|
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.
|
 Archives |
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Reaching me
I am not on Wikipedia as often as I'd like to be. My goal is to check my page, at least, daily, but I often fall short of that goal. If you have an urgent note for me here, please consider alerting me via email at mdennis wikimedia.org. (This is my work email address, and I do not mix work and volunteering, but mailing that address makes sure I will see it promptly, usually within a day.) If not urgent, I'll come by as soon as I can, and I heartily welcome talk page stalkers. :)
User_talk:Nakedicarus suggests a history of vehicle image copyvios. File:Us90.jpg is obviously a copyvio. Which leaves just two - File:Bluepinto.jpg & File:Pintoint1.jpg (the latter is not in use) - which I guess need to be reviewed with great scepticism? 223.205.243.225 (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, see here. Digging further, as those were uploaded here in 2008, so looking for an instance that pre-dates that. Of note, the blue pinto pic appears to be one of several out of a photoshoot, and the interior pic looks like it came from a sales brochure. Crow Caw 16:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
Hey MRG. In doing some boring maintenance stuff I stumbled upon Barnes Compton, which per the talk page looked like a copyvio of [1]. Sure enough, a lot of it matches. However, the bottom of the page simultaneously says "© Copyright August 06, 2008Maryland State Archives" and "This information resource of the Maryland State Archives is presented here for fair use in the public domain...proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives." It can't be copyrighted, fair use, CC-BY, and public domain. That's just one example but their entire site is like that. You'd think a government website would have more understanding of copyright, and I'm at a loss as to how to proceed on the article. Wizardman 23:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, Maryland State Archives. :/ Way to throw up some absolutely meaningless jargon.
- Okay, we require clear license. We don't have that there. The page is copyrighted, explicitly. They are reserving rights to attribution, so "public domain" does not mean what they think it means. But they are also explicitly noting that it is "for fair use" - which has narrow constraints. We have to close one eye and turn sideways to see this as compatibly licensed.
- Years ago, when I first encountered a really ambiguous case like this on Wikipedia, I asked the bureaucrat who flagged it what he thought I should do. He pointed out quite right that WP:C is clear on this: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt Wikipedia. If in doubt, write the content yourself, thereby creating a new copyrighted work which can be included in Wikipedia without trouble." That "If in doubt" provision has informed my approach to copyright on Wikipedia. In terms of crying foul against people who place material here, I don't where there is any good reason they may have believed the content to be usable here, but the content itself needs to go, unless we can verify the status.
- What I would do in such a case, User:Wizardman, is blank it with the copyvio template and list it with a note on the talk page explaining the discrepancy and the policy that requires it be rewritten. I'd then really hope somebody would come along to rewrite it. If not, at least when I was on Wikipedia more, I would be facing a rewrite myself at the end of the listing period. (I might, in a case like this, also reach out to the Maryland State Archives to ask them for some language with teeth.)
- If you want to blank it accordingly, I'll write to Maryland. And try to do the rewrite if they don't come through and nobody else does, although I might have to make a note at the listing or I will forget. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi MRG and Wizardman. The copyrvio was added with this edit in 2008, the day after the material was added to the Maryland Archives. You could simply revert it to the last clean version and add some refs and the infobox. Would save a lot of palaver. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Me again. There's the same problem with George A. Frederick from this page at Maryland Archives. Same editor who added it with this edit. That article also has a clean version to which it can be reverted. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, good idea, Voceditenore! I will write to Maryland regardless, but no reason to shut the article down completely in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and gutted Frederick per the above, but there's been a lot of work since the original addition on the Compton article, so I'd rather not do a complete revert if it can be rewritten. I'll tag it and keep an eye on it in the meantime. Wizardman 01:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Moonriddengirl, I hope you are well !
So, I've been reviewing a lot of GA candidates lately, and noticing a lot of nominators like to use a huge amount of both in-paragraph quotations and extremely large blockquoting.
There is now a handy-dandy tool in use as linked on GA Review subpages -- called Copyvio Detector in the GA Toolbox.
