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 03:07, 25 December 2024 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.

Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

Hello again. If you have time, please could you check my recent action at Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? I have just restored a much earlier version because of copyvios from a blog, details in Talk:Criticism_of_the_Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Copyright_violations. Thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry that you put all that time into working on a contaminated base. :( I hate that. I've confirmed the copying from the previously published blog that you note at the talk page. I would really recommend that you supply some example passages at the talk page to demonstrate that the taking was extensive. For instance, a hundred words or so of this would be helpful. :/ I think we will probably need to do a revision deletion, so people will not be able to see for themselves how bad it may have been. --Moonriddengirl 11:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(If you'd like help documenting that at the talk page, I'll be happy to help. I don't have time at the moment, however. And I may need to be poked later in case I forget. :D --Moonriddengirl 11:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

Thanks, I will update the talk page with one or two examples as you suggest this evening and post here again. --Mirokado (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Examples added. --Mirokado (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid more will have to go too, even in the current version there is stuff from the same blog, but I can't deal with it tonight. --Mirokado (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. :/ Church-related articles are copyvio magnets. Just like with TV shows, people seem completely oblivious to copyright implications. I appreciate your thoroughness here. --Moonriddengirl 10:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the article is now clean, at least as far as easily-found content from that website is concerned. If you agree, I will close that section of the talk page off, as we do for a move discussion, so it is a clear record of this issue. Clearly I leave any revdels to you, this diff covers the systematic copying the earlier phrases were minor in comparison and I suggest not hiding those. --Mirokado (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You will also need to revdel this change: I suppose I must try harder not to be funny... --Mirokado (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

G12 versus stubbing (and RD1)

Hi. I know you're terribly busy, but G12 versus stubbing has come up again in relation to the new CCI. Fram and Edison are discussing at User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )#November 2011, e.g. this comment. Previous discussion was User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 40#I haz a copyvio G12 question .... I think that now is as good a time as any for a discussion on RD1. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops! I'm sorry. I totally missed this last night. :( Sorry, but it was a particularly long day. I'd agree with you there. Where's the best place to hold it? WP:VPP? WT:CSD? Misplaced Pages talk:Copyright violations? I note that last policy doesn't even mention the possibility of Rd1. Maybe the best thing to do so is start by drafting up some language for that talk page, get it reviewed and entered in, and then talk at WT:CSD about implementing a note about stub/history delete as an option? What do you think? --Moonriddengirl 11:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, don't worry about it. The issue relates to both CSD and RD, but I see this more as "when should RD1 be encouraged" rather than "when is it okay to skip G12". I'm still leaning towards WT:Copyright problems, second choice WT:Revision deletion; notifications on all affected pages and listings on RfC and CENT. I'll start framing the issue offline. Regarding VPP, I realized recently that its relatively brief archiving period makes holding an extended discussion difficult. Flatscan (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, what about proposing language something like "When copied or closely paraphrased content is substantial or when inadvertent or intentional restoration is likely, revisions of the article containing improperly used copyrighted material should generally be revision deleted under criterion RD1"? It's a tad bit waffly with the generally and the vague substantial, but it's a starting point. :) Thoughts? --Moonriddengirl 12:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good start; it might be a little clearer if formatted as a list (substantial and restoration as separate items). I'll keep thinking about it. There is definitely a void here – for example, the detailed instructions at WP:Text Copyright Violations 101#Partial infringement only say "if appropriate request revision deletion". Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you check my proposed wording and plan

Frederick E. Humphreys is a close paraphrase of this article at the New York State Military Museum site. I spoke to the executive director of the organization to see if the material might be in the public domain, due to age or other reasons. He knew the author, so I conclude it isn't old enough. The author was an employee of the National Guard, which has both national and state functions. Had it been a work of the US government, it would probably qualify as pd, but it seems more likely to be the work of a state employee, which I assume makes it potentially, but not automatically public domain. The executive director is willing to declare that it is public domain, and understand we want that in "writing".

