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 22:14, 30 December 2024 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.

Records

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re this section User talk:Moonriddengirl/Archive 37#Help! (no. 59, 10th July), I took your advice and look what happened MuZemike, no. 20.

You've previously said that it's important for us to keep accurate records, so can you restore my evidence to the record of the community ban discussion? 195.195.89.70 (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

This was not advice, but a simple statement of fact, unless you're talking about a different talk page. Clearly, WP:ANI is not your talk page, and you are unwelcome to contribute to it so long as you are blocked and particularly now that you are banned. While I feel it inappropriate to remove a section that includes comments from others, removing your comments is in keeping with policy until you negotiate a return to Misplaced Pages. Because you are banned, I will not be talking to you further about this, but please see Misplaced Pages:BAN#Appeals and discussions for accepted procedures for appeal. --Moonriddengirl 15:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Margaret, as I have neither a computer nor an email account, the guidance to which you refer is of little use to me. The following remarks are addressed to you as Liaison Officer with the WMF and thus have nothing to do with membership of the project.

The following false and damaging claims have been posted on this website: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community ban proposal:Vote (X) for Change and references in the banning log to "vandalism", sockpuppetry and a link to the above. Both documents are permanent records, visible worldwide. They are partisan and inflammatory and the allegations are untrue. In particular, the word "vandalism" nowhere appears in the discussion, and in the log the link is held out to be a full and accurate record of the discussion, which contains not one diff to back the allegations. It is in fact a vote - stacking exercise by corrupt administrators desperate to save their own necks.

You say that "removing comments is in keeping with policy". I do not think so. A ban comes into effect when the discussion is closed, and the comments were posted before it was closed. In any event, Courcelles was not qualified to close it, being "involved" as (s)he had a few minutes earlier blocked me while the SPI remained open. The guidance requires the subject of the discussion to be notified for the purpose of filing a response. It is implicit in that that once filed the response must not be tampered with.

The "sockpuppetry" allegation should be balanced by reference to the following. No administrator may ban unilaterally. The so - called "indefinite" block was intended to be infinite and therefore invalid. The attempt to validate it by the ban discussion initiated last year failed.

As indefinite siteban is the ultimate sanction it can only be enforced if specifically asked for. Consensus is never a simple tally of votes - it is affected by the severity of the sanction proposed and duplicate or involved votes are discounted. Although the guidance does not set a fixed tariff, for bureaucratship the level is 90%, and for an indefinite siteban it must be at least that.

Please let me know how you wish to handle this. Can you (in order of preference) provide me with (a) your telephone number (b) your email address (c) your mailing address? If you do not wish to reveal your telephone number publicly it may be possible for me to get someone to email you with my telephone number. If I do not hear from you it will be apparent that you recognise that the "ban" is invalid. Best wishes. 195.195.89.70 (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

By replying to my post Margaret has already indicated that she wishes the thread to remain. Please do not hassle her. Also do not hassle me - comments such as "borderline threatening MRG -- toddle off now" are very juvenile and your removal of her comment is blockable - I would advise you not to try that stunt again. 92.24.107.88 (talk) 11:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Every corporation must provide a physical mailing address to which communications may be sent. Please provide yours, preferably with the name and department of the person who will be handling this. Best wishes. 86.162.234.186, 16:45, 25 July 2011.

To SpacemanSpiff -- England 474 - 8 dec & 269 - 6 dec bt India 286 & 261 by 196 runs. (I used to work in the tickertape room). Hope you enjoyed the cricket. The inflammatory material has been taken down but there is still a link to it which needs to be removed as well. Over here we are told to be wary of websites which do not provide a physical mailing address - Misplaced Pages doesn't. There is a local contact, who bid to bring the Wikimania conference to Oxford a few years ago, but it seems that all we can do for the moment is await Margaret's return. I note that ErrantX, who is a key player in this, unsuccessfully ran for the Board a few weeks ago :)93.96.149.196 (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Margaret, Have you been following what's been happening on ANI? They have now started removing other editors' comments from the page. Can you step in and restore order? 94.194.158.164 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See The Foundation's website, specifically the information at "Contact Us." I am an independent contractor and do not work at the Foundation's home office. I cannot tell you who will reply to your contact to that address. --Moonriddengirl 20:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Anatolia

It seems that good chunks of this article: Anatolia are copy/pasted from this copyrighted source: . I was going to slap a {{subst:copyvio}} template on the article, but thought I'd ask about it first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) That one looks like a problem under Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism rather than a copyvio, since the source is public domain. It should have {{Country study}} at the top of the reference section. I'm not sure how long ago this content was placed--it might have predated that guideline. Alas, I don't have time to check it out further. I've got to run finish packing! But I've placed the attribution tag, even though the link doesn't seem to be working. :/ --Moonriddengirl 11:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You were missing the abbr parameter ("abbr=tr"), apparently it's required even if you have the country name. I've fixed it and moved it to an inline reference at the end of the climate section though if others sections also copy it they should be go the footnote as well. With the exception of that (and it could be separate templates linking to the individual sections of the work if someone wants to go that far), I believe it is as fixed as is necessary per Misplaced Pages:Plagiarism#Repairing plagiarism.--Doug. 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! So... I got a few more but it looks like you're quite busy. What should I do with them? Honestly, I have a suspicion that with everything going on right now (DYK etc.) once people start scratching the surface they'll find out that half the Misplaced Pages is all copyvios, plagiarism and close paraphrasing. Which would mean way too many problems and way too few resources. Don't know if I want to wish that upon you. Again, thanks!Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's another one (two actually), and this one's a GA: Ein Avdat, stuff taken from here and here (both websites indicate their sources which appear to be copyrighted and checking the Wayback Machine at least the first one dates back to 2000, whereas the article was created in 2009), and maybe here . I haven't checked the other sources used in the article. Since this is a GA I listed it for review (I'm not clear on the exact nuts and bolts of the GAR process so I'm not sure if I followed it correctly). However I thought you might want to take a look since the whole GAR process may take time.

