Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::I was thinking of this a few months ago, and was wondering how ] (in particular in the US) would play into it. For example, if my wife takes a picture, is the copyright the property of both of us, or just her? --] (]) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::I was thinking of this a few months ago, and was wondering how ] (in particular in the US) would play into it. For example, if my wife takes a picture, is the copyright the property of both of us, or just her? --] (]) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Wow. Things start to get complex there. :D I don't live in a community property state, so I'm largely unfamiliar with them. I can't imagine how that would play out, especially since the states have different laws. Even more, I'd rather not imagine trying to come up with a Misplaced Pages policy to cover that. :D --] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::Wow. Things start to get complex there. :D I don't live in a community property state, so I'm largely unfamiliar with them. I can't imagine how that would play out, especially since the states have different laws. Even more, I'd rather not imagine trying to come up with a Misplaced Pages policy to cover that. :D --] <sup>]</sup> 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
== Chabad on Misplaced Pages arbitration request ==
Since you have been kind enough to comment at the unresolved ] case at ], you may wish to know that it has now been nominated for arbitration. Feel free to review at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].
Thank you for your input and patience, ] (]) 09:52, 5 January 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 Misplaced Pages frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 18:34, 26 December 2024 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Hello. The content of the article was taken from a site that allows copying it. Take a look at the source site footer: "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vektorman (talk • contribs) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It would be possible to restore the content? Thanks!
Hi. This article was automatically listed for review at the copyright problems noticeboard when Corensearchbot tagged it. Review discloses that several paragraphs are almost verbatim to material previously published at . The material is hosted there under claim of crown copyright, which is incompatible with Misplaced Pages's licensing requirements, which require that material be released for modification as well as reuse. I've blanked the article for now to permit time to clarify the matter. If this material can't be verified to have been taken from a source that is public domain or otherwise licensed compatibly, it will need to be rewritten in original language, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl01:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
The first mentioned paragraph has been changed
In March 1941, the squadron was loaned to Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to Bomber Command, it continued its low-level daylight raids until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From here it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline. However, as the air defence of the island began to take priority, the detachment was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942.
versus
From March till May 1941, the squadron on loan to RAF Coastal Command for anti-submarine patrols and when it returned to RAF Bomber Command, it took up its low-level daylight raids again until August, when the air echelon was sent to Malta. From there it carried out anti-shipping missions around the Italian coast, Sicily and along the North African coastline. However, as the air defence of Sicily began to take priority, the detachment was withdrawn and disbanded on 12 January 1942.
The 3rd paragraph you mention is twice as long as the original:
With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadron originally controlled three sites. However, it was soon decided to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No 77 Squadron at Tuddenham was redesignated as No 107 Squadron. It finally disbanded on 10 July 1963.
versus
With the establishment of Thor Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile sites, the designated operating squadrons each originally controlled three sites. It was soon decided however to allocate a separate squadron identity to each individual site and to be effective from on 22 July 1959, 'C' Flight of No. 77 Squadron RAF at Tuddenham was redesignated as No. 107 Squadron RAF. The upcoming ICBM missiles soon made the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile obsolete, and in 1962 the Minister of Defence announced the phase-out of the Thor missiles. The squadron therefore disbanded once again, at Tuddenham on 10 July 1963.
