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 under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time and 21:00 Coordinated Universal Time, on weekdays. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 19:04, 26 December 2024 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.

Questions

Hi! I'm sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you'd take a quick look at a past version of an article and the current version and let me know how I've done at cleaning up some paraphrasing. Thankfully I didn't catch any flak, but was still inwardly nagged by it so I've tried to fix the perceived problems.

The article in question is potcake dog -- this is the version I was especially concerned about (it was also the version that received GA status, which is hopefully an indication that I wasn't dangerously close!). It was the first article I wrote and I tried to avoid inadvertently changing the meaning, which I worry resulted in a "franken-article" of sorts. In retrospect, I'm concerned that it was too close to the sources it cited. Some parts rely on a single source and I can't be sure I was diligent enough in restructuring the content. Certain sentences and phrases are especially difficult to retool or can't be written in a "novel" manner.

Thanks in advance, I appreciate it. :) Anna 04:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. I'll be happy to take a look and give my opinion on that a bit later today. I've got a few things I've already promised to take care of first. If something unexpected should come up and I should overlook it today, please feel free to remind me. I don't think that'll happen, because my schedule today looks relatively relaxed. :) --Moonriddengirl 12:51, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (just making sure this doesn't get archived yet). Anna 12:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again -- I hope I'm not being a terrible pain but I was wondering if this had been passed over somehow, as it's now the oldest thread left on your talkpage. Thought I'd let you know I haven't forgotten, though there's absolutely no hurry (or obligation) on your part. Thanks again. Anna 19:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! It slipped my mind! I'm just back in from traveling for the weekend, but hope to be able to catch up in a few hours. Sorry! Please don't ever worry about bugging me by bringing something back to my attention. --Moonriddengirl 19:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at this right now. --Moonriddengirl 13:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I assume you were looking at the new version, while the old version is (was?) quite a bit worse -- is that correct? -- so I'll keep revising it for now. Thanks so much for taking a look at this; I appreciate it. Anna 14:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked at both versions and am assessing the current. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still quite worried, especially about the previous version which was horrid, but I suppose there's nothing that I can do about that now. I can try to rewrite the article without looking at it but I'm afraid that some of it is burned into my brain; perhaps it should be delisted until/unless I'm able to fix it. Again, I appreciate that you looked over the article. Anna 01:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure, there's something we can do about it. We can delete the revisions that were horrid, if you're heavily concerned about it being inadvertently restored or something. I don't think the article constitutes the current concern, though, that you seem to think it does. :/ I did see some similarity, but not so much that I would feel compelled to do something about it, even to tag it. --Moonriddengirl 12:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Chances are I'm not looking at it in a detached way -- I feel very ashamed, of course, as I'd hope anyone else would. In any event, I understand that you're busy and will rewrite it to the best of my ability and be on my way. Thanks for the help. Anna 02:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've now attempted to fix all outstanding issues with the page by altering the structure and presentation a fair amount. Anna 05:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel ashamed! I don't think you should. :) There's a difference between deliberately plagiarizing or compromising copyright and inadvertently doing it, especially in the pursuit of a goal like "verifiability". Misplaced Pages even recognizes this in our good faith policy--WP:AGFC. Over the years at Misplaced Pages and well before hand, I've spent a lot of time helping people master paraphrasing. It isn't always easy, even when they are motivated to do it. I admire the fact that now that you are aware of the issue you are so diligent about fixing it. (If sharing a story of my own ignorance will help, I remember when an irate website owner confronted me many years ago for hotlinking to something on his website in a blog entry. I was absolutely clueless about bandwidth or any other issues that this might cause. I apologized, took it down and (then better educated) never did it again. I did something wrong, but not shameful--and I reacted correctly when I was informed. And all this said, there's also the possibility that my definition of shame is different than yours, and you don't mean the word "ashamed" as strongly as I would, in which case I should just stop talking. :D) --Moonriddengirl 11:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it does. The worst part is that I know that changing a few words around doesn't void copyright, and whatever I did was "(terribly) bad paraphrasing" and not "pasting a passage in and rewording it". I'm surprised at how many established editors -- those with more academic credentials than I, for one -- have contributed very close paraphrases, so I suppose it's not the rarest issue out there. Since I wrote that article in April, I've not looked at sources and have written from memory, going back to make sure that the facts check out. Still: "On March 21, 1967 the Treeing Tennessee Brindle Breeders Association was formed and recognized as a legal organization by the state of Illinois." -> Article: "On March 21, the Treeing Tennessee Brindle Breeders Association was established in Illinois." That's not a very unique sentence structure and I arrived there by chance, using a single source, but I suppose someone could take issue with it nonetheless.

Does potcake dog look alright (better) now? diff (still needs copyediting, but I'll get to that) Just want to be absolutely sure. :) Anna 03:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Outing, privacy issues, office deletions

Hello !Some time ago the article about this heraldic artist has been vandalized in numerous ways and reverted to the least preferable version before it was 'frozen' .Now, I believe it's pausing in the 'legal queue'- the term I honestly don't understand .As one of the editors I demanded administrators to review past versions of the article to determine who and how violated Wiki policy on biographies of living persons.Unfortunately,administrators who are not specialists in the field will not be able to decide on what is truth and what is not. It's very unfortunate that false information instead of being removed immediately stays on page open to the readers.Additionally ,the photo files cause copyright concern, as they have been clearly taken from the Facebook pages. It's the second time the article is about to be deleted ,as the person who started it at first for some unknown reason demanded to delete it ,with no regard for the work done by other editors who contributed time and efforts to develop and resource it properly. I'll be grateful for a moment of your attention payed to this issue .Werbena (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) If you're talking about a picture other than here, please link to it. If you mean that one, it's okay. Facebook routinely and openly copies Misplaced Pages; it says on that page "".

