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 05:57, 4 January 2025 UTC . Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Copyvio from editor with 700 edits
I discovered Mariepr (talk·contribs) from a post someone left about copyvio at SS Santa Paula (1916) at Misplaced Pages talk:Did you know#SS Santa Paula 1916. I looked into more of her edits and much is copyrighted, but it is difficult to spot. Phrases like "dividing fashion into seasons and for deciding to sell paper patterns of his creations to the international market, preferring to sell his own ideas himself, rather than falling victim to inevitable imitations" have been copied from here to here. Another phrase, "his aggressive self-promotion earned him the titles "father of haute couture" and "the first couturier." was copied from here in the same edit. It is the fact that she's copying from multiple sources at once that makes it difficult to spot. What should we do about this? CCI? RyanVesey14:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's what we traditionally do. :/ My general approach is to spot check an editor's contrib history and see if I find five articles with clear issues. I don't know if you've ever taken the dupdet tool for a test drive, but it is a sweet way of organizing this work and making it manageable.
For instance, this contributor really only has about 30 articles to be concerned about; that's a whole lot more doable than 700 edits. :) (This link will expire). I grabbed one at random (SS Santa Paula (1932) and confirmed that there's some close following on one of its sources. I didn't find it by checking the sources; I found it by grabbing a sentence at random and performing a google search. But my experience suggests that in this kind of situation you have an entirely good faith misunderstanding of how much rewriting is expected. I would be surprised to find any duplication to a source that is not cited, based just on that one article. I think there is no intent to violate either WP:Copyrights or WP:Plagiarism.
In this kind of case, if the contributor is amenable, it can be a good idea to point out diplomatically that the issue may exist in additional articles and to ask her (presuming from name) to check and revise where necessary. (I would not do this if my spot-check found issues substantial enough that I felt I had to blank the articles, but only where the {{close paraphrasing}} tag seems sufficient to me - generally, when I think that the content is not substantially similar to a given source.) There is sometimes some initial dismay; I find it really helpful to point out from the start that our local policy simply requires that all information taken from non-free sources, aside from explicitly marked quotations, must be put into your own words. Since you've already established a connection, you might want to give it a go, but - if you can - could you please spot-check a few more articles in case there are more extensive issues than we realize? After a holiday weekend, I'm expecting a pretty busy day today. :D If you want assistance with this - poking about or talking - please let me know. --Moonriddengirl
While many of the matches flagged by dupdet are incidental, I think there are a couple of phrases that need rewriting or quoting. I would flag that with {{close paraphrasing}} or mention it to her. It's the kind of thing that I might under some circumstances simply rewrite myself - when there is no pattern of issue, anybody can have an off day - but where there is pattern, the most important thing is helping the editor learn local best practices so that she can continue adding content without encountering further or worse problems. Win-win. :) --Moonriddengirl11:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Sources: I can unilaterally say that none of my edits contain any source material what was not cited in References sections. (Where other editors obtained their source material is something only they can know.) In the interest of verifiability only source text available on the internet is used and not any from "dead tree" sources. In one way it's a shame because a book edited by a major publisher would tend to have the facts right and therefore be far more reliable regarding content. But if the source material is online other editors can check it for relevant content - or duplication. Giving as a source a printed book on say, Ships of the Grace Line, another editor would have to be an expert in the subject to have it on his/her shelf or would have to make a time consuming trip to a reference library. (Or, spend the money to buy the eBook as is increasingly possible.)
House of Worth: I had no role in the press releases that had been incorporated into it over the past two years but my attempts to write a neutral POV and add inline citations confused the attributions to the point where it become difficult to identify which editors were responsible. A "clean" subpage has been drafted and I am working with User talk:Voceditenore to resolve the matter. One thing that I have learned from this is that press releases are copyrighted material! This was astonishing to me because a press release is written specifically to promote a product or service in the hopes that its contents will be indeed be copied and disseminated as news.