Yet another version is awaiting your judgement, I hope to have corrected the earlier mistakes by trying to rewrite the passages you mentioned. Dirk P Broer (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy new year! I have rewritten the Thor missile paragraph, clearifying the information in the process, it is yours to evaluate now. I think the article has much improved under your guidance, happy to see it has already reached B-status. Dirk P Broer (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Reality: Y. User:Derek R Bullamore/Pete Mayes is an unusably close paraphrase of , with some of tossed in for good measure. For instance, the sentence "Despite years of ill health that included heart problems, diabetes and the loss of both legs and the use of his hands, Mayes continued to surface around Houston at occasional shows to sing in a spirited shout that suggested none of his ailments had him down" is copied verbatim, as is "Mayes' few recordings are best represented by For Pete’s Sake released in 1998, nearly fifty years after Mayes first stepped onstage." I've got a chore to run and a rewritten article to evaluate, and then I'll join you in looking at a few other articles to see if a WP:CCI is necessary. :/ --Moonriddengirl22:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
←Thanks for the message below. :) I ran the CCI program, but it messed up. We've been having some problems with it. :/ I'm running the older version, and this takes many hours. It's been running in the background of my computer for a few hours now. Pity, as it's nowhere near as user friendly as the new one. --Moonriddengirl17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It finished running last night (it's long!). After I finish the CP from the 21st (down to SCV listings), I'll put it up. As usual in the world of Wiki, stuff keeps coming up. :/ --Moonriddengirl17:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It's up. The first few I examined didn't have problems - larger edits were reverting vandalism - but I've located another, Gary Puckett & The Union Gap. We're ready to go, it seems, although we need to randomly section off subpages for easier handling. --Moonriddengirl19:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Technical note: The allmusic URLs contain a | character, which can be problematic. See this version of U.P. Wilson, where the url was not encoded. If you click the link at the bottom of the article, it doesn't get you to the reference; if you edit and then copy/paste the URL, you get there. Derek has actually been pretty good about doing this encoding in other articles, but this one was missed. I'm not done with this article; I'm just using it as an example. Since so many of them are from allmusic and for some reason they don't show up readily in Google, I thought I'd alert you to this little twist. Frank | talk 22:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been checking Allmusic rather routinely just in case. The ones that vex me are articles like this. This contributor's record would suggest this is a copyvio, but the book on which it is based is not visible. We do have a template for preemptive deletion, but I really hate to use it without hard evidence. :/ {{subst:CCId}} (in this case, the name is the date: 20091230; since this is likely this contributor's real name, I have minimized its usage.) --Moonriddengirl22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
There isn't a hard line on this. Typically, I do not block unless there is a prior warning to the contributor, since copyright infringement is sometimes done innocently. I don't think it's going to get any prettier; I believe he's probably been doing this since at least 2006. But the only notice he ever seems to have received was this one. Is that enough? I don't know. :/ --Moonriddengirl23:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi. If you're ready for early review, I'll be happy to check them out. I should be able to get to them within a couple of hours, sooner if I don't have any work emergencies. --Moonriddengirl18:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
With the Shaw article, it would be great if you could retool the sentence that currently reads "In 1970, Shaw attempted to become a family entertainer, but her plans were undermined by a failed marriage and scandalous rumours in the British newspapers." It remains structurally identical to the source and includes some identical language: "In 1970, Shaw tried to become a family entertainer, yet those plans were scuttled by a failed marriage and scandalous rumors that circulated in the British newspapers." You've changed "tried" to "attempted", changed "yet those" to "but her", "scuttled" to "undermined" removed the words "that circulated." This is an uncomfortably close paraphrase, particularly under the circumstances that we are attempted to eliminate a massive copyright violation of AMG by this contributor. In such a case, we should be particularly careful to rewrite text completely, since putting back into article space is giving our "stamp of approval" so to speak that the copyright problem has been removed. There's no question that one sentence that cuts it close constitutes "substantial taking" — the courts would toss it out as "de minimis" in a heartbeat. But the cumulative impact of copied content from AMG into articles by this individual adds some sensitivity to clean up. We need to be very careful with our due diligence here to avoid contributory infringement.
Oh, wait. I know why it's locked: it's about to be on the front page. It's currently in prep area 1 for DYK (Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1). The image has been placed here temporarily for that purpose and protected. I have encountered this before, but only once, when called upon to update DYK myself. :) The image is not protected on Commons and so was temporarily placed here to minimize the odds of vandalism. --Moonriddengirl17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Now that make sense but it is a new one on me as there was no such notice at the time I reviewed it, but there is a notice about it now. Cheers and thanks. ww2censor (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe you. It wasn't showing when I looked at it either. I only figured it out because I checked what linked there, and it tugged at some buried memory. :D --Moonriddengirl22:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I am not sure WHY you are writing to my team concerning MY page, giving "tips" on neutrality and "conflict of interest". Do you "work" for Wiki or are you just independently working on your own accord being a "watch dog" in your free time?
At any rate, last year, I had several links and paragraphs removed due to defamation and slander, for an "alleged" civil case which was brought against me in 2008, and thrown out soon thereafter due to the said person facing jail time for PURJURY. My lawyers contacted Wiki and they responded immediately - removing any and all slanderous material. Recently, another "watch dog" lol had decided to re add the offending material, and after several times of asking this user to STOP adding and deleting information, myself and my law team, contacted Wiki and they responded right away. I have had those articles, links, or names of said persons, removed from my page and blocked. Andrew Owens has been more than helpful, and I have kept in contact with him.
So I KNOW the "rules and regulations" of MY page, so there is no need for you to send me messages pertaining to information which you clearly know nothing about. Don't worry about "watching" my page by sending me superfluous information in a message to my team.