"Legal queue" refers to a division of the volunteer response team where issues are evaluated by volunteer or Wikimedia Foundation staff specialists in legal issues. It was locked to give them time to look at a letter that WMF received to determine if they needed to take any action. I believe that the letter has been pushed back prior to its review for handling in the regular division of the e-mail response on request of the initial agent. I am not the member of the volunteer response team working on the issue, but only applied protection for the duration of the legal review. (Sorry if this is confusing; if you're not familiar with the work of the e-mail volunteer response team, it might be harder to follow.)

Articles are not deleted on demand without compelling reason; the first time the article was deleted because the community held a discussion and agreed that it did not belong: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Andrew Stewart Jamieson. The person who requested the deletion was not the creator of the article, although I don't know if the article's creator also encouraged deletion without reading back in the history. It's really not important, though; what matters is how the community responds to the request.:) The community in this case evidently did not feel that sourcing that had been located was sufficient and no additional sources were found sufficient to satisfy concerns. If the article is to be deleted again (I don't see an active request), it would have to be in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy. --Moonriddengirl 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time.The recorded content of discussion held by the community prior the first deletion of the article in October explains why did it happened.Unfortunately, only one of the editing administrators XANDERLIPTAK was held responsible for deletion and additionally again falsely accused of vandalizing the new version.It's regrettable that the heraldic community is loosing an active editor who was capable to understand both -heraldry and Misplaced Pages's policy.The rumor has it that he was removed from the circle of editors.

The source of my concern are not pictures from the Misplaced Pages ,the 💕 being used somewhere else , but the pictures from pages on Facebook submitted to Misplaced Pages ,as I believe it happened in case at least these two and

Werbena (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't clear; what I need is the link to the images as they are published elsewhere. Can you link to the images on Facebook, other than in the one copied from Misplaced Pages?

User:Xanderliptak was not an administrator (if you want to know who is, see Misplaced Pages:List of administrators). He is indeed unwelcome on both Misplaced Pages and Wikimedia Commons, but it's nothing to do with this. Very kind of you to concern yourself with his reputation, but this article will not make much difference there. --Moonriddengirl 17:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of this editor's reputation :),but I still believe that it is my moral obligation to react whenever I feel the accusations may be unfair.User:Dave Pritchard is listed as one of possible Xanderliptak sock puppets.As to my best knowledge Mr David Pritchard is an active member of the American Heraldry Society and I wouldn't be surprised if he occasionally was taking part in editing articles on Misplaced Pages .An assumption that User:Xanderliptak and User:Dave Pritchard is the same person is far too far going and even further damaging .In fact it was Dave Pritchard who first questioned copyrights consent of Mr Jamieson's picture uploaded by the creator of the deleted page User:Wesley Phillips.After my intervention -the picture file was not deleted but just casually renamed by another piloting editor ,so it would meet Misplaced Pages's coding system,but by doing this the real source of the image was erased.(Facebook fan page which nota bene has been deleted due to the violation of FB policy I guess).Someone forgot that the consent of the subject in the picture- in this case Mr Jamieson in his private studio -should be sought before uploading an image and this was never questioned by any of administrators.So,unfairly obtained image ridiculing the artist's profile not only was welcomed on Misplaced Pages , but even now after the deletion of the article along with the picture ,thanks to the link between Commons and Facebook it exists in this largest social network .I guess some aspects of copyrighting policy were seriously overlooked. Werbena (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

As I recall, Dave Pritchard was connected to Xanderliptak after uploading a number of Xander's images to Misplaced Pages. I'm sorry if Mr. Pritchard was unfairly labeled; it's unfortunate that Xander's previous use of sock accounts makes others suspect. :/ I see that the article in question was deleted after all, so the legal team must have evaluated the concerns. If the talk page is gone, that should deal with any confusions about Xander's behavior there, I guess? Facebook takes a while to update once a page has been deleted, but given that this one was deleted for "Office" reasons, I'll make sure staff knows to check if the Facebook page is still there. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article in question was deleted ,indeed.Twice and on each occasion for a different reason.First version didn't meet the notability requirements ,the second one because of the defaming content that raised legal issues and this resulted in filing a formal complaint.On both occasions I monitored the development of proposed articles and so far I'm convinced that only in deletion in September Xanderliptak played a role.

I contributed my quite well resourced version of the article which was properly linked with other Misplaced Pages's entries when Wesley Phillips suggested that 'there is no point in making an effort since Xanderliptak will come and destroy it'.Where this conviction originated I have no idea, but I guess it's the same approach as demonstrated by User:Roux in discussion on User talk:Dave Pritchard -'Since you're ALMOST CERTAINLY user :Xanderloptak'and further 'You know who I am , Alexander '.There is a significant difference between knowing something for certain and being almost certain ,just guessing or bending the reality to meet our presumptions. I jotted down the IP number of the user 173.24.119.169 who placed some tags with a clear intention to develop the article toward its improvement not destruction ,so accusation of vandalism is false.Wesley Philips linked this IP number with Xanderliptak drawing similarity with IP 173.24.117.126 additionally disclosing Xander's personal data including his address. This is clearly forbidden by the Misplaced Pages's policy. Thank you Moonriddengirl for being so patient and paying attention to the issue:) Greetings! Werbena (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I wish to point out that I'm responsible for the page removal, and it will not be reestablished. There is no point in pursuing this matter any further, so I ask that it be closed. Asav (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Asav, the conversation has value on its own. :) Werbena pointed out that Facebook had not taken down its own version of the page and thus it was still in publication. Staff was able to request Facebook to update, and that page is now gone. Considering that the bulk of conversation seems to be unrelated to the specific article, but rather to Werbena's concerns about treatment of a specific other editor, I think that closure is unnecessary. You needn't worry that I'll be revealing any privileged information from those e-mail threads, as I didn't even read them. :) I generally like to be open for cordial conversation on any matter of concern to other Wikipedians.

