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.
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 under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 19:28, 26 December 2024 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Weird copyvio situation
Hi there. It's my understanding that you're the resident expert on copyright issues. I've got a strange one, in that I can't tell if it's a problem or not, or how to proceed with my editing. Look here for a detailed explanation. The essence of it is that I thought text in the cellular automaton article was a copyright violation, but now it looks like the book may have plagiarized Misplaced Pages without attribution. I also posted at WT:CP, and it was logged at Copyright problems/2012 August 29. I was told to place {{Backwardscopy}} on the talk page with the Google books URL. Is that all that is needed? Would I basically be able to leave the text unchanged and just find other sources? Seems like I can't use the book to source the article if the article was written first. —Torchiestedits15:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Looking into it. :) Springer is not one of my usual suspects for backwards copyvios. They're a pretty reputable publisher. The next thing I do is check the activity range for the first of the dual authors - Klaus Mainzer has many publications at google books, going back decades. According to de:Klaus Mainzer, he is the Chair of Philosophy and Science at the Technical University of Munich - the top rated institution in Germany and 53 in the world. I have great doubts that this man has to copy from Misplaced Pages, although I guess it's possible that his co-author is a complete slacker. I think it's far more likely that the IP who placed the material took it from one of Mainzer's earlier books. Still investigating.... --Moonriddengirl10:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is his co-author. So not a completely slacker. :) I'm convinced this is not a backwards copyvio. Let me see if I can find an older snippet of text. --Moonriddengirl10:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, this gets really tricky here; this does not feel like a copyvio. It's got a reliable source: . Trying to find duplicated text to check for signs of natural evolution. --Moonriddengirl10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is painful. :) So our original IP editor inserted some errors. Here, the fragment "One of the most apparent features of the Game of Life is the frequent occurence of gliders, which are arrangments of cells that essentially move themselves across the grid" becomes "One of the most apparent features of the Game of Life is the frequent occurrence of gliders, which are arrangements of cells that essentially move themselves across the grid". The book uses the later language. Here, an editor inserts text (which I'll bold) to create this sentence: "In 1983 Stephen Wolfram published the first of a series of papers systematically investigating a very basic but essentially unknown class of cellular automata, which he terms elementary cellular automata (see below)." The source says, "In 1983 Stephen Wolfram published the first of a series of papers systematically investigating a very basic but essentially unknown class of cellular automata, which he terms elementary cellular automata (Wolfram 1986)." I'm up to June 2005 and continuing to scan forward. I'm feeling more convinced of the opposite now, that this was developed naturally here, but I haven't seen anything I regard as definitive proof. Still hunting. --Moonriddengirl11:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Here we go; this is a slightly more meaty example. Stanislaw Ulam was added to this article in December 2004. I can only see a snippet view of page 5 of that book, where Ulam is mentioned, but the text was similar, not the same. However, in July 2005User:William R. Buckley altered that text from "Cellular automata were invented by Stanislaw Ulam at Los Alamos laboratory in the 1940s. John von Neumann - Ulam's colleague at Los Alamos - who was, at that time, working on a study of self-replicating systems realized the potential of CA to function as a simplified model of the physics of our universe." to "Stanislaw Ulam, while working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the 1940s, studies the growth of crystals, using a simple lattice network as his model. At the same time, John von Neumann - Ulam's colleague at Los Alamos - was working on the problem of self-replicating systems." What I can see in the book says "In 1the 1940, Stanislaw Ulam, while working at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, studied the growth of crystals, using a... At the same time, John von Neumann, Ulam's colleague at Los Alamos, was working on the problem of self-replicating". The language is not identical, but close enough to suggest that the Misplaced Pages article was used as a source.
I'm up to 2008 and out of time. I would have loved to have found a coffin nail, but there's enough smaller evidence here for me to feel comfortable applying that tag in spite of my own astonishment. I'll do it; if you ever run into it again, you'll know what to do. :) We can leave the text pending some strong evidence that the signs of natural evolution are misleading and the material really was copied.
