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 05:31, 26 December 2024 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Question, can you release Misplaced Pages contributions into CCO instead of CC BY-SA 3.0
I would prefer the former, but I always thought by clicking that save edit button I was agreeing to "irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". I recently saw this multi-license template and became confused, especially since PD isn't a license and is incompatible with CC BY-SA 3.0. As an aside, am I to understand that since that notice appears on all edits that all edits to talk pages and userpages are released under CC BY-SA 3.0? Apologies for burdening you with these questions, and thank you for any response.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, AioftheStorm. No apologies necessary. :) Yes, everything you put on your talk page or user page is licensed. (That's the easy one; I'm starting there. :D) There are no exceptions for any space to the Terms of Use, and §7.a. is very specific as to license. Multi-licensing is certainly possible; it's the principle that allows you to release your content simultaneously under CC By SA and GFDL. People may choose which license to select for reuse, so theoretically anyone who wishes to release their content on Misplaced Pages under other licenses may do so, so long as it is also available under CC By SA and GFDL. However, I don't know if there is problem in multilicensing with CC0. I have put on my work hat and written to the legal team to ask if feedback can be provided for this question. I have also updated Misplaced Pages:Multi-licensing, which was so far out of date that it indicated that dual licensing was not requested or required on Misplaced Pages. (wince) It may need to be updated further based on the legal team's response. --Moonriddengirl11:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the response and for looking into this. If it is the case that I can release contributions under both then I will do that. In the meantime take care and good luck with keeping the copyright policies up to date.AioftheStorm (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Help needed (I am using the same headline too often)
Hi Moonriddengirl! I'm going to take a Wikibreak from 4 Sep'14 to 10 Sep'14. But I am really sceptical about vandalism in certain articles which are in my watchlist. If you have no problem then, could you please please add the following articles in your watchlist? The articles are:
Bade Achhe Lagte Hain (My concern - IP address users have a tendency to regularly add double names of characters inspite of hidden notices making the cast section confusing. For instance, the character Ayesha was married twice in this soap opera (but in the same family) and many (many many) Indian women have their husband's name as their middle name. So some add her name as Ayesha Siddhant Kapoor while some add her name as Ayesha Ram Kapoor. So I have written her name as Ayesha Kapoor. Similarly some add double names of various other characters. And I'm just sick and tired of undoing and reverting such edits - I don't know if this could be termed as vandalism...but still could you please watchlist this article)
Template:Life OK Programmes (as per the consensus achieved the show names should be italicised and the tenplate should be classified on the basis of format, but I fear that User:सुनील मलेठिया may undo all the edits)
Hi, User:Tamravidhir. I'm sorry, but I really think you're better asking somebody with more time on Misplaced Pages. I'm way behind on copyright work, and I have a hard time keeping up with my watchlist as it is! When I have time on Misplaced Pages, I've got a lot I need to do. I hope you enjoy your break. :) --Moonriddengirl22:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I would just approach somebody who works in the area. This could, for instance, be a good opportunity for you to collaborate well with that one editor with whom you often disagree. --Moonriddengirl10:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Uh huh! You mean TheRedPenOfDoom! Correct you are right...let me give it a try...I hope he helps me...(fingers crossed) --Tamravidhir (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ed! Absolutely no objections from me. :) I feel like I was more a support person there, though. But I'm delighted to see it run again and will be happy to give it a once-over to see if processes have changed anywhere. Is there a deadline? --Moonriddengirl22:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd ideally like to publish in the next 24-36 hours, although I've frequently set publishing goals and missed them. ;-) I've copied the text to here, and I'd love any updates, corrections, or tweaks! Ed19:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I still cannot figure out if I am way off, or right on. Will you please tell me what your opinion is regarding this example:
Source: "We often recorded at night after everyone at the office had left."
Article: "They usually recorded at night when XL's staff had left".
