:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I recall that as part of my CCI, you were able to contact a WP attorney to clarify some issues. Am I able to somehow contact them myself, or via WMF, to clarify some new issues which I feel are very significant? Thanks. -- Light show ( talk) 21:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Taking a photograph does not give you ownership of the painting. The photo Francis de Erdely.jpg was deleted. I took the photo of the painting that I own. Nate2808 ( talk) 14:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conquest (1937 film) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 17:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Conquest (1937 film). The plot is very much like the one at IMDB and appears to have been there since the article was started. Thanks, We hope ( talk) 14:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
What's your take on how attribution and copyrights should be handled cross-wiki? I've recently come across Old revision of Nam Kỳ Lục tỉnh which is a a cut and paste article on the article of the same name on viwiki (with the unused template transclusions making it quite obvious) and I'd like to know what actions are typically taken when associated with the various levels of severity in copyvios. For example, is this egregious enough for revdel, or does it have to be more blatantly obvious with a Google search, or should this be left alone in edit history with the changes noted; in short what actions/judgements do you normally take wrt copyright policy? TeleComNasSprVen ( talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have sent you an email; to consider at your leisure. Best regards.— John Cline ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl :-), I was looking at a G12 speedy on Environmental noise directive - it takes data from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/directive.htm, and the link at the top of that page leads to http://ec.europa.eu/geninfo/legal_notices_en.htm and the PDF - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:330:0039:0042:EN:PDF - which does say (Article 4) - commercial use, and (Article 6) needs acknowledgement. Thus it's very close to CC-BY - Can you give me your opinion whether that PDF does enough to release for Wikipedia use? Ronhjones (Talk) 14:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to rewrite several copyvios that had been in the article for years. I will now have to get to work to include other perspectives about the National Arbitration Forum to satisfy WP:NPOV. Again, thank you for your help in removing the copyright problems. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Moonriddengirl,
We would like to advocate for MusicBlvd.com, a competitor to MetroLyrics, both licensed lyrics providers. We are trying to get Wikipedia to verify that MusicBlvd.com is indeed compliant with copyright and and lyric licensing laws.
You can see MusicBlvd's response here - Dear Wikipedia, We Love Musicians More than Lawyers.
This is in response to this Wikipedia thread by other editors /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Songs#Music_Blvd_lyrics_Links
MusicBlvd.com should be added under the "Lyrics and Video" section in the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs
Can you please help us in setting the record straight?
Thanks
I'll try to start a new page on Arab Archery without the copyright problems. Can you send me the previous deleted page on "Arab Archery" without copyright questions so I can start again with the external links and other housekeeping items?
Thanks in advance.
Hadden ( talk) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-creative content from the article
|
---|
{{Archery}} [[Category:Archery]] [[Category:History of archery]] [[Category:Weapon history]] |
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
Am I allowed to use the second image in this article? I want it for the propaganda section on an article I am writing on the sexual violence during the Rwandan genocide. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 23:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy solstice-related (aka winter-in-the-Northern Hemisphere) holiday(s)! | ||
To my very good Wikipedia friend, I wish you a joyful "winter in the northern hemisphere holiday" or "northern solstice day(s) in the southern hemisphere holiday", whichever of the holiday or holidays you celebrate (all or any)! Invertzoo ( talk) 19:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
Jayadevp
13 is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp 13 06:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.
Dougweller ( talk) 09:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Racepacket is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI. |
Happy New Year! MER-C 09:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Lol, not sure where to post. Anyhow, Happy New Year and a question. Are there guidelines for an editor to delete another editor's comment in the talk page, if that other editor created a user name to post a single inane comment and then unsubscribed from their temporary username? Politis ( talk) 16:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. The inane comment is not offensive, just inane. The user who wrote on 27 December was, "Idaeananvil". But two days later (29 December), that user does not exist anymore. Therefore since that user is probably a troll or a practical joker, I was wondering whether we could delete his comment on the talk page. If any doubt, no problem if we cannot. Politis ( talk) 00:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I added some refs and fixed some dates. I was surprised that the Greek sites say that he was born in 1916, while the Greek Wikipedia says it as 1915, which should I trust? For now, I established it as 1916, therefore to avoid future confusion, however your input is needed. If you want to, you can move this discussion to the article talkpage. Also, I have translated some sources, though my Greek is bad. Do however check for copyvio please, although I am certain that I did the correct way. Many thanks in advance!-- Mishae ( talk) 01:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Greek media obituaries give for his DOB 1916 [34]. I therefor think English Wikipedia has the correct date. Politis ( talk) 11:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry this got archived while you were having festive fun. Am I allowed to use the second image in this article? I want it for the propaganda section on an article I am writing on the sexual violence during the Rwandan genocide. The paper which printed it is now defunct, as the editors and staff are in prison for genocide. Darkness Shines ( talk) 13:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
O.K. Since you are awoken, can be so kind to test the above article for copyvio and/or close paraphrasing? You see, a bot have labeled it for copyvio, but another user removed the tag, while another user issued a concern that it was legit and not bots mistake as I mentioned on @ Ironholds: talkpage, who mentioned you there, but I decided to ask you it myself instead... Either way, in my opinion the bot was wrong, and two admins have no doubt to believe that he is, but one admin believes that the bot was right and everyone around him is wrong. Can you check for close paraphrasing (which was user @ Mogism:'s main concern), and let me know if there are any too-close paraphrasing. Many thanks in advance.-- Mishae ( talk) 15:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
In the article Economic history of the United States, section on the Gilded Age [35], beginning with the sentence The "Gilded Age" of the second half of the 19th century was the epoch of tycoons. It's copy pasted from a book, according to this site [36] from "Outline of the U.S. Economy" by Conte and Carr. It's also on other sites such as this [37]. The book is apparently a US gov publication but I don't know if that puts it in public domain. The linked site states "has been adapted with permission from the U.S. Department of State.", which would imply that permission to copy is needed.