In terms of sourcing, no, I wouldn't think we can't use the book as a source if it's circular, even though by the fact of publication by two such well known experts it does more or less constitute some truly excellent peer review. Does the source originally cited help? --Moonriddengirl11:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow! Thanks so much for doing all that research. Yes, my thought when going through the history was the same as yours; it wasn't all copy/pasted at once, but looked to be a looooong term progression on the article itself. I'm sure there are plenty of other good sources out there. But to be clear, I don't need to rewrite the article's matching text, just find other sources for it, right? Thanks again for getting so in depth with it. —Torchiestedits12:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No problem. If I'm tagging {{backwardscopy}} I want to be pretty sure of what I'm saying. I have no idea if the authors credited Misplaced Pages somewhere (since the book is visible only partly), but if there's the remote possibility that I am indirectly accusing somebody of plagiarism, I'm careful. :/ I hate eliminating such a scholarly source, but, yes, I would keep the text and source it elsewhere. The source does look to be circular. --Moonriddengirl11:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio for citations
Hi. This is with respect to the concerns raised at the FLC for 59th National Film Awards. One of the reviewers has suspected the citations used in the article to be possible copyvio as those are 100% copy-paste case. One of the suggestions came up was to use the quotation marks ("") and reference each of them. Now, these award citations are taken from the official catalogue released and is referenced in the article. Will wrapping them with quotation marks solve the problem as whole catalogue is referenced? This is done to avoid WP:OVERCITE for each and every citation taken from same reference. I would appreciate if you can provide some inputs on this. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) These kinds of situations are tricky. Wrapping them in quotations won't make a difference in U.S. law if use is too extensive to be "fair use", which is determined by many factors. ("Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission" "Fair Use", U.S. Copyright Office) If the whole catalogue is referenced, then taking may be too substantial to be fair use. Generally, I recommend in such situations rewriting the descriptions in new language. This can be challenging, but it's safe. Where the original language is used, it must be explicitly acknowledged as a quote in accordance with the policy portion of WP:NFC and the guideline of Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism. If overcitation is an issue, I think it's quite likely that over-quotation is as well. :) --Moonriddengirl11:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. We would prefer maintaining the original language as is because it is provided by accomplished jury members and changing it might lead to WP:OR. Moreover, citations can not be taken out as well because it actually tells us why the award is presented. But then now I feel, its better to opt for over-citation than losing its value. :). If I understand you correctly, to solve this problem we should present the citations in quotation marks (currently italics) and should reference each of them from the official catalogue. Please confirm. - Vivvt • (Talk) 12:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you've misunderstood me. Adding quotation marks does not make usage any more or less "fair." While it is required by our policies that all non-free content be marked accordingly, it will not alter if this usage is a copyright problem.
Whether or not usage is fair may depend heavily on how much content you are quoting. If you quote too much from a single source, then WP:C and WP:NFC are violated, because our policies forbid extensive quotation. I'm afraid that "too much" can't be sharply defined, because what constitutes too much depends in large part on (a) how much the material is in relation to the original, (b) how much the material is in relation to the new work, and (c) how "central" or "core" the material is to either. While actionable infringement is more likely to be found where greater levels of similarity exist, Richard Stim noted in 2007's Patent, Copyright & Trademark that "n infringement may be found based on several paraphrased passages of a few hundred words each, or just 20 words copied verbatim."Stim, Richard (2007). Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference (9 ed.). Nolo. p. 220. ISBN1413306462. In determining whether use is substantial, courts look not only at the proportion of duplication in comparison to the relative size of the works, but also to such considerations as the creativity of the copied material, its use in both works and its centrality to either.Blessing, David S. (2004-04-01). "Who speaks Latin anymore? Translating de minimis use for application to music copyright infringement and sampling". William and Mary Law Review. Retrieved 2009-04-06.Levy, Neil A. (Fall/Winter 1998). "Tweedledum and Tweedledee: Plagiarism and copyright" (PDF). CINHAL News. 17 (3/4). {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
This is why, generally, I recommend in such situations rewriting the descriptions in new language. I can't in good conscience recommend otherwise. :/ Not only do our policies recommend conservative handling of non-free text, I am mindful of the risk to the editors and the future state of the article. If the material is included verbatim, the person who places the material could be legally responsible for any issues that may arise (not from Misplaced Pages, of course, but from the copyright holders...who can and have pursued Misplaced Pages editors, though certainly not always successfully). Additionally, the material may be blanked and eventually removed if it is listed for copyright investigation and found to be too substantial to include. I have seen good quality lists go through this at the copyright problems board. :/ --Moonriddengirl12:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. This leaves us with the only option of rewriting the citations. I appreciate your inputs. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Or else, do you want me to check with Directorate of Film Festivals under which license the catalogue is published? I can try e-mailing them for the raised concern. If I do not get favorable reply, we will go with the first option. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If you can get permission, that would be awesome! Some people actually do grant it. Please point them to Misplaced Pages:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. One of the biggest disappointments we get is when a rights-holder grants permission "for Misplaced Pages", because we can't use that. :/ Because of our own liberal license, we have to have them liberally license it, too. --Moonriddengirl00:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyright of medical "protocol"