I assume we want him to send something to OTRS. I see the wording that would be used if he is donating material under copyright but I'm not exactly sure what should be done if he is declaring that the work is pd. I see in Misplaced Pages:Donating_copyrighted_materials#Granting_us_permission_to_copy_material_already_online: suggested text for CC GNU licenses. By analogy, I think he could send an email stating "The text of the articles listed at http://dmna.state.ny.us/historic/articles/articlesindex.htm are available for modification and reuse, as they are public domain."

Are you comfortable with this wording?

I will also suggest that it would be helpful to add a notice on the page (while the page does not claim copyright, I'll explain that we work under the assumption that all pages are under copyright unless they explicitly qualify as public domain, or it is explicitly stated on the site).

For what it is worth, the executive director mentioned that, as an historian, he has some issues with Misplaced Pages, but we scored points with him by contacting him.--SPhilbrickT 17:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I didn't get here yesterday. :( I didn't mean to neglect my talk page for the whole day; thinks were kind of nuts.

And ai, yi yi. This one opens up a can of worms. Questions that come to my mind: by what authority can this man declare that content Dr. Roberts wrote for a "Mass Media & War in U.S. History" class at the University at Albany is public domain? (Maybe he's Dr. Roberts? :)) Or Abigail And Paul Stambach? We recently had an OTRS letter of authorization overturned by Geoff Brigham because the author of it was not in position to donate the content into public domain, as there was no evidence that copyright had been surrendered to his office. I think there's no doubt that he can do as he likes with this one - at least, if it was done in the course of his duties, as the byline suggests. But if he's going to declare all the articles on the page are open, he'll probably need to explain why and under what authority he says so. --Moonriddengirl 12:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the can of worms, but glad I asked before I wrote to him. (My goal is to cut down your workload – so far I'm not doing so hot.)

For background, the original issue was a RAN article copied from Humphreys article. That one, as noted at the bottom of the page, was written by R.H. vonHasseln, DMNA Historian, who was employed by the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs: Military History at the time. However, I didn't want to write for permission on each and every article, on the chance that some other articles might also be useful (or perhaps have already been used). My contact is the executive director of the organization. He was willing to treat all articles as public domain, not just the Humphreys one, so I wanted to go for the broader class. However, as you point out, some of that material was recently written for them, so some care must be taken to ensure that he has the authority to release all material, rather than just the material written by employees of the organization.

My original plan was to write to Michael, suggest wording he could send to OTRS, and also urge him to consider adding a pd notice to the site as well, on the assumption that writing an email would be easy, but editing the website might be a little more work.

I've looked a little closer at the list of articles, and I see a couple categories. The Humphreys article is probably straightforward, as it was written by an employee, as is true of the Black Americans in the US Military… article, written by an intern. However, some of the articles are reprinted by permission, and that permission is unlikely to include the right to release it into pd. The there are the Dr. Roberts students articles, which may have separate rights.

I'm now leaning toward asking for narrow permission for the Humphreys article, and suggesting that if he could put explicit pd notices on other articles where he has the authority to do so, it would help us in case we wanted to use others (noting that our rules require attribution even in the case of pd)

If I go for the narrower permission, I would word as follows (and include his name and position, and authority to make such decisions):

"The text of the article listed at http://dmna.state.ny.us/historic/articles/humphrey.htm is available for modification and reuse, as it is public domain."

Then follow up with wording suggesting that he add explicit pd notices wherever possible.--SPhilbrickT 13:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good approach. Just please make sure that he understands that we would prefer he be sure that he has authority to do the release. That'll help us avoid another issue like the one we had with Puerto Rican portraits. :) (And you're definitely cutting down my workload if you're considering and addressing problems that would otherwise probably fall on my lap! :D Very much appreciated.) --Moonriddengirl 14:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Your feedback on new RfA supplement proposal?