Getting back to it, Werbena, we have an approach to sock puppetry here that surely does sometimes result in misidentification; see WP:QUACK. Sometimes people go too far in applying this and assume that "reasonable doubt" is the same as certainty. Linking an IP to a named editor can be a problem, but fortunately with Xander there's no issues with disclosing his personal data, as Xander was not shy about revealing IP information: see this edit. Geolocation tool places those IPs in the same area. That would make the "duck" test much more reasonable there, given the connection of interest. --Moonriddengirl 12:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Moonrieddengirl ! I know that deleted page can not be recreated without special permission from the WMF office and the content would be protected but considering the fact that office actions are extremely rare I'm just curious how does it work.Both mentioned IP addresses 173.24. are pointing to the Middletown, New York while Alexander Liptak and Mr Pritchard reside in two other different states ,meaning different ISP ...Werbena (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Information on ISPs is not available to most users, but a checkuser did confirm that Xander and Dave Pritchard were on the same ISPs. Just to be clear, this is not the same thing as an IP. :) ISP; IP. I don't know what IP the latter was using, but Xander himself said that 173.24.117.126 was his, in the link I provided above. He also said so here. I'm afraid I can't explain how that comes to be his IP address if he lives in a different state; perhaps he travels? In any event, we have to take his word that the IP was his, particularly since he was not yet blocked and since the IP in question did intersect with him. --Moonriddengirl 19:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Editors who want to use more than one account for some reasons are allowed to do this under Misplaced Pages's policy under the condition that they will provide links between them on the respective user page ,with an explanation and this is what I guess Xander did...if I understand this correctly.In my mind revealing his alternative account username to redirect eventual messages from one user talk to another one would be a fine thing to do...And this is as far as it goes :)Thank you Moonriddengirl for your assistance .Very much appreciated ,specially by a newbie like me on WP Werbena (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but that's unrelated to the issue. :) The point I'm trying to make is that you need not be concerned that "Wesley Philips linked this IP number with Xanderliptak drawing similarity with IP 173.24.117.126 additionally disclosing Xander's personal data including his address. This is clearly forbidden by the Misplaced Pages's policy." There is no policy issue here as Xander himself identified 173.24.117.126 as his, and this Geolocates to the same area as 173.24.119.169. Whether that is or is not Xander's location, it is Xander who said it was. Wesley Philips has disclosed nothing that Xander did not. --Moonriddengirl 16:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I was not very precise - when I referred to the address disclosed by Wesley Phillips- I meant Xander's postal address ,concrete location,city and state as well as an Internet Provider, as far as I remember.There was a suggestion as well, that IP address is the same with which A.L logs into some kind of forum ...only strange abbreviations were given .And if I'm concerned with anything it's this fact that a strange editor dared this researched info place in a public, or at least accessible to other users edit summary.Werbena (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I didn't understand that. The article and it's talk page are both gone, and I don't see any sign of outing elsewhere on Misplaced Pages (I can't do anything about it if it's off Wiki). :) If you have a link on Misplaced Pages to where private information about Xander is still published, please let me know, and I'll get rid of it. --Moonriddengirl 12:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you,I didn't find anything else but again the comment left by Wesley Phillips on User talk:MSGJ in regard of Andrew Stewart Jamieson article ,this time referring to my action I find disturbing.Again, I was accused of providing requested references and linking article about artist with another article that I wrote about Anthony Wood,heraldic artist and Mr Jamieson's teacher.Phillips went on editing for months ,spacing text , moving photos and preserving the link to Anthony Wood,XVII century antiquary !Maybe this is a main reason why from a passive Misplaced Pages reader I became an active editor myself :))I think ,that I need to submit the statement confidentially right to Mr Philippe Beaudette who reviewed the controversial edits.Thank you Moonriddengirl for your far going commitment and help.Werbena (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly you can submit your statement to Philippe, but you should be aware that the Wikimedia Foundation takes a pretty hands off approach to the daily running of the project, as it's handled usually by the volunteer community. Office deletions of the sort that happened here are very rare. (BTW, I should reiterate, as it says on my user page, that I'm not at all speaking on behalf of the Foundation here, but in my capacity as a volunteer. :) In terms of Misplaced Pages's approach, we would usually recommend that you speak to the contributor to voice your discomfort directly (see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution), but the contributor doesn't seem to be actively editing anymore and the comment is almost a month old. I think most contributors would recommend you disregard it and focus on editing other things. But you can always ask for a second opinion at WP:WQA. --Moonriddengirl 11:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi Moonriddengirl, long time no see. I was wondering if you would be interested in giving an opinion regarding the copyright status of File:Les Demoiselles d'Avignon.jpg, which is currently being nominated for Featured Picture at Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. The copyright status and has been a concern for a while, since the first nomination at least. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking.... --Moonriddengirl 12:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have offered input, but nothing definitive I'm afraid. The input I have comes from an essay published at multiple points that indicates that the lapsing into PD of the black and white photograph of a painting does not place the original in PD, but there is no authority cited for it. It was written by an IP lawyer, but before he had completed his education. Complex. :/ --Moonriddengirl 13:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help; based on the file's talk page, this debate has raged for 5 years or so. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you're watching the page, so I'll just let you know that there is a reply at the nominations page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've added a response there, but I'll just expand here that I don't have a strong opinion on this, I'm afraid. :/ This is one of those situations that, until tested by a court, we may just not know how the court will stand on it. If something like this came up at WP:CP (and it wouldn't, because I got images removed from that board a long time ago in part because they are far from my strong point), I would take it to WT:C to gather consensus and handle it according to that. I don't think that this is one that our lawyers could even answer clearly, unless they could find precedent or current expert opinion, but I can ask them, if you like. (I kind of think that User:Clindberg would have found precedent if it existed; I don't always agree with his conclusions on copyright, but I have a strong respect for his knowledge and research skills. :)) That said, if I encountered this situation as an editor without any knowledge of the particulars, I would not nominate that image for copyright review...not unless I myself had stumbled upon precedent or current expert opinion. :) It's just too nebulous a situation for me. --Moonriddengirl 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thank you very much. Thank God I didn't follow through with my childhood plans to become a lawyer. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Me, too! :D --Moonriddengirl 12:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Issue with member -- Weijiya