Close Paraphrasing: My usual approach to drafting an article is to do so in my own userspace sandbox. This gives me full functionality for inserting inline citations, wikilinks, etc. I prefer to do this as the article is developed rather than pick through it and insert the citations later. I'm aware that uploading an article with copy/paste directly from sources is a copyright violation so I don't (intentionally) do it. What I have done is to paste into the sandbox source text, re-write it, then delete the source text. What appears to be the problem is that too much remained as verbatim source text. I had not until this week known that Toolhaus Duplication Detector existed! While I was aware of the CorenSearchBot I thought that duplication detectors were Administrator tools. What I would have done differently was to run the Duplication Detector on each of the cited references and change any significant matches found.
New Article Review: Several of the articles which I authored regard cargo and passenger ships. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Ships (where I am not a member) does patrol for new articles which might fall within their scope. They review and grade articles according to their own project standards. After uploading an article and having it reviewed by at least two other editors, I hope you can understand my astonishment that months later there might copyright compliance problems after that review. My initial trials with Duplication Detector have turned up matches for vessel technical information (US government agency public domain material) and a lot of technical but generic ship vocabulary. (How many ways can it be said that a vessel "was scrapped in 1985"?) One example of an article passing project review was Typaldos Lines and, since it mentioned a lawsuit, included in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Law - a group which should be very aware of copyright and other legal issues. What I would do differently is outlined above. And if the same "generic phrases" come too close together it can be construed as duplication.
Past edits: I have begun to use Duplication Detector against the articles which I had authored. Those edited with the past two days are Type_C6_ship, Horizon Lines, Ted Alan Worth, SS Santa Rosa (1932), and Typaldos Lines. I will continue checking the articles which I had authored and will next move to those where I added substantial content. If it has been a while since the article was last visited inline citations may have been lost by subsequent editors.
Lessons Learned: Any material, electronic or printed, is copyright protected unless specifically in the public domain or formally released for use. In some of my past hobbies group newsletters often didn't mind if their material was re-used so long as they were given credit for it. But those were non-profit groups and there was no commercial interest to copyright.
Going forward: My interest right now is to help clear any copyright problems that may be associated with my contibutions. I'm aware it was brought up from the very beginning that this normally has to head down the CCI path, if for no other reason to protect Misplaced Pages. That is indeed regretful and most importantly it exhausts volunteer time that would otherwise have been spent on the development of content. However should that nonetheless be necessary I want to cooperate and help "clean up any messes". NightSt✷r(talk)21:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. You're welcome here. :) I appreciate your working to assist with this and certainly do understand your astonishment. People do not always look for paraphrasing issues when reviewing articles, so sometimes articles that have undergone peer review do turn out to have issues that were missed. Fortunately, these can be cleaned up later. :)
If I may speak to some of your specific points:
Offline references are okay, although online sources do have the advantages you mention. You just need to be careful to provide full citation information and, of course, to put the information in your own words, unless you are explicitly quoting.
Yes, until and unless some court definitively declares otherwise, press releases can be copyrighted material. The people who put them out may have choices about who publishes them, where and in what context, and they certainly may object to modifications of the material.
