Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #178

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 58 Archive 59 Archive 60 Archive 61 Archive 62

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

In general, I check in with Misplaced Pages frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 01:13, 23 January 2025 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.

The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland

It seems as you are the person who started discussion about (copyright)?

To be honeyst this original version of article about Karl Tõnisson and The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland as other pieces what I used hier in wiki is written by me.

So what?

And the conference "Buddhism and Nordlandand" as a project were started by me years ago. And now ,ll be the queation from my side ,,,whats wrong with this?

DO I need any copyright hier in[REDACTED] to share my own nformation what,s written by me?

Sorry if I got it wrong. --VanemTao (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No, I'm not the person who started the discussion, but I have been evaluating some of your contributions. I did not evaluate The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland myself, but Karl Tõnisson seems to include material previously published at . Other articles that have been evaluated by me or by others have contained or have contained content published from various other sources: Buddhism in Russia contains text that was previously published at ; Palgyi Dorje of Lhalung was listed at the copyright problems board for a week before being deleted as a copy of . Natalia S. Yakhontovia was deleted as a copyright concern due to duplication of . Ja Lama used to contain text copied from , but it was already removed.

If you are associated with the source that published text and able to verify permission for it, please see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials. We do need verification of the license for text that has been previously published. If you do not have permission — and the diversity of sources suggests you probably don't for all of this text — you can't copy it onto Misplaced Pages. You have to write it completely in new language. --Moonriddengirl 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note that as part of the review after the above remained listed for 7 days, I have extended the deadline for deletion by one week due to this discussion. If you are willing and able to provide proper permission as indicated above, please do so within this timeframe, or consider rewriting the article from scratch in the temporary space. MLauba (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understood the situation is not so positive.

Why?

Because I dont want to donate any of materials mentioned hier in our discussion, to wikipedia.--VanemTao (talk) 10:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the material will be deleted. If you wish to supply new articles on the subjects, please be sure that they are written entirely differently than the ones published before. I do need to point out to you that anything you write for Misplaced Pages is donated under precisely those terms: anyone else can use them anywhere, even for commercial gain, and change them however they like. But they can't claim that they wrote the text or took the photographs themselves, and they can't stop other people from using them, too. Whenever you click save, you are consenting to the following terms:

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details.

I'll go ahead and take care of the pending articles, since you've indicated you don't want to donate them. --Moonriddengirl 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary of National Biography and copyright issues

Another one of these (I raised the matter on the Copyright Problems page a little while ago, and you added a reply) is Alexander Ludovic Duff. The biography from the DNB was published 1949, so the {{DNB}} template is again misleading; this was again created by User:Craigy144. A further one that came to light was Vera Cuningham, started in 2007 by User:Talskiddy. I'm working down a list of hundreds of uses of {{DNB}}, and these are just a by-product; I have only done about 25% so far. Do you have access to the ODNB website? Typically the paraphrase is so close - more like a copy edit for length - that there are whole sentences in common (or close). Charles Matthews (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much for finding the problem. Sadly, I do not have access to the website, but I know a contributor who does, so I was able to verify via him that at least two of the articles were problems. :) I've relisted the three artilces you mentioned to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2010 January 12; they will come due for admin closure on January 20th. That will give Craigy144 time to weigh in if he has anything to say about them. After that, I will probably launch a WP:CCI, as it seems like it may be necessary.

What would be tremendously helpful is if you could blank any articles you find that are problems with the {{copyvio}}. I would probably say something like {{subst:copyvio|url=DNB, see talk}} and then put a note on the talk page with an example of two of duplication or unusable close paraphrasing. Since the source is not accessible to me or, so far as I know, the other admins who handle copyright work, that would help process them.