Hi, I am having an issue with someone who has re-worded or misinterpreted a book. Basically they put down what they wanted and kept the original source which quoted something completely different. The user is User: Weijiya. This person has edited quite a few pages including Catherine Parr -- taking out correct, quoted, and copyrighted information to better suit his views while making it seem that it came from the source in the inline citation (Starkey); they kept the inline citation and did not quote the book correctly, fabricated the sentence. Is there any way that we could get a lock or something on the Catherine Parr page and have only a select few that can edit it because this is becoming a real problem. We have already gone over this issue concerning Catherine Parr vs. Anne Boleyn lineage. It is rather taxing to keep fixing it because every month someone new comes along and believes something completely different without even reading or knowing a thing about Catherine Parr's history or lineage. I hope I don't sound rude, but I am extremely frustrated with this. You can't just change something to suit your needs or wants and then cite it from a book that says something completely different -- am I wrong? Isn't that considered illegal on here? It is a fabricated sentence manipulated from a copyrighted book to make the member's viewpoint seem like it is that of the author and book cited; that of David Starkey, one of the top Tudor specialists. -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I understand how frustrating it is to have an article you care about it that is repeatedly degraded by false or misleading information. I've got a few of those I keep an eye on myself. But in keeping with Misplaced Pages's fundamental philosophy of open editing, very few articles are locked unless they are subject to ongoing vandalism or edit warring. (You can read the "protection" policy at Misplaced Pages:Protection.) The only form of protection that would have prevented from editing the article is full protection, which would prevent everyone who is not a system administrator from editing it. The community has resisted the idea of creating specialist levels for articles, which would create narrower categories who must approve content before publication. Upholding the vision of open editing is generally held to be a higher priority; the hope is that those who understand Misplaced Pages's methods and goals will help those who do not to learn them. When people will not learn, we sometimes must resort to blocking them individually (in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Blocking.)

I've looked at User:Weijiya's edits to the article, and it seems as though they were likely done in good faith: . S/he removed reference to "Anne Boleyn", added some perhaps questionable information about Jane Seymour's status and strengthened the claim of better lineage. Jane Seymour's status isn't sourced to that book, but, interestingly, neither is the explicit comparison of Seymour's family lineage with Parr's mentioned on page 690. Google books will allow me to see that page, and Seymour isn't mentioned on the page at all. It may need to be clarified that Starkey did not make that explicit comparison or, if he did, on what page he did. :)

I am concerned, comparing the page to the source, though, that it seems to contain close paraphrasing of that source. For example:

Source

Actually, she was the daughter of a substantial northern knightly family that--like the Boleyns--had gone up in the world as a result of royal favour and successful marriages.

Article

Catherine Parr was the daughter of a substantial northern knightly family. Like the family of King Henry's second wife, the Boleyns, her family had gone up in the world as a result of royal favor and successful marriages.

I have not looked at other content, so I do not know how substantial this following is, but this material follows closely in language and structure on the original in a way that is out of keeping with Misplaced Pages's approach to copyrighted text. There is always a difficult balance in avoiding original research, but in accordance with copyright policy, information taken from copyrighted content must be presented in our own words, written from scratch, unless we are using direct and plainly marked quotation (per WP:NFC). Given your familiarity with the subject, might you be able to address this sentence and see if there are other ares where the article follows too closely on copyrighted sources?