The Duplication Detector is a great tool for helping to pinpoint problems but does have some limitations in that it searches for text strings only. To try to make why this is a problem more clear - if you translate from Chinese into English, you are replacing every word, but you are still infringing the copyright of the original (see Derivative work). Rewriting to avoid taking creative content from your sources goes beyond word substitution, into the the structure of the piece as well. I can talk about this more, if you'd like. :)
Again, I do appreciate your work here. I hope that it will not prove to be too difficult. If you have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to come by. --Moonriddengirl10:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the Duplication Detector does have its limits especially when it returns a long string of closely matching text. An editor with some background in ships wouldn't get alarmed at a match for ...converted into a crane ship by Dillingham Ship Repair, Portland, Oregon in 1986, renamed Grand Canyon State T-AC-3.. Not exactly flowing and creative narration. Somebody unfamiliar with the genre however would see such a length of character match as a huge red flag. Ironically the blanked Type C6 ship article is one with the fewest problem areas. The flagged text mainly consisted of vessel technical details which are US government agency public domain data. Just to update you where my close phrasing check stands, I have checked and tweaked where needed: SS Santa Rosa (1916), SS Santa Rosa (1932), The Emerald (design and oil tanker collision sections, as those were the only two which I edited), SS Santa Paula (1932), SS Santa Paula (1916) and Stephen Payne (designer). There may be some duplication within RMS Pendennis Castle as it was one of my first articles, so I'll run through that next. NightSt✷r(talk)02:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps Moonriddengirl would think differently, but I've written a number of articles on ships including 3 DYK's and a GA and I found that to be a problem. How is that difficult to rewrite? RyanVesey03:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Y'know, we get so caught up sometimes with people who purposely paraphrase to get themselves more accolades that we forget many people do it completely on accident. Thanks so much for working with MRG and Ryan to address this. I, for one, am impressed by your attitude here. Ed05:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I think probably they frequently are accidental. People often struggle between meeting the close adherence to sources required by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and the need for complete rewriting. :) I don't know enough about ships to know what is formulaic, but I do know that English is a very word-rich language. It's a real benefit when it comes to rewriting! --Moonriddengirl11:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Just to give you an update, I've checked RMS Pendennis Castle and made some text rewrites. Nothing was too bad. Also checked was Port of Southampton regarding earlier edits on the cruise terminals and planned expansion sections. No paraphrasing there but some links had rotted and they were fixed. Also checked was United States Lines but I had been building a list of their vessels and had only minor edits in the narrative sections. Tomorrow I'll look at another article. NightSt✷r(talk)01:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
MS American Leader has now been run through Duplication Detector, although I may have to give a couple of references another pass in 24 hours. The fate of the crew section relies mainly on a sole source - that of a still surviving crew member/POW. NightSt✷r(talk)02:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Duplication Detector is being run on USAHS Marigold and USAHS Acadia. Two external sites were not loading at all and will have to be checked later. In both of these articles the sources are a mix of US government public domain material as well as copyrighted material e.g., veteran personal recollections published on private sites as opposed to official reports from their function as members of the US military. NightSt✷r(talk)02:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Omdo again
Since the last unblock, Omdo has continued to make changes without talkpage discussion. After I explicitly noted on their talkpage that they needed to discuss things, this conversation emerged. As can be seen, there's no actual discussion, and the English used is as obtuse as the English used in articles. This suggests to me a competence issue of some sort, possibly language-related, despite their being able to write well enough to make a few beneficial edits. In my opinion Omdo is well past the point of being disruptive, despite their blocks, something made a more frustrating as they edit in places very few people do. As an admin who has previously blocked Omdo, are you able to take action, or do I have to report to another forum? Regards, CMD (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The language use there is a bit alarming. :/ He seems to be attempting to discuss issues, though. I think, though, that it is probably a matter beyond me. I am comfortable addressing edit warring and content dispute issues on occasion, but competence blocks are a pretty big deal. If he is capable of constructive contributions, maybe the thing to do is narrow down where the issue is and propose mentoring or limitations there? --Moonriddengirl01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
The discussion was an initial blunt statement that doesn't seem to have much relevance to the topic, a statement that we shouldn't get distracted from the topic, and then a disparagement to my common sense. After that another long blunt post which again explains nothing. It doesn't feel much like discussion to me, especially as none of the statements are in the most understandable of English. The problem of limitations is that all of their edits are on the same theme, that of Sabah and Sarawak. They seem to be a SPA pushing some personal viewpoint that Sabah and Sarawak are special, and trying to support this with a lot of primary documents. Their constructive contributions often become disruptive once they go past a certain point, and even then I often end up having to fix the English I can understand. I think that the only mentoring that could possibly work is one in their native language, which I assume is some form of Malay. CMD (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
If you think that mentorship is unlikely to help, probably the best thing to do is assemble some links demonstrating the global issue and consider a ban discussion. :/ --Moonriddengirl12:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think it is unlikely to help in light of what seems to be a very low standard of English. They have decided to revert my revert again without explanation, to make an edit that adds an identical footnote to every entry in a table (not coincidentally, the table containing Sabah and Sarawak). I'll make a post on AN as suggested. Thanks, CMD (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hi Ankit. I tried it out and it works OK (I don't use Twinkle). However, I clarified the wording in the doc. You had put "if you are a student - yes or leave it blank". I changed it to: "if the editor is a student put yes or leave it blank". MRG, is that OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voceditenore (talk • contribs) 06:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi can you send me a link to the copyvio material that caused this article to get deleted? It is hard for me to believe that this painting could have anything new written about it worth protecting, as it has been around so long and has been written about extensively for centuries. Thanks Jane (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Verno. :) Just to add to this: copyright does not protect the originality of the ideas expressed. It protects the originality of the expression. You can say the most mundane thing in the world and still receive copyright protection if you say it in an original way. --Moonriddengirl11:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I spent a long time cleaning up this guy's copyvios, and I'd hate to see him introduce more and more copyvios. Would you agree that we have a WP:DUCK here?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Well, first, SPI is not at all my thing. There are a couple of sock puppeteers I watch out for, but mostly I list them myself at WP:SPI because I like an admin with more experience there to evaluate before blocking. In this case, I think you present a really strong case. The question is how best to handle it. Conk 9's copyright issues were related to images. I see only one image uploaded by GoUrban. If he's staying away from the problem area, maybe the best way to handle it would be to erase the subterfuge, openly connect the contributors and seek an image upload ban (or impose a "pre-screen" via an experienced editor)? Are you aware of any other problems with Conk 9's work? --Moonriddengirl09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's a whole different kettle of fish. :/ Commons doesn't recognize our sanctions anyway, although of course as we have shared goals they do sometimes impose sanctions of their own on contributors sanctioned here. Some of those images have consistent metadata, and some of them have no metadata at all (Commons:File:Olde Towne Portsmouth VA.jpg). It's possible that they don't have metadata because he snagged them from his Facebook? I don't know. Images are not really my area. But the one you flag as particularly suspicious is a concern.
I see a couple of possibilities here. First, I can go to Commons and ask him to identify the individual images that make up that montage. If he cannot, I will nominate it for deletion. Alternatively, on the basis of his history, I can nominate the image for deletion straightaway. Or, I can go to the Administrator's Noticeboard there and alert Common's admins to the issues (prior history of copyvios; indef block on Misplaced Pages) and ask them to look into it. (I'm not an admin on Commons.)
You did great work at that CCI, in terms of meticulously evaluating the data and cleaning up after him, and I certainly understand your wish not to see it happen again. --Moonriddengirl11:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. If you're willing to block GoUrban here on en.wiki, based on the evidence above, I'll start sifting through the images on Commons for copyvios. Thanks.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for bumping this. I had overlooked it. I think you offer strong enough evidence to warrant the block. I've gone ahead and followed through. --Moonriddengirl12:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
This doesn't cut it, correct? It needs to be released under an applicable license. Can you explain the rules there? I don't think we should copy the material anyways, the article should be easy to write in the temp page. RyanVesey14:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No it doesn't cut it. We need an explicit release under a free license or into the public domain. The statement that "You may use the information" doesn't even establish that it's intended to be permission to quote the text verbatim. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That's what I thought. Can you leave a note on his talk page, I'd like to have another editor contact him since I already left a note. RyanVesey01:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The Story of Miss Moppet