Do you know any other users who have access to ODNB who may be able and willing to help with copyright comparison? Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations permits presumptive removal after multiple infringements have been verified (I would put the threshhold somewhere around 7 major issues, but that's my personal barometer), but it's obviously far better to check where possible to avoid collateral damage. I hate having to delete material when other contributors have also put their efforts into an article, because I can well imagine how disheartening it would be to experience that. :/ --Moonriddengirl 12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tagishsimon should be able to help, User:Dsp13 might be able to. These are editors already involved in the DNB project here. In fact any UK-based editor is able to read the ODNB site for free, through the local library. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great. I'll alert them to this conversation in case they are interested in helping. In addition to your three, I have tagged Frances Anne Vane, Marchioness of Londonderry, as it seems from the limited views available at googlebooks to be a problem, too. It would be helpful to know if there are more problems in his created articles, anyway, before request a CCI. --Moonriddengirl 15:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Magnus Manske's tool CatScan 2.0 to find C20th deaths with the DNB template - I haven't checked them at all:

• David George Ritchie, Arthur Hobhouse, 1st Baron Hobhouse, Lionel Sackville-West, 2nd Baron Sackville, Auckland Colvin, Walter Mytton Colvin, Edward Woods (engineer), Henry Augustus Smyth, Elizabeth Missing Sewell, Edmund Hobhouse (1900s deaths)
• Henry Jenner, Alexander Ludovic Duff, Arthur Henry Hardinge (1930s)
• Thomas Legh, 2nd Baron Newton (1940s);
• Matthew Smith (artist), Vera Cuningham, Reginald Hoare (1950s)
• Sir Percy Loraine, 12th Baronet (1960s)
• John Pudney (1970s). Dsp13 (talk) 17:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Neat tool! Impressively comprehensive! :O Can you (that would be the plural you :)) check them against the ODNB to see if there are issues? --Moonriddengirl 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems clearcut - the first lot (Ritchie ... Edmund Hobhouse) are all OK in the sense that there is an article from the 1912 DNB about them, so there is no reason there has to be a copyright issue. The rest include two I had found already (Duff, Cuningham), and given that DNB biographies are always posthumous, there is something wrong in each case. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I probably should take this page off my watchlist. :) I have ODNB access and the Hardinge article I checked is a word-for-word copy. The DNB copyright appears to be 2004, could someone verify that so I can be sure I'm reading it right? I'll put a notice on the article when I get back from lunch if someone hasn't already done it. Franamax (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You should? :/ (sigh) I'm not that familiar with the DNB, but from the above I presume that Hardinge must be copyrighted. However, I'll wait for verification...and keep meticulously and painfully combing through Catholic sex abuse cases for copying. Thanks, both of you. --Moonriddengirl 20:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the same two editors as previously mentioned, from 2007 and 2008. (I started John Pudney myself, so I presume the problem was introduced by Talskiddy round then.) Charles Matthews (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I can lend some time to this problem on Monday night, should it still exist then. Charles alerted me to an issue with Elias of Dereham, where I inadvertently inserted some 1993 text thinking it was the typical pre-1900 text one normally finds in ODNB's DNB archive. I've reverted that article back to its 01:41, 21 November 2007 state thus removing that copyvio from the displayed article: clearly the copyvio is still in the history. Apologies for that :( Meanwhile, best wishes for the new year to you & Charles, MRG; he'll want to know that I will return to the one true DNB fold shortly, when I've got the last 1,000 or so UK articles that need geocoding, geocoded. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See, now I'm feeling guilty, hence:

• David George Ritchie - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by E. S. Haldane .
• Arthur Hobhouse, 1st Baron Hobhouse - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by C. E. A. Bedwell
• Lionel Sackville-West, 2nd Baron Sackville - N Copyvio of http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/35902 - now marked as such
• Auckland Colvin - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by F. H. Brown
• Walter Mytton Colvin - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by F. H. Brown
• Edward Woods (engineer) - YCopy of a source marked as 1912 and by W. F. Spear
• Henry Augustus Smyth - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by R. H. Vetch
• Elizabeth Missing Sewell - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by Elizabeth Lee
• Edmund Hobhouse - Y Copy of a source marked as 1912 and by A. R. Buckland
• Henry Jenner - Y Look like facts sourced to but no copyvio from ODNB.
• Alexander Ludovic Duff - N - has already been marked as a copyvio, and indeed is :(
• Arthur Henry Hardinge - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has been marked as such by me.
• Thomas Legh, 2nd Baron Newton - Y - looks like an honest sourcing to ODNB - no obvious copyvio
• Matthew Smith (artist) - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has already been marked as such
• Vera Cuningham - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has already been marked as such
• Reginald Hoare - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has been marked as such by me.
• Sir Percy Loraine, 12th Baronet - N - Definite ODNB copyvio, has been marked as such by me.
• John Pudney - ??? - Is far from a complete copyvio. I can find one sentence which is word for word with ODNB, but there seems to have been a fair bit or rewrite. I'll look at this again on Monday.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that saves me some reporting time, Jenner to Cuningham on that list are my results too. Two blankies for each of the previously mentioned editors. One single-paragraph vio I chopped up and sourced directly. One mistaken set of footnoting by User:Tryde sourcing {{DNB}} for someone who dies much later. That's all I managed. Is this the whole set of concerns or has a cloud been cast on a wider range of edits? Franamax (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all, and sorry for pulling you away from your project, Tagishsimon. :) I really appreciate the time you guys put into this. The Catholic sex abuse cases article ate three hours of my life yesterday, and I'm only about half way through. (I'm going to have to notify the project today; that's an unworkable pace, obviously.) From what I've seen, User:Craigy144 may need additional evaluation, as it seems that he's done this multiple times. Inadvertent errors happen, but when they happen over and over again it's good to check for problems with other sources. I'll take a look at some of the other articles he's created. --Moonriddengirl 11:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's going to be a while before I get all through the list by template that set these off. I'm reasonably confident now that I'm up to speed with how to handle an ODNB copy when I find it. It looks like the Craigy144 creations need to be deleted and stubbed: it's mostly that straightforward. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So the ODNB side of things is in good and capable hands? Should I get access to it at some point, I'll be happy to help with review but am very limited in what I can do at the moment. I depend on snippets at google books. :/ I have not yet found problems with Craigy144's other creations, though I've spot-checked. It may be that this is the only source he's infringed. I'll poke some more when I have time just in case. --Moonriddengirl 13:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up As the first batch came up today and Craigy144 has not responded to the warnings, I have blocked him and opened an ANI thread: WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Notification and review request of block of User:Craigy144 for copyright violations. MLauba (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that rather heavy-handed? There is no recent issue, in fact no recent edits. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've weighed in at that ANI thread. I don't think the block is heavy handed, given that he was notified of copyright concerns in Reader Bullard specifically a full year before you asked him about it and evidently took no action. If he has ignored copyright concerns in the past, we can't be sure he will not continue to ignore them in the future. Meanwhile, Misplaced Pages is drowning in copyvios. We have fourteen open CCIs and more in the pipeline it seems every week. Very disheartening. :( --Moonriddengirl 13:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an on-going pattern not only of copyvios but also of ignoring the issues. The block is to prevent further damage, until the concerns are acknowledged and addressed, and hence preventative in nature. MLauba (talk) 13:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented further on AN/I. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you perhaps fail to notice an edit conflict? :) I don't see it. --Moonriddengirl 13:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. I was suggesting emailing the editor to check if there is a reason for the lack of response. Matters have moved on. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So they have. There may be a good reason for this, but indef blocks can be lifted at any time. Admin status is a bit harder to regain, typically, but arbcom haven't done anything about that yet and may not. That said, circumstances here do not look good. :/ (The edit conflict possibility occurred to me because just a few minutes earlier I wrote "I've weighed in at that ANI thread" believing I had...but because of an EC, I had not. :)) --Moonriddengirl 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair

Hi, I have edited the above linked article today and became suspicious about its partly unusual phrasing. I've searched in Google a little bit and found a copyright violation of http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=55# (the section about the Earl of Aberdeen). The text was inserted in several edits, which began here . The respective contributor was Tickled Pink Inc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose username additionally might be a violation of WP:GROUPNAME (see http://www.tickledpinkinc.com). Because of the rather long time since the copyright violation and the many edits since then, I'm unsure whether it would be better to revert the article to the version before the violation or to remove the affected text simply. By the way I have User talk:Craigy144 on my watchlist and have noticed your messages there ... what should explain how I found my way to you :-) Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'll go take a look. --Moonriddengirl 19:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Copyright concerns seem to go back a bit further than that. :) I've blanked the article while seeking clarification. --Moonriddengirl 20:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not checked thus far ... ;) Thanks for taking it over and your efforts. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, actually I think I created a bunch of Governor General articles by copying the biographies on the website. I must have assumed that as a government work they were all public domain (apparently this is true for the US, but probably not for Canada). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Charles Monck, 4th Viscount Monck was also copied from there, and presumably all of the ones that didn't exist yet when I was making them. I'll have to go back and check. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, still needing to be checked against are Alexander Cambridge, 1st Earl of Athlone, John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, Vere Ponsonby, 9th Earl of Bessborough, Freeman Freeman-Thomas, 1st Marquess of Willingdon, Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy, Victor Cavendish, 9th Duke of Devonshire, Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, Albert Grey, 4th Earl Grey, Gilbert Elliot-Murray-Kynynmound, 4th Earl of Minto, Frederick Stanley, 16th Earl of Derby, Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, 5th Marquess of Lansdowne, John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll & Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood, 1st Marquess of Dufferin and Ava. --Moonriddengirl 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll get there eventually...I haven't really edited anything substantial, as you can see. What do we do anyway? Just delete them? Adam Bishop (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've rewritten Charles Monck, 4th Viscount Monck. Is it okay now? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Contributor with a long history of copyright violations

Hi Moonriddengirl! :) I was investigating the contributions of the user Cumbersnatch (talk · contribs), and discovered that he/she has created a large number of articles containing copyright violations (most of which haven't been picked up by CSB). Some examples: The Suffering (Doctor Who audio), Wreck of the Titan (Doctor Who audio), Outsiders (Doctor Who audio), and Point of Entry (Doctor Who audio). Do you think a CCI would be necessary here? Theleftorium 15:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, CCIs are intended for situations where a contributor can be shown to have violated copyright in a good many articles or images, and he or she has so many contributions that they can't be swiftly evaluated. I see warnings going back to August 2009 on copyright, and there's a lengthy list of contributions. So as much as I would like to say, "No, CCI is not appropriate here," since CCI has its plate very, very full already, I would think it probably is. Including the earlier notices, that's seven articles. I've found another at The Macros, which I've removed (using {{Plot2}} at the article's talk page). Why don't you go ahead and request a CCI? Meanwhile, I'm going to investigate to see if a block is appropriate given earlier notices. --Moonriddengirl 15:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add the request soon. There's more articles at http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pages/index.php?name=Cumbersnatch&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects, by the way. Theleftorium 15:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean that was the number of articles created. I meant articles with identified problems. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. :) I've added the request now. Should the user not be notified? Theleftorium 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily, but optional in the case where he is blocked, as he now is. --Moonriddengirl 16:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Willie Love

Another new article from me (it gives me a break from the copyvio stuff from to time). I hope it is OK. Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. :) I also sometimes need a break from the copyvio stuff. Maybe I'll take a day for some article writing this week. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I fought WP & WP won

I've a question about plagiarism on WP that's bugged me for quite awhile. Nobody seems really troubled, but IMO it needs adressing. It appears many pages derived from DANFS (in particular, from what I've noticed, all the submarine pages), are verbatim copies. This is being defended as OK because they're not copyright. Except this suggests (& I agree) it's still plagiarism of somebody else's intellectual effort. Am I wrong? Maybe more important, can anything be done if I'm not? (BTW, I've added material from other sources where I encounter the pages, as much to correct DANFS POV & error; stil...) TREKphiler 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism covers this issue. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Attribution of quoted text is what makes it not plagiarism. There is a specific attribution template for this purpose, {{DANFS}}. LeadSongDog come howl 03:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Attribution when it's verbatim? Forgive me if I think that's a weasel. TREKphiler 08:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the template: "This article includes text from the public domain Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships." What part of that do you find ambiguous? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Coming late to this party, but, yes, current consensus is that plagiarism is not an issue when attribution is provided, as through one of those templates or other acceptable means. Since plagiarism is considered a moral issue and is not a legal one, Wikipedians are pretty much free to determine by group consensus what constitutes plagiarism and how it should be handled. I know from prior involvements in conversations that there are some who think any copied text should be in quotation marks or block quote. I also know that there are some who think that as an encyclopedia we are exempt from questions of plagiarism altogether, since nobody supposes this material to be original. (See, for example, the talk page of Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches.) It's always possible that consensus will change, and, of course, you can make your voice heard on the matter at WP:VPP or at Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the answer was linked from the question. Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing#When_is_it_a_problem? is explicit that "using another's words as one's own is considered plagiarism" (my bold). Attribution makes it clear that the words are not one's own. LeadSongDog come howl 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being unclear. First, it's not the ambiguity that troubles me, it's the dishonesty. "includes text"? It's copied entire, in the cases I've seen. Second, "as one's own"? Somebody posted the page, copied from DANFS, without making clear the entire page was copied verbatim. Maybe it's splitting hairs to say that's "one's own". I nevertheless think it's wrong. Maybe not in conflict with WP guidelines, but wrong, in which case the guidelines should be changed. (I hold out no hope of that.) Perhaps, being a writer, I'm touchier than most on the issue. It also bothers me somebody quoting WP in good faith could get hammered, not knowing it's a verbatim copy (in the cases it still is). And, since Moon sugests raising the issue (& I think that's a good idea), do any here object to having this exchange copied to one or both of the above talk pages? TREKphiler 23:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What you're missing is that PD text can be altered. While many PD-based articles are built quoting the source verbatim, that may change over time. And while I would fully support a best practice of making a note in the edit summary of the article when the PD material is added, I hold no illusions that only a tiny minority will be aware of that best practice. In a similar way, having better attribution templates where you can change a flag so that the wording can either read "includes text" or "includes all text" would also hinge upon the hope that when derivatives are made of the source text, the editor will change the flag.

Which would lead to debates about when to change the flag, but also be mostly ignored, given that attribution templates are, way too often, added manually by the copyright cleanup crew once they verify that the text is, indeed, based on a PD source. MLauba (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A "switchable" template would be better than an unclear one, IMO, if only because it would get changed. It might not be "instantaneous", but if experience is any guide, it'd be pretty quick. And as a "health warning", an unchanged one beats an unclear one: in effect, it'd say, "Don't quote verbatim or it's gonna bite you." Honestly, tho, that doesn't address the underlying issue: copying verbatim from DANFS (or anywhere) to begin with. Which (being unclear, as usual... :( ) I have a real problem with: not over copyvio (if public domain), but over the deeper issue. Just because I can copy Shakespeare entire doesn't mean I should. TREKphiler 00:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Except that there is currently no policy that prevents quoting from a PD source verbatim, even in full, provided that the result fits all other content criteria. Should there be one? Frankly, I don't have a horse in this. That being said, your example is flawed: copying Shakespeare entire wouldn't make for an encyclopaedic article. That being said, chances are that he's being copied in full on wikisource. MLauba (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism would be the proper place for the discussion. I'm was not clear, uintil your most recent post, whether you're suggesting that guidelines should be changed to prevent copying the whole of a source, or that attribution templates should be changed to cover the cases where all of the text has been copied. I guess you've answered that question somewhat - you have a problem with both.

We can haggle about template text. FWIW, I take "includes text" to mean anything from "a little" to "some" to "most" to "all". I'm puzzled by the impression of an arbitrary judgement by you to exclude the last of these. But that strand pales into insignificance with the "should we allow copies at all" strand of your argument.

My take: copyright is (or once was) a bargain. Society provides criminal and civil protection for a period of time, in return for the protected thing entering the public domain at some time. And the point of the public domain is that the text can be reused. And so we, getting the point, reuse it, and provide an attribution (the wording of which is the subject of the other strand of the argument). By using that attribution we are signalling that this is not my work, or all my work. It builds on the work of others. That clears the moral point about giving credit where it is due. To recap: no legal issue because it is public domain. No moral issue because it is acknowledged. Subject to an acceptable acknowledgement, I'm plain not understanding what are the issues that would mitigate against use of PD text. And, for the record, not enjoying the implied accusations of dishonesty and wrongness.

Doubtless we can mull the issue some more at Misplaced Pages talk:Plagiarism and leave MRG in peace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied to here, & replied there. TREKphiler 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for my peace of mind

How do you handle precedence between an AfD and a CP listing when the AfD hasn't run its course? What I do is delete the article if there's no replacement text and close the AfD as moot. How do you deal with these? MLauba (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I usually go the other way around. :) My thought is that CP can be cleared by permission, but most matters raised at AfD cannot. I'm sure there are circumstances, though, where I'd just go ahead and close the AfD, especially if it looked like there would be no consensus to delete. At that point, copyright trumps, and there's no reason that an article can't be created clean. --Moonriddengirl 15:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. My own reasoning is that absent a rewrite or permission, the article will be deleted either way, so waiting on the AfD's conclusion is unfair to the keep arguments. If permission arrives and nothing is done to address the concerns of delete voters (I believe most of the OTRS personnel makes a point of reminding correspondents about the GNG, NPOV and promotional tone), the AfD will most certainly be restarted but without the origin of the text being a distraction to the debate.

Indeed, the challenge I see is if I let the discussion run its course when no permission is forthcoming, any attempts to fix some of the issues short of a full rewrite will end up creating an unauthorized derivative that may be enough to close as no consensus but in reality still has to go on copyright grounds.

Hence my stance on this. MLauba (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

True. If I saw one trending towards keep, I might handle it differently. I don't really have a uniform approach to this; it varies by situation. For instance, I closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/HP ServiceGuard. I did not close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chandos chamber choir or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Managed digital allowance. --Moonriddengirl 16:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Polar Bears

Hello. The picture that you sent me a link to is mine. I took it. It is part of an unpublished work on cemetery sculpture. The other link that you sent, (Ticket:2010011610025557) seems to take me nowhere, tho it might just be me. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A lot of my pictures were scanned by me from negatives and in doing that it is easy to reverse the image. I looked at your links and pulled out a White Chapel Cemetery pamphlet that I have and it's pretty clear to me that I did indeed flip the negative. Is this something that you can fix or should I take a stab at it? A note about my[REDACTED] experience. Yes, I have done a fair amount of it but I have pretty carefully avoided the behind-the-scenes stuff such as OTRS system, which I am hearing about for the first time. While I am at it one little thing that I am sort of proud of shows up here . "Vanity of, vanities, all is vanity. Ecclesiastes 1:2 Carptrash (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've flipped it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Shorter version: thanks! :D Longer version at User talk:Carptrash. --Moonriddengirl 19:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Apropos, I'm on a new machine sans most software. I thought I'd at long last try the GIMP. So far so good. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And when you do reply to the person who pointed out the problem (flipped negative) please let her (?) know that the editor who posted the error is grateful for her pointing it out and perhaps mention that this is another good example of why[REDACTED] keeps getting better. Carptrash (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

About The A.X.E. Project article

Hello,

Allow me to introduce myself - My name is Georgi Georgiev and I'm bassist and lead vocal of The A.X.E. Project band. I've noticed that our information article is deleted due to copyright(?) problems. As a offcial representative of the band I can assure you that we have all copyright needed to publish information about the band. We own the myspace profile you are citing as copyright problem! Actually the Wiki article is much older than the myspace so I cannot see the problem you are talking about! The same information about history of the band is posted everywhere in the net! May be the article need some update, but clearly DOESN'T have copyright issues. The same information about the band is posted also on ! My opinon is that the article doesn't hurt anyone and has just informational purpouse. If you need an offcial written permission from the band's management, please don't hesitate to contact us!

Best regards, The A.X.E. Project Bulgaria e-mail: info@digispherium.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.128.84.194 (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you want to include copyrighted material onto Misplaced Pages that has appeared elsewhere before, it can only be done by following the steps described at WP:PERMISSION, and the onus is, I'm afraid, on you to do so. Nobody will e-mail you back. MLauba (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably needs a quick review

Dead passive (talk · contribs) - came up through today's listing, had a cursory glance at another article he created and there was, again, a foundational issue. Fortunately his contrib list is short, so this does probably not warrant a CCI - unless there's stuff on other projects. MLauba (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'll have a look at him today. In addition to the outstanding CCIs, I'm working through some older issues above caused by a misunderstanding of Canadian copyright law. Good thing I've got you pitching in on CP. :D --Moonriddengirl 12:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The bad news is that there are two entries I'm leaving to you: the Malay CCI (but if you can give me more details on the source I'll be happy to delete), and then there's UBS AG, for which I'd rather not take any administrative actions. MLauba (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That being said, the SCV listing is clear already ;) MLauba (talk) 12:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoot! I'll handle the outstanding. I don't know the source of the Malaysian Road Transport Department article. It's tagged under the "presumptive cleanup" provision of Copyright Violations. I'm pretty sure, though, that non-free material entered here. I did use the wrong tag, though, as it shouldn't be deleted, but restored to the last likely clean. The contributor who placed this text does some amazing work with tedious material, but has an unfortunate habit of pasting text from official sources. In spite of all the problems when the CCI was opened, I recently discovered he had just continued copying content. I recently gave him a 72 hour block, which I hope will convince him he must stop. --Moonriddengirl 12:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cloister (horse): Y Tagged and blanked.
• Ely, Cardiff: ? Don't find any matches that aren't wiki mirrors.
• Acilius sulcatus: N Little creative content.
• Joe Erskine (Welsh boxer): N Ditto.

Okay, so I found one issue and one that seems iffy, along with two that I think are almost certainly clear. --Moonriddengirl 20:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Misplaced Pages's birthday and more

• In the news: Misplaced Pages on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Came across this on vandal patrol

This editor is adding copyright material into articles I think. It was a direct take from that article bonespurs.com. I have reverted and left a message in the edit summary only. I am still learning about this so I want to make sure I am correct with what I am thinking. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you would check to make sure I am correct about this. You can look at User:Health123. He seems new but promoting. Thanks as always for checking me. --CrohnieGal 15:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. :) Soon as I finish dealing with this OTRS ticket I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl 15:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're quite correct about this. I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. Something like this is unlikely to be handled at AIV, since it needs more careful review, but I have blocked the contributor. --Moonriddengirl 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks no rush. So far I haven't been reverted. :) Thanks, --CrohnieGal 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Between the named account and the IP, this contributor has added this content/spammed this website multiple times over the span of more than a year in that article and Calcaneal spur. Good catch! I don't think an immediate reversion is likely. The pattern seems more to suggest s/he will be back in a couple of months. --Moonriddengirl 16:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, glad to help. I am still learning but I am trying to help when I can with things like this and BLP vandalism. Thanks for being so prompt. --CrohnieGal 16:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk: Article on Mooji

Hi, Moonriddengirl, I browsed through numerous pages but still do not know why you deleted my article on "Mooji". I suspect you might think he is not a noteworthy person. As far as I know he was compared with the Dalai Lama as concerns the holiness of his appearance. Can I convince you to accept the article? I somewhat puzzled author Have a great day Shokananda Shokananda (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. The article was not reviewed for notability concerns, but for copyright reasons. See User talk:Muxand, which I presume to have been your username at one point if it was your article.

The article began with content copied from and in spite of some changes remained an unusable unauthorized derivative work of that source. For one example, the source says:

In late 1993, Mooji travelled to India. He had a desire to visit Dakshineswar in Calcutta where Sri Ramakrishna, the great Bengali Saint, had lived and taught. The words and life of Ramakrishna were a source of inspiration and encouragement to Mooji in the early years of his spiritual development. He loved the Saint deeply but as fate would determine, he would not go to Calcutta. While in Rishikesh, a holy place at the foothills of the Himalayas, he was to have another propitious encounter; this time with three devotees of the great advaita Master Sri Harilal Poonja, known to his many devotees as Papaji. Their persistent invitation to Mooji to travel with them to meet the Master made a deep impression on him. Still he delayed the prospect of meeting Papaji for two whole weeks, choosing first to visit Varanasi, the holy city.

