Welcome. To leave a message for me, please press the "new section" tab at the top of the page. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~.
I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If I have left a message at your talk page that seems to invite reply, I am watching it, unless I've requested follow-up here. If you leave your reply for me here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply. If I think it would be helpful to you, I will leave a note at your talk page letting you know that an answer is available.
If you have questions about a page I have deleted or a template message I have left on your user page, let me know civilly, and I will respond to you in the same way. I will not respond to a personal attack, except perhaps with a warning. Personal attacks are against Wikipedia policy, and those who issue them may be blocked. You may read more about my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright.
Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it. I will not consider it wheel-warring if you reverse my admin actions as long as you leave me a civil note telling me what you've done and why and as long as you're open to discussion with me should I disagree.
Thanks for letting me know. I understand that these are the ups and downs of being a Wikipedian. Those were probably the only articles I created and they were deleted. It won't stop me from editing though. :) Mfowler11(talk)
talkback
Hello, Moonriddengirl. You have new messages at Aervanath's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Soundvisions1
Hi. I'm having what seems to me incredible and unnecessary difficulties communicating with Soundvisions1. He doesn't seem to pay any attention to what I say to him, and refuses to answer my questions. I really don't understand, because otherwise he seems a reasonable, rational and sensible person. For example, I have pointed out to him that citations that say "Roger Fisher, Interview, 2008" and "Fossen, Steve" are not useful, and have asked him to supply more information. His first response was to classify my request for more information as "nonsense", his second response was to put vandalism warnings on my talk page. Now he is simply refusing to pay any attention to my questions, which, I suppose, is an improvement, but is still not satisfactory. I don't know how to communicate with this person. Can you make some suggestions please? Thanks in anticipation of your advice. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've received your note, and I'll read through and see if I can be of assistance in just a moment. I'm in the middle of addressing a copyright concern, but it should not take long. (Though it may take me a bit to look at your situation, as I usually think things through before responding.) I'll drop a "talkback" on your talk page when I've replied. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 12:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick response. It's nearly midnight here and I'm off to bed, so please reply at your convenience. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. :) Obviously I am somewhat aware of the situation, given this above. Soundvisions has been assisting with an image deletion document I'm (attempting) to work on. (Typical Wikipedia fashion, getting attention when needed is not easy.) I note from his contribution list, here, that he has not been very active on Wikipedia for the past day or so. I am not myself sure how to interpret his last response to you, but in the absence of other information I would be inclined to take it as a suggestion that comments should be made at the Heart talk page. This seems like a good idea anyway, since he has requested a third opinion on your dispute, and it will be helpful to a contributor responding to those to see a brief, succinct statement of your side.
My suggestion, in response to your question as to how to communicate with him, would be to state your opinions succinctly on the talk page of the article. At this point, I would drop all references to the misunderstanding about communications on user talk pages and stick with the essentials about the debate. It may be that the two of you will not be able to reach consensus on the issues, but if that's the case any responders from 3O may be able to help break your stalemate. Meanwhile (and this one is always hard for me, but I've gotten better at it), I'd recommend keeping in mind that conversations on Wikipedia develop at unpredictable rates. They can move like lightening or creep like glaciers. I have had better luck with placing concise (well, almost concise. Concise isn't in my vocabulary) notes for people and then walking away. If they respond quickly, great. But it's not unlikely that it will take them a day or two to get back. I usually prompt with a brief and friendly reminder that I'm hoping to continue the conversation only after they've been regularly editing without response for several hours. Sometimes, I'll wait a day or so.
Meanwhile, as a general note, comments in references like "What interview? With whom? When? About what?" are probably not a good idea. As Wikipedia:Dispute resolution points out, we should not "carry on a dispute on the article page itself." In that case, you probably would want to use a template, probably one of these or these. In the case of the source you believe contains factual errors, we have {{dubious}}, the purpose of which is (in part) "To alert editors that additional sources need to be found, to ascertain which of the conflicting views in the dispute is more authoritative." With that one, you're meant to open a specific section on the talk page explaining the conflict. We don't have a specific template that I'm aware of for a source that is insufficiently detailed to meet WP:V. I'm not sure what I would use in that case: {{verify source}}? {{page number}}? Probably one of those.