Hi MRG, I know you're really busy but when you get a chance I'd love to get your feedback on my new RfA supplement proposal at Misplaced Pages:Tool apprenticeship (please leave feedback at Misplaced Pages talk:Tool apprenticeship), since I trust your judgement. Here's the brief overview:

In tool apprenticeship, a user who has an immediate practical need for a particular administrator tool or tools, such as deletion or protection, makes a request to receive that tool. The user is judged according the the following criteria:

• The user must be in good standing;
• The user must have an immediate practical need for the tool;
• To the greatest extent possible, the user should be active and have sufficient experience in the area in which they plan to use the tool.

Satisfying these, they receive the tool on a trial basis for a limited period (weeks to months). When this period expires, the tool is automatically revoked. The trial period is subject to probation (tool revocation in case of misuse), and may involve voluntary mentoring.

After or shortly before the end of their trial, the user can file a request to retain the tool permanently, based on their performance during the trial period, which will be granted if the user substantially used the tool and exercised good judgement. If the request is denied, the user will be given extensive feedback on their usage and may (if their misuse was not too egregious) have the opportunity for another trial period. Over time, a user who performs a variety of tasks may acquire many tools, giving them similar status to current administrators.

Thanks! Dcoetzee 18:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Derrick! I've glanced at the page, and I'm for anything that spreads the work. :D I don't have time to read through everything this morning, but I'll look at it over the weekend for sure. --Moonriddengirl 12:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Delightful ancient copyvio for you! You love me really ... :P

I've just CSD-tagged Marshfield skeletons for a G12, and notice it was a split from Marshfield, Gloucestershire. Go on, you love it already ....

The offending text seems to have been added (and it's quite a chunk of text) back in July 2006. (It comes from http://www2.glos.ac.uk/bgas/tbgas/v091/bg091014.pdf.) User:Cuzzer1202.

Fing is, though, fing is, that my nose-for-copyvios is actually yelling at me about pretty much the whole of the Marshfield, Gloucestershire article as well. :o( I think it needs a major hunt-down of stuff; I'll buy you a beer if I'm wrong :P

I also have a hunch that there may have been some socking going on in there. But my nose for socks (unless they're the sort that stick to the wall when you throw them) is not as accurate as my nose for copyvios. Anyways, what I'm doing here (in case you hadn't already gathered!) is passing the buck. Enjoy! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thaaaanks. :) There is little doubt that much of this was copied from somewhere, while some of it is probably OR. Note this edit: , and particularly:

They both displayed considerable science, and " Cabbage " promises to be at the very head of the lightweights. He is a man of approved bottom ( Yes I know, but thats what it says ), and a very severe and quick hitter.

The contributor added a lot of personal commentary, such as "I have heard of a murder somewhere in the market place where a husband murdered his wife and fled to Australia. Any clues ?"

That particular bit may be from a PD source and probably is, but who knows what? I haven't been able to find it, and he cited nothing. Still digging. --Moonriddengirl 15:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

A clue? Was this transcribed from a television show? Seeing if I can find anything out. --Moonriddengirl 15:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I've found the episode in question (), but I don't seem to be able to view it. No idea if the user transcribed from the show or just described it. --Moonriddengirl 15:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a good sign! When he actually, verifiably did copy content, he acknowledged his source: . Looking further. --Moonriddengirl 15:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio image masquerading as oil painting?

Hi MRG. I stretched AGF as far as I can, but still, could you possibly check this case? Its uploader was enquiring about adding it to the article. Thank you very much. Dr.K.  18:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if it's a painting or a digitally manipulated photo, I'm afraid. It's very low resolution. Even if it's an oil painting, it may be a derivative work. Can you bring that up at Commons:Commons:VPC for evaluation by editors there? They've sometimes helped me straighten out that kind of thing. --Moonriddengirl 15:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Calliopejen this is a manipulated image of this original. Please see the discussion here. As far as Commons, I have very little experience there regarding their noticeboards but I will try if the new info I just provided is not sufficient for you. Thank you MRG. Dr.K.  01:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I do believe she's right. :) I'm not an admin at Commons, though, so I can't do anything but tag it. I'll do so. --Moonriddengirl 01:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with their tagging system otherwise I wouldn't have bothered you. I have tagged a few redirects here and there but I don't think their templates work the same as in Misplaced Pages so I avoid tagging images there. Thank you very much MRG and sorry for the disturbance. Take care. BTW I think you should become an admin in Commons asap. :) Dr.K.  01:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. :) I've got as much as I can handle on Misplaced Pages at the moment, but if we ever get the copyvios over here under control I'll look into it. :D --Moonriddengirl 01:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you need a nominator, or co-nom as the case may be, for adminship at Commons, please look no further. :) Dr.K.  01:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