Greetings most awesome one,
I'd like to use the text from this table (can also be found on page three of this document) in our Groningen Protocol article. I fear any attempt to summarize the information will result in endless debate with the POV warriors that frequent the topic and I'd like to nip that possibility in the bud. What copyright issues am I up against? Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's way to brighten the morning. :D That said, I'm afraid that the concerns could be substantial. :/ Reproducing the entire protocol is much akin to writing an article about a poem and reproducing it - unless the poem is public domain, we really can't. We have to talk about it, describe it, describe how others respond to it, etc. One thing you have going for you is that poems are highly creative while protocols are not...but they are still likely to meet that minimal spark of creativity that gives copyright protection, and it's not something we generally push. AS you know, NFC encourages us to be conservative.
I think your best bet would probably be to describe and briefly quote. If that protocol were in the article and it came to CP, I'd remove it. Sorry! I owe you my honest opinion. :) --Moonriddengirl10:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I figured as much. Thought I'd ask on the outside chance some odd technicality might allow it (you can win if you don't roll the dice). What would the situation be if it was the text of a Dutch law or regulation? Thanks for your time. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC) Ps. Sorry for not warning you on the nature of the topic. Hope I didn't ruin your whole day. Deepest apologies with groveling.
Not a happy subject. :/ But, no, my day was not ruined. By U.S. copyright law, "edicts of government" are not covered, regardless of how the government in question feels about it. This makes them okay for Misplaced Pages (but it's always important to note that "okay for Misplaced Pages" doesn't necessary mean "okay for the editor". If the law in the jurisdiction where you live says it's illegal, you may be liable in that jurisdiction even if you'd be free and clear in the U.S.). And I agree that there's no harm in asking. I looked into the claim that this "was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office in Groningen" to see if it might have the force of an edict, but the source doesn't support that assertion at all. The source says they collaborated closely with a district attorney. That could mean anything from asking occasional questions to getting him to write the thing; we don't know. It doesn't indicate he approved of the final office or that, if he did, he did so with the weight of the Prosecutors Office behind him. :/ The fact that "no black-letter law" exists makes it less likely. But you could ask the copyright holders for license. You never know; they might be happy to get it out there. :) --Moonriddengirl13:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the source did not support the claim and with the removal per WP:V (I just started researching the topic a few weeks ago and haven't actually edited the article yet). I'd probably source anything along those lines to: "Kamerstukken II (Parliamentary Papers) 2005–2006, 30300 XVI, nr. 90" (in English) pages 149-150.
Woot! Thanks. :) And, oh, wouldn't that be awesome! :O I've got some constraints on my weekend (I got a work thing going on - go! everyone! Weigh in!), but I'm hoping to put some good time into CCI myself. I find it still hard for me to stay away from CP. :/ --Moonriddengirl12:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Copyright Issue
I am from India and there are many politician in India who don't have a wikipedia page but i want to create their wiki page. When ever i upload a image we have to fill a form. Recently i was uploading a Images of my collage Tolani College of Commerce and the image was from the official site of Tolani Collage but then too the image was deleted. But i stay near by my collage so it is not an issue i can take a Image from my mobile. But suppose if i want to upload some images of the politician what should i do. No one will allow me to go and click their images bec they have high security and some of them have their official website but if i will put that image from the official site then too wikipedia will delete so what can i do in this case. As per me all the Politicians should have wikipedia page with their full Background what they have done for the country. In India Internet is growing very fast and i want provide good information for my people in India Regards Vizr. Vizr 09:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Sounds like a good and ambitious goal. :) Your alternative if you can't find a free picture or take one is to write them and ask them to donate one. :) Please be sure if you do this that you are clear on the licensing requirements. Sometimes people will supply a picture "for Misplaced Pages", and we cannot accept these. In accordance with our policies, they must be properly licensed. There are some example letters at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. Please let me know if you need clarification on any of this. --Moonriddengirl12:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll echo the advice with a real example. I wanted to add a photo of Matthew Mitchell to the article about him. I took a picture at a game, but check it out, File:Matthew Mitchell at Sweet Sixteen in Kingston 2012.jpg it isn't very good.