Hello Moonriddengirl, this is Survir again. There is this user with the IP address 173.2.47.41 who keeps vandalizing a lots of templates and articles. He/she keeps switching the names of television series in the templates which are listed in alphatized order. I did reverted some of his/her edits before, but he/she changed them again. Also, in the page, Sony Entertainment Television (India), he/she keeps messing up the list and adding his/her personal comments, such current Ekta Kapoor's "Bakwas" (rediculous) drama etc... To see more pages that he/she changed, you can click on his IP address. Can you please help me stop him/her. I will really appreciate your help. Thank you, your wiki friend Survir (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Survir. :) I've explained the reason that templates are organized that way at his talk page. If he keeps changing them, you may want to request page protection. I've also restored Sony Entertainment Television (India), but that change seems to have been implemented by a different IP. It's hard to tell if it's the same individual, of course. That might also be a good candidate for protection, if it persists, but you should start by explaining to the individual why it should not be done that way. This gives him an opportunity to understand stop before additional action needs to be taken. --Moonriddengirl22:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them.
And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul."
Here goes my last edit of 2009: Happy New Year Moonriddengirl! My most excellent regards to you, and I hope you have a healthy and happy 2010. Cheers, Arbitrarily022:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! You, too. I'm honored that you spent it on me. :D My last edit for 2009 will probably be something boring related to copyright. :/ --Moonriddengirl22:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Last night
Hello Moonriddengirl,
A very distressful situation has developed. I don't know where to begin explaining it, but a user named Daedalus969 came to my talk page last night, and what followed has been a disaster. Please see my talk page. I am not very good at making diffs, but I have been making them if you need them, but I think just looking at the talk page should do it. And then let me know what you think. Thanks so much. Malke201013:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, that situation unfortunately quickly spiraled out of hand. :/
Okay, here's what I think. I think that you did a pretty good job staying civil in the face of some serious provocation. Daedalus969 was right about this. His tone seems unnecessarily confrontational, but your handling was fine, aside from the edit summary. You read it; you removed it. All well and good. He should have assumed good faith about that removal — "lying" jumps straight past AGF into presumptions about your motivation — and his response to User:Coldplay Expert's first note is very hostile, given the tone of Coldplay's note. The whole exchange that follows is just baffling.
Just as a suggestion for future, you might not want to request that people stay off of your talk page until all reasonable efforts at diplomacy have failed. Remember that your goal here (at least if you want to succeed on Misplaced Pages) is to become the soul of diplomacy. :) Diplomacy doesn't come from a position of weakness, but from the ability to focus on an end-goal over the immediate impulse of emotion. This being a collaborative project, it's good to be able to show others that you not only can collaborate well, but can go above and beyond, even when things are tricky. Also, sometimes people with whom you've disagreed can come around to be valuable colleagues, and it helps to keep the door open. I would recommend that you make several efforts to de-escalate before making such a request.
Your removal of the first note without comment was a good effort to de-escalate. Even if your edit summary was mistaken, there was nothing inflammatory or uncivil about it.
There are basically two approaches that I take to try to de-escalate, depending on the situation: (1) I make my response very straightforward and businesslike, pretty much as devoid of personality as possible, or (2) I try to go out of my way to be particularly friendly and/or cordial in the hopes of reminding the other contributor by example how we're supposed to be behaving. I use both approaches because my feelings are basically similar to those expressed in this essay:
If your next move is carefully considered and rational, rather than ill-considered, you'll give the impression of being a more reasonable person, and you'll be much more likely to prevail. Also, giving the other person time to cool down means they will be more willing to listen to reason. They may even start to regret acting rashly, or forget why they very much wanted things a certain way.
I will not take tactic 2 against egregious incivility, though. Extend a friendly hand to the wrong person or at the wrong time, and they'll cut it off. :) I'm always willing to give people a chance, but diplomacy doesn't require that you surrender self-respect. Tactic 1 almost always serves me well. Even if it doesn't de-escalate the situation (and it can't always, because it takes two to make a civil collaboration), it at least makes sure that others can see where the problem is...not with me. In both cases, I try to read the content of the note around the incivility and respond to the person as though he or she had made a perfectly reasonable post.
At this point, I would recommend that you forgive and forget. I would suggest you not go out of your way to interact with this user and consider letting the ANI thread carry on without you, whether admins decide to keep the block for the 55 hours or to shorten it in belief that he has understood and intends to comply. If you encounter him elsewhere, pretend you do not know him and address him neutrally, as you would anyone else. I'm sorry you lost an adopter over this. (I am also concerned that you may have posted a private e-mail in this series of edits. If so, please remove it at once, as arbcom has rightly forbidden the posting of private correspondence on Misplaced Pages without explicit permission from the individual who contacted you.) I would give that one time. Once the drama settles down and everyone is back to building the encyclopedia, s/he may reconsider.