Looking at User:Weijiya's other edits, it seems as though generally good information is being added without explicit source. His or her last edit, for instance, at Jane Austen was rejected for other reasons, but seems to have been factually correct. (I verified against a book reproducing a timeline of Jane Austen's life.) I'll have a word making clear that s/he needs to specify where the information is coming from to avoid the misimpression that it's coming from already cited sources. This is important because, as you say, we don't want to mislead our readers into thinking content is verified by a source where it is not. --Moonriddengirl 12:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The User:Weijiya basically wrote in his/her summary that Anne was a granddaughter of a Duke; Starkey's book doesn't mention anything about specific lineage -- so perhaps that needs to be worded better, but I don't see a way around it because someone will always come along on Catherine Parr's page disagreeing with that statement that "she had better lineage". That is correct about Jane Seymour -- I believe that statement may have come from Agnes Strickland's book. I did read that somewhere; comparing the paternal lineage of Sir Thomas Parr to that of Thomas Boleyn and John Seymour. I will see if I can find that again. I am not familiar with how to quote specific lines from a text -- I usually try to interpret them as best as possible and then end the sentence with an inline citation as to where the information came from. I'm not sure who re-worded the sentence about "Catherine was the daughter of a substantial northern...". Is there a better way to word that without quoting it? If you could point me in the direction of the Wiki page that deals with quoting from the source directly that would help with a lot of things. I could then add the conversation Cat had with King Henry after she learned that she was to be arrested. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages essay Misplaced Pages:Quotations contains pointers on various facets of quoting, including how and when to do it. :) It also has links to various guidelines that give more details on specific aspects, if you need more information. Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing offers some good suggestions for rewriting to avoid close paraphrasing. The point, though, isn't always to find a "better" way, but rather just a substantially different way. I find it helpful to rework a passage rather than an individual sentence, as reworking individual sentences is very challenging and can still wind up following too closely on the structure and organization of the original. :/ I think the way you handled that information in the article in your last edit looks fine. Basically, I try to take out the facts (which are not copyrightable), combine them with facts from other sources and compile them in a new way. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 July 2011

• News and notes: WMF Annual plan; Article Feedback tool; university outreach; brief news

• In the news: Fine art; surreptitious sanitation; the politics of kyriarchic marginalization; brief news

• WikiProject report: Earn $$$ free pharm4cy WORK FROM HOME replica watches ViAgRa!!!

• Featured content: Historic last launch of the Space Shuttle Endeavour; Teddy Roosevelt's threat to behead official; 18th-century London sex manual

• Arbitration report: Motion passed to amend 2008 case: topic ban and reminder

• Technology report: Code Review backlog almost zero; What is: Subversion?; brief news

There is an interesting story on plagiarism in "Brief news". Eeek.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow! It's really interesting to me the way different cultures handle plagiarism. Germany obviously takes it pretty seriously. :) But there are some countries where copying from Misplaced Pages without attribution seems like no big deal; I've seen government websites do it! --Moonriddengirl 11:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Selangor Turf Club

Hi MRG, my go-to copyrightgirl, will you please have a look at the history of the article for this illustrious club and tell me if I went about it correctly? You know this tool (and only this one) is somewhat new to me. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Just about. :) You forgot the first one, where the copyvio entered. (I took care of it.) Otherwise, spot on. --Moonriddengirl 11:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Ooops--thanks for setting me straight. There must have been something wrong with my eyes anyway, since I didn't draw the connection between the now-blocked editor's account and the name of the article. Good thing this is a collaborative project. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good think we have rev-deletion now! I would never have expected this to be a repeating problem when it was first cleaned up. :/ --Moonriddengirl 12:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio Eddie Anderson (comedian)

I started working with the article yesterday--was continuing to add information and refs when I hit the "minefield". Quite a bit of this has been copied and pasted from Hollywood Walk of Fame-Eddie Anderson. Do I need to tag this, etc., or can I just start removing/rewriting the sections in violation? Thanks, We hope (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The damage goes back to 2006 dif and continued in 2007 from separate sources dif. We hope (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Have removed & rewritten the copyvio sections. We hope (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) Sorry for my delay in response; I often find I don't make my hoped-for "afternoon check in". I should update my hours to reflect that.

In terms of the approach you took, it is absolutely fine for handling a copyvio you encounter. You have the option when you encounter a copyright problem to tag it or to simply fix it. I am inclined to tag when I think that permission may be plausible or that there could be reason to believe that the content was placed by the copyright holder. I am also inclined to tag it when I think that the article is likely to be contentious (and the content can't simply be removed), because as the admin who has traditionally handled the bulk of text copyvios I need to stay uninvolved. If I rewrite Article that nobody can agree on and then delete the older versions, people are likely to perceive me as using my tools to promote a POV. If somebody else rewrites it, I have no perceived conflict in replacing the copyvio version with it. If people complain it isn't neutral, I sympathize and tell them to {{Sofixit}}. :D

Another time when the tag may be a better choice is when the copyrighted content has become so embedded in the article that there is no chance of fixing it without rewriting it completely and you are not able to rewrite it completely.

That said, in this case, I think we have a "backwards copy" situation. It always raises a red flag for me when content from one source seems to be added over a span of time by two different editors, as you note seems to be the case above. Here there is other evidence of natural evolution. The external site includes the middle name; this was added to our article in 2007 by another contributor, while the next day somebody else corrected his first name. Later that year, somebody else added the reference to the racehorse, here, although it was not yet in the lead as it would come to be later (and as it is in the source). (That was changed at the end of 2008 by another contributor]. Tell-tale evidence that this was not copied; somebody else later corrected the description of the horse as "who". :) It looks as though that website copied our lead paragraph in its entirety at some point after December 2008 and used the rest of the article heavily in composing their own text. I'll go ahead and place the tag at the talk page noting the situation.

When you aren't sure who had it first, rewriting is always appropriate, in accordance with our copyright policy. Better safe than sorry. :) And, of course, there's no reason to restore the content as it was if you are happy with your changes (although you *can* do so). Just a natural part of article evolution. :D

Thanks for your diligence with the issue! --Moonriddengirl 12:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

And thank you for your input! Believe it or not, have found a newspaper photo of him with the horse. :D We hope (talk) 14:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilove

Great idea the new wikilove option. Hopefully it will see more praise and less belligerence on here.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it. :) I think it was a great idea Ryan had, and I've used it several times myself. :D While I sometimes use standard barnstars (especially the copyright one), I do like to make up my own. I'm glad that it's been fixed to let you use your own images. Anyway, I'll pass along your praise; I'm sure it'll be appreciated. --Moonriddengirl 11:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look?

Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright problems#Oil mafia of Maharashtra -- been close to a month and the date page has been archived but the article hasn't been addressed yet. It's from a CCI; I'll be off for a few days so I might not be able to reply quickly. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh oh! I guess we still don't have a functioning bot that relists articles that are inadvertently closed without handling. :( I need to look into that, but when on earth am I going to get the time? :P (Moonriddengirl grumbles). Looking at the article. --Moonriddengirl 11:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio John Fritz Medal repaired

Hi Moonriddengirl, I found and repaired the copyvio in article John Fritz Medal. It is ready to be moved back to main article space, including history merge. More details on Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2011 July 19. -- SchreyP 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Just as a tip for the future, it's probably a good idea to note at the copyright problems board when there is a second source as in this case. It's still early for me, but I was confused until I reviewed the talk page as to the problem with the earlier edits. :D I appreciate your careful evaluation there. It would have been easy to revert the latest copyvio and miss the original! --Moonriddengirl 11:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about scanned images

Hey MRG, on another editor's talk page a copyright question came up: if an image is PD - say an illustration in a book that is out-of-copyright, and Google scans that book for Google Books, is the resulting image still PD? Somewhere along the line, I got the impression that whoever did the scan could claim a copyright on the scan itself (though not the original image, of course). LadyofShalott 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Heh, I participated in that other discussion! MRG, I said that they are PD because of WP precedents like {{PD-art}}, but I'm open to other interpretations. However, I think a better argument would have said "sweat of the brow" is not part of US copyright law. :-) Ed  07:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The general rule, as cited in the template you reference Ed, is that a mere technical copy does not have sufficient originality to be protected under U.S. copyright law. The leading case is Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999). Google often acknowledges that their works are PD but merely requests that they be given credit. This topic comes up all the time at Wikisource and, by extension, at Commons. We normally remove the front page with the Google text on it (unless we're uploading direct from the source via the toolserver) and sometimes mention at commons that it came from googlebooks but that's so that people can look for other copies of works than to give Google any credit.--Doug. 08:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If Google is actually claiming a copyright, it would be good to provide a link so others can see the work before it's uploaded - you might consider doing that anyway. And of course, if it's PD it should go to Commons.--Doug. 08:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ably answered, I see. :) Thank you. And just for some insight on our history with this issue, National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute makes for good reading with respect to local take on this issue. --Moonriddengirl 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, thank you all for your input! I stand corrected. :) LadyofShalott 12:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at this exchange...

2011 Norway attacks (Reactions). Just wondering what your opinion might be. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think perhaps Chzz linked to the wrong edit? The one he linked to has nothing to do with reactions. :/

Not being sure that I'm opining on the aspect you'd like me to, personally, I'm inclined to agree that the material probably doesn't need to be in the main article. If somebody reacted in an unexpected way (supporting the murderer :() that would certainly be a different matter. But if it's the usual condolences, I'm afraid it might overbalance the rest of the content. But that's my two bits. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your help is requested

I am reviewing a GAN and I have a question regarding fair use of block quotes. Here is the edit where I said my thoughts, and stated that I will seek expert advice (that's you). The comments regard the text shown in the references section of the article I am reviewing. Please comment at the bottom of this section and if I was wrong in my counsel, correct me with the kindness of tact few others have achieved. With esteem, My76Strat (talk) 03:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Feedback given. :) --Moonriddengirl 20:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional protection?

Hi, as there has been multiple repeated additions of the same copyright material to Bollywood films of 2011‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), do you have a view on raising protection from non-confirmed indef to, say, a week at a time of admin only protection whilst there is active discussion or research on finding a resolution to the copyright problem (assuming that this is still considered on-going)? Particularly given the context of the sock activity we have seen recently plus that the article is a bit of an unfortunate bear trap for less aware newer contributors. Thanks Fæ (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm worried about that one, too. :/ I've created an edit notice. Maybe we can see if that will help first, and, if it does not, consider full protection. --Moonriddengirl 20:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK redux

Hey, MRG. We've got a complete repeat of last year's DYK debacle, no change, DYK regulars denying the problem, a repeat offender with hundreds of DYKs that DYK continues to run to this day, no change whatsoever from the issues of last October. I think a copyvio investigation may need to be opened? Please see WT:DYK and User talk:Billy Hathorn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear. :/ I've added some thoughts there. I'll try to take a look tomorrow when I'm back at my home computer to see if a CCI seems advisable here, unless somebody else has already done so. I see that somebody is talking to the contributor about it. --Moonriddengirl 20:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If a Copyvio investigation is opened on Billy, please contact me. He is the largest uploader of files to Misplaced Pages by bytes uploaded, and I had the pleasure of going though all of them looking for copyvios. About two dozen went to PUF, one or two wound up at FfD by accident, there's links to the affair on his talk page, but long story short he dosen't understand that he can't photograph someone else's work and then release it under a free license as his own work. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MRG, he is much too big of a problem for me to take on alone, DYK has done zero about him and has allowed him to continue for at least three years since he was last discussed, and Iridescent was taken to task at ANI (according to his post?) for trying to do something about him. I'd rather tackle the bigger problem at its source-- that DYK coddles, enables, and supports editors who have no business writing anything on Misplaced Pages, much less placing it on the mainpage. Every single piece that I have looked at from this editor has numerous flaws: I am truly uncertain if a CCI is needed, or if admin sanctions should be requested at this point through ANI, or if an RFC would be best. I'm stumped, but what is clear is that no one is doing anything. At least he's not creating content as of two days ago: I fear no one will ever clean up the hundreds and hundreds of policy violating articles he has created, and I credit DYK for feeding and enabling this kind of editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sandy. By no means should you have to take it on by yourself. I'll look into the CCI question (I've just finished up my talk page responses), and if you think that the DYK approach itself needs modification, that would seem to be worth an RFC or something of its own. CCI is not set up for admin sanctions, but I'll look and see where Iridescent discusses taking the matter to ANI, and a spot-check of contribs for issues might clarify. --Moonriddengirl 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have been looking at his contribs for a bit (whilst also packing to fly to SF tomorrow) and have found one article that is clearly a problem. Many of the sources he uses are not accessible to me, which makes it difficult to assess how widespread of an issue this is. I will keep looking, but for now I have to chip at the massive backlog at CP for a bit. --Moonriddengirl 18:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