-- RE PAGE of "BOB MIZER"

-- RE PAGE of "BOB MIZER" Thanks for the clear explanation and for your time. I did replace the original text on our site and added the statement as you suggested. At some point in the future, we will update our website, but now it does match our Misplaced Pages text and has the statement on the bottom of that page. Also, I updated the requirement of the tag on the photo, explaining why we need to use that picture. Thanks again for your clarifications. http://www.bobmizer.org/bob-mizer/biography --Bobmizer (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It's fixed. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Severe copyviolation at List of cases of penis removal

I have checked myself, and the creator of the article, who also added most of the content of the article, has admitted that List of cases of penis removal is majority outright copyviolation mixed with extremely close paraphrase. Samples of the copyvio can be found here- User:Bunser/Copyviolations on articles

at User talk:Nayyurc and at User talk:Karfks, the user first admitted to originally creating the article for trolling/ vandalism purposes because he thought it was funny, and wanted to see how long it lasted before it was deleted- he knew that the content was innapropiate. (Karfks and Nayyurc confirmed that they are the same person)

After I checked and found numerous copyvio cases, I conronted and asked him about it. He then admitted he had no idea what copyvio even was, and that most of the content on the article was copyvio. He used google translate, to directly transalte chinese language citations which make up a large part of the article, and directly copied from them mixed with close paraphrase.

As for the english language citations, I already demonstrated them to be full of copyvio at User:Bunser/Copyviolations on articles

He controlled multiple accounts which edited the article, Karfks, Nayyurc, Fernandi, and Edmalarrs, confirmin this on his Nayyurc talkpage. The majority of the content in the article was edited and added by him, most other edits by other editors are template fixes, image adding, spelling and grammar corrections. Only about one to 3 cases were added by other users. Now that he knows copyvio leads to severe legal problems, he has given permission to delete the article under G7 under Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion. Also, under G12, the "history is unsalvegably corrupted", the entire article was always full of copyvio in every single revision, from when it was created up till now.

In light of the fact that he #1 originally created the article as a vandalism/parnk and knew the the content was encyclopedic, #2 the article is full of extreme copyviolation, I request you put a speedy deletion tag on the article. again, at User talk:Nayyurc he has now given his consent to deletion, most of the content was added by him.

I have removed copyvio which he added to other articles, List of cases of penis removal is where arond 99% of his article space edits are located.Bunser (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems#Blatant infringement and Misplaced Pages:CSD#General merit the article for deletion under G12 and G7. Creator of the article has agreed on his talk page.Bunser (talk) 02:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I will confirm that the article I created, List of cases of penis removal, is indeed mostly copyviolations and close paraphrase, and that from when the article was created, and up to the current version, every single revision is filled with copyvio. I apologize for this and that it was a serious violation. I originally created the article as a joke and I knew it was inapropiate and not proper content, like some funny vandalism, and to use it for humour, seeing how long it would last before detected and deleted, but I didn't know anything about the copyvio policy or copyright laws. Now that I know and was informed of the copyviolations and the policy and the law, I will approve deletion of the article due to the massive problems and violations of copyright all over it. I will also confirm most of the content was added by me in my various accounts, like Karfks, Nayyurc, Fernandi, and Edmalarrs. Had i known that copyviolation was a severe violation, I would not have created the article.Nayyurc (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems it's all been mopped up. Thanks for identifying the issue, Bunser. --Moonriddengirl 14:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles listed in Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2011 November 6

What about the articles listed there? It has been more than seven days. Will other adminstrators do something if they have been watching this talk and if you won't do anything about it? --George Ho (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Be patient. MRG's a volunteer like almost everyone else on this website. MER-C 09:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