Absolutely agree. Forgive and forget is totally called for. This fellow doesn't know me from Adam so I can't take any of it personally. And I would have no problem, after time has passed naturally, in being his friend. I agree also with the responses, you are so right, if you extend a hand at the wrong time, etc. I really do believe this fellow is having a personal crisis of some sort and since he is a regular here he brought it here. I can understand that instinct. In the beginning, I wasn't reading the posts he was volleying to Coldplay (a sweet young person), but then when I read them, I could see this poor man is having something in his life that isn't good at the moment, and I do feel bad for him. His friends seem to have come around for him, like Childofmidnight has said some nice things to him, etc. And as painful as a block is, believe me I know, I do think they are good for gaining perspective. I certainly did after mine. And at that time, I also took a break. Misplaced Pages is not an easy place, and the environment takes getting used to. And thank you for critiquing my actions because I am so aware of what you have told me over these last months, all your tutelage, and I was trying hard not to make things worse for everybody. So applause to you for your great advice over these last months.
And as regards my stuff section, I compiled those diffs because I wanted to show them to you, so now I will just delete them. I didn't realize I could make a project page instead and I will open one today. I love to collect things that I learn about. And I hope my adopter will come around later on, too. He's really a fine fellow. I wish I had realized what was going on sooner last night and made it to your page before you were off for the night. I was upset and fearful of making a huge mistake so I posted on jpgordon's page, but Jadefalcon archived my request, which confused me. Then I went to the AN/I, saw this Tedder fellow, went to him. I was just looking for someone to say, "Yes, okay, problem here, this is how we fix it." Because that's what I knew you would say. Like you're doing now! I can't tell you what a port in the storm you are for me. I kept thinking about the awful posts that you had and that fellow didn't get blocked and I kept thinking, I shouldn't be upset because this fellow isn't doing anything that bad. So I think it helped me keep perspective so I'm grateful you shared that story with me. And I will let the AN/I go on without me. I've said all I thought they should know from my end. I hope it helps more than not. Thank you again for being you.Malke201016:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad if I've been able to help, even with sharing my experience. Trust me; there are others. :D You're welcome to come by any time you think I may be able to share my experience. As you probably realize by now, I will almost always try to find the peaceful resolution. --Moonriddengirl17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and trying to always find the peaceful resolution is what makes you so brilliant. You are reasoned, and even, and able to see all sides. That is a talent, my friend. Not everybody has that. Also, would it be appropriate for you to say something to Coldplay Expert? He left a message on Daedalus969's talk page that suggests he's upset and feeling very bad for Daedalus. He's a very young wikipedian and he obviously feels very bad for Daedalus. He feels like he's done something bad and that's a hard thing for a young person to have on him. I thought if you could reassure him that things will work out and be fine for Daedalus, he could feel better about all this. Afterall, the poor kid has been ignored in this whole thing. I would do it but I wouldn't want it to be seen as adding to anything right now. I am only comfortable talking to you about this right now as I think this is something that as the saying goes, "the least said, the soonest mended." But poor Coldplay is feeling bad and I think he could use the reassurance. Thanks so much.Malke201017:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
You're very kind. :) I'll see if I can say anything to help Daedalus Coldplay Expert. Let me go see what he's said and if it looks like there's anything I might be able to offer. --Moonriddengirl17:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, thank you so much. And oh, yes, the email is the best way to go as it does not add to anything. I was not aware that you could do that. Please feel free to email me, too, so that I'm not adding anything more, as well. You are such a comfort. And I'm glad to see there's an admin there now who is helping things for Daedalus, too. She seems to be very much like you. :) Please email me.Malke201018:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
← It's he, and chances are that, yes, once all this has settled down and gotten a bit dusty, I will re-offer adoption. However, right now, I really don't want to deal with conflict in any way due to personal reasons and want to deal with improving a long neglected article, so it seemed to be the best course of action to temporarily withdraw. Thank you for helping Malke with this where I couldn't, Moonriddengirl. --ThejadefalconThe bird's seeds20:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Having looked at Coldplay's talk page, I think you helped with the situation. :) I'm sure Malke appreciates your assistance to him. I certainly understand wanting to avoid conflict. Good luck with the article. --Moonriddengirl21:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Moonriddengirl, I just wanted to wish you and your family a HAPPY NEW YEAR. It was great to meet you in 2009 and I look forward to our friendship in 2010. Cheers, and happy editing in 2010.Malke201000:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Happy New Year and happy editing to you as well! :D I'd clink a champagne glass, but all I've got is a can of Diet Coke. :/ --Moonriddengirl01:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Happy new year to you and everybody you care about! I haven't been around much lately due to the ridiculous amount of managerial stress related to my new job, but I have been aware for a long time that everything you do on Misplaced Pages is both unbelievable an invaluable. I apologise for the extra work my absence has created, but have no doubt that your attention in SCV matters has resulted in outcomes both understandable and within the spirit of Misplaced Pages policy. As those of us who have been here a while will know, the two often seem very much independent!. Fond regards, – Toon01:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, yes, they do. :D I appreciate that, and no need to apologize by any means. Just glad to see you plugging away when you can. :) Hope the stress settles down, though, for your sake. --Moonriddengirl01:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