I've been recommending in my GA Reviews that nominators cut/trim/remove, or paraphrase quotations, so that when I revisit, each source with that Copyvio Detector tool gets below a 30 percent confidence value.
I'm getting some initial resistance at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron/GA2 regarding my review of Avengers: Age of Ultron -- see Copyvio Detector results at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Avengers%3A+Age+of+Ultron&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1
This is the version of the article at time of my initial GA Review, placing it as GA on Hold and asking for quotes and blockquotes to be removed.
Am I right in my GA Reviews to strongly recommend cutting down on amount of quotations, even if they are indeed properly cited with in-line citations?
Can too much liberal quoting and blockquoting be a form of straying towards copyvio?
Just wanted your expertise before I revisit that particular GA Review again -- and going forwards with how I approach large amounts of quotations on other GA Reviews in the future.
Thank you for your time,
— Cirt (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Also now getting some resistance to my recommendations of quotation removal, at Talk:Dump months/GA1. — Cirt (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Cirt. :) Yes, indeed - liberal quoting can stray towards copyvio and cross the boundaries of WP:NFC. The more that's taken from a particular source, the greater the risk here of reaching substantial similarity. But even if it's a small amount, it can still be a copyright issue if what's taken is core or critical or if the resultant work is derivative. (This requires looking at both the source and the destination.) There's also WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE, of course, which I imagine factor in to GA status. But articles should not be simply extracted quotes from sources (or subjects); we should be using quotations transformatively and building something new. We need to balance original material with fair use materials carefully. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Just throwing in my 2p here to see if I can offer a perspective (and, slightly selfishly, to get a head-check from MRG that my interpretation is correct, or at least viable): My approach to quotes is to ask: Does the quote provide content or context? The former is generally a problem, while the latter is generally ok, both subject to exceptions for extremes of use of course. As a spot check, I looked at Ultron, in the Cast section, and to me the quotes in the character sections fall squarely into the Content side of the question. They add new facts not previously or subsequently discussed in the article, and the rest of the article doesn't mention the content of those quotes, so it fails the "critical analysis" fair-use exception that is being brought up. The bit about when the Hulk's lines are written, for example, could easily have been paraphrased, referenced to the source, and then maybe had 1 line from the writer as a quote to add a little zinger. As it sits now, though, that quote is being used to explain the writer's approach to the lines, a concept never mentioned again. Thus, it provides new content without putting any article prose in context. Crow Caw 22:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I m trying to separate the Wars section from a general discussion on this issue. The Wars section was specifically laid out to be the preceding. That is why I refactored to move text up. Can it not remain the way I put it? After all I started the discussion… lol. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Leprof 7272. :) I'm not comfortable with that because my response about the attribution template was intended to be key on point to your question about templates for issues. I understand that the subsequent material got back to the specifics of the case, so I did subsection in respect for your valid concerns, but I don't want my targeted response lost because it had to be moved to make sense of subsequent comments. Keeping things where they happened avoids that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Thanks, Drmies. Lot of work still ahead on that guy, I'm afraid. :/ Even when he tried to do it right, he accidentally made a bit of a mess. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl! I just wondered, could this be a sock of this user you recently blocked for extensive copy-vio'ing/hoaxing? I watched the latters' edits from the side for some time, and I have to say there is quite alot of quacking/overlap between the two, heh. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems quite sufficient quackery to block. :/ Thanks for the heads up, LouisAragon! User:Drmies, User:Dougweller, socks are not really my thing, but I suspect that this may bear watching going forward. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I've deleted the images here and had a lot of copyvio images deleted from Commons. I've also deleted a few articles under G5 though they were also eligible for G12 and A10. Some of them have significant contributions from LouisAragon, albeit cleaning up after this chap, so I'm hesitant to delete them as G5 (unless LA is in favor), though I suspect most would be eligible for G12 as this chap has been copying stuff from everywhere, blogs, journals, what not. A lot more work to do though. MRG, you also have an email on this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well well, seems after all he was related to Artin Mehraban as well. Strange I didn't realise that earlier. Yeah, they both hoax'ed and violated copyvio's a lot during their existence.. Most of their edits were a true pain. @SpacemanSpiff, yeah, I contributed quite significantly to some articles as some of those which he created (at least the titles), were topics which I wanted to create myself later on. Such as European Scythian campaign of Darius I, which basically only me edited so far after its creation.