True that. :) Any administrator can work the copyright problems board; several copyright clerks can also address them. It's not exactly fun, and people don't flock to do it. I don't get any particular joy out of it myself (though I do think it's important work), and I can't say that the idea of spending hours of my weekend reviewing these makes me happy. It takes a lot less time to tag them than it does to evaluate them and clean them up, and as I've pointed out to you before, you can do more work there than you are doing, George, as it's obviously a matter of some urgency to you. You have the option of removing the content and requesting revision deletion. I'll be happy to explain more to you about how to analyze for which is the origin and, if you don't know, how to tag for revision deletion. Otherwise, you may just have to wait until some other volunteer (whether that's me or somebody else) gets around to doing the work. --Moonriddengirl 13:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ghostrider51 Uploads

Hi,

I posted a talk page notice on this users page about the copyright status of his uploads, he responded by e-mail to say he either took them himself or has consent from the owner to upload them. I have replied to his talk page saying he should file WP:ORTS proof for them and said if he needs help he should talk to you. If he has not filed them in a few days I will probably list them for deletion. Mtking 08:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I've told him about Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. In honor of the US Thanksgiving holiday, you might want to give him a little leeway in your filing in case he has trouble getting ahold of people. I haven't looked at them all, but I notice the first one lives in LA. He might be ignoring his email this week in preference of entering a food induced coma. :D --Moonriddengirl 13:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipe-tan copyvio

Hi Moonriddengirl,

while trying to gather information about the copyright status of a non-free file I uploaded, I stumbled over (scroll to the bottom and see image at the left side where it says "Kundenbewertung"). This looks like a derivative work of File:Wikipe-tan holding sign (cropped version).png. I don't see that attribution is provided anywhere on that website, so I suspect this is a copyright violation, but I am not familiar with the procedures for such a case (I believe it will involve contacting the site owner). Your opinion would be welcome. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 11:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) No doubt that's a derivative. Process for following up does involve contacting the site owner, although not all site owners respond. There's some recommended approaches at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks. Ultimately, only the people who have substantially contributed to the image have the legal right to complain, but anybody can write to them to ask them to attribute. --Moonriddengirl 13:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Img of an exhibit question

Can you look at this img File:MCA-Exhibit-5-January-2007.jpg, is there a copyright issue relating to the copyright status of the subject ? Mtking 11:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly. Let's run that one through WP:PUF. --Moonriddengirl 13:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

image copyright questions

Thank you, Moonriddengirl. Love that handle, by the way. Here's what you told me:

Thanks for your e-mail, I think the best thing you can do is to provide WP:ORTS verification that in each case you are the illegitimate copyright owner or that you have the consent from the owner to licence the images for free use worldwide. If you have any questions about this, the person to ask is User Talk:Moonriddengirl who I will alert to this matter. Mtking (edits) 08:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope I have provided the necessary verification. I tried to figure out how to add the Creative Commons tag to my images, but it doesn't seem to be a simple copy and paste operation. How does one actually get the tag from the Misplaced Pages server to the image?

Ghostrider51 (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ghostrider51

Vera Bate Lombardi

I notice you've re-written this; it's been on my mind to fix this situation, and I apologize for not making a start sooner (I was winding down, as I'm going away in about seven hours). You said in the edit summary you knew nothing about the woman; I only know a bit, but I'd say you've pretty much covered it... well done! Swanny18 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I did my best with it, but, boy, that story was hard to follow. :D --Moonriddengirl 02:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Follow up on my practice for copyvios

(from your archives . It would have been easier to follow up if I had been notified of the discussion.)