As I suggested above, if nobody comes from 3O, which is a possibility, you might want to seek further assistance at another venue. I hope that the two of you will be able to establish a line of communication, perhaps even to the point if that happens of agreeing where best to seek a resolution to your stalemate. I have found him reasonable to deal with—indeed, very helpful with respect to my project. :) The two of you seem to have hit a snag in communication, but it doesn't look insurmountable to an outsider. I've seen people recover from much, much worse. Good luck, and please let me know if I can clarify any of this or if I may be of assistance. (Except with respect to the actual dispute, of course. Given my involvement here, I think it most appropriate for me to remain a neutral outsider.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referred to this thread. While awaiting third party results/response/action I have added tag(s) to the article page per suggestion. I have also added a new subsection: NPOV / Third Party Opinions. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That should be helpful. :) I hope you won't have to wait too long for feedback. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! You're good at this, aren't you! I've found your response very helpful, and I very much appreciate the effort you have gone to to address the matter so thoroughly. I will make use of your suggestions. Many thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it probably should. I'm still seeking definitive guidance on the sports team article, although the sole response I've received suggests deletion is appropriate. I think I'll probably have to check with our lawyer. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that the list of stations in North America is taken care of, someone just removed the North American info until we could get a resolution on those markets, they still want to have that info in the article. The talk page at that article has some pretty convincing arguments as to why the DMA markets wouldn't be copyrighted: they are published in the Federal Register.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 11:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on my response to the article talk page. (I'm reviewing AN in crafting it.) But I'd be very grateful if you would respond to me on your article talk page. I don't do the bouncing from page to page thing well. :) I've watchlisted your page. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. I've taken a quick look at this, but it may be quicker for you to sort out. The current article at You Me At Six is a derivative[1] of the userfied copy and needs a history merge. The histories are at User:RWorange/You Me and User:Cabe6403/current2. Interested? -- zzuuzz(talk) 22:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your input here. Since it's not my area, I particularly value your input. I had to read the thing today to figure out how to tag an image for lacking proper permission! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I think it's a very good guide. Stifle (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you just lowered the class rating for this article from B to C. I am currently reviewing the article for GA status, and I was wondering if you could let me know what problems you see with the article. This is only my second review of an album, so I would appreciate it if you could let me know what I should be looking for from a WikiProject Albums perspective. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to. I made note at the assessment subpage, but I know those things are easily lost when multiple projects are boxed. :) The problem from our project's perspective is the lack of technical personnel in the personnel section (engineers, etc.) I could add those myself, but our project is one of the few that requests that reviewers not be major contributors to the article. My general approach is to do nothing at the article that I wouldn't tick the "minor edit" box for. :) I made a note of it at the album talk page, where the editor requested assistance in copy-editing (presumably at your direction). (Of course, he can add that information himself, also.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Just to add context, this information is available at AMG. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. This will help a lot in the future as I review more album articles. Thank you very much. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All Female Bands List (30)
There is a dispute and an editor has requested a third opinion. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, please see the talk page.
Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations
I've seen around doing some copyright-related work. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations? I can't ask for much, seeing as how I pop in once or twice a week and deal with only a few each time. Even if you could a few at a time as well, it would be very helpful. :) --Iamunknown 16:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a shot, but I already dedicate several hours a day to keeping on top of WP:CP, and I fear copyright burn-out, so I may not make it part of the routine. (In fact, that's what I was working on when I got your note. :)) But I'll be happy to particularly look at some of the oldest ones to see if I can knock some down. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I'd prefer you not burn out. :) I'm trying to get back into maintenance work, but only a little bit at a time, after burning out myself. --Iamunknown 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I'm finding it less of a challenge than CP. :) I ought to be able to knock it down a little. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Amber Rives
Hello.I see that you deleted the Amber Rives article that I contributed because it did not differ enough from the original piece.But were there not any reliable sources?If not,what is considered a reliable source?--Usher4Life (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. There is a full guideline here on what makes a reliable source: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. More information is available at our verifiability policy. Essentially, you're looking for professional publications with a history of monitoring accuracy. Newspapers, journals, major news sites or webpages, for instance. These can't be connected to the individual. User submitted content is not acceptable, although some professional blogs may be.