What do we do about unattributed machine translations from other language Wikipedias?

is clearly from the German article. I'm assuming it's a machine translation but it might just be a bad manual one. Not sure what to do about it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. :) I'm on my laptop away from home at the moment, and it's a bit difficult for me to evaluate it fully. :) But if it's copied from the German Misplaced Pages, that's pretty easy to fix; we just follow the steps at Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. We use an edit summary with a link to the German article and put {{Translated page}} at the talk page. You might want to ask the user who inserted the text if he's translated the content from there, if you aren't 100% sure, and if you are 100% sure, you probably ought to point out to him attribution requirements. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Records

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re this section User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 37#Help! (no. 59, 10th July), I took your advice and look what happened MuZemike, no. 20.

You've previously said that it's important for us to keep accurate records, so can you restore my evidence to the record of the community ban discussion? 195.195.89.70 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This was not advice, but a simple statement of fact, unless you're talking about a different talk page. Clearly, WP:ANI is not your talk page, and you are unwelcome to contribute to it so long as you are blocked and particularly now that you are banned. While I feel it inappropriate to remove a section that includes comments from others, removing your comments is in keeping with policy until you negotiate a return to Misplaced Pages. Because you are banned, I will not be talking to you further about this, but please see Misplaced Pages:BAN#Appeals and discussions for accepted procedures for appeal. --Moonriddengirl 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Margaret, as I have neither a computer nor an email account, the guidance to which you refer is of little use to me. The following remarks are addressed to you as Liaison Officer with the IMF and thus have nothing to do with membership of the project.

The following false and damaging claims have been posted on this website: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community ban proposal:Vote (X) for Change and references in the banning log to "vandalism", sockpuppetry and a link to the above. Both documents are permanent records, visible worldwide. They are partisan and inflammatory and the allegations are untrue. In particular, the word "vandalism" nowhere appears in the discussion, and in the log the link is held out to be a full and accurate record of the discussion, which contains not one diff to back the allegations. It is in fact a vote - stacking exercise by corrupt administrators desperate to save their own necks.

You say that "removing comments is in keeping with policy". I do not think so. A ban comes into effect when the discussion is closed, and the comments were posted before it was closed. In any event, Courcelles was not qualified to close it, being "involved" as (s)he had a few minutes earlier blocked me while the SPI remained open. The guidance requires the subject of the discussion to be notified for the purpose of filing a response. It is implicit in that that once filed the response must not be tampered with.

The "sockpuppetry" allegation should be balanced by reference to the following. No administrator may ban unilaterally. The so - called "indefinite" block was intended to be infinite talk:Vote_(X)_for_Change&diff=prev&oldid=426698978 and therefore invalid. The attempt to validate it by the ban discussion initiated last year failed.

As indefinite siteban is the ultimate sanction it can only be enforced if specifically asked for. Consensus is never a simple tally of votes - it is affected by the severity of the sanction proposed and duplicate or involved votes are discounted. Although the guidance does not set a fixed tariff, for bureaucratship the level is 90%, and for an indefinite siteban it must be at least that.

Please let me know how you wish to handle this. Can you (in order of preference) provide me with (a) your telephone number (b) your email address (c) your mailing address? If you do not wish to reveal your telephone number publicly it may be possible for me to get someone to email you with my telephone number. If I do not hear from you it will be apparent that you recognise that the "ban" is invalid. Best wishes. 195.195.89.70 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

By replying to my post Margaret has already indicated that she wishes the thread to remain. Please do not hassle her. Also do not hassle me - comments such as "borderline threatening MRG --toddle off now" are very juvenile and your removal of her comment is blockable - I would advise you not to try that stunt again. 92.24.107.88 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Anatolia

It seems that good chunks of this article: Anatolia are copy/pasted from this copyrighted source: . I was going to slap a {{subst:copyvio}} template on the article, but thought I'd ask about it first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) That one looks like a problem under Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism rather than a copyvio, since the source is public domain. It should have {{Country study}} at the top of the reference section. I'm not sure how long ago this content was placed--it might have predated that guideline. Alas, I don't have time to check it out further. I've got to run finish packing! But I've placed the attribution tag, even though the link doesn't seem to be working. :/ --Moonriddengirl 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You were missing the abbr parameter ("abbr=tr"), apparently it's required even if you have the country name. I've fixed it and moved it to an inline reference at the end of the climate section though if others sections also copy it they should be go the footnote as well. With the exception of that (and it could be separate templates linking to the individual sections of the work if someone wants to go that far), I believe it is as fixed as is necessary per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Repairing plagiarism.--Doug. 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! So... I got a few more but it looks like you're quite busy. What should I do with them? Honestly, I have a suspicion that with everything going on right now (DYK etc.) once people start scratching the surface they'll find out that half the Misplaced Pages is all copyvios, plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Which would mean way too many problems and way too few resources. Don't know if I want to wish that upon you. Again, thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Skaugum