The same user also created Al-Muallaq Mosque in december 2008, which is verbatim from here - this site existed in December 2007 with that text . In this case though I'm not sure what the exact nature of the site is, it appears to be at least partially user generated content so I'm not sure what the copyright status here is (it may even be possible that the same person created both entries). Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

More CV GAs

In addition to the GAs I brought up above , Gazette Building (Little Rock, Arkansas) also appears to be mostly copied verbatim from here (DD: ), which predates the creation of the article on Misplaced Pages (May 2008 vs. Nov 2007), and which is a copyrighted source . I think. I really could use a second pair of eyes to make sure I'm checking these things correctly.

I found additional copying from other sources. The article is now blanked. I also found a WP:FAKEARTICLE copy (User:Tdmcg82/Sandbox) which I also blanked. MER-C 09:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Massive sigh. :/ I don't know what to do about this widespread problem, frankly. WP:CCI helps in theory, but it's so understaffed that all we're doing is just creating a bigger and bigger list of people whose edits need checking. I've been urged by a number of people to push for more aggressive deletion in these cases, but I'm loathe to do so. Maybe I'm part of the problem for that reason. :P --Moonriddengirl 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Quoting without intext attribution

user:Miradre

Hi MRG.

• Miradre (talk · contribs)

This user has been adding non-free content to the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Four of their edits have essentially copy-pasted segments from journal articles, where there was no reason not to paraphrase. Miradre's native language is not English and they do not write fluently in English. They have adopted the policy of adding some content to articles by copy pasting content and placing it in quotes, without direct attribution; there has been no attempt at paraphrase. The four edits that were copyvios are all described on the talk page of the article. The fourth edit was made even after the precise policy for directly quoting text had been explained to Miradre. In this fourth edit they simply added quote marks around the copy-pasted passage with no attribution. I have not looked carefully at whethe Miradre's other edits have followed the same patterrn. I do know that exactly the same problem of copy-pasting instead of paraphrasing occurred on Malaria. Because of the quality of Miradre's written English, copy-pasting of this type is easy to detect. After Miradre's wikibreak and enforced change of subject, following a topic ban, I have the nagging doubt that many of their edits are being done in this way. What is the best way to proceed? Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Mathsci. Hopefully, the problem is more limited than that. I did a spot-check of contributions and didn't find any issues in the six or seven articles I looked at. If issues prove to be more widespread, of course, a more systematic approach to evaluating and fixing issues may be needed. That said, I've dropped a note at Miradre's talk page discussing in some depth how non-free content is handled on Misplaced Pages. I realize that you've laid the groundwork for that on the talk page of that article, but this can be very unfamiliar ground for those not used to it. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Complaints about Mathsci

If you look at Mathsci's edit the last 3 days he has done little except followed me around Misplaced Pages. Including to articles he has never edited before and made complaints and reverted my edits (almost never due to copyright claims). As well as making complaints to several different noticeboards. This seems to me to be just another, new part of his harassment campaign. But I welcome any scrutiny. I may certainly on occasion have made unintentional mistakes, such as missing direct attribution for quotes in addition to the footnote, but if so they are IMHO rather minor. I have always marked sources and certainly not copy-pasted lengthy texts.Miradre (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Anybody can edit wikipedia articles. I have made hardly any edits to articles recently (indeed this year). I added a tag about the inadequate lead of Criticism of evolutionary psychology after Miradre's removed most of it. It is an article that many people watch. With Itsmejudith I monitored Miradre's controversial changes to academia. I am unaware that I have reported Miradre at multiple noticeboards. Miradre did suggest that Itsmejudith and I, as presumed academics, should not be editing academia because of a WP:COI. Itsmejudith and I then both separately and independently queried Miradre's charges of COI at WP:COIN, Miradre's position was not supported; he was given a warning by Atama not to harrass me. Mathsci (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I fear that Mathsci's answer misses some of the points. Le me help to elucidate.