From my standpoint, the structure is unchanged, and the swapping of "We often" for "They usually" and "everyone at the office" for "XL's staff" fails as an attempt at fair paraphrasing. I think this is plagiarism, but what do you think? Rationalobserver (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Rationalobserver. I know you'd really like a clear answer, but I'm afraid I can't give you one - not with a label. :/ I honestly do not involve myself a whole lot in plagiarism, especially not after finding out how much variance there is what people define as plagiarism in our context. We went back and forth over that years ago in getting the guideline promoted, and I don't even know if the current definition is one I'd agree with. Does it still talk about "inadvertent" plagiarism? Even though sources openly discuss it (like this), that was a hot point of contention. Anyway, since plagiarism is a social construct and not a legal code, I'm afraid I'm not comfortable declaring something that's kind of boderline as plagiarism or not plagiarism. It's not a word I often use now that I'm out of academia myself. I focus on copyright. I will say that I think those two sentences are too close in structure. I agree that simple word and phrase substitutions are a pitfall from the paraphrasing standpoint. And if there were a whole bunch of it from a non-free source, I would consider it a problem of close paraphrasing and remove or revise it for fear that we would be appropriating the total concept and feel. --Moonriddengirl22:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl! You are a wonderful editor and a wealth of knowledge. I hope you don't mind if I ask you questions from time to time! Rationalobserver (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I have responded. I don't plan to hang out at that conversation, though. As I mentioned, there are a lot of other things calling to me when I'm on Wiki. --Moonriddengirl21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but per a recent dispute with Dan56, "Note: even with in-text attribution, distinctive words or phrases may require quotation marks" does not apply to close paraphrasing. Is it your position that the note does apply to close paraphrasing? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
That's what I think, but because it is not under the close paraphrasing example it does not explicitly apply, or so says Dan56. All I'm trying to do here is affirm that it does apply, but nobody will address the problem. It's an oversight, I'm sure, but my efforts are being framed like I am changing the guideline, which I don't believe I am. Flyer22 seems to agree with Dan56. If you think the note applies to close paraphrasing then why do you oppose repeating it under the CP example? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
FTR, Dan56's argument that in-text attribution remediates the need for quotation marks enclosing distinctive language can be seen in all its glory here. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
But so far as I can see you're not talking about repeating it (which I wouldn't support) or clarifying what it applies to (which I might) - you're talking about a new statement, one that is aimed specifically at non-free text and which is stronger in its wording. :) The current statement is not limited to non-free sources, and it says "may". (Misplaced Pages:Close_paraphrasing#When_is_close_paraphrase_permitted.3F talks about the use of non-free sources in more detail, and is explicitly linked from the plagiarism guideline section on close paraphrasing.) If this all stems from that one article, though, wouldn't it be better to follow WP:DR regarding it? --Moonriddengirl23:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't know anything about DR except that most people think it's a waste of time, and I don't plan to ever cross paths with that editor again, but I am concerned that, if left open-ended in this regard, the policy might encourage him and others to rely on close paraphrasing. If you might support clarifying the guideline, then may I respectfully suggest that you be bold and do so? You are respected, and they'll trust and listen to you. All I'm asking for is less ambiguity. Nobody can seem to explain how the last two examples under avoiding plagiarism are different. Can you? Rationalobserver (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think they are different. It looks to me like two examples of close paraphrasing with in-text attribution. That example is a relatively recent innovation - it was added in this edit, along with some sweeping changes in the days that followed. Prior to that, there were only two: . It seems to me that if nobody can identify how they differ, then that may be the heart of this problem. I am willing to ask people if they see the point in the third example. --Moonriddengirl01:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
You would do well not to state that "Flyer22 seems to agree with " unless it is very clear. First, to you, I don't agree with Dan56, and now, to you, I do agree with Dan56. Or you're just stating that to make a point. Better yet, just don't mention me, whether you link my username or not. And before you make claims about me following you, you might want to check the number of times I've visited Moonriddengirl's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
question about quoting articles
Hi MG, I know there's a limit on quoting from books, but is there a limit on quoting newspapers? Specifically, using a person's quote from say the New York Times, and then later, quoting someone else from the same article? SW3 5DL (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, SW3 5DL . There's limits on quoting everything, but unfortunately there is no specific word count or percentage that it is safe to use. :/ As a general rule of thumb, I'd recommend trying to use paraphrase where possible and limiting the amount of quotations you take from any one source. However, if I were going to take multiple quotes from a NYT article, quoting what they've quoted somebody else as saying is probably a safer bet than quoting the content of the article itself. --Moonriddengirl00:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yes I see the difference. So the quotes from somebody they're interviewing are okay, but paraphrase all the rest. Thanks much. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, more okay, in my opinion, SW3 5DL. :) The question of who owns the words of a person being interviewed had not been settled in copyright law last time I looked into it, but I would feel more comfortable using that a little more liberally than content original to the journalist. In any event, it shouldn't be extensive to accord with policy. Just more wriggle room, I think. :) --Moonriddengirl10:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I was looking through some old pages and found one that I made some edits on that had been deleted. The article was: Los Angeles Mounted Rifles. I'm not asking that it be undeleted, but I am curious about reading any archives that give specifics about why it was deleted. Any help would be appreciated. Sf46 (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Sf46: From what I can see in the deleted edits, the copyright holder of this Web page sent WP a complaint (OTRS ticket 2012101210000775) that the article violated the copyright of that page. (In a quick glance I can see some definite copyvio in the deleted article, but I haven't looked carefully to determine the totality of it.) MRG therefore blanked the article and listed it at Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2012 October 12 (open the collapsed list to see). After about two and a half months with no improvement to the article, and having noted the response you can see on the copyright-problems page, she finally deleted it. (MRG, if I've misrepresented the situation, please apply a wet trout on my talk page.) Deor (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Deor. :) That's it in a nutshell. Unfortunately, the copyvios could not be just reverted as it was a foundational issue or easily excised, and nobody worked on the article in the time it was listed for salvage. --Moonriddengirl16:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi MRG, I wonder if you could look at something for me please. It relates to some close paraphrasing on the list List of ant subfamilies. uestions have been raised at the FLC by one other editor and myself (in my capacity as FLC delegate). The information - and close paraphrasing - comes from:
Could you advise as to whether you think that this close phrasing fits within our remit, as I am a little uncomfortble with it as it stands. Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, SchroCat. :) Well, the licensing statement certainly isn't easy to find on that source. :/ But an important distinction here is that while it is compatibly licensed, it isn't PD. Compatibly licensed material can legally be merged into our own works as long as the terms of the license are met. This is usually given through a notice on the page itself, and I see there is such a notice in the "references" section. However, while the note is a good faith attempt to comply with licensing, it doesn't quite fit the bill - to reuse content under CCBy, you must provide a link to the license. It's not adequate to refer people to a document that contains no information on the license. This is one of the terms mandatory for use of content under that license. This seems to be a problem with the template, but it needs to be repaired, either through the addition of an explicit link to the license where it is used or through reworking the template. Until it is repaired, that content is not compliant.
In terms of close paraphrasing, while I am seeing more people voicing discomfort with it lately, our current guideline at Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism is satisfied with that general attribution without further notation of copying when the content is public domain or compatibly licensed. I don't know if featured criteria have a stricter stance, but could well imagine they might. :) --Moonriddengirl10:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks MRG, I'll highlight the need for the link directly to the licence, as that is certainly needed here. Slightly surprisingly the criteria do not have a stricter stance on paraphrasing, although I wish they did: I am not entirely comfortable in signing off something as featured when it is 95% taken from another source, and as closely paraphrased as it is here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
DYK for KMG Ethiopia
On 7 October 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article KMG Ethiopia, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the founder and executive director of KMG Ethiopia is credited with almost single-handedly eradicating the practice of female genital mutilation in Ethiopia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/KMG Ethiopia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
that is copyvio from (that is, that the source is copyright. It's clearly copied). He's ignored warnings or claimed fair use, and I've created a CCI. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dougweller. The Encyclopedia was first printed in the 1970s. It claims in the front of the book itself to be copyrighted with all rights reserved, and I see no reason at all to doubt it. So,
Sister OR Fellow Wikipedian OR Moonriddengirl (whichever you like)
I want you to resume User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching whenever you'll get time, as one more user has asked me for it. I need to clean up and revise everything. I attended 3—6 the India Wikimedia Conference, I am adding an image so that you can see "exactly who" you are talking to --Tito☸Dutta12:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
_79.jpg)