Yes , I indeed always advise rewriting, and I almost never revisiondelete. Such I believe to be the policy . And if not rewriting, stubbification. Again, such I believe to be the policy. What I understand one should do in the cases of undoubted copyvio, where the actual subject is notable, is:

1. If the copyvio is short enough to be turned into a short quotation, do so.
2. If the copyvio can be removed, while still leaving the bulk of the contents, remove it
   1. Alternatively, if there is a non-copyvio version in the history, that still has most of the information, revert to it..
3. If removing the copyvio would remove most of the meaningful contents, then Stubbify it to remove the copyvio and still leave the identification and a RS (which may well be the material wrongly copied)
   1. Alternatively, if one is able to rewrite some or all of the material, rewrite it, of course avoiding close paraphrase.

As I understand policy, It is usually not necessary to delete the copyvio version from the history, unless there is an outside complaint. It is my understanding that there in most cases where we remove copyvio we do it because we have seen it, rather than there being an outside complaint, but if there is, it must of course be honored. I am unsure about whether we should normally honor it by just deleting, and revision delete only when requested, or revision-delete whenever there is an outside complaint. There might be special reasons to revision delete for copyvio otherwise, but I think they would be limited & I can not immediately think of any.

What I say above is no more than existing policy , at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Advice for admins#Handling copyright violations

If new, clean text has been proposed

Always investigate first to see if new content has been proposed at the temporary subpage /Temp linked on the copyvio notice or at the article's talk page. If so,

• Check to be sure that contributors to the new version have not violated the attribution rights of earlier creators, but have properly attributed,
• Make sure that all copyright infringement has been removed and that there are not new issues with close paraphrasing,
• If the new content is clear of licensing violations or copyright concerns, it may be used to replace the original article (when the original article does not have salvageable content or history) or history merged into it (if the original does have usable content). If replacing an article, you may wish to move the original "copyright violation" article to a subpage such as ] prior to deletion. This will make selective deletions or undeletions at the article title easier to manage. (See Misplaced Pages:Selective deletion.) If merging, you may wish to use Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future.

If there are clean versions in history or salvageable content on the page: Revert back to the last clean revision or remove the infringing text from the article, using an appropriate edit summary. Leave a note at the article's talk page explaining the removal (the template {{cclean}} may be used). It may be a good idea to use Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive. Otherwise, so long as the infringing text is removed from the public face of the article, it may not need to be removed/deleted permanently unless the copyright holder complains via OTRS or unless other contributors persist in restoring it.

I note the word may. which seems to leave it open to go either way--and it seems not to apply at all if one replaces the complete text. The only purpose given seems to be avoiding inadvertent re-addition in complex situations, Myself, I cannot recall instances of such restorations that I've worked on, though what I've worked on is mainly complete or almost complete article copyvio & may not be representative. I'm sure they can be found among the hundreds of millions of edits, I note also the guideline p. doesn't explicitly give the option of preparing the clean text oneself. But I and some other admins do have the ability & interest to write articles sometimes, and we're not as a while less qualified than anyone else. Neither in many cases is the original contributor, unless COI interferes.

As for the postulated conflict with WP:Revision delete, from that p.

Blatant copyright violations that can be redacted without removing attribution to non-infringing contributors. If redacting a revision would remove any contributor's attribution, this criterion can not be used. Best practices for copyrighted text removal can be found at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems and should take precedence over this criterion. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The rationale for not doing more, as I see it, is that since we cannot remove the material from the outside we. No matter what we do here, it will never be totally destroyed, unless the rights holder can track down every indexed and unindexed outside version--which is almost always impossible, It is therefore enough to make it normally invisible to the reader--which would correspond to removing physical material from circulation, but not actually destroying it. In the RW, when material is ordered actually destroyed, but usually it's just removed. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

<blink>That's quite a lot of text. :) Sorry I forgot to follow up with you after my flight, but you weren't notified I'm sure because this isn't really a noticeboard...just an informal conversation point. I'm not sure I follow your "rationale for not doing more". There are several good reasons to rev delete copyvios....as you quote yourself above: "It may be a good idea to use Misplaced Pages:Revision deletion on the versions that contain the copyright infringement to help avoid inadvertent restoration in the future if the copyrighted content is extensive." This happens.