Is it a copy vio? Volunteer Marek 06:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi MRG, I hope all is well and you had a good Christmas etc. I wonder if you could advise on a matter of copyright in lists. Crisco has pointed out (in this thread) that a list page I've done some work on may fall foul of copyright rules. Could I ask if you'd be good enough to comment on my talk page about whether using the BFI list is acceptable or not? Many thanks indeed! - SchroCat ( talk) 11:09, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl,
Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.
I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia; may our encyclopedia make information and education available, without charge, to everyone in the world.
All the very best from
Invertzoo (
talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi MRG. Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've taken this user's unblock appeal to AN, under the standard offer. All the best - and a happy new year! Yunshui 雲 水 09:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I vaguely recall seeing a template for situations where an external source mirrors our article. I've just come across what may be an example - compare this source to our article - but am unsure whether (a) this is actually confirmation that the source mirrors us and (b) if it is, then what the template should be.
The article is not good even now and it seems possible (gut feeling) that we've actually lifted it from the source at a date prior to it first being archived by Wayback. I'm unsure how to confirm/deny this. - Sitush ( talk) 11:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I see you are active at WP:SCV; I was wondering if you wouldn't mind closing this discussion at WP:NCR. Consensus has been met, we just need official closure so I can promote the article in question to GA status. Here is Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/guidelines#How_to_close should you need it. Thank you! — MusikAnimal talk 21:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Trying to clear out the SCV from 4 December and would like a second opinion on this one. Personally I think it's still close enough to constitute a copyright problem but as someone other than the original creator has tried cleaning it I'd like a second opinion if you'd be as kind as to supply one. Dpmuk ( talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
See [39]. I also think it's too long in general, but the editor insists it all has to be in the article. Thanks. Hope you had a good break during the holidays! Dougweller ( talk) 14:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
what the what? Honestly, I think it all needs to go away. Tell me what you think. Dloh cierekim 16:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Setting aside for a moment the whole sock puppetry thing (both the 108 and 170 IP editors are pretty well implicated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lawline), the move seems to have messed up a couple of links. Talk:Louis_J._Posner - the Talk page for the newly renamed page - redirects to the article; and in addition does not carry over the (fairly extensive) discussion that existed at the Talk page under the prior article name, Talk:Louis_Joseph_Posner. There is also much older discussion material in the history at Talk:Louis_J._Posner. I don't know what needs to be done, but it seems to be something! Otherwise, the move is fine with me; what's really stunning is how by dint of sheer persistence and puppetry, this blocked editor seems to be able to muck things up enough that he's able to restore several articles to his preferred versions! JohnInDC ( talk) 17:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for helping improve the article. Would you be open to considering restoring the external link to the blacklisted webpage. The webpage is only used in the 'External links' section of the article. In my view the webpage provides a highly educational, informative and insightful practical example of the Abilene paradox. This practical example is also fun and entertaining to read. In my view, restoring the external link would not damage the article in any way, and would only help improve and strengthen the article. Thanks and warm regards, IjonTichy ( talk) 20:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi MRG, I reverted this edit earlier today as I think it may be in contravention of our WP:LINKVIO policies. Can you let me know if I've taken the right course here, or if I'm justified in the revert? Many thanks! - SchroCat ( talk) 17:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, MRG, Happy New Year! Sorry to bother you yet again. I came here to say three things, but I see that JohnInDC has already said one of them, about the Posner talkpage. I posted here a while ago about what appeared to be a copyvio at Carlos Lopes (Guinea Bissau) and Atameru. I've just removed what is (I think) more or less the same copyvio screed from that article for the second time; Crisco 1492 dealt with it the time before that. Two questions: should the user be discouraged in some way from continuing to add the same sort of stuff? And do you think that it is likely that the copyvio is in fact foundational, that this version was copied from here or an earlier version thereof? In case that isn't enough, could I ask you or one of the faithful watchers to take a look at Academy of Art University? It seems to me very probable that this edit in 2006 was copied from here rather than vice versa, but I can't prove it through archive.org. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)