Hi Moonriddengirl, are you familiar with the case of The Story of Miss Moppet? A user nominated it at WP:TFAR and someone suggested that you be appraised of it. Do you know if the copyright issues have been resolved? Truthkeeper said she thinks "there's nothing wrong with it", but that she'd like us to get your input, as well. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, MRG. Just to jog your memory this is an ILT page that passed FAC. I scrubbed it with Ruhrfisch's help. In my view it would not be useful to run this on the main page for all of the obvious reasons. Thanks, Truthkeeper (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Adding, in the least all the links would have to be checked. I think I only cleaned about four or five of these pages and found serious problems. If this runs on the main page we'd most likely be putting up material that links to problematic pages in particular the Beatrix Potter page. I did scrub that but our friend has been back since and honestly I've taken most of these off my watch so haven't been scrubbing and rescrubbing. The history for Beatrix Potter is very problematic. If you'd like I can make a list of all the links in the Miss Moppet page that I'd consider problematic, but can't get to it immediately. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. :) I'm afraid that I don't have any first hand knowledge of the copyright status of the article. I'd trust Truthkeeper on that, since she did the heavy lifting there. The history (not edit history; but actual history) is pretty problematic, since we're talking about an entrenched copyright infringer who has socked extensively. If the user in question has been back, I would consider copyright concerns very likely substantial. :( --Moonriddengirl12:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)::
Hi MRG, thanks for the response. When things calm down in a few day I'll be back (with a new thread) because I think we should brainstorm about what to do with the ILT CCI that's been open for almost two years, with very little work done to it. The problem, as I see it, is that most of those pages are of quite high quality, a number of them are GA, and they continue to have contaminated histories. I don't know who makes a determination whether or not we want pages with copyright violations on the main page (somewhere there's a discussion to put GAs on the main page), but my sense is that it's not a great idea, although maybe I'm worrying needlessly. That said, I haven't a clue how to deal with this situation as it stands, so maybe it needs some thought. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
So does that mean that the FA is irretrievably polluted and can't ever appear on the main page, although it has been "cleaned" of pollution? Should it have it's FA star removed and kicked out of the FA page? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
What is the difference between the "actual history" and the "edit history"? Where is the "actual history" accessible to us newbies, or is that sekret info? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Actual history is not a technical page; it's memory of those people who have experienced it. :) This contributor has a long history of copying content from print and online sources, sometimes with very little alteration. I don't have any input on the FA process. I've never been involved in it. --Moonriddengirl20:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
ahhh! very interesting. so in other words, subjective memories (grudges and such) are more "reliable" than the actual page history. Effectively keeps out newbies, which seems to be the point. And wikipedia wonders why it can't retain new editors? Really? So why is the discussion about Miss Moffitt taking place on many diverse pages, none of them on FAR? Why is it the purview of a specific editor? Why did it pass FAC if all was s terrible? And the apparent fact that it's been "cleaned up" means nothing? Not very professional, but I guess wikipedia is run by a few "old crew" that bounces out newbies. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Given your persistent confusion about this, I'll try to clarify in spite of your tone. If you want to discuss it further, please remember that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are policies. Like many, I respond best to polite conversation.
I distinguished above between actual history and edit history because I did not want anyone to be confused in thinking that I was using 'history' in the specialized term that we use here - that is, page history. I do not have a clue what copyright issues may or may not be found in the edit history of that article - I've never touched it. When I say the history is problematic, that's not what I'm talking about. The history to which I refer is my prior work on the CCI for the user in question - an entrenched sock-puppeting serial copyright infringer. My response is entirely to the context of the discussion here; I have no idea what discussions there may be going on about it in how many other places. The only ones I've seen have been at my talk page...until I followed you after your note here. --Moonriddengirl22:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Ryan. :) It's hard for me to say when an issue becomes serious enough that somebody should not be supported, since when to support or not support is so very subjective. :/ For instance, when I do look at RFAs (on those rare occasions), I have a keen eye for CSD tagging. This is because to me poor judgment in CSD can be extremely harmful in an admin.
It looks to me from the few examples given that the candidate needs to spend a little more time writing to separate material from the source. Whether it rises to a copyright issue depends on if it's substantial (and, of course, if the sources are non-free). In terms of our policies, of course, content should not be duplicated precisely without the use of quotation marks, unless the material is free or compatibly licensed and it is properly attributed or unless it is devoid of creativity. I believe that some of the material I'm seeing there is creative enough to warrant complete revision - it looks like close paraphrasing to me. (I agree with Osiris' statement there.)