and good news. . .Daedalus got let out of his block. I'm so happy he got that in time for the New Year. I'm clinking my Starbucks black iced tea to your can of Diet Coke. :D Malke201001:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I notice you've been adding to the talk pages of the relevant articles that they will be reviewed after "about a week". Given the number of articles you are tagging, and also the time of year, I very much doubt if most of the articles will even begin to be tackled in that timeframe. As someone who is happy to help in rescuing many of the articles, I'd be grateful for some advice on how best to proceed. Would it be appropriate to make a call on Derek's talk page (which I expect many interested editors will have on their watchlist) to encourage a group approach towards rescuing these articles? I haven't been involved in an issue of this scale before and would be grateful for any guidance you can offer or point to - not on the issue of copyright violation itself, but more on the best process for getting sound articles back onto mainspace. For instance, would it be appropriate to return relevant articles to the version immediately prior to Derek's edits, and work from there? Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) Many of these articles probably will be restored to the version they were in prior to his edits. In fact, that could be done immediately; the tags just put the article into a kind of holding pattern in case interested contributors who have subsequently added material would like to consider other actions. For instance, with more leisure (and less copyvio articles to handle), I've sometimes piece by piece re-added that later content with attribution when it doesn't infringe on the original. Experience working copyvios has told me that sometimes contributors are dismayed to find an article suddenly rolled back a year or two, and this gives them an opportunity to be part of the process. A lot of collateral damage in this work, I'm sorry to say. Having poured my share of effort into articles, I can only imagine how dismayed I'd be to find out that my work was wasted because the contributor before me tainted the well.
The articles that are in real peril are the articles that he created, since there is no clean to restore to and many of these will have to be deleted. However, as these have to be rewritten anyway, that's not necessarily an urgent matter. The cleanup page itself, Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/20091230, will document which articles have been deleted (when those blanked articles go redlinked), so a list of "needed articles" could be generated from that.
I have put out a general call for assistance at the music WikiProject and AN, since we can use all the help we can get. Most of the time, these requests are ignored, but occasionally a project will rally together and do some amazing work--Gastropods, Opera & Mathematics come to mind. :) If you believe that a call at Derek's talk page would bring additional assistance, then, by all means. He has been invited to participate in cleanup on this as well, but his contribution history suggests he may not intend to.
What would help the most in these efforts is assistance in reviewing these articles, especially if you have access to resources. We can't presume that content he has added is clean, given his history of verifiable infringement, which means that all of his major contributions are suspect. I have had to blank Don Partridge even though I have not verified copying because I can't verify that copying did not occur. I've asked at the Librarians WikiProject for assistance in accessing the suspect sources: Guinness Book of British Hit Singles - 14th Edition; Guinness Book of British Hit Albums - 7th Edition. With seven pages, evaluation here is pretty much going to have to be break-neck if we ever hope to get it done. Some of these CCI listings hang around for quite a while, but the goal once we've identified a multiple point infringer is to clear out the content to protect the project from contributory infringement. --Moonriddengirl13:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'll add a note to Derek's talk page as well. I take the point about the articles he has created - on one of them, Lonesome Sundown, I've already done some re-editing at Talk:Lonesome Sundown/Temp, and would appreciate if you could look at that and advise me on the extent to which my approach so far would overcome your copyvio concerns. However, I think some of the other articles may also have high priority in terms of their importance - such as Al Martino, for example. I think I should make the point that I'm quite sure that Derek is extremely upset by what has happened - and that whatever he may have done was down to a misunderstanding (or, a different interpretation to yours) of the copyright rules. In the circumstances I don't anticipate he'll be rushing back into action on this too quickly, but if it's approached as a learning process hopefully he will return in time. He is not the sort of editor that WP can afford to lose too easily, in my opinion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
You may be right. Copyright problems are often, I think, created by people who intended no harm. Unfortunately, Derek was advised of this issue in February 2006, here. It's unfortunate that he didn't investigate further or take those comments on board, as I'm sure he's not too happy to discover that he's wasted so much of his time in article writing. It's also unfortunate for the editors who have collaborated with him or who must take the time to clean up these articles. If this had been nipped back then, we could all be doing something different now. :) It's obvious that he cares about the encyclopedia, and I hope that if he decides to return to writing content he will be mindful of copyright issues and will seek assistance if he's not sure how much of a rewrite is necessary to avoid infringement. While WP should not lose any contributor easily, we don't always have a choice. Copyright infringement does not just damage the articles in which it appears, but can damage the entire project. If he violates copyright again, he will almost certainly be blocked from further contribution.