- @Moonriddengirl, indeed thanks for making the SPI. Good one. ;-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've G5ed quite a bit already, but only stuff that hasn't been substantially touched by anybody else. Hopefully I will not touch something you're interest in. If I do, LouisAragon, please let me know! User:SpacemanSpiff, I haven't seen the email yet, but will look for it in just a few minutes. : ) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- PS; could someone remove this map created by him as soon as it's possible? [2] It's hoax. - LouisAragon (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Moonriddengirl:, my fault, I should've been more direct when adressing; could you perhaps delete this hoax map added by Artin Mehraban/History of Persia? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, sorry, LouisAragon. I missed this. I can't; it's on Commons. :/ I'm not an admin there. It would need to be nominated for deletion there, likely with an explanation that the user is a hoaxer and why this one is a hoax. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) @LouisAragon: Commons doesn‘t deprecate “original research“ as WP does—see c:COM:Project scope/Neutral point of view—and a hoax has to be pretty blatant or inflammatory to be considered not “realistically useful for an educational purpose“ and therefore out of scope. If you nominate the map for deletion, beware of giving the impression that you‘re pursuing a WP content dispute on Commons, as that’s likely to provoke reflexive objections & unnecessary drama. Instead I would suggest tagging the file with c:Template:Inaccurate-map-disputed and explaining what’s wrong with it on its Talk page; along with the lack of references, that should help keep it out of articles.—Odysseus1479 06:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Odysseus1479:, thanks a lot for the advice! I'll most certainly do that then. Btw, @Moonriddengirl: and others here, I just listed his new IP range in a new SPI as we speak, just for the record and for a range block at the same time. If any more finds, don't hesitate to comment on it. ;-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, LouisAragon. I find a combo of blocks and page protection often effective here. If you see particularly troubled articles, please let me know. Aside from the necessary articles left open. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- LouisAragon, I am speedily deleting this user's creations, except where they have been salvaged by the work of others. You seem to be the only other substantial editor of European Scythian campaign of Darius I and Division of the Afsharid Empire. What are your thoughts? Should either of them be deleted under WP:CSD#G5 as the creation of a block-evading serial copyright infringing hoaxter, or are they now okay? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Moonriddengirl:, hey, well, they're both fine for now. I would really like the articles to stay as there's still a lot to be written about both. The only thing that should be deleted ASAP, as we're talking about these articles, is that map on the Division of the Afsharid Empire map, which is another hoax creation. But as I understood it you can't delete it that easily and thus needs to be brought to commons. :/ But yeah about the articles, they're ok for now. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't delete it, because it's on Commons, but I can take it out of use on English Wikipedia. Anyone can. Feel free to remove it with extreme prejudice any time you come upon it, LouisAragon! I will consider that I have reverted and G5ed all that I can, then, of this sock and be prepare to go nuclear on any other socks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Baby (2015 film) was moved to Baby (2015 Hindi film). I couldn't find any other film named Baby released in 2015. --The Avengers (talk) 12:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'd ask User:Bovineboy2008 about that. Perhaps it was a mistake. :) In the meantime, are you able to move it back? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the reverse move works. --The Avengers (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See Baby (2015 Tamil film), as linked in Baby (disambiguation)#Film. BOVINEBOY2008 16:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, perhaps you can tell which came first, the Wikipedia article Barony of Blackhall, or the website [3]. I've reservations about several accounts that are editing in this area, and whether they're indulging in persistent copyright violations. Thanks for any light you can shed. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I'll list it at CP, but want to get MRG's feedback on the list of baronies in the second half of the article. The list itself is ok I'm sure, but there are annotations to each that also appear in sources verbatim, which strike me as creative contributions. Crow Caw 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