Whether I would myself oppose would honestly depend on how extensive it is. If it's a serious, pervasive issue, I probably wouldn't support until after enough time to be sure that the candidate had taken the problem on board and corrected it. I've seen people deadminned for close paraphrasing concerns, and I can't help but think that losing adminship under a cloud could be pretty seriously de-motivational. I don't want to name any names here for obvious reasons, but I once opposed a candidate for copyright concerns. She failed her first RFA, but persisted, and I felt confident enough to support her the second time around. Once her copyright issues became more widely understood (still aggravates me that they had not been since I had mentioned them explicitly in her first RFA), things got ugly quickly, and she's gone (or cleanstarted). Either way, it proved pretty disruptive to her, to her friends, to other people. Just a bad situation, all the way around.
If the issues were not extensive, it would probably not impact my opinion of the candidate's likelihood for being a good admin...although I might be more sure of that if s/he demonstrated an understanding of the issue and showed an ability to rewrite it. That would build my confidence that the issue won't be ongoing and that the contributor will recognize the problem if encountered with others. --Moonriddengirl11:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my article. I have had another go at it. I am still struggling with: "In the 1950s Nicholson was teaching bacterial metabolism" as this seems to me to be bare fact presented in the only logical way. However I have cut out a lot of unnecessary fact bearing in mind that the original article is readily accessible and I have rephrased a lot.
Well that's really excellent. Thank you very much for your help. I really do think this man is interesting and should have the profile that Misplaced Pages gives and your final version is very much better than mine. So I shall probably refer back to it as an example. I shall get on to Julia Pirie when I can. Thanks again. Budhen (talk) 14:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
However, reproducing some of my earlier research, it seems like descriptions are copyrighted. See, for instance, where only those ant species whose taxonomies are not copyrighted were reproduced by the Smithsonian. This 2009 book says that myrmecologist Donat Agosti was known for championing liberating taxonomies from copyright protection, which would suggest he had a reason to. :D Andrew Polaszek (15 June 2009). Systema Naturae 250 - The Linnaean Ark. Taylor & Francis. p. 11. ISBN978-1-4200-9501-2. Retrieved 18 October 2012. Likewise, this book indicates that current copyright laws prevent including original descriptions as a mandatory part of registering new taxa because of copyright laws. Quentin D. Wheeler (9 April 2008). The New Taxonomy. Taylor & Francis. p. 133. ISBN978-0-8493-9088-3. Retrieved 18 October 2012. I think, given WP:C's prohibition that we proceed cautious with copyright, that we must presume that taxonomies are copyrighted until and unless we have a clear court decision that says they aren't. If taxonomies are copyrightable (as it seems likely they are), I think we cannot assume that we can copy botanical descriptors.
Okay, "rather serious" is enough to keep me around. :D I tracked down the entry of that content to October 2005; . This material was modified by another editor a mnth later: . If the quote given at the discussion you link is used in that book, I think there's little doubt that we had it first. It's unlikely that two different editors over two months would incrementally copy the book. Unfortunately, Google books won't let me see that page. :/ I can check for more if I'm given a few passages that are duplicated precisely. --Moonriddengirl21:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It's beginning to look like the (rather prolific) wp editor is the same person as the chapter author in the book. DocJames has contacted the chapter author. It may just come down to needing a "Portions of this chapter were previously published on Misplaced Pages" sort of note in the next printing, but we'll need to know where else she's done this to avoid circular referencing. Other high risk articles to check are Cystic fibrosis and Prostate cancer, neither are on gbooks preview. LeadSongDogcome howl!22:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
OTRS and admin help
Hi MRG. I was looking at OTRS ticket 2012101810006348. It involves the deleted article International conference on Computer Simulation of Radiation Effects in Solids. As I am only an admin on Commons, I cannot look into the deleted material here on en wiki. The OTRS ticket apparently releases the involved text. Can you look into this? I can either unlock the ticket for you to process or you can let me know the proper course of action on OTRS on this. Thanks.PumpkinSkytalk14:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I've had a further go at this one and hope it meets with your approval. I couldn't find another source that was independent. Budhen (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