Hi, Doug. :) What I would probably recommend in a case like this is replacing it with an abbreviated paraphrase. I'd give credit - "this summary is based on a translation by" but would only use brief quotations where they are especially striking or important. However, I managed to find a free translation. Evidently, it was more commonly referred to as the "Moabite Stone" after discovery, so earlier sources discuss it accordingly. --Moonriddengirl12:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The translation you have used is absolutely different from the source given. The main difference is clearly the omission of the House of David as cited by Schmidt and all modern scholars.This was and this is the main question of Mesha stelte. Reading this kind of translation, creates falls conclusions on this subject, therefore I believe than this (miss)translation can not stand.
The translation of 1878, when ancient Hebrew and Moabite languages were almost unknown are similar like using a medical lexicon of 1878 to provide details of treatment for any illnesses.
It is not absolutely different. If you compare, the differences do not come in until the end. Certainly, it's a perfect opportunity to add encyclopedic information about how translations have varied over the years, with proper citations. The copyright issue can't be ignored. The version in place now is free. --Moonriddengirl18:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes but the omission of the "House of David"(one of two historical reference to David) do not represent any translation which are today widely accepted (Schmidt 2006, Rainey, Anson F. (2001),Lipiński, Edward (2006) Lemaire, Andre (2007) All of this translation points in different direction. As you certainly know the main historic importance of Moaboite stone lies in this one sentence relating to Davidic dynasty, which are now removed by outdated translation. Off course I understand copyright issues, yet I am sure that more updated free translation from at least 20th century can be found
Thanks and all the bestTritomex (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome to look for one, but it would have to have been published prior to 1923, unless we are able to get verification of copyright. I do not know if this would be modern enough to address your concern. That said, it looks like "House of David" is referred to in a single line. There would be nothing wrong with introducing a public domain translation something like this:
Example of what I mean
An early translation of the stele was published by James King (1878), based on translations by M. Ganneau and Dr. Ginsberg. Line numbers added to the published version have been removed.
<translation>
There is no authoritative full edition of the Moabite inscription. However, modern translations differ in interpreting the line King portrayed as "And as to Horonaim, the men of Edom dwelt therein, on the descent from old." Brian Schmidt (2006) translated it as "Now Hawronen, the Hovid dwelt in it and...."(cite) This is in line with scholars such as name, name, and name.(cite cite cite)
One could even set up the difference prior to giving the early translation...maybe saying something like "There is wide consensus among modern scholars that.... Prior to the emergence of this consensus, an early translation of the stele.... The subject line is now more typically as present by... --Moonriddengirl19:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Can I use this translation? I am not sure if it is copyrighted.
Not without permission from the author, I'm afraid. :/ Copyright is automatically bestowed on creation under the U.S. law that governs us. That's why I mentioned the 1923 year - it's the last year of wide safety (except for a few potential issues in the 9th District). It could be a useful source, though, for talking about the evolution of the translation. --Moonriddengirl19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Lists of episodes
Hi. A Google search on "list of episodes site:en.wikipedia.org" gives 121,000 hits. Many are fine -- lots of real-world stuff and either no plot summary or a very cursory description of the plot theme (like List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes). But some have very little else than rather expansive retelling of the story, in the same style as List of Zatch Bell! episodes (season 3). Is that kind of thing OK, or is it a derivative work? If the latter, given that I'm not going to rewrite that (snore!), is it enough to tag it with {{Plot}}, or should I take some stronger action? Thanks for any advice. --Stfg (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You are indirectly responsible for a new article. :) I went to glance at what was transcluded at {{Plot}}, found the unlikely article Greensboro, North Carolina (not exactly a work of fiction) and realized the section so tagged was a massive copyright issue. I removed it, wanted to replace it, and realized that I could not do justice to it in a section short enough not to overwhelm the article. So, voila: 1969 Greensboro uprising.