• Anyone can edit Misplaced Pages articles (unless they are banned) but not every edit is therefore permissible.
• I have made hardly any edits to articles recently (indeed this year) regrettably true but Mathsi has followed Miradre to Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology, Talk:Academia, Groupthink, Talk:Evolutionary psychology, Talk:Leonhard Euler in the last week.
• I am unaware that I have reported Miradre at multiple noticeboards. is contraicted by edits at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

Need I go on? A.B.C.Hawkes (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC) Comment by sopckpuppet of A.K.Nole

Hi. I'm afraid that I don't see any mention of Miradre at . The COIN listing Mathsci already mentioned. However, while I can well understand that working on articles can become heated and that it can be uncomfortable to feel scrutinized, I'm afraid that I would just have to recommend Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution if these problems cannot be resolved through cordial conversation. While I do work extensively with copyright concerns on Misplaced Pages and am happy to help out with issues in that area, the overall topic is certainly outside of my area of work, and I have no special authority to resolve questions about interaction. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, per checkuser and WP:DUCK, A.B.C.Hawkes appears to be a sockpuppet of A.K.Nole, a long term wikihounder, who is known to the current ArbCom. Before seeing this comment, his name was brought up by a checkuser as being related to another presumed sockpuppet of A.K.Nole and the above edit confirms that. I have accordingly scored through the edit (previous disruption of this kind has occurred during ArbCom cases). Mathsci (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. :) Certainly, his contrib history would have suggested he's a sock of somebody. --Moonriddengirl 16:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Please see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole, which is awaiting for an administrator to take action. This is unfortunately what happens during the holidays :( Mathsci (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

May I have a deleted article, please?

I noticed you are part of this group. I was wondering if it would be possible to get this article (and its history for attribution purposes)? Perhaps it could be placed here for 24 hours so that I may have a chance to recreate it at another website. Thanks for your time. Cogitating (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I moved it for you.--SPhilbrickT 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sphilbrick. I got the article and history, so I marked it {{db-u1}} since I'm done. Cogitating (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoot! Thanks, Sphilbrick. :D --Moonriddengirl 18:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Assistance

Hello Moonriddengirl, a user has reccomended you to check over my free use rationale... if you don't mind :) My image is not yet uploaded, and I want to place it on a certain article, but a user states that I'm not giving enough reasoning for placing a non free image on the page.

Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry I could not get back in touch with you more quickly, but I've been traveling and had only been able to respond to one message during my trip. (I generally work from the bottom up.) I'm afraid that I'm really not the best person, though, to give you feedback on this. I don't do that much work with non-free image rationales. I would myself wonder why we need an image of these owls, when there are owls depicted in the non-free poster already in use in the article. :) But you may get more valuable feedback if you ask at WT:NFC. --Moonriddengirl 15:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it is summer after all :) But may I ask, why do other movie articles have images other than the image in its infobox, for instance, Toy Story 3? Wouldn't the page look better with an image or two added? Regards, Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

You got me! I'm a bit thrown off by our NFC guidelines sometimes. That's why you'd be better off asking somebody else. :D For instance, I don't understand why we can't use a non-free image of Kristen Stewart, but we can use a non-free image of her for Bella Swan--even though the only thing remarkable about her is that she, well, that she's a teenage girl. (I can kind of understand needing a non-free image of Clover (creature).) --Moonriddengirl 21:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is all very confusing! (Even gets to the point where it is VERY annoying.) So would it be better if I just put this problem with the non free image for Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole behind me? It looks like it will only get more complicated anyway. :( Monkeys 9711 (talk) 21:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea. :) I will be sure to ask the WT:NFC and maybe just get back to you to explain why if it doesn't work :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this a case of closeparaphrasing?

Ref Sidalcea nelsoniana. Using Duplicate detector on the very first source itself, I found a slew of commonalities of very short phrases. Is it a case of fair use or copyvio? AshLin (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject as a an editor who has contributed to many botanical articles and created some, it is extraordinarily difficult to come up with totally new ways of saying things about plants and their distribution that do not use the same words as other sources. If a flower spike has up to 100 individual flowers, that what all the sources will say, but it doesn't make it a copyvio. If it only lives in a particular locality then all sources are going to call the place by the same name. I think the editors here have done a pretty good job of re-phrasing and re-organising information to keep as far from copy-vio as possible. That my personal opinion but I won't be offended if other think I've got it wrong!  Velella    22:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you in this case, Velella. Mind you, I've just flown back from a trip and am a bit hazy, but it looks to me like an occasion where scientific language limits diversity to a certain extent. While we still have to watch out for following more closely than necessary in such cases, I think this one is probably okay. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminder: New Page Copyright Issue

Hi, earlier last month we were discussing how to best rewrite an article I was creating in order to answers copyright and notability concerns. I think I have fully addressed those concerns, but since the article had been removed once previously I was hoping to get your opinion before trying to re-create the page. I just wanted to give you a kind reminder that the proposed page is available on my user page. Thanks again for all of your time and assistance. It is sincerely appreciated.Win.monroe (talk) 19:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you for the reminder, although this is a little longer than I expected when I asked you to remind me again in a few days. :D I'm afraid that this is twice now that you've caught me traveling. I think the copyright concerns are addressed, but notability concerns are far more difficult to predict. It seems like, aside from primary sources, you've got two news articles-- and ? Can you find any more? I personally tend to be very conservative with that in terms of creating my own articles, and the more indepth references there are to this in secondary sources, the less likely you are to run into trouble! --Moonriddengirl 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrestling with the best approach to some apparent copyvios

Hi, Moonriddengirl – Atama offered your name as someone who might be able to help on a copyvio issue that I’ve encountered. (She did not actually recommend you as a first choice, you being as busy as you are, but her praise was high and I am lazy. Feel free to push me off in another direction if you haven’t got time.) An editor appears to have used too-closely paraphrased copyrighted material in more than one article he has created; but because I’ve been in content and other disputes with him, I think it’s inappropriate for me to try to remedy the situation by myself. In addition, he has already filed one ANI report on concerning me, here, and he’s got a quick trigger finger. I have little appetite for another even if it is swept away as easily as the first. Finally I’m uncertain about where or how to report the problems I suspect but haven’t got evidence for. WP:CCI seems right, broadly, but the instructions seem to counsel against my filing anything based on what I’ve got, and the dispute (which I’m assuming for now to be continuing).

The disputes and their resolution are all pretty well laid-out in the ANI. It’s not that long; let me know if you want to see more.

User:Ken keisel created an article last week, Anthony A. Mitchell, which was a close paraphrase of Mitchell’s Washington Post obituary. Text was reordered, but sentences or phrases were often left largely intact. Upon realizing this, I blanked the page and put up a template notice. Within a few hours and despite a copyvio warning from SarekOfVulcan, Ken restored the article to more or less the same state it had been in before I'd blanked it, arguing that facts can’t be copyrighted (well, true) and that his (lightly) revised version of the Post’s obit was fine (I disagree). He’s now blocked for a week. Since then Ken, still with access to his Talk page, has challenged Sarek to address Ken's assertion that the reintroduced text is fine under the copyright laws.

This unapologetic response made me wonder if perhaps the Mitchell article was not the only instance in which he’d copy & pasted material, and a quick review of just some of the 40+ articles he has created turned up one clear instance of shuffled paraphrasing, Kokosing_Gap_Trail, (the "Nature" section in particular) taken from here, as well as a fragmentary example of close paraphrasing, Olentangy_Park#The_1910s from here. I am guessing that other parts of that page are not original, and came from sources covering other decades. Several other articles, including Noguchi_table and Marshmallow sofa, are written in a style that does not seem to match the (admittedly limited) samples of Ken’s prose that I’ve seen in the course of my dealings with him, and while I’m suspicious of those, they cite extensive off-line sources and aren't as easily checked.

The upshot is that I have some but not a lot of evidence, plus some reasonable suspicion, that an editor has over a period of time been pulling together material from various sources, jiggering it around a bit and then adding it to Misplaced Pages. It's also possible that I'm making too much out of this and should find something else to do. In either case I think it’s inappropriate, in light of my history with him, to undertake remedies on my own; not to mention that I lack the expertise to detect and evaluate additional copyvios – if any – in any but the most blatant of cases.

What do you think is a proper course of action here? Thanks for any and all advice. JohnInDC (talk) 02:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I am traveling (will be flying home today), but this is concerning. :/ Looking at Kokosing Gap Trail, I can certainly see the issue you find. His defense that facts are not copyrightable is a familiar one, but cannot be used to excuse such close following as "it's not uncommon to see deer, wild turkey or a great blue heron skimming the top of the Kokosing River in search of food" to represent the fact that deer, wild turkey and blue heron are local residents--not when the source says, "It's not uncommon to see deer, hear the gobbles of wild turkeys or see a blue heron skimming the top of the river looking for food." There's obviously been an effort to rewrite, but the evocative imagery of the herons skimming the river is highly creative.

The proper course of action for you, in my opinion, was to do exactly as you have done--note the issue and point it out to somebody who is not involved with him to follow up. Needless to say, I'm going to have a lot to do when I get back to my desk, but I will add looking into his contribs to that list. :) Sarek has explained to him some of Misplaced Pages's norms, but there may be additional cleanup to be done.

(Anybody waiting for an answer from me above, I have only a few minutes before I have to get ready to fly home, but I hope to be able to catch up over the weekend.) --Moonriddengirl 14:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This is helpful and reassuring. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. JohnInDC (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Re BOI again

Hi MRG :)

I've received a reply from the BOI admin. He has some trouble filling in the blanks of one paragraph:

"I agree to "

Also, he wonders whether he really is not going to have any chance of withdrawing the agreement in the future, which he thinks is a little problematic as there can always happen something unexpected. I also think it's a bit weird because after all he's making us a favour and I understand why he would not like to be "trapped" forever.

Thank you. Shahid • 17:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The standard choice is perfectly fine, if he wants to go for that. :)

In terms of it being irrevocable, I'm afraid that there's nothing we can do about that one. :/ Content that is published on Misplaced Pages, as you know, is widely reused elsewhere and it could even be fixed in print, which is one reason why the license cannot be withdrawn. It's the same for each of us; every time we hit save, we "irrevocably agree" to license our content. --Moonriddengirl 15:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Non free use rationale

Hi, I don't know if you missed my comment above, but could you please check over my rationale? I need to know if it is good quickly, as I need to respond to another user. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'll answer up there. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(insert generic topic name here)

(Yeah, I was too lazy to make up a section name) I keep forgetting to ask this, but I just wanted to make sure of this for once. This user was a alt account I made, simply because that username is what I use on youtube. (not trying to advertise) (basically, I don't want someone impersonating me by using my youtube username) Since this is the case, would it be a allowed legit alt account, even though I'll likely never use it? LikeLakers2 (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Not explicitly, but I doubt that it's a harmful use of a secondary account. What you do need to do, though, is claim it. :) See WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Step 2 is the way to go here. It can help you avoid misunderstandings down the road. --Moonriddengirl 15:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, thanks for letting me know! :D Yes, I know there are other admins out there I could annoy ask these questions to, but I guess I prefer to just ask you them. LikeLakers2 (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking for TPS with merge/cut and paste experience

This is not so much for MRG as for her knowledgeable TPS. I want to do something, while preserving the history, and I have no experience with the cut and paste and merge techniques designed to preserve editing history.

I'll try to give a short summary here, but the longer details are at my talk page: here

Short version: The current text in Haroon Rashid was added by a single editor with two edits in history, both on 4 July 2011. The first edit blanked the page, the second add the text you see now. (other minor edits has added cats etc.) I don't think it would survive a BLProd, but if it did, it would almost certainly fail an AfD. I do think the redirect of Haroon Rashid Harun al-Rashid. However, if the current version is deleted, the edit history would be lost. What I would like to do is carve out the existing text into a new article, Haroon Rashi (engineer), let that one stand or fall on its own merits (BLProd, and AfD if needed), and restore the main article to the status of a redirect.

I don't know how to do that and preserve the edit "history" of User:Cutehr.

Suggestions?--SPhilbrickT 13:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the simplest thing be to move the entire page to the new article title (reverting to the proper version if need be), then recreate the redirect at the current title? LadyofShalott 13:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If I'm following you, that was my original plan. However, I anticipate that article being deleted. The article has a long history including an original formulation as a (non-notable) security manager. While not much would be lost, I'd hate to lose that history, in case someone whats to know what happened. The ne redirect would have no history, and if someone came along to add the security manager or the engineer, the page history would give no clue. Maybe that's not the end of the world, but I hate to through away the institutional history (I realize it wouldn't be totally gone, but what are the odds, a year form now, that someone would know to search for the deleted article Haroon Rashi (engineer) and review that history to find the real history of the page? Or maybe that's not a big deal? I'm probably making a bigger deal of it than it deserves, but I didn't want to do something and find out there was a better way. --SPhilbrickT 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit jet-laggy (and just got back from a vet visit, as my pet sitter apparently didn't notice that my dog was getting hot spots), but if I'm following this correctly it seems like the thing to do is split the article. I'm going to look at it more closely and make sure that I'm not missing something...entirely possible under the circumstances. :D --Moonriddengirl 15:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

All right; I've separated out the four different articles that have existed at that title (!) and turned the page itself into a disambiguation page. It may well be that every one of those four should be deleted, but I'll leave that to others to work out. :) --Moonriddengirl 15:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm in the middle of some template work, but when I finish that I'll come back and take a look at the results, and start the deletion process where warranted. (I knew merge wasn't what I wanted, but I had a mind blank and didn't think about Split, partly cause I've never done one.)--SPhilbrickT 15:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your input appreciated

Hi MRG, you may remember a while back the issue we had with foundational copyvio at Vivian Balakrishnan, where we found text in the first diff identical to that on a government biography in 2004. It now appears this same text is available on his personal website licensed under a CC license. A number of anonymous IPs, likely the same user on a (very) dynamic IP, has repeatedly reinserted this material, going as far as to claim that the text "was obviously written by him too". My opinion is that we should err on the side of copyright and I absolutely do not buy what the anon editor is saying (there has been a much larger issue of pro-government POV pushing going on), but I will defer to your copyright expertise on whether or not this text is legit. Please be aware that the article currently contains this text, as it was readded today.

Thanks, Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful here to date this website, but I haven't been able to get WhoIs information on it. :/ If you could ask somebody at the help desk, maybe they could help come up with that info, which would advise us how to proceed? --Moonriddengirl 15:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no Wayback Machine archives for the site, which leads me to believe it is a fairly recent creation. Certainly, I don't think it was around in 2004. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be my expectation as well, but it's hard to say for sure since I can't get any WhoIs information coughed up for the site. :) It would be best if we could find out more definitively the age of the website, and I'm afraid I've got quite a lot of backlog to take care of after traveling this week. :/ Maybe a talk page stalker will know? --Moonriddengirl 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's of any use, the most simplest of checks shows that the archive of blog posts on his website show the first post being in July 2010. That would seem to suggest the site did not exist prior to that, at least in its current form. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be what we have to settle for, then. --Moonriddengirl 16:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Please check the legal position. The original author has published his updated CV under Creative License on his own website. He is a politician holding public office in Singapore. The purpose of this publication (and that of earlier government versions) is to provide relevant information to the public. The government must be aware of the fact that he has published his own CV on his website and has never objected given his authorship and purpose of publication. It seems strange for Misplaced Pages to now be unable to rely on WP:ABOUTSELF to use the material. Apart from legal perspectives, there is the question of common sense. How many ways are there of saying "His early education was at Anglo Chinese School and National Junior College"? Thank you very much. 220.255.1.132 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV - La goutte de pluie accuses many editors of COI. However, a detailed look at the history shows that she has consistently been pushing her own POV in the Vivian Balakrishnan page since 27 April 2011, the Nomination Day of the Singapore General Election of 2011. Her pattern of edits show her political bias and obsession with one issue. Furthermore, she has abused her admin rights in making questionable edits and even resorting to protecting the page when other editors intervene. This behaviour should make her subject to recall - which she has consistently declined. I am forced to use IP because of the risk of her targetting my contributions to Misplaced Pages 220.255.1.132 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You should be aware by now that by doing so, you are committing sockpuppetry. Considering your edits are controversial and often contested, this is a problem and could (should, imo) lead to blocks. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing controversial about restoring material from verifiable sources to the article. This does not constitute committing sockpuppetry. Everyone on wikipedia, including you, has the right to use pseudonyms. Your threat to block illustrates why I have to use IP. I hope the full history of edits on Vivian Balakrishnan (dating back several years) will be reviewed by an impartial panel. The pattern of POI pushing by La goutte de pluie and allies will be obvious to a neutral observer. Thank you. 220.255.1.134 (talk) 03:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not the anonymous IP above, just so you know. La goutte de pluie removed the entire biography section in late June claiming it's copyrights violation and protected the page. She did not even try to put it back. When the page was unprotected, I rewrote the section in early June and placed it back up. La goutte de pluie once again started accusing the same thing about sockpuppets and copyrights violation. I am merely replacing my work because I do not see what is wrong. I am not related to the group of IPs/editors who have been trying to add Vivian Balakrishnan photos and replace text with that from his blog. I would also like to highlight that when the page was protected, I had asked La goutte de pluie to add new information on the page. She simply refused it, challenging me to be the one doing it, even though she knew the page was protected. People make edits to make the page more informative. For La goutte de pluie, I don't see how she's contributing. She just keeps expanding all the trivia sections and focus on the negative issues. I have seen no effort on her part to contribute, if she even knows what the word means.202.156.13.10 (talk) 09:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

User:La goutte de pluie is a self-declared lesbian - see her user page. Now we know why she is so fixated on a vendetta against Vivian Balakrishnan. She removed long standing material, and single handedly wrote the section on so called Electoral Issues - with undue weight and tried to paint Balakrishnan as anti-gay. User:Strange Passerby has a bit more careful in his edits, but clearly knows User:La goutte de pluie personally. So who are the people with a real COI ?? 220.255.1.153 (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In terms of protection, if the page is semi-protected, you have the option to use your named account to edit it. You have no explicit right to expect others to edit it on your behalf if you're not willing to do so.

"Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP" is specifically mentioned as a form of sock puppetry. If you believe that any administrator is abusing his or her authority, you need to take action under Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Disputes or complaints rather than violating policy yourself. Please be careful to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. It's rather tenuous to suggest that EditorA must be biased because she is a lesbian and EditorB must be biased because he may know EditorA. --Moonriddengirl 14:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The evidence for the biased behaviour of User:La goutte de pluie is overwhelming if you take a look at her over aggressive POI pushing on this particular page since 27 April 2011. She had no prior interest in this page, but has since become obsessed. I notice that you removed the original page on the 17 May 2011. Although attribution remains, the actual edits prior to 17 May 2011 are not available to normal Misplaced Pages users. Please restore Vivian Balakrishnan entire history so that the Misplaced Pages community can see how much User:La goutte de pluie has pursued this action and judge her, and I can then take action under Misplaced Pages:ADMIN#Disputes or complaints. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.112 (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Ritz-Carlton Hotel (Atlantic City)

Is there a reason you have chosen to gut this article rather than address copyright issues? Thanks Djflem (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I did address copyright issues, by removing the text in accordance with procedures at the copyright problems board. You were given the standard notice of issues - including notice that the entire article could be deleted - and allowed time to propose a rewrite. You didn't. Neither did anyone else. It's unfortunate when that's the way it happens, but that's often the way it goes. --Moonriddengirl 19:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not find an explanation for why an entire article would be gutted of content and references including all parts which were not subject to questions of copyright. Can you point out that policy on the page you've cited. Thanks Djflem (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is able to determine how much of that content was copied by you as opposed to what may have been authored. It is undeniable that content was copied. After seven days, as you were advised, the entire article may be deleted if the problem is not addressed. See Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations and Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/Advice for admins. In this case, as I often do, I attempted to salvage at least a stub. It is not the responsibility of administrators or copyright clerks to rewrite problematic content. You should be aware that several other articles you've written are currently listed at the copyright problems board; if you do not take responsibility for repairing these issues, they will almost certainly be handled in the same way, if they are not deleted altogether. --Moonriddengirl 19:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Both of the above seem to indicate that the investigator should thoroughly investigate each article before deciding to keep, alter, or delete it and that 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. As the copyright clerk specifically cited the sources where there were copyright issues, why would you choose to delete material where there were was none? Djflem (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

First, there is no clean version in history, as yours was the foundational edit. But beyond that, there is no reason to presume that you copied from only one source. You have multiple articles up for copyright cleanup right now drawn from multiple sources. WP:CV discusses handling of contributors who have been shown to have extensive copyright issues; we cannot assume that content you have placed is safe. This is why there is a WP:CCI opened to evaluate your contributions. At this point, policy supports presuming that all content you have placed on Misplaced Pages is a violation of copyright, but in practice we do try to make sure there are actually issues with an article before deleting the content. --Moonriddengirl 20:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One presumes a copyright clerk has does his or her work before tagging an article, would properly identify the section and/or text at contention, and then tag it correctly if a s(he) felt there was an issue. One would presume that the investigator would look at the text and sources noted by the clerk and report provided in the tag. Do you believe that has been done w/ the above or any other articles? Incidentally, where and why does the opening of an investigation establish a policy that presumes anything? How does remove the infringing text from the article translate to gutting a article? Djflem (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's understandable that you would think so, but perhaps you're less familiar with WP:CP. I suggest you review the language at the top of your CCI. This community-approved process includes the following text: "If the contributor has added creative content, either evaluate it carefully for copyright concerns or remove it." (emphasis added) I'm sure that you may have pasted content onto Misplaced Pages without realizing that this is against our policies, but unfortunately it does necessitate some clean up. I realize you may not always be happy with the process, and I'm sorry that we don't have enough people to carefully clean up such problems. Frequently, removal is the only option.

Incidentally, I am looking at the current crop at WP:CP, and you should be aware that another administrator has found problems with your proposed rewrite of Perth Amboy City Hall. See Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems/2011 July 12. Please be careful if you do attempt to help clean articles to ensure that you are completely rewriting content in your own words. I have not looked closely at the rewrite yet myself, but certainly can understand her concerns. For instance, the source says:

It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man named Martin, angered by his earlier imprisonment in the City Hall on debt charges, allegedly set fire to the building.

Your proposed rewrite at Talk:Perth Amboy City Hall/Temp includes the following:

It was again burned in 1765 or 1766 when a man angered by his earlier imprisonment on debt charges allegedly set the building afire..

This sentence is clearly a derivative of the original, to the point that every word in the sentence is in the original source, in almost lockstep order, with the exception of your alteration of "allegedly set fire to the building" to read "allegedly set the building afire."

You may wish to review Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing, which includes some suggestions for how to rewrite content in a manner accepted on Misplaced Pages. --Moonriddengirl 21:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Vic Reinemer deletion

Hi, I am one of Vic Reinemer's sons. I did not create the Vic Reinemer entry and was not aware of its existence. So now that I've come across an apparent deletion of it, I'm curious to know what it said, who had posted it and, specifically, why it was deleted. Is any of this information available?

Thanks very much,

Steve Reinemer

168.103.225.22 (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi.:) The biography was a brief overview of your father's career. It was posted by an alternate account of contributor User:Pohick2, who has been indefinitely blocked from editing Misplaced Pages due to repeated copyright problems. Unfortunately, although he knows he is not currently welcome to contribute, he has persisted in doing so, creating new accounts against policy to add content. When contributors are no longer welcome to edit, their contributions are frequently deleted as a matter of routine, particularly when they have a history of copyright problems. The article on your father was one of hundreds deleted for that reason at the same time. The deletion of the article in no way reflects on your father; Misplaced Pages would welcome an article about him if created by somebody who was willing and able to comply with our policies. --Moonriddengirl 13:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a transcript of what had been posted for Vic Reinemer?

168.103.225.22 (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

There are licensing issues with my providing you the full text, I'm afraid, but looking at it, it wasn't much of an article. It opened with the note that he was associate editor for his paper. It included a line about his college and three brief sentences about his political service to Lee Metcalf and James E. Murray, including note of his involvement in the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It gave the current location of his papers. It listed two books which evidently he co-authored and noted that he had received The Hillman Prize in 1954. The sources used in the article were the following: , , . Most of the biography seems to have been taken with minimal alteration from the last source. --Moonriddengirl 13:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul S. Farmer

Would you mind adding your observations concerning Paul's inquiry about the COI tag on the article talk page Talk:Paul S. Farmer? Thanks Opbeith (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Weighed in there. :) --Moonriddengirl 13:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a helpful intervention and I found it educational too! Opbeith (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If someone trouted Jimbo Wales...

If someone was planning to {{trout}} Jimbo Wales, what would they use? I'd say they could use a barnstar on him, since he is a/the founder of Misplaced Pages. LikeLakers2 (talk) 13:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess one would need to figure out why they wanted to trout Jimmy first and then check to see if he is open to trouting. Generally, a "trout" means "Hey, cut that out" while a barnstar means "Well done." I wouldn't leave either one without a clear reason. I myself wouldn't leave Jimmy a barnstar simply for having been a/the founder of Misplaced Pages, as he's probably gotten a few of those already. I'd give him one for something he's doing now. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

When I said using a barnstar, I meant whacking him with one. (and I randomly feel like giving him a custom barnstar with this name: "The Barnstar of IMA FIRIN MAH LAZOR BLAAAAHHHHHH"; it picture would be a barnstar pic, with a Shoop Da Whoop in the middle, firin' his lazor to, say, the left) LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

And mainly, I think troutings are not only for that purpose that you mentioned, but just for general messing around and having fun with people. Though its not to be used on me abused too much. LikeLakers2 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, this user once "whaled" Jimbo. I happened to be around Jimbo's page at that time and got into a conversation about trouting. (It so happens I ended up getting trouted, too.) CycloneGU (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Proof that CycloneGU iss right is located here :3 LikeLakers2 (talk) 01:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Marina Poplavskaya (AN/I thread)

It's been suggested that, either in a volunteer or WMF position (use whichever is more appropriate), that you might want to observe this proceeding. A BLP is complaining about a photograph taken of her; meanwhile, the copyright holder of the photograph took it legally at an event with about eight other pictures (see Commons discussion). It seems that this BLP isn't aware of how Misplaced Pages works and is not happy with the fact that a picture and article about her are present on Misplaced Pages. Might it be prudent to take this one over? Your comments at AN/I are welcome. CycloneGU (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi. :) I'm happy to weigh in as a volunteer. (As community liaison, my job involves interaction with editing communities, not really BLP subjects. In fact, until my contract expires, there's a lot I'm not able to do anymore at OTRS. :/) I'll come take a look. --Moonriddengirl 17:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I wrote to her through the "email this user" function to encourage her to follow Voceditenore's advice. This is not the first time I've seen a BLP subject unhappy with an image of themselves; we can't always make them happy, of course, but even if we have to tell them that we can't remove the picture, it's a good idea to try to avoid making a hardcore enemy of Misplaced Pages. No reason to generate ill-will amongst readers and BLP subjects if it can be avoided. Hopefully if she does write to OTRS, she'll get somebody diplomatic. --Moonriddengirl 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that's pretty much what she has to do to verify her identity. On the flip side, I've been involved in a BLP dispute of my own choosing before (no picture issue, mind) with Harold Covington and - well - that didn't go well. He seemed most of the time not to acknowledge the efforts of myself or anyone else to help him, even calling out a newly appearing user as an enemy of his from his blog (and THAT is colourful, I think it's linked from User talk:Off2riorob or perhaps his archive). Most recently, I saw a remark (see linked talk page above) where he accuses us of hiding five years' worth of discussions (which is was bluntly pointed out that it wasn't, and it was necessary to create this archive only because Covington continually removed things he didn't like from people's posts as an IP). Quite a colourful two weeks on that article and talk page up to now. He now writes very disparaging remarks against Misplaced Pages off-site, and frankly, I gave up on him after a couple of days. I can be patient, but when someone spits in your face in response, patience wears thin. =) CycloneGU (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

We can do our best, but it happens. :) We had one BLP subject write to OTRS who I was able to help (she had legitimate complaints, but the errors in her article were kind of mild), and she still talked about how awful Misplaced Pages is in her last letter. Didn't make any difference to her that I personally went out of my way to research and rewrite the problematic section of her biography. :/ Oh, well. I'm happy to say that more often than not, the BLP subjects I've encountered at OTRS have left happy with us, even if not always with their articles. Maybe those people will help counter the others. :D --Moonriddengirl 19:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is my opinion, faulted as it might be, that those who don't fully understand how Misplaced Pages works will never be truly happy with what goes on here. How many of these famous notable people are among our highly active editors? How many are administrators? We might possibly have a dozen on the former (though not likely, they have better things to do, like photo ops), but on the latter, I'd be surprised if anything greater than 0 comes up. =D CycloneGU (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I am a professional thread-closer at AN/I. =D But yes, I thought Misplaced Pages and what it is were common knowledge. I suppose a poll question should be used for a future game show regarding what people think of Misplaced Pages' it's been ten years now, it's good enough for trivia. =D CycloneGU (talk) 20:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Copyright question

I left a question about a copyright issue at User talk:Worm That Turned#Copyright question 2 and thought you might be able to provide an answer. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about acceptable level of source use

Hey, MRG. Could you take a look at User talk:Ken keisel and either explain to him or the other editors who've chimed in (including me) what's wrong with their understanding of Misplaced Pages copyright policy? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'm pretty sure he's on my list of "things I didn't get to while gone last week." There's been a lot of that. :/ --Moonriddengirl 20:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Gracias. Sanity checks are good things -- after all, I might be setting the line too far to the side here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not. Looking back at what happened to a bureaucrat and arb whom I quite liked makes amply clear that the community does not support his view. Policy is itself explicit; the word "only" in the relevant portion I quoted does not leave room to argue. --Moonriddengirl 21:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Corenbot crisis

New Page Patrol is a trainwreck and has been for a long time. It is most unlikely that the majority of those who purport to patrol new pages even bother to carry out the most simple of checks requested in the task list at WP:NPP. The only way to fix the copyvio problem is to turn New Page Patroller into a user right, for experienced editors only. CorenBot will just have to be fixed very urgently, while those of us in the minority who are admins and experienced users who occasionally have a stab at NPP, generally carry out the controls you suggested. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

British Isles Topic Probation - edit review

Hi Moonriddengirl. Sorry to bug you but I have a something I want a seond pair of eyes on. User:HighKing has been one of many parties involved with the disute over the inclusion/removal/alteration the term 'British Isles' from WP articles. This dispute is covered by WP:GS/BI. HighKing has a series of cautions from me about edits from June of this year to present. He was formally warned to stop edit warring with user Stemonitis in the last 24 hrs (see) and reverted him on a new article today spilling over from the dispute at the Myrmica_ruginodis article. However (and this might seem wonky but I know this action will creat a s**t-storm so I want 'all my ducks in a row') he questioned my warning and made this edit while I was in the middle of confirming that warning. Thus I want another uninvolved admin to review and give another POV on whether sanctions are warranted.
I have come to the opinion that it has and have sanction TB01 (topic ban from article but allowed to discuss) from the list of remedies available at WP:GS/BI in mind. Sorry to dose this on you but I'd really appreciate some input--Cailil 18:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A history of this dispute can be seen at WP:BISE however it is a very long one--Cailil 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please note also that HK as his self reverted - see here - this hsould probably be taken into account but I would still like your POV on this--Cailil 19:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It should also be noted that this latest BIs 'drama' is intimately related to User:MickMacNee's recent 'departure', and his determination to pull down the tent before he left. RashersTierney (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)