Particularly when an article would qualify for a G12, I can think of no good reason not to rev delete. Your last paragraph seems to argue that the reason for not doing more is that we can't clean it up elsewhere? Is there any other reason? --Moonriddengirl 02:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

What's your feeling on this one? The entire article was blatant copyvio, so that's what's there in the history. Particualrly when an article's that "young", isn't it generally better to delete it an advise the creating editor to re-write from scratch? I'm really not sure on this one, but I know other people do tend to disagree with me on it. And can we have some clear policy on it, pretty please? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

A clear policy? I doubt it. :) The problem with incrementally altering out a copyvio is that you run the risk of creating a derivative work. To be completely, 100% safe, we probably should start from scratch. But if the copyvio is all gone, I tend not to worry about. That's the kind of thing I would rev delete. --Moonriddengirl 16:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi Moon. Elen and I were chatting, and I volunteered to look at old articles I created, and delete or fix copyvios where I see them. She thought that a good idea. I presumed that it might be best for me not to tick off items myself, and she thought (but suggested I check with you) that this might be the case, but that perhaps I could create a subpage where I recorded articles I had checked and what you found. Thoughts? If that is correct, I'll have to root around again to remember how to create such a subpage. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I think that's a good idea, and it is very much in line with what I suggested you might do at ANI: "if you are unhappy with the way other people are cleaning up the CCI, why don't you do it before they get there? While you should not mark an article as resolved on your CCI, there is absolutely no reason that you can't put a note underneath the article title that you believe you have fixed it. Other CCI subjects have done this, and it can work well". The reason I would recommend placing a note underneath the article title that you believe you have fixed it is that if you make a separate subpage, there is a possibility that it will be overlooked by people reviewing your CCI, and it will make more work for them. An ordinary listing in a CCI looks like this (I'm not evaluating the article; I picked it randomly from the page):

* ]: (2 edits, 2 major, +3177) '''{{dif|392275610|(+1636)}}{{dif|392277165|(+3177)}}'''

What I would recommend you do is this:

* ]: (2 edits, 2 major, +3177) '''{{dif|392275610|(+1636)}}{{dif|392277165|(+3177)}}'''
:*Paraphrased from . Rewrote content in . --~~~~

That will allow other people to very easily compare the diff they're looking at with the diff of your rewrite and the link to the source so they can more easily mark the article "repaired" to move on. (They ought to check other sources, if they have concern that you might have overlooked something.) It would reduce the chance that somebody will overlook that the content has been rewritten or removed and make workflow far more efficient, keeping up all, literally, "on the same page". :)

If you're interested in doing this, please let me know, and I'll tweak the instructions at the top of your CCI page accordingly. --Moonriddengirl 11:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful input. That sounds good. As I said, I'm happy to volunteer to do it. I may need further guidance, and appreciate your offer to give it, but starting next week (when I will have more time than this week) I'll focus on examining our relevant fix-it guideline, and doing this. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche: I'd be happy to take the foot of the gas on your CCI for a couple of weeks to let you catch up. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Your Review is Needed

Hello Moonriddengirl.

I have significantly overhauled the article-list Bollywood films of 2011. It is now possessing both a table and text material which adds to the table. The contents of the tabel and text are, of course, subject to change as the year hasn't ended and a few very high-profile releases such as Desi Boyz, The Dirty Picture and Don 2 will be releasing post end-November. I have tried to keep it as neutral as possible, but if any problem occurs please do not hesitate to point it out.

Also, I would be much obliged if you could enlighten me regarding A-class articles and A-class reviewing, as I'm totally unfamiliar with it despite it being the last step before getting an FA. I plan to upgrade some articles to the level of A-class, so I hope to first know all the particulars regarding it. The manual given i WP wasn't too clear, and spoke in the most general terms, and hence I hope you can clarify my doubts in a more detailed manner.