All of the sources in the article were user submitted content except this, which is not a professionally managed website and hence is unusable. In order to overcome the concerns that led to deletion at AfD, you should look for professionally published content. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Waynecoyne.jpg
I need another set of eyes on this - it looks more like a frame grab than an photo. Perhaps it was video taken by the uploader from the stage and then frame grabed. [[Image:Waynecoyne.jpg]]. It is also not being used in any articles so it can probably be removed anyway. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were listed under the non-free content criteria, its being orphaned would be reason enough to tag it for deletion. But since it's been released, it's not. That's a tough one for me. :) I'm not a strongly visual person, but I understand you are. Why not take a look at Image:Michaelivins.jpg, Image:Stevendrozd.jpg & Image:Kliphscurlock.jpg? These are all uploaded by the same user and claim to have been made within a day of each other. Do these look like photos to you or screen captures? If they look like screen caps and you think they may be an issue, you should probably bundle the whole lot of them to WP:PUI for investigation. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, p.s., since you may not have run into this yet. :) You can link to an image without it displaying the image by dropping a colon in front: [[:Image:Waynecoyne.jpg]] renders as Image:Waynecoyne.jpg. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 16:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on this article. On nl.wikipedia, where I do most of my editting, it would have just been thrown away. Magalhães (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. :) I appreciate your bringing up the problem! I'd rather take the time to write a new stub on a notable topic than to display a copyvio. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 20:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting a page to an old redirect
Hi.
I want to move Alright/Time back to Alright (Supergrass song). How does this work if the latter is already a redirect? Would you be able to move the page for me please?
Hi. :) I believe from my reading of Help:Move that you could have done that one, but since I know that I could and since from the songs wikiproject it looks uncontroversial, I went ahead and did. Please be sure to update the wikilinks as appropriate. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 01:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am currently having a disagreement with another user over my realignment of the opening image and TOC on the Mod (lifestyle) article, and need your advice. I have performed these sort of realignments before, and always felt that policy backed me up. However, I cannot now find the policy I previously read on this matter. Am I incorrect in believing that right-facing opening images should be moved to the left? Is this something I dreamt up, 'cause I cannot find a policy for it now. Your thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) As you know, MOS:IMAGE#Images says, "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image." It does say that "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text", however I would take the more definitive first statement over the less definitive "often preferable" myself when it comes to placing the first image. So in general I'd say you're right, but in this case I would go with the other version. This would also keep compliance with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Consistency, which says, "It is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one guideline-defined style to another unless there is a substantial reason to do so" and "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." I don't see any policy that specifically supports realignment, but I can't say you dreamed it up, because things change around here. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 15:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am only hoping that the policy changed at some point, which is why I cannot find the page I read previously---this was a year or so ago, after all---and that I did not, in fact, dream it up! Thanks for your advice. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unique features
Sorry to bother you, but since you seem to be running WP:CP... Unique features is a copyvio from [2]. The author claims permission on talk page, so normally one would simply add copyvio template and add it to WP:CP. However, this article has also been prodded, which in itself sounds quite sensible actually. {{Copyvio}} prevents the author from making improvements to the article, which it needs to avoid the prod. It will probably be deleted in a few days anyway, but since I'm still trying to get a sense how working with WP:SCV really goes, I would like to know how this kind of articles are handled. – Sadalmelik☎ 19:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's an interesting one. :) I'd go ahead and list it at copyvio, but place the copyvio template beneath the PROD. Everything on the page except the PROD will then be blanked. When leaving the "nothanks" note that the copyvio template generates to paste on the page of the contributor, I would also leave a note explaining that the PROