PS: The page in question is [[Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games]], material seems to have been originally from [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11395475 the BBC]
PS: The page in question is [[Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games]], material seems to have been originally from [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11395475 the BBC]
:Hi. He's on my watchlist, so I was just looking into that. :) I'll get back with you in just a minute. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
:Hi. He's on my watchlist, so I was just looking into that. :) I'll get back with you in just a minute. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
::Okay, I've addressed the user. Now to the content: we are actually in the process of refining the copyright policy to take into account "revision deletion". Generally, I do purge copyvios from history if they are extensive or likely to be resurrected. I would be inclined not to purge that one immediately, unless it comes back, because I think it's unlikely that it will come back accidentally. I'll watchlist the article for a few days and see if it keeps out. If it doesn't not, I'll purge it. --[[User:Moonriddengirl|Moonriddengirl]] <sup>[[User talk:Moonriddengirl|(talk)]]</sup> 11:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.
While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.
To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Hours of Operation
In general, I check in with Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 23:12, 4 June 2024 UTC[refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Close paraphrasing
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at CeeGee's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Deletion of a Wikipedia article about me
I was wondering why the Wikipedia article on myself, Michael Korolenko, was deleted. There was nothing false in the article and nothing copyrighted in the article. I myself did not write the original article (it was pretty much taken word for word from my biography in one of my online classes). It has been on Wikipedia for a while and I edited it a year or so ago if I remember correctly to simply update it. I see no reason why it should have been deleted. If you could reinstate the article I would appreciate it.
Michael Korolenko
korrys.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.81.187 (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Verno. Mr. Korolenko, it wasn't deleted because anything it was false, but because it was copied from your website, which bears a clear copyright reservation notice. Even if it did not bear that notice, it would be copyrighted under U.S. law (as copyright is automatically bestowed). It would need to bear an explicit release for us to retain it. I see from my colleague's note that you have already written to the Wikimedia Foundation. Once you have responded to their note with a licensing statement that we are able to use, the article can be restored. Alternatively, if you decide to verify permission on the website, please just drop be a note here telling me that you have done so, and I can restore the article. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that WP biographies have to be written from published sources that are independent of the subject. Citing a fact or two to the subject's website is one thing, but if most of it is copied from there (even with permission) there may be neutrality problems. 67.119.14.196 (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's simply text from the person's CV, then it shouldn't be a problem. CVs are almost always self-published and it's hard to find the info from anywhere else. In such cases, we can WP:AGF I think. Offliner (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I meant was that using a self-published CV as a source should be OK. Naturally, the subject would still need coverage in reliable third-party sources to be notable. Offliner (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An OTRS question
On the commons I nominated this stamp for deletion because Australian stamps are copyright for 50 years per Public domain stamp templates because I disputed the validity of the attached OTRS ticket. Túrelio declined the nomination and left this comment on my talk page saying that the OTRS permission obviously came from Australia Post but when I questioned him he cannot confirm the ticket as he is not an OTRS volunteer. Would you kindly have a look at it for me as I have never heard of a postal administration giving a free licence for any of its stamps other than press and media use, which is essentially fair-use? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Communication is from the Australian Post, but I'm not entirely sure about the license. In his first letter (not to us; he is speaking with an intermediary), the copyright holder says, "There's no fee for educational use." His correspondent is very good at seeking to clarify that, noting among other points that the content may be reused by "commercial entities", and his correspondent responds (among other things), "All fine." This seems like he's quite comfortable with commercial reuse, but I'd like to write directly to the licensor to ask him to explicitly confirm the terms of release. I'll get back with you on it, and if I should forget (oh, that never happens), please nudge me. :D Seriously, if I write a letter and he doesn't respond, I may well forget to follow up. There are always ten billion things going on, it seems. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant and quick too. That all sounds a bit odd to me. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this one is resolved. The Australia Post does not permit modification and restricts reuse to "educational purposes", so the stamp has been deleted. As an aside, people who work for the Australia Post are very friendly. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking this out. ww2censor (talk) 16:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio second opinion
Hi MRG! Could I get you to help me at T:TDYK with this nomination? As I stated in my review of it:
Reading Town Hall appears to be copied in wording, style and tone from the first reference, and not re-written from scratch as required by WP:COPYVIO. Am concerned about putting a potential copyright violation (not saying it necessarily is one, but it's subjective) on the main page.
I saw you were online, and since you work in an area dealing with copyright issues, could you offer a second opinion? Thanks! Strange Passerby (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Sure, I'll be happy to take a look. Coming right over. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that my actions at the article speak for themselves. :/ I've left examples at the article's talk page. Thanks so much for keeping an eye out for this! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Off to SPI I go. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arecibo Telescope Photo
Please provide some guidance. I believe I recognize File:Arecibo naic big.gif because of its similarity to a photo that has been hanging in my office (without a copyright notice). The photo was taken in order to document the 1974 upgrade of the telescope to an aluminum dish. I can tell by the antenna that the photo certainly predates 1998 (the date claimed by the uploader). The person uploading the photo claimed it was the work of NASA because he found it on a NASA website. I then put a {{puf}} tag on the photo page and on the Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 17 page. However, a robot correctly noted the image in on Commons and not on Wikipedia.
The uploader claims that this is a NASA image. However it comes from APOD which in turn states, "Specific rights apply." The subpage states, "All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location." In this case, Cornell University. The NAIC website gallary says, "Note to the media.... You are welcome to download these images for non-profit / non-commercial use. For permissions and credit policies see our "media services and support" page. Please credit all photos with: "courtesy of the NAIC - Arecibo Observatory, a facility of the NSF"
I could not find a puf page on Commons, so I changed the attribution to {{PD-US-no notice}} even though I cannot prove that this is the 1974 photo. Could you please resolve this or forward it to someone who can resolve it. The photo is currently available under a "no commercial use" license. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Good sleuthing! Since I'm not an admin on Commons (or that heavily involved with images), I'll dig one up who might have time to help work this one out. There are a couple I turn to routinely. I appreciate your following through with your concerns! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G: I am not advocating the deletion of the file, I just want the problem solved in whatever way is appropriate and I don't want to be the judge of what is required. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly seems that you should be. Commons doesn't take images with such licences, and you are certainly making a case that it has that licence. So deletion from Commons is one step to be taken, here. A normal, non-speedy, deletion nomination is where to put that case, and have it discussed by multiple people. It's not as if Commons is a stranger to this issue. It's come up many times over the years. They do have some familiarity with addressing it, You simply need to go there and start the ball rolling. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. As Uncle G suggests, the correct procedure here is to nominate the image for deletion on Commons. Even if you don't personally believe it's non-free, if we're uncertain of its status then it's generally our policy to delete. You may request that it be transferred to En wiki for use under the Non-free content policy, but then you would bear the burden of adding a non-free content rationale, since it's unlikely the original uploader is around to do so. If you want to do this, please just request it in your deletion request. Dcoetzee 07:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 1974 date of the photo, which means that it is public domain because it was published without a copyright note under the old Copyright Act. Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The people at WP:MCQ might be able to help clarify that before any drastic steps are necessary. I've nominated a few images on suspicion of copyvio, and I always feel like I've wasted people's time if it turns out that they are PD or compatibly licensed. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick response
Once I hear from the powers that be at Wikipedia, I will give them permission to use the article. And thank you again for the quick response.
Michael Korolenko —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.81.187 (talk) 22:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A response was sent on the 16th, if you have not already received it you may want to check your spam folder. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About Bina Nusantara University article
Hi Moonriddengirl, thanks to clean the Bina Nusantara University article. I'm really appreciate it, but it appears that someone with IP 202.58.180.58 is doing major addition to the article. Could you help again to recheck the article for possible copyright violation? If the additional text is not an infringement, I will proofread and clean-up the Wiki markup in that article. Thanks before. Oh yeah after resolving that IP address, it actually an IP from Bina Nusantara University (but, university's IP can be used by anyone inside the university, so further checking to the article is very needed) Ivan Akira (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention! :) Some of the content they've added seems okay, but a good bit of it was pasted direclty from the university's facebook account. I've reverted that part. I'm not sure that all of the other material they added is usable, but I'll leave it for regular contributors of the article to determine what should be retained. I've left them the standard copyright notice, which does include a link to Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If they're able to verify permission, they can follow up and the content can be restored. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally don't think that person who just copy-paste will really concern about the notice in their discussion page, but it is the best thing that we can do in Wikipedia, I think. Okay then, now I think it safe for me to wikify the rest of the text. Thank you very much for your hard work! Ivan Akira (talk) 07:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeat infringer
Rajasekhar1961 (talk·contribs) is apparently still having some issues with closely paraphrasing copyrighted sources even after their previous block and I'm not sure whether another block is in order or what. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your note on his talk page, and I am in the process of investigating that very thing. :( --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have given him a final warning. If he continues, we will have no choice but to block. I think he means well; I note he is requesting permission for the last article you blanked, but his piecemeal copying continues. We've barely scratched the surface of his already opened CCI, and now it looks like we need to expand it. If you should see further problems, please let me know in case I don't notice. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even remember there was a CCI, apparently there're too many to keep track of. <long dramatic sigh> Maybe more people will help out with them given the recent hoopla and upcoming mass-blanking. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
Thanks for blocking the user. I was really hoping he/she was going to change when I saw the edit summary. But the user just put the same edit summary for the edit again. I don't think there's any hope. May I revert the edits? Or was there a reason you left them? Jayy008 (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I left them because I am uninvolved. :) It's up to you and any other contributors to the article to revert them if they are inappropriate. (Have you gotten any response to your request for input from others? It would be helpful to have other eyes here.) If they are returned while the contributor is blocked, I will revert them as block evasion. If the contributor is not blocked, it's a content dispute unless there's obvious vandalism. I blocked him for continued disruption, as he is continuing to edit war and not making any effort to follow the consensus process. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Got ya :). Right, no I haven't, as of yet. When the user first made the edits I had a feeling he wasn't going to give up so I kept an eye on the page. At the time, 2 other users reverted his/her edits as well, but it's just been me ever since. I've really tried explaning myself, the discussion is still open as well. I'm really happy to discuss it but there are certain things that can't be done as I've explained it ruins re-directs to the page. Jayy008 (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saul Hertz
I'm trying to track down the possible copyright violation for the Saul Hertz page from August 2010. I'd like to re-post the article, but with the appropriate changes. Jabrody24 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see that you were not given the requisite notice. I'm sorry about; the contributor who tagged the article should have copied it to your talk page, and I should have noticed that he or she did not. The problem with the article is that from its inception it followed too closely on [1]. For one brief example, the article as you created it said:
On November 12, 1936 Dr. Karl Compton, president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology spoke at a luncheon lecture at Harvard Medical School. His topic was "What Physics can do for Biology and Medicine". After the presentation, Dr. Hertz asked Dr. Compton "could iodine be made artificially radioactive?"
That website says:
On November 12, 1936 Dr. Karl Compton, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke at a luncheon lecture. His topic was What Physics can do for Biology and Medicine. After the presentation Dr. Hertz asked Dr. Compton, "Could iodine be made artificially radioactive?"
Other content, too, followed too closely.
While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that our articles do not constitute derivative works (which require permission from the copyright holders), we must write them completely in our own language, except that we may use brief quotations if they are clearly marked and used in accordance with non-free content guidelines. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia 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(talk) 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on you and Re: your comment
I reverted the edits you referred to in your last comment on my talk page (User:Maharshi Balmiki). It's definitely an old sock who edits articles on the Hungry generation and has created pages on many marginally notable poets related to that movement. Most of his recent edits seem to be copy pasted from somewhere, perhaps a wiki mirror or some old version of the page.
BTW, you might be interested in this, where yet another new incarnation of a banned editor commented on you (and a few other admins) who deleted his own or his favorite NN poet autobiographies. (his last incarnation I assume was Bineeto Pathok (talk·contribs), banned after a large scale vandalism spree). --Ragib (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I didn't know what he was up to exactly, but it raised some red flags. :) As to User:Aqute31 and his note that "I already have seen some users such as Ragib, Moonriddengirl and kubigula...who I believe are trying to establish their own fabrication about Bengali Literature", I just have to laugh. People will see conspiracy theories anywhere. Yes, clearly, I am working very hard to establish my own fabrication about Bengali Literature and sneakily going about it by never writing in that area. :D Is there no point where the logic centers trip over to say, "Hmm. If three people have opposed something I am trying to do, maybe the problem is in what I'm trying to do....."
Your guess about his identity seems spot on. I did indeed delete Hassanal Abdullah as a copyvio, though I had long forgotten. The current version seems to be copyvio free, although I noted (and changed) a reference to Amazon.com review--not exactly a RS. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verification
Hi there Moonriddengirl, as a member of the OTRS team, I was wondering, could you verify that File:LAgha Star.jpg was released under a free license? Thank you. — ξxplicit 06:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning. :) That's a weird one. At Ticket:2006060910001353, our correspondent released that and several other images for "redistribution under the GFDL or into the public domain - a similar license (such as certain Creative Commons licenses)". In other words, he obviously copied the text from somewhere, and at its most liberal reading, it's not GFDL, but public domain. However, even though there's a ticket number on the image, the e-mail chain says, "solved on-wiki"; there's no indication what that means. :) The agent who tagged it doesn't seem to be active here, on Meta or Commons (where he is an admin) anymore. It's been about a year since he's popped up anywhere, so I can't ask what he meant. And nobody ever wrote the contributor back to thank him or request clarification. Maybe they were talking about it with him somewhere on Wikipedia at the same time? Either way, there's absolutely no doubt that the person who wrote us is Lubna Agha. The e-mail connects to the website. Even if he didn't exactly nail down the terms under which he was releasing it, there's also no doubt he did intend to release it, and GFDL is certainly among the possibities. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, that is complicated. I don't think I'll be moving that to Commons as I planned... — ξxplicit 18:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leprous page
Hi. Could you please have a look at the edits made on the temp page for the article on Leprous and let me know if it's ok to remove the warnings? Thanks Lakeoftearz (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I will be happy to take a look at that just as soon as I've finished addressing the copyright problems that are due for admin closure today. Thank you for reworking it. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick action. I added references for album reviews. Cheers! Lakeoftearz (talk) 06:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry for readding that template. That'll teach me to edit while still wiping the sleep from my eyes! Thank you for the quick response and handling of the copyright issue! keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing. :) Aside from the note at the talk, you'd have had no way of knowing I'd resolved it because there was nothing left for me to do at the article. Their reverting the template didn't restore the content, so I just left it be. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of One tree Hill characters
Hello... Don't judge by the title, I'm not here to tell you about the user being back lol. Can you tell me which template to use for expansion of character descriptions on the page please? I don't want to just put "expand" as the articles long enough and may give people the wrong idea. Jayy008 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! If you want to request expansion of a specific section, you put {{Expand section}} on the part that needs more. Hope that helps. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, is it that simple? How can I get it to say "this section needs expansion with a more detailed bio" or something. I've seen it done, but I don't know how to do specifics. Jayy008 (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Oh, I did it! I thought that's where the date went, but now I need to know where the date goes. LOL, sorrry! Can you view my edit on the page and let me know please. Thank you! Jayy008 (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done it all. All I had to do was click the thing you posted here above, my bad lol. Thank you as always! Jayy008 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When removing <ref>s using blacklisted links, as you did in this edit, please be sure not to leave orphaned refs behind (e.g. these). An easy way to check is to see if the page ends up in the hidden category Category:Pages with broken reference names after your edit. Thanks!Anomie⚔ 23:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks! I'll keep an eye out for that. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Moonriddengirl,
I am sorry to trouble you. If you do not want me to edit or create new articles in Wikipedia, I will stop doing any edits immediately. Is that what you want. Please give your view, whether I am unfit to write articles in Wikipedia, the so called free encyclopedia.Dr. Rajasekhar A. 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer that you continue contributing but without copying content, otherwise I would have blocked you already. As to your fitness to contribute, I can't opine without understanding why you keep copying content onto Wikipedia from other sources after having been told that this is against our policy and our website's Terms of Use. I explained to you in January 2010 that "you cannot copy text or even closely follow text from another website unless the external website is licensed compatibly". I explained to you in October 2009 that "Text should be written completely in your own words, unless you are briefly quoting material for the reasons and in the way described at the non-free content policy and guideline." You have been blocked in the past, and your contributions are still listed at Contributor Copyright Investigation. Yet here, almost a year later, you are still violating our copyright policy. Why is this? Are you having trouble composing text in your own words? Do you not accept the necessity of doing so? Understanding why may help me better answer your question. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey!
What is your problem? Why did you delete Civil war in Chad (1998-2002)? That was a real war. Are you crazy? B-Machine (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, why did you delete Civil war in Chad (1998-2002)? It's a real war. B-Machine (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reality of the war was not in question. Civil war in Chad (1998–2002) wasn't deleted as a hoax. The article was posted in violation of our copyright policy, I'm afraid, and while it was listed for a full week to allow interested contributors time to rewrite it, nobody chose to do so. It's unfortunate when contributors violate our Terms of Use, but, when they do, we must delete their content; as it says at the bottom of every edit screen, "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." Any contributor who would like, though, is welcome to submit a new article on the subject which does meet our Terms of Use. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're better placed to answer, I think. Uncle G (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup
If I've done things correctly, everything on User:Moonriddengirl/checked should now have been tagged. I'm going to pause for a little while to let the dust settle, again. I've just looked at the all-in-one list's related changes; several editors are already unblanking. Uncle G (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your advice
I seem to have an issue with another user, specifically User:Pectore. I do not know if i'm going to make any headway in discussion with him, but I don't feel like the situation is (yet) something that should be taken to ANI. So, i'm coming to ask your advice on what I should do to help the situation. Here's what's going on:
A CfD was recently conducted about the Saffron terror category, which only had the Saffron terror article in it. Considering that the category was far too specific, it was decided in the discussion here that the category should instead be renamed to Hindu terrorism. The consensus of the users in the discussion was for rename, all except for User Pectore. Thus, the category was renamed here, which I was the one to go about remaking it. Then, I went and started adding articles to the category that had once been on there. These included 2006 Malegaon blasts, 2007 Samjhauta Express bombings, Mecca Masjid bombing and also Terrorism in India because of the sections relating to the previous articles. I was systematically reverted by User Pectore ([2], [3], [4], and [5]).
I then had a discussion with User Pectore about these reversions on his talk page here. I eventually conceded the point and decided to go look for more specific, obvious, and non-ambiguous examples of Hindu terrorism. What I found was the Bajrang Dal. They appeared to be a militant organization that used fear and other tactics against non-Hindus, the definition of terrorism. So, I added them. I was then reverted and a comment was left on the talk page here.
As can be seen from the comment in parentheses, "(if it serves any purpose at all)", User Pectore appears to be on a drive to remove any articles from the category and to get the category removed altogether once it is empty.
This can be highlighted by the fact that User Pectore has been involving himself heavily in the talk page on Saffron Terror for the past few months, trying to put in information that more and more tries to show Saffron terror and Hindu terrorism to be made up and not real. He and User:Wasifwasif have butted heads about the article for quite some time. I personally believe they are both biased in their own way, as is everyone, with one against and one for the idea of Hindu terrorism. And because it is terrorism, it's clearly going to be a contentious subject.
So...i'm coming to you, you being the most capable and cool-headed administrator that I know of, to ask for advice on what my next step should be to deal with this issue, in terms of the Hindu terrorism category and my attempts to put articles into it, and with User Pectore in general. I will take this to ANI if I have to, but I really don't like having to do that. SilverserenC 22:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry you're having this frustration. :/ I think if I were in your position, I would start with a discussion at Category talk:Hindu terrorism. I see, actually, that there's one already going. You might possibly request additional feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism. I'd be ever so careful in phrasing that request, as this could be quite a heated discussion! Once consensus emerges, it is easier to see if a conflict is preventing somebody from recognizing and working within that consensus. If so, the WP:NPOVNmight be able to help, even though it's not exactly their neighborhood. Otherwise, ANI may be the only choice, but I would want to be sure there is a clear consensus first. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you can see from the talk page of the category, I haven't gotten any response after I put a comment there. And I did already ask for some help from Wikiproject Terrorism yesterday, with no response as of yet. I guess i'll go give Wikiproject Hinduism a try, but...you're right, that will be tricky. I can presume that the people responding will likely be offended at even the thought of terrorism related to their religion, so...eh. I'll give it a whirl. I just don't want to start a fire with this. SilverserenC 00:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm not sure if my humor fell flat there though. :/ SilverserenC 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clap clap. Well done. I'm not sure about the joke, under the circumstances, but the note at large is really deftly handled. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 00:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simon Harris page
Hello,
I am Simon Harris, author of the majority of the text on my own wikipedia page which I have been contributing to for several years under my wikipedia username: megalaser
Today I have checked my page and it has been dramatically shortened, much of the text deleted, most information removed and now it is very short and has inaccuracies as well. I gather this is because a wikipedia editor thought that the page contained copyright violations because the text matched that on my own website: www.harrismix.com
Well, there is no copyright violation - I wrote it all, the website is mine and I am the subject of the wikipedia article.
This wikipedia page is very important to me, I put a lot of work into keeping my public information true and accurate. I understand from the history that it was you who looked at the page, considered it a copyright violation and removed most of the content, this would be a couple of weeks ago?
Please can you undo this edit and return the page to how it was before? I would very much appreciate this. If you would like proof that I am Simon Harris I am happy to provide whatever you need, I am the copyright holder of the text and I hereby state that everything in the article was true and accurate.
I am not an expert on wikipedia and how it works, if you need me to provide any proof please just let me know what I need to do but i would sincerely appreciate it if you could please re-instate my page to how it was before this happened.
DJ/Producer/founder of record label 'Music of Life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megalaser (talk • contribs) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note. I will reply at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the AfD for the above page and on the articles talk page Unflavoured has raised concerns of CopyVio with http://www.answering-ansar.org. I am not so sure, however since a possiable outcome of the AfD is merge, would you mind having a look and see what you think.
Hi. :) This one looks potentially complicated. I'll be happy to take a look at it once properly fortified with a bit more caffeine. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hows the caffeine level :) Codf1977 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Low enough this morning that I failed to form a lasting memory of this note. :D As soon as I read the note below, I'm on it! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem ..... :) Codf1977 (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this one is tricky. (I actually did glance at it first thing, but onnot seeing an obvious answer pushed it off for later...and forgetting. :) There is some cause for concern in the article. For instance, it says
Extended content
The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' (No one can touch it save the pure) but in it is stated in multiple verdicts of Sunni Scholars that the Chapter of the Quraan Al-Fateha (The Opening) can be written with urine
The Qur'an states that 'Laa yamassuhu illal Mutahharun' No one can touch it save the pure but in Fatmaada Aalamgeer vol. 5 page 134 and in Fatwa Siraajiya page 75, it is stated that Surah Fateha can be written with urine (astaghfirullah).
This has been present since the article was created.
Also problematic, from the article's creation:
Again its mentioned in none other than Sahih al Bukhari with reference to Abu Dawood the author of Sunan Abu Dawood, one of Sunni Six Major Hadith Collection, that the Prophet used to forget the Qur'an. Sunnis claim the bearer of the book, the prophet himself used to forget it, then the word's correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur'an unreliable if taken into consideration their belief. Such a narration creates doubt on the status of the Qur'an and Mohammad.
It is narrated in saheeh Bukhari that the holy prophet used to forget the Qur'an? If the bearer of the book, the prophet himself forgets it then the word's correctness becomes doubtful, which makes the Qur'an unreliable. Does such a narration not create doubts on the status of the Qur'an and Rasul'Allah?
These both remain too closely paraphrased for us to use them as they are in the present version of the article. They need to be rewritten.
The opening section uses a quote from [6], but it's not excessive by itself. I'm inclined to think that the article as it was founded was excessive in its use of quotations, unless the quotes were from non-free sources, and the section "Enmity towards Muhammad and his Family and support for their enemies" is still very heavy in quotations. These should be reduced, unless the sources from which they are quoting are public domain.
Finally, the last paragraph under "Revere heretics" says:
It has been also mentioned in Sunni collections that uring her lifetime Aishah was a severe critic of third Sunni Rashidun Uthman ibn Affan, to the point that she advocated his killing. And after Uthman's murder she chose to rebel against the fourth Sunni Rashidun Ali on the premise that Uthman's killers should be apprehended. History records that she said the following about Uthman ibn Affan
During her lifetime Hadhrath Ayesha was a severe critic of Hadhrath Uthman, to the point that she advocated his killing. How is it that following his murder, she chose to rebel against Imam Ali (as) on the premise that his killers should be apprehended? ...History records that she said the following about Hadhrath Uthman "Kill this old fool (Na'thal), for he is unbeliever", see History of Ibn Athir, v3, p206, Lisan al-Arab, v14, p141, al-Iqd al-Farid, v4, p290 and Sharh Ibn Abi al-Hadid, v16, pp 220-223
That site clearly predates us, March 5 2003.
Unless it can be shown that these sources are PD, I agree that there are copyright problems with this article in these closely paraphrased sections. Has anybody claimed that they are PD? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not that I am aware of and give the copyright statement at the bottom of the main page, don't think the website is. Codf1977 (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I believe that either (a) the problematic material should be removed, or (b) the article should be blanked with the {{copyvio}} and note made at the article's talk page to give the contributors an opportunity to demonstrate that the content is PD in spite of the copyright label or to rewrite it. Typically, we don't blank articles at AfD, but I do it with copyvios all the time. Reviewers can still see the content in history. The danger to just removing the content is that some of the sources are not English. We don't know if those sources have been directly translated or properly rewritten. :/ This is a real concern as this contributor has violated our copyright policies in the past, with articles Alimaan Charitable Trust and September 2010 Baghdad Bombings (now deleted). There may be a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright policy here.
Would you like to take action on this, or do you want me to? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, probably best if you do, I have had some recent run ins with the editor and feel that he may be more receptive to your approach rather than mine. Codf1977 (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have blanked and notified. This kind of thing is seldom welcome regardless who brings it up. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks once again for your help. Codf1977 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have obtained the copyright from www.answering-ansar.org and have forwarded the permission copy via mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Codf1977 you are welcome to fix any mistakes done by me, past clashes should not be deterrent for this. Yeah, I unintentionally created 2 articles earlier which were copyright violations, hence this time I obtained permission in writing. But still I admit my mistakes and if there is any punishment I will take since the mistake was committed and I admit that. After having a brief discussion with TFOWR I realized that, however I still do not justify the Block by TFOWR to me - Humaliwalay (talk) 05:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copy vios in general
I just read about the massive deletion of 10,000 articles due to copyright violations. You have helped me with copyright violations with a number of articles while I edit as an IP. I think that your editing wikipedia is one of the best things about this encyclopedia: volunteers who see the potential for excellence. Thanks for your contributions to making wikipedia useful.
Thank you. That is very kind of you, and I appreciate it. :) Very few of those 10,000 articles will wind up deleted, though, I'm happy to say. Most of them will simply be restored after review as they do not contain copyright problems. We just need to check them to be sure! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i have provided 68 references for the article rajesh khanna in the wikipedia.
i need ur help to make it semi protected so that unregistered users do noit edit it at first place.
also to my knowledge all sources are mostly from newspapers,magazines,big box office dotcoms, movie websites,interviews by stars.
but some registered users are indulging in vandalism...simply editing the artcile.
if at all by mistake some blog reference is there i request that these registered users be made to understand that they are facts and if at all references need to be added freshly in place of that(blog reference ) then that reference be given and not that the para /sentence e be deletedShrik88music (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Articles are only semiprotected if there is good reason for them to be semiprotected, such as if they have already experienced considerable vandalism. We don't do it proactively. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Protection policy and then, if you think the article qualifies, to request protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, where an uninvolved administrator will review your request. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
at present u will be able to see that this user is sabotaging ....indulging in vandalism and unecssary editsShrik88music (talk) 19:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't see that. What I see is a "content dispute" where you are adding content and sources with which another contributor disagrees. If you think a source is good and that contributor does not, you might want to ask for feedback from other contributors at the reliable sources noticeboard. But please be careful about referring to the edits of others as "vandalism", as this is not proper under our "Assume Good Faith" and "Civility" policies. Most contributors do mean well by the project, and we should try to resolve our differences collegially. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but the refernces provided by me are genuine and not bolgs.
thats why iam asking for your help as if senior people go through the references , all of u would be satisfied and approve my references.
moreoverhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Active_Banana also very clearly says he doesnt want to contribute v=by adding references but wants to remove whats written and what he isnt ready to accept ..
how can he send me a message If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice when he is the person who is doing this childishly.
please give him a warning he deserves it.
can u give me the link where i can speak to other seniors ..
my references are all genuine and not blogs but magazines,newspapers, etc... Shrik88music (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link is Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard. But you do not have to appeal to "seniors" here. When it comes to content development, all contributors have an equal voice. Administrators are sometimes necessary to sanction contributors who break policies or take other actions, but they have no more authority to determine if a source is reliable than any other contributor who has read and understood the policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thats waht iam saying that all the 68 references i provided in the article are all RELIABLE AND if there are any you can remove it or instead put a relaible source as the facts have only been written Shrik88music (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think they're reliable; the other user does not. This is why we have dispute resolution. You should calmly ask for feedback from uninvolved contributors at the reliable sources noticeboard (these are not "seniors", but just volunteers who answer these kinds of questions). It will be helpful if you link to the references in question, or at least to the version of the article that uses them. There's very little on Wikipedia that we can't resolve through friendly conversation. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube as an RS
I saw this just now. [7] We don't do that, do we?Malke 2010 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends entirely on who is hosting it and who made it. :) Was it made by a reliable source? Is it hosted by somebody who has legally licensed the content? (Some reliable sources have their own YouTube channels). It can be hard to tell sometimes. I'd first look at the host's profile and, if in doubt, run it by the good folks at WP:ELN. If the answer to either of those questions is "no," then, no, we don't do that. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rajesh Khanna article in wikipedia
see iam not here for disputes.
but iam very surprised that some user who happens to be plain anti khanna is just editing out valid 68 references.
i know all are valid but how come no administartor is blocking him or warning that he must not engage in edit war.
i thought of directly talking to seniors ... but i have also mesaaged in the link u have given me.
i am not here for disputes but only to contribute facts and remove misconceptions prevailing.Shrik88music (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a social environment; working with others is part of it, and sometimes those others will not agree with us. Sometimes we will be right, and sometimes they will be, but we have to try to resolve our differences. No administrator has blocked him or warned him that he must not engage in an edit war because nobody has filed a valid complaint at a relevant noticeboard against him proving that he has done anything wrong.
If you aren't getting along with somebody, you have to try first to converse with them politely and then to bring in other contributors in the ways described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If somebody refuses to work within the community, then administrators generally block. We do not generally block unless people are clearly working in bad faith.
I really wish you would consider a formal mentorship situation. I believe you would find it valuable to have one person who is in position to help you when you run into these issues. It isn't me, because I've got too much copyright work to do and because I am already mentoring somebody. But I'm sure that someody would be able to give you guidance with the problems you encounter. While I may not have the time to mentor you, I would really rather not see you wind up blocked because you are misunderstanding the way Wikipedia works. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
let me know then i will find replacements ...if ny amomg them is unrelaibleShrik88music (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steamroll!
Yeah I realised you were doing that so skipped ahead of the competition articles to focus on checking a bunch of biographies instead! I didn't realise just how deep into obscurity Darius was delving. One problem with the bot approach is that I very much doubt anyone is watching something like this, such articles will have to be reviewed in a more piecemeal manner rather than in the hope that someone watching or reading the article will address the problem! SFB 12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've observed several editors who have taken this opportunity to alter things. One set of articles has been entirely redirected, and another editor checked Darius Dhlomo's statistics and found them to be about nine years (if I remember correctly) out of date. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mass blanking
Hi,
I noticed that you have restored articles that was under suspicion of copyright infringements. More articles, mass blanked by Uncle G's bot, have shown up on my watchlist. If I find no copyrighted material on those articles, am I right to revert the bot's actions? I tried to read some of the information, but it was so much and intricate, that I gave up! Therefore I hoped you could help me? =) Like in this case, should I simply revert the bot's edit, and insert a Y or a N along with my signature here? If so, does Y mean "OK, no copyright", or does N mean "NO copyright"? At last, could I check articles that haven't been tagged yet? Or will they get tagged sooner or later anyway? Thanks, in advance... lil2mas (talk) 13:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and you are heartily welcome to help out. :D {{y}} means "yes, copyright problem was found" and {{n}} means "no, no copyright problem was found." (Generally, we have to presume copyright infringement if the text looks at all creative. I'm afraid this contributor copied all but the most basic content.) The articles that are not yet tagged will eventually be tagged, so it's probably better to start off with the ones that are tagged already. What I'm doing at the moment is cleaning up where articles were investigated before the bot. The bot should be finished pretty soon, I understand. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The articles I have found consists mostly of an infobox, a short wikified introduction, a result table, an external link, and a navbox. So there seems to be little or no copyright infringements there. Must be if he has written some prose, that copyright issues occurs. But I will notify you if I find anything interesting! =) Thanks, happy hunting... lil2mas (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 'bot is now on what I hope will be its final batch of articles. This should take, by my calculations, at least a further 29 hours to run. So yes, there will be plenty of articles that you'll find that the 'bot has yet to process. It's still the majority of the list (of article creations), at this point. The templates for checking off the CCI entries are a common question, I've noticed. I'll see what I can do about making Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Darius Dhlomo#Cleanup instructions more explicit on this point. Uncle G (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems I can expect a full watchlist by tomorrow then! I will notify my fellow project members at WP:CYC, he has edited on alot of our articles... But thanks for making the instructions more clear and concise! lil2mas (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For you
The Original Barnstar
Despite heading up one of the biggest cleanup operations Wikipedia has ever seen, you still find time to be a decent person. More editors like you could only be a positive. J Milburn (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. I have to note that Wikipedia has more editors like that. In all the times I've pestered you for help, you have never once complained or turned me down. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno did a rewrite of Aaron Feltham. I double-checked with Bing and the Wayback Machine and couldn't find anything. But the 2007 RIO Canadian Olypmpic Team Handbook is no longer available on the WWW as far as I can see, and past experience leads me to believe that that's where the running prose came from. Please review the rewrite, just to be sure that it's enough. Uncle G (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANI: AJona1992
Thank you for making the proposed copyvio amendment! I'm in full agreement, but am trying to stay out of making any of the accelerated sanctions (for obvious reasons, mentor and all). So... thanks again to you xeno and Strange Passerby (who I've thanked separately). Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB 17:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I'm all for giving him chances to learn to work within the community behavioral guidelines, but copyright work is what I do. :D Good luck. Mentorship can be a challenge, and I hope that the two of you succeed. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I run the Star Trek Phase 2 site (and others), and I for one hope to never have to send another DMCA notice ever again ("he says as he sadly knows he's got two more to file later today"). So, I too feel very strongly about this. And thanks for the wishes! Hope things work out too. ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB 17:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanctions
If you don't mind acting in such capacity, could you revise the list of admins willing to impose the accelerated sanctions (if the need arises)? Thanks, Robert ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB 18:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider myself uninvolved, but I can't say that others would, as many of the personal attacks mentioned by Soundvisions were actually against me. :) (I'm "the girl" he was complaining about.) If you'd like, I'll add myself to impose sanctions on copyright issues, but I think I should leave civility concerns to others. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely willing to follow your lead in this. Though I've followed various ANIs and commented on a few, I've got little experience in dealing with one that has went this far, so I trust your judgment in this. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB 18:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I'll sign on for copyright concerns only. If there are text issues, these may not necessarily need to lead to an indef block. Sometimes contributor create copyright violations from not knowing how extensively they need to rewrite. We cut a little slack there to see if the contributor can learn. His previous text copyright issues were more blatant--just pasting. If you see close paraphrasing problems, please let me know, and I'll try to help you teach him how to avoid those. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for the offer to help! He's only my second adoptee (and my first "problem child"), so the help is appreciated. -R ROBERTMFROMLITALK/CNTRB 18:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. :) I appreciate your willingness to take him on. It's hard work, but if it helps him become a constructive member of the community, it's a great service to Wikipedia! We need all of those we can get. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rajesh khanna
User:Active Banana - this user is continuing his same old story of sites not being relaible and that blogs have been used etc.....
yesterday Hebrides (talk) even helped me in converting them to citation format, including the title, publisher, date, etc.
even she agrees that the 68 were genuine.
now i added up more sources which are yes relaible upto 75 to convince all detractors..
now what needs to be done to ensure that the article contributed by me at present which contains solely and solely facts supported by valid references is being made open to public for reading and not deleted?
please help seriously i need ur helpShrik88music (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
following are the references i provided from reputed magazines,newspapers,websites of tv channels,news channels,articles on filmstars etc,.....
i know all my 75 references are valid but do not understand y no action can be taken to make such biased editors away from such articles.
Correction – although I used Reflinks on the references, I did not vouch for their being “genuine” (as stated above). — Hebrides (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shrik88music, I don't see any sign that you followed the advice I already gave you, so I kind of feel like I'd be wasting my time to give you more. You might follow User:Uncle G's suggestions. And, as I said above, consider seeking feedback at WP:ELN or following other steps in the dispute resolution process. I continue to maintain that your best bet is to seek a mentor. Good luck. (You cconverted 68 references,Hebrides? Very nice. :)) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second look, it does seem that you are attempting to find dispute resolution, but unfortunately you don't seem to have read the page. Asking your question at the talk page is pointless; you have to follow the steps recommended. I bet a mentor could help you find the best approach. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 10:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move request
Could you move the temp page rewrite of Chord Overstreet over the blanked article? It looks to be clean. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is clean; I wrote it. :) Thank you so much! Yvesnimmo (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem! :) Yvesnimmo (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright/Sherenk
Hello,
I see you left a message on User_talk:Sherenk, where I have also just left a message to the same effect. However, I do not know procedure to purge copyrighted material in articles. Should it be purged from the history? You have to be an admin to do that, no? Help...
Hi. He's on my watchlist, so I was just looking into that. :) I'll get back with you in just a minute. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've addressed the user. Now to the content: we are actually in the process of refining the copyright policy to take into account "revision deletion". Generally, I do purge copyvios from history if they are extensive or likely to be resurrected. I would be inclined not to purge that one immediately, unless it comes back, because I think it's unlikely that it will come back accidentally. I'll watchlist the article for a few days and see if it keeps out. If it doesn't not, I'll purge it. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