Hi MRG:

I was wondering whether you could take a look at the Skaugum article please. It looks as if it's a significant copy-vio, and much of it seems to be cut-and-pasted from two of the sources: Skaugum Estate (Kongehuset.no) and Skaugum Estate (Asker Municipality in Norway). I'm not clear how much of it is rescueable.  Roger Davies 05:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Roger. :) I'm looking into this one. My gut tells me that the second one is probably a backwards copy; we see a lot of that from tourist sites. But I never rely solely on my gut. :D I'm double-checking. I'm also seeing what I can do to date the first one. --Moonriddengirl 11:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

My gut was wrong; this content was entered into Misplaced Pages in 2009; Wayback has archived that site to 2006. I've reverted to the last clean. Worrisome, the contributor has a history of copyvios...with a first warning well predating this edit and the most recent explicit warning to February 2011. I'm heading to the airport in an hour, but I wish I had time to do a spot check of other contribs to see if there's a lot more of this kind of thing in his history. :/ --Moonriddengirl 11:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unverified image files

• MEDEA Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

1. File:MEDEA09 ceremony KnowITAll.JPG
2. File:MEDEA09 ceremony statuette.JPG

• Hello MRG, I could use your help on the image files that was introduced to the above article page. As usual, the editor/uploader refuse to respond to my queries. --Dave 10:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dave. :) Seems like the images have been taken care of. --Moonriddengirl 11:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Missed this one, File:MEDEAawards logo.png. --Dave 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• That one isn't being used in the article at the moment, but it seems like it could be converted to a proper FUR as per WP:GID? :) (I see the contributor is open to talking now: ) --Moonriddengirl 11:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• He/She's done it again. Facepalm ... --Dave 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. File:MEDEA knowIT.jpg
2. File:MEDEA statuette.jpg

List of highest-grossing Bollywood films

Dear Moonriddengirl, I see you have been actively involved in editing and maintaining one or many similar pages (List of highest-grossing Bollywood films). You would have definitely notice all the films mentioned under various categories on that page are either ranked 1 or 3 or 6 or 10. This instantly brings us to the most possible and predictive question of every reader of that page: Where are the ranks 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and which are those films? Therefore I would just request you to edit the rankings and please list all the movies ranked from 1 to 10 in all their categories. That page is semi-protected and I didn't want to get into any sort of Edit Warring over already a controversial page. I see you are well familiar with the controversies surrounding that page. Thanks --ZoomTV (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2011

• Wikimedian in Residence interview: Wikimedian in Residence on Open Science: an interview with Daniel Mietchen

• News and notes: Oral citations; the state of global development; a gentler Huggle; brief news

• In the news: Open access clash with copyright; rising reader satisfaction; the wiki-correlates of geopolitical instability; brief news

• Recent research: Talk page interactions; Misplaced Pages at the Open Knowledge Conference; Summer of Research

• WikiProject report: Musing with WikiProject Philosophy

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: New case opened; hyphens and dashes update; motion

• Technology report: Protocol-relative URLs; GSoC updates; bad news for SMW fans; brief news

user:Miradre

Hi MRG.

• Miradre (talk · contribs)

This user has been adding non-free content to the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Four of their edits have essentially copy-pasted segments from journal articles, where there was no reason not to paraphrase. Miradre's native language is not English and they do not write fluently in English. They have adopted the policy of adding some content to articles by copy pasting content and placing it in quotes, without direct attribution; there has been no attempt at paraphrase. The four edits that were copyvios are all described on the talk page of the article. The fourth edit was made even after the precise policy for directly quoting text had been explained to Miradre. In this fourth edit they simply added quote marks around the copy-pasted passage with no attribution. I have not looked carefully at whethe Miradre's other edits have followed the same patterrn. I do know that exactly the same problem of copy-pasting instead of paraphrasing occurred on Malaria. Because of the quality of Miradre's written English, copy-pasting of this type is easy to detect. After Miradre's wikibreak and enforced change of subject, following a topic ban, I have the nagging doubt that many of their edits are being done in this way. What is the best way to proceed? Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Complaints about Mathsci

If you look at Mathsci's edit the last 3 days he has done little except followed me around Misplaced Pages. Including to articles he has never edited before and made complaints and reverted my edits (almost never due to copyright claims). As well as making complaints to several different noticeboards. This seems to me to be just another, new part of his harassment campaign. But I welcome any scrutiny. I may certainly on occasion have made unintentional mistakes, such as missing direct attribution for quotes in addition to the footnote, but if so they are IMHO rather minor. I have always marked sources and certainly not copy-pasted lengthy texts.Miradre (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can edit wikipedia articles. I have made hardly any edits to articles recently (indeed this year). I added a tag about the inadequate lead of Criticism of evolutionary psychology after Miradre's removed most of it. It is an article that many people watch. With Itsmejudith I monitored Miradre's controversial changes to academia. I am unaware that I have reported Miradre at multiple noticeboards. Miradre did suggest that Itsmejudith and I, as presumed academics, should not be editing academia because of a WP:COI. Itsmejudith and I then both separately and independently queried Miradre's charges of COI at WP:COIN, Miradre's position was not supported; he was given a warning by Atama not to harrass me. Mathsci (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

May I have a deleted article, please?

I noticed you are part of this group. I was wondering if it would be possible to get this article (and its history for attribution purposes)? Perhaps it could be placed here for 24 hours so that I may have a chance to recreate it at another website. Thanks for your time. Cogitating (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)