Okay, that loooong distraction aside, I think that it depends on how detailed the plot listing is. If they remain relatively short (say, a paragraph or so), {{Plot}} is probably enough. If they're longer than that, trying to truncate them would be really nice, if you can, since permission never comes through for those and blanking them has only once in the years I've been doing CP resulted in anybody writing anything to replace them. (I don't think List of Zatch Bell! episodes (season 3) crosses that line. :)) Traditionally, television guides with brief plot summaries have been tolerated as fair use in that they are not competing with actually watching the programs; their use is transformative by nature. But the more detailed our summary is, the less safe that defense becomes, particularly if there's not much encyclopedic material around it. --Moonriddengirl17:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
!! Oh, thank you! I actually went in to do a copy-edit this morning and saw the cn. :D I didn't look to see who placed it. (After a few hours of intense focus on an article, my ability to actually read it is much impaired. :/) I thought it was a fascinating story myself, which is why I couldn't bear to reduce it to just a couple of sentences. --Moonriddengirl11:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I know how you feel. Reading the TFA is hard for me and Malleus has caught several blatant mistakes at my current nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Blatant copyvio unless material is PD
Hey Moon, I noticed that Paterson, New Jersey has material directly copied from the five year strategic plan. Is there any reason that material would be public domain? In either case, it should probably be attributed in some manner. I just came across this while reading and my copyvio detector went off, there might be more. RyanVesey23:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This seems like an exceptionally difficult case. I have found some of the introduced information in these edits. Given the date, it is possible that this is reverse copyvio; however, having worked on some projects before, it is very possible that the city reused material from an older strategic plan. That being said, having worked on projects before, it is very possible that the City used information from Misplaced Pages. RyanVesey04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
This edit added information that appears in the strategic plan. That information appears here and here. Thickening the plot further, this material contains information that was added in the link in my comment above. The demographics information shows the most recent data as being 2006, which means it is a tossup as to which came first. I believe our content did because I have only found the first two subsections (Historic District and Downtown) to be copied. I'm tired, but my initial thought is that the content introduced in my first link is fine, but the content introduced in my second link is copyrighted. Can someone else help look into this? In addition, do we have an obligation to tell Paterson that when they copied our content (without attribution) they also copied copyrighted content? RyanVesey04:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not the first time I've seen lower level government copying Misplaced Pages. :) In terms of our obligation, that's a tricky one. :/ The only person who might have any real obligation (I think) is the person who placed the content - he or she is the one who falsely warranted that it was freely licensed. But it would certainly be nice if Misplaced Pages:Reusing Misplaced Pages content said something to alert people that our license relies on the editor. (In fact, I've just made a small tweak to policy that I expect will be uncontroversial to clarify that: .) Not that it would make a difference to Paterson, if they didn't comply with reuse anyway. :) If you want to let them know, I think it would be entirely out of the goodness of your heart, not any kind of obligation. The generalities aside, I'm going to look at the specifics. --Moonriddengirl10:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Aha. :) Some of the things I was seeing didn't make sense to me. But that series of edits was actually the restoration of content that had previously been deleted in December 2006. The material was actually added by an IP in December 2005: . It was a copyright issue, all right, but not of that source - it took from ; see . It may still be derivative of that source, although it's certainly changed over the years.
Several days later, another IP added another big chunk of text. Lots of errors in there, but notably some of the information is carried over into the strategic plan - for instance, "Riverside a larger section of Paterson as its name states this section is bound by the Passaic River to the north and east. Separating the city from Hawthorne and Fairlawn." in the article; in the source it says "Riverside is a larger neighborhood in Paterson and, as its name states, this neighborhood is bound by the Passaic River to the north and east, separating the city from Hawthorne and Fair Lawn. Riverside is a working-class neighborhood." This IP's edit was gradually polished, but it looks very much like original text to me. I did not find any matches to the original, unmodified text on the web (I look for first significant text edit and check the original text).
I feel very confident that you are right, that the Strategic Plan copied from us. Content should be checked against that older source, though. :/
Feh. :/ I accidentally closed my window with links, et al. I have no doubt that the realtor listing copied from us as well. I looked at the "most famous neighborhood" line. The seeds of that content are in the second IP edit I linked above. But the material was modified twice - once in April 2006 and again in July 2006 - before it reached the form it was in when the realtor took it. No doubt the Lexington Report was copied. It's a small amount, so I've simply turned it into a clumsy quote. --Moonriddengirl11:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
That would be great, if you would, and maybe check the article against , which clearly predates it? My time is very limited this morning. Work calls. :) --Moonriddengirl10:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow
In this issue:
Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
Research: The most recent DR data
Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
Is potential libel something that editors should ignore?