I'm in the middle of addressing a tagged copyright article (rewriting it, a luxury I don't have as often as I used to), but as soon as I'm finished, I'll come take a look at your rewrite. I appreciate your assistance with this clean up. --Moonriddengirl14:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I wasn't aware of the 2006 posting. Clearly, there is a very fine line to be trodden between WP:COPYVIO and WP:SYNTHESIS, and many of us fall foul of it inadvertently on occasion. But I'm not downplaying our legal responsibilities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Derek does not appear to be unaware of copyright, having discussed it several times on his talk page. , , . This is not an indictment; indeed, he cautions others against it. I think it's just an issue of education. And cleanup, of course. Frank | talk 15:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
←There can be a fine line, but I think perhaps that this situation goes well beyond it. Perhaps I'm misreading your tone, Ghmyrtle, which can be easy to do with text, but such statements as well as "whatever he may have done was down to a misunderstanding (or, a different interpretation to yours) of the copyright rules" leads me to wonder if you are under the impression that there is something borderline about this matter.
Consider the article now at User:Derek R Bullamore/Pete Mayes, which he created only days ago. In addition to copying verbatim several passages from (the sentence "Despite years of ill health that included heart problems, diabetes and the loss of both legs and the use of his hands, Mayes continued to surface around Houston at occasional shows to sing in a spirited shout that suggested none of his ailments had him down" is copied verbatim, as is "Mayes' few recordings are best represented by For Pete’s Sake released in 1998, nearly fifty years after Mayes first stepped onstage."), the bulk of the article is blatantly derivative of .
Compare the following three examples, article followed by that source:
Extended content
As a teenager, Mayes began sitting in on guitar with various bands at the local dance hall in the early 1950s. Several years later he began leading his own group, opening shows for touring acts, and much later in 1983, he took over ownership of the dance hall from an uncle.
As a young teenager, he began sitting in on guitar with various bands at the dancehall in the early '50s. Several years later he began leading his own group, opening up shows for touring acts, and much later (1983), he took over ownership of the dancehall from an uncle.
Mayes learned all he could by watching T-Bone Walker and Gatemouth Brown, and he cited Walker as a major influence on his subsequent sound. Mayes also credited B.B. King, Wes Montgomery, Lowell Fulson, and Kenny Burrell as influencing his style
Mayes learned all he could by watching masters like T-Bone Walker and Gatemouth Brown, and he cited Walker as a major influence on his subsequent sound.... Mayes also credits B.B. King, Wes Montgomery, Lowell Fulson, and Kenny Burrell as influencing his style.
Mayes moved to Houston in 1960, and immersed himself in that city's then-burgeoning nightclub scene. Not long after this, Mayes, Albert Collins, Joe "Guitar" Hughes, Johnny Copeland, and vocalist Frankie Lee were all recognized as among the top artists on the Houston blues club scene. In the 1960s, he performed and/or recorded with Fulson, Big Joe Turner, Percy Mayfield, Bill Doggett, and Junior Parker. He honed his own style while on regional tours with Parker and others, and he recorded three albums under his own name. Mayes also found work in the 1960s as a guitarist with touring jazz musicians like Count Basie and Dizzy Gillespie
Mayes moved to Houston in 1960 and quickly immersed himself in that city's then-burgeoning nightclub scene. Not long after this, Mayes, Albert Collins, Joe "Guitar" Hughes, Johnny "Clyde" Copeland, and vocalist Frankie Lee were all recognized as among the top artists on the Houston blues club scene. In the 1960s, he performed and/or recorded with Fulson, Big Joe Turner, Percy Mayfield, Bill Doggett, and others who were around the scene in those days, including Junior Parker. He carefully honed his own style while on regional tours with Parker and others, and he recorded three albums under his own name. Mayes also found work in the '60s as a guitarist with touring jazz musicians like Count Basie and Dizzy Gillespie.
I believe that the problem may be more obvious in comparing such text. There certainly can be a fine line between usable paraphrase and unusable, but I really hope that most people would not view this as treading close that line. I do not debate that he may have been operating in good faith, but he was cautioned about precisely this kind of thing almost four years ago, and it's a real shame that he either did not understand or did not comply with that advice.