This content was entirely replicated within the article, as was other text taken or very closely following on that source.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.

Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Food Power Deletion

The reason I made revisions to this article, was to further support education without personal viewpoints regarding it. The article listed information based upon an opinion, not fact, and I did my part as an intelligent person to correct it. MS Psychology Cambridge University: BS Sociology George Washington University. Any further questions, email me: kevincoleridge@att.net

Sincerely, Kevin Taylor Coleridge Ombudsman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.2.44 (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not highly intelligent for presenting a speculative addition to a factual article. Pointing out criticisms directed out at the United States is against the point of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.2.44 (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Frank Chacksfield

I inadvertently missed your 7-day deadline - I am currently working on a total rewrite of this article. When it is completed I would appreciate a look at the deleted version, to check for non-contentious items such as discography and any refs that I have missed. Should be completed tomorrow. In the meantime I have put a stub article in place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'll pull them up. --Moonriddengirl 11:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a tiny bit back in and, since you said you wanted a look at it, mailed you the deleted version. --Moonriddengirl 12:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

New articles

New Wiki articles created by me include – Bonnie Lee, Silas Hogan and Son Bonds. I know I'm continually treading on thin ice, and there are probably better things you / we could / should be doing - but I do not know who else to ask if these are within the copyvio standards ? Thanks,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Derek. You're very welcome here. :) I tend to stay pretty busy, but I prioritize actual human conversation, and I'm more than happy to take a look. Once I've had enough coffee to engage my critical thinking skills, I'll read through them. :D --Moonriddengirl 11:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

All awake now. :) I see no issues in Bonnie Lee and am moving on with the list. --Moonriddengirl 13:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten you. :) We've run into some technical issues with the CCI program, and I'm talking to the programmer. I can't do the sustained attention thing until we've wrapped our chat. Once we do, I'll hit Silas Hogan. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Son Bonds doesn't seem to have any issues, either. --Moonriddengirl 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time. Much appreciated.

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

John H Abeles

Thanks for being wise about moving the COI issues of this article over to the COIN board, to avoid any appearance of COI yourself. heh. But one thing I did notice was that over at the talk page of the article, the ORTS number is missing, you might want to fix that. Keep up the great work. Tiggerjay (talk) 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I had put the parameter in caps (OTRS), and I can't. Fixed. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons licence

Is this Creative Commons licence acceptable to Misplaced Pages? I can't seem to find a tag for this even in the non-free CC licences. I asked User:Skier Dude but he seems to be offline for the lasr few days. ww2censor (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Personally, I'd say no. It's great when it's used by the copyright holder to release content into public domain, but this one worries me: "(a) certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, the work of authorship identified is in the public domain of the country from which the work is published". Basically, anybody could upload content under that license. :) ("Well, I thought that Avatar was public domain in the US!" :D) If they are the copyright holder, they can simply release it under an allowable license or into public domain themselves. If they are not, they can verify public domain by giving details of original publication or otherwise explaining why the content is not copyrightable, and the license is completely immaterial. --Moonriddengirl 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

query

Hello Moonriddengirl,

Would you be kind enough to look at what I believe is User Chhe WP:HOUNDING me? He seems to be following me. He's always at the Karl Rove talk page, but now he's followed me to Reagan, and Scott Brown. He finds something I've added, then he reverts the edit. Just a bit ago he started a new section on the Scott Brown talk page with my User name as the title and regarding edits. He seems to want to single me out on talk pages. Please look at these diffs and let me know if you think this is something that can be stopped. I find this disruptive to editing. Notice too, that on all these articles where he's following me, he only reverts. He never makes any constructive article additions. Only talk pages and reverts. . Thanks. Malke2010 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)