While the specific issue of a potential libel was easily and quickly resolved, questions have since arisen. I think, or at least thought, that Wikipedians should be cautious with using words such as "hate group" in Misplaced Pages's voice, and that Wikipedians were in agreement to avoid potential libels. Yet about half a dozen editors have posted opinions on my talk page and at WP:WQA regarding the word "libel", while one editor has indicated that ignoring a potential libel is blockable, all without providing references. Most of these opinions are oriented toward disempowerment. While I suspect that disempowerment is not a policy-based viewpoint, I am not readily familiar with the relevant policy. Can you provide some links, or written statements of your opinion? Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, no, in accordance with one of our strongest policies, we should not ignore potential libel. Let me note up front that I have not looked at the particulars of this case, but am addressing principles. I know of no policy that mandates blocking for ignoring potential libel, but editors are strongly encouraged to ensure that all statements that affect living people are appropriately sourced and that statements of opinion are not presented as statements of fact. Editors are given wide-latitude in enforcing this policy if others do ignore it, including exemption from WP:3RR (not that this exemption isn't subject to abuse). This doesn't mean, of course, that we cannot present negative information or even negative opinions about article subjects; they need to be scrupulously sourced and properly attributed. My own opinion is that if a group is widely referred to as a "hate group", we may not need an WP:INTEXT attribution - it is itself not-neutral to say "The New York Times calls them a hate group" if the New York Times is among 100 newspapers that do so - but might be able to rely on more general text, such as "widely described as a hate group" But my experience working on articles about hate groups on Misplaced Pages is really very limited and probably only in the context of copyright. So I'm not sure what consensus is for using that label.
In terms of the language used to describe the problem, I'd tend to avoid "libel" myself and stick to policy-based language. The definition and defense of libel varies around the world; when you use it, different people may legitimately hear different things. Policy-based language should be universally understood, at least among experienced Wikipedians. That doesn't mean that we don't disagree on application, of course, but that's true of legal terms as well. And at least there're no jurisdictional disagreements. :) Plus, words like "libel" make some people uneasy. --Moonriddengirl10:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
We have both a complete translation and a transcription at Tel Dan Stele#Text. Short, but complete. Does the length make it ok? I should know this but I haven't run into this problem before these 2 articles. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I know your alter-ego said that the legal team likely can't review licensing tags, so I thought I'd pick the volunteer-side of your brain as to whether this template needs revising. I know image licensing isn't really your thing, but you're at least familiar with the case law. It seems to me that this template needs some serious adjusting, since from the intern's brief it sounds like it becomes one of the messier required copyright analyses I've seen...or else it just becomes a completely unusable tag and each of the hundreds of concerned files needs to be reviewed and retagged as appropriate. Do you have any more input here?
You might want to correct the "publishing" date of his "book" from the wrong 2006 to the correct 2008in your note at the Jimi Hendrix page.
Regarding the Jimi Hendrix page and the Greenwich Village page from which he also pillaged wholesale for his rubbish book. This self-published plagiarist was discovered several years ago and it was highlighted on the Hendrix talk page. I now notice those old entries regarding this have been deleted. What is going on?
I am also left wondering why this con-man is allowed his own page on Wiki when he is nothing more than a two bit chancer?
What can be done to get him and his page off Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi MRG, is Ebay useable as a source of images? Many postcards are listed on Ebay which are now clearly out of copyright. I've uploaded images from many postcards which I own to Commons, but was wondering whether or not Ebay could be used as a source. The problem is that listings dissapear after a time, and thus any attribution via a link to the listing will become useless in time. Is this something that can be overcome? If this discussion merits a wider audience (e.g. experts over at Commons), please feel free to copy this post and let me know where the discussion is. Mjroots (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I had really wanted to be further along than I am right now, but that seems to be the story of my life. :/ I haven't given up on it! I'm trying to balance my weekend time between copyright work and article writing, but I ran into a copyright issue this weekend that put me writing a different article, to avoid losing the information altogether. --Moonriddengirl10:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