Thank you. AnkitBhatt 15:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into this, but I'm so sorry--somebody restored the table before you started. We can't use the table. :( I'm looking into what you added after to see what I can salvage. --Moonriddengirl 16:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to say it was easy to salvage what you'd done, as it was just the table added by the other guy that I needed to remove. That's a really good start. :) I've expanded a bit on The Bodyguard for a reason. According to the US copyright law that governs Misplaced Pages, the more we transform our source material, the more likely it is that we are making "fair use" of it and not going to get in trouble for copyright law. If we can bring in material from other sources to form new text about a topic, then we are creating something new that BOI does not own. All the information about the other films is drawn from the copyrighted source at Box Office India. Is it possible for you to find information from newspapers or other industry websites to expand those a bit? If we can develop good textual descriptions of the release and the economic impact of these films, we're in good shape!

Different projects have different review standards, and I'm not sure whether you'd be looking for review of film articles only, but I see that the film project doesn't seem to do "A" reviews. (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Film/Assessment) Lots of projects don't. If it's a film-related article, I would probably just skip "A" review and go straight for Misplaced Pages:Good articles. The review process is similar to FA and it'll probably better help identify problem areas. --Moonriddengirl 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try my level best to obtain outside references, but it will be quite tough to obtain the refs for the BO figures. I'm happy that the re-working has not violated any copyright restrictions. Regarding the A-class, the particular article I had in mind was Ra.One. The article very recently was promoted to GA. But I'm not satisfied with that at all. I really want to push it to FA level. Perhaps you can suggest some tips for improvement? Thanks for your time :). AnkitBhatt 16:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

photo permissions

I hereby affirm that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Johnny_Klimek_photo.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Andy_Hill.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Mani_color.jpg I agree to publish that work under the free license "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0" (unported) and GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts).] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Misplaced Pages or related sites. I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by me. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Andrew Hill aka Ghostrider51 Copyright Holder/Appointed Representative 11/21/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostrider51 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Very large donation of copyrighted material

Hi Moon. I've recently run into an enthusiast (may be more) who has been researching an architect and his works for nearly 20 years. He has published his research on a website he has created and would like to donate the material to Misplaced Pages. I usually only deal with small submissions and even then, I usually try to get someone to rewrite it as what they want to donate typically isn't written in an encyclopedic tone. This case seems quite different as it's all referenced and written and seems to all be written in an encyclopedic tone although I haven't read through everything. He even has several photos of each structure that he has personally gone to see. The amount of information is quite impressive.

The website is bradfordleegilbert.com and the user is Dfcoe although if you want to see the span of the material to be donated, here's the list of structures. I've considered altering applicable Wikiprojects given the amount of potential additions to WP but I wanted to get the copyright issues settled first.

Do you think the best thing to do would be to ask him to apply the CC-BY-SA license to his website or to submit an OTRS ticket? It seems that an OTRS ticket for every potential article created via his research might be excessive. Feel free to jump in if you feel like that would be easier. I've just been chatting with him to try and ease some frustration that was created regarding the text (it was originally deleted as a copyright violation). OlYeller21 18:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Injecting a small point here: don't assume he'll want CC-BY-SA, consider CC-BY and CC0 depending on how he feels about attribution and licensing of derivative works. Dcoetzee 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Another stalker comment: Some of the buildings in question already have articles on WP (e.g., Illinois Central "Central Station"/Central Station (Chicago terminal) and Boston & Maine Passenger Station, Beverly, Massachusetts/Beverly Depot (MBTA station)). Make sure he understands that in those cases he should integrate the material into the existing articles rather than creating duplicates. Deor (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. To be honest, I don't understand the difference between those licensing types but I'm sure I can teach myself. I had noticed that some already had articles but assumed that we could cross that bridge when we come to it. At this point, it's not even 100% clear that he wants to make contributions to WP outside of a donation and the article he has already created. I'll definitely keep that in mind as well as notability issues as I'm not even 100% sure that all of the buildings are notable. OlYeller21 19:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it helps, but I find the "human-readable" version of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence here to be, well, human-readable. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Grandiose. That's actually the first place I stopped when I started looking. I may have been looking in the wrong places but it doesn't seem that WP explains the different types of common licenses very clearly. The CreativeCommons website does it really well (in my opinion). OlYeller21 19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)