My feelings aren't bruised. :) I just wouldn't want you to think that we are blowing a molehill into a mountain and unfairly mistreating this contributor. Again, I believe he may be working in good faith, but the problem sadly is substantial. :/ --Moonriddengirl15:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Our vision for Misplaced Pages is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.
I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Misplaced Pages, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone in the world. All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow! That's so pretty. :D Thank you; Happy New Year to you and yours as well. (I was just talking up your project and your responsiveness to copyright cleanup in the section right above. :)) --Moonriddengirl19:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Photo Copyright for New Articles
In creating a new article, if you want to add some photos how do you show to Misplaced Pages that they are either public domain or you have permission to use them. i.e., is there a process the photos have to go through to be cleared for use? Thanks. :D Malke201000:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) It depends on where you got the image. If it is previously published and the license or public domain status is not indicated on the publishing site, you do need to go through the process at Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials (or Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission, if it isn't yours :)). If it is previously published and the license or PD status is displayed on the original publication site, a link to it is sufficient (so long as you comply with the terms. :D) If it is not previously published and you are the copyright owner, you should not need to go through any other process. If it is not previously published and somebody else is the original copyright owner, it's possibly a good idea to go through the permission process anyway, just in case. If at some point somebody questions your right to license the material, having that on record can help. --Moonriddengirl00:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. There's not enough there for me to piece together what's going on, but it seems that you are feeling harassed by User:IMatthew. Misplaced Pages:Harassment contains processes for dealing with that situation, but I am concerned that you seem to have wandered pretty far across the civility line in that interaction. As I was suggesting to Malke a few days ago, the advice in that policy is paramount: "If you feel you are being harassed, first and foremost, act calmly (even if difficult). It is hard to over-emphasize this." I would recommend you disengage from the other contributor immediately and seek assistance at one of the recommended fora if you reach the point of feeling that frustrated and angry. I'm afraid it's likely to just complicate resolving any problems you may have. :/ --Moonriddengirl01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, excellent advice. It's best if we archive that thread and Coldplay doesn't respond anymore. Just ignore. If iMatthew can't get a rise out of Coldplay he doesn't get what he came for.Malke201001:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I always expected my wikipedia career to be full of GA's FA's DYK's and people likeing me. It has turned out to be quite the opposite.--Coldplay Expért01:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe the only way to avoid this is to work on uncontroversial articles and stay away from community fora. Misplaced Pages is a tense working environment, otherwise. --Moonriddengirl01:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Return your focus to the Coldplay article and getting it up for FA. In the meantime, get off line for awhile and come back later. It's still early where you are.Malke201001:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
The "copyright infringement" is a misunderstanding. The disputed text was provided to http://www.nobletruth.org by Wangchen Rinpoche's secretary Eydie Dolma, who prepared it from material contained in the cited Kalu Rinpoche talk. The text is certainly not copyrighted by http://www.nobletruth.org, it is public domain. Eydie Dolma also gave me a version of the same text for use in a Misplaced Pages article.
Sstovall19 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello Moonriddengirl. I am forming this question to you because I have noticed your active involvement with copyright problems. I see what I think is a problem on the Diane Lane page. I noticed after a few google searches that one sentence kept popping up at numerous sites. Some of those sites clearly state copyright. I am unsure of the original source of the sentence in question (possibly the whole paragraph) but it is troubling. The sentence I am referring to begins with "One of few child actors to make a successful transition into adult roles, Lane..." and goes on to a specific list of credits. This sentence can be found at numerous places on the internet in almost the same form see here. What do you think? And, what to do? Thanks. WTucker (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I think I have convinced myself that WP is the source of this sentence. It must be a good one because it has been copied to numerous places. Browsing through the history of the article, I can see how the sentence was composed from several different phrases over the years. It is unlikely to have duplicated a copyrighted work in the manner. Instead, the more probable answer is that the WP sentence has been copied with false claims of copyright. Thanks for your consideration if you wish to double check me, though. WTucker (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! Sorry for my delay in getting back with you. Crazy real life stuff today. :) It sounds like you've evaluated it exactly the way I would. Evidence of natural evolution on Misplaced Pages is a strong indicator against infringement. Given this edit and similar, I would agree with your conclusion. :) --Moonriddengirl00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi. :) Rather than fully protect the article (which as you know is necessary, since we aren't dealing with rotating IPs but a single, logged-in contributor), it would be better to block the individual if he persists. I see that you've given him a strong, clear warning at 16:00. If he returns the material after this, brief blocking may alert him that he really must comply with