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 04:35, 26 December 2024 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
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.
Oh! No, they aren't. Press releases are widely intended for reproduction, but not necessarily commercial reproduction or modification. :) See just below the table at WP:COMPLIC in our copyright FAQ. (And I did wonder why you were asking that. I figured surely you had encountered it before. :D) --Moonriddengirl11:41, 6 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)
Well, I would imagine its length makes it better. It would be awfully nice if a free version could be located. Outside of the Misplaced Pages context, I would argue that this is a pretty good example of fair use. But NFCC is deliberately tighter than fair use. The absolute safest thing to do is probably to summarize what isn't essential and quote what is - which seems to be the lines about the House of David - while writing to the copyright holder(s) to ask for license, or at least to write the copyright holders to ask for license. Ambiguity resolved. --Moonriddengirl11:39, 6 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?
Oh, man, I hate to open that can of worms. :( I think the issue needs visiting. Our approach to copyright has long been based on the presumption that we were exempt from the 9th Circuit insanity, and we're not. I really wish somebody had thought about that before relocating us from Florida to SF, but I'm not surprised it didn't occur to them. It's kind of an obscure little point of copyright law. I wouldn't know where to even launch the discussion - WT:PD?
In terms of your proposed change, I think that's a great idea! Rewrites were easier to find with the old template, but the old template was harder to work with for users. :/ This would be fabulous. Off to enthusiastically support it. --Moonriddengirl11:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. I'll try to figure out the best place to start a conversation about that and where to advertise it, since I imagine it will bother more than a few people.
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. The old entries haven't been deleted; they've been archived. This is standard for talk pages, which would otherwise grow too long. :) I found the discussion here. One of the reasons we encourage the use of {{backwardscopy}} (the one I added to the top of the page a few weeks ago) is because those templates do not archive.
2006 is the publication year of the book, according to the copyright notice published on page 2 and to the archived discussion I linked. :)
In terms of the author's page at Rotimi Ogunjobi, he has a page because anybody can have his own page, and somebody created one for him. :) When that happens, pages are only removed if other editors nominate them for deletion through one of the deletion processes, if the page doesn't meet inclusion guidelines (most frequently for notability reasons). People are, I believe, sometimes more cautious about nominating pages about international figures, since finding reliable sources in English can be a challenge and they do not want to inadvertently delete somebody we should have an article about. The deletion process, if you'd like to nominate it, is explained at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion. If you do, please be careful with the language you use to discuss the man. :) He is covered (as all living people are) by the WP:BLP policy, which governs all spaces on Misplaced Pages.
If you were one of the authors whose work has been copied, you may be able to contact the publisher of the book to require that the book give you the legally requisite credit. See Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks for more information. We have all licensed our content so that it can be reused, but those who reuse it are required by that license to acknowledge the source of their copying. Sometimes book publishers have actually corrected the problem, by reprinting with proper attribution. Often, they ignore us. :/ But at least maybe they are alerted to potential problems with the author and have more care for future publications.
I don't know anything about the author of the book, but I have found people copying from Misplaced Pages in a surprising variety of sources. Just recently (higher on my userpage), another editor picked up that the city of Paterson, New Jersey, did it. A lot of people seem to think that our content is public domain and to feel free to use it without credit. :/ --Moonriddengirl11:17, 6 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)
I think (for PD-no notice images) uploading a front and back scan like We hope does would be enough, as all the information would be there. A year of publication on a PD-1923 image may preclude the need for an archive. That being said, when I uploaded film posters I did not archive the links as they were first published as hard copies and not exclusive to the internet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I do the same thing with postcards. This category has a lot of postcards in it I uploaded, and what you see here are all Commons-uploaded postcards. This is where a lot of our television and older railroad images come from.
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)
I reckon this could be a very bad sign for us. :/ This change was made on the day the article was established, so if they copied from us they would have had to have done so very quickly. However, that has all the appearance of having been copied from an existing article without attribution. I'm going to look into that. --Moonriddengirl10:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, it was the same editor, but this article where the material first appeared. This is a good sign for us: . Second edit after it appeared adds a sentence that is also in the source. There's no sensible reason for him to have pasted a paragraph without a sentence and then gone back to add it in. There are also little tweaks: . And here is where that "400 glorious years" figure enters in: . I feel sure enough at this point that this is a backwards copy from that article that I think I can stop looking. :) --Moonriddengirl10:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
A relief to have an explanation of this - I think Mr. Scholes was either guilty of plagarism himself (which I don't believe for a moment) or he actually wrote the article on the Bach family for E.B. 1911!!! He was already 34 at the time so by no means impossible, and from internal evidence I should say pretty certain. All the same I fear we need a modern article - outside the elegant but rather blinkered Scholes framework - entertaining a writer as he no doubt was. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds entirely possible. :) And I would agree with you that our article should be modernized. Nothing wrong with copy-editing it so that it reads like it's less than 100 years old! :D --Moonriddengirl10:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