procedures. I'm watchlisting the article and the contributor, and if he continues about it will do the needful. --Moonriddengirl16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It depends. If he's active, I will block for 24 hours, since he'll notice. :) If he only edits every couple of days, I may block a bit longer. The point is to catch his attention so that he will not persist, and if he doesn't come back until after the block is over, he may ignore it as he did your first notice. If he returns after the block and continues at the same behavior, I would probably indef. At that point, we have to conclude that he isn't going to stop, period. With an indef, he always has the option to engage in conversation and say, "Oh, I'm connected with the organization" or "Copyright policy? We don't need no stinking copyright policy" or whatever else might be motivating his behavior. :) There's a chance that your second notice will be sufficient to get him engaging in conversation. --Moonriddengirl16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, while I'm thinking of it, let me add that I will routinely protect an article if it still has the copyvio template on it and the material is being restored out of process. In that case, there's no collateral damage to good faith contributors, since the article is meant to be locked anyway. --Moonriddengirl16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Shall we set another date for the RfA? It seems Ceranthor is busy today, and I will only be online for ca. two more hours. Theleftorium21:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a clearly copyvio image
See File:Ballandean pyramid.jpg which the editor claims is their own work 30 December 2009, and the same picture posted on the web over 2 years ago here: . I've completely rewritten the article in question which probably doesn't meet our notability criteria anyway. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The article had the most amazing nonsense, and seemed to be using a tourist website to show that this 'pyramid' wasn't used in tourist literature. I found clear evidence of who built it, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Commissioned work
Hi Moon, I hope the new year finds you well! Once again I've a copyright question where I just don't know how it is handled in US law, or at least in practice here on Misplaced Pages. Not particularly pressing, but it's actually been nagging me for a while.
What's the status of an image if I ask a stranger to take a picture on my behalf (typically on my camera, possibly with me in it)? Common sense would suggest that I've made some kind of oral contract, similar to a commissioned work (if that's the English legal term for it), that lets me use the image as I see fit (or even has me own the copyright?). Of course, copyright law has little to do with common sense, so I don't know what's actually the case (and German law is quite different in that respect anyway).
In practice, I'm fairly certain we always at least accept it as an implicit permission by the person who actually took the picture, but is that legally sound? Current case where this came up is at User talk:Drsjpdc#Image deletions, feel free to reply there if you want.
I am almost entirely certain that legally the answer is no. (Though I agree with you on common sense.) When it comes to copyright, verbal contracts are (I believe) worthless, and the copyright belongs to the creator of the creative content. Similarly, if a five year old borrows your crayons and draws a picture of you, the rights to the picture are still hers...even if you asked her to do it. :) I'll poke around in a bit and see if I can find something more definitive than my opinion, though. :D --Moonriddengirl17:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
So far, everything I've found is in the "what you'd expect" category. There is this circular which speaks about commissioned works and seems to verify that unless the individual is an employee, a written contract is required for him to relinquish copyright. In this, the feds speak specifically of reproducing family photographs at local copying stores and note that:
The owner of the “work” is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer. Even if a person hires a photographer to take pictures of a wedding, for example, the photographer will own the copyright in the photographs unless the copyright in the photographs is transferred, in writing and signed by the copyright owner, to another person. The subject of the photograph generally has nothing to do with the ownership of the copyright in the photograph.
That's stupid!!! :) How've you handled that on-wiki in the past? If we were going to enforce this, quite a lot of images are going to be in trouble. Most people are ignoring this issue, not least a relatively prominent law-studying Wikipedian (picked him just because I remembered him displaying lots of pictures of himself), we'd have to pester them all to try and remember who took those pictures and, if at all possible, make them send in their letters of consent. Cheers, Amalthea18:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I've handled it by focusing on text issues, mostly. :D Seriously, I think probably it is widely ignored, at least when it comes to the "friend uses your camera" model of things. I have seen professional portraits taken down for copyvios because the subject could not verify. When I get permission for an image at OTRS, I do make sure that the person contacting us understands that we need verification from the photographer, not the subject. (Again, these cases were not like yours, but professional portraiture.) And this has caused some mighty unrest in people writing us. I've poked a bit more, by the way, and I still haven't found a special exclusion. --Moonriddengirl18:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of this a few months ago, and was wondering how community property (in particular in the US) would play into it. For example, if my wife takes a picture, is the copyright the property of both of us, or just her? --kelapstick (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Things start to get complex there. :D I don't live in a community property state, so I'm largely unfamiliar with them. I can't imagine how that would play out, especially since the states have different laws. Even more, I'd rather not imagine trying to come up with a Misplaced Pages policy to cover that. :D --Moonriddengirl23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Y. .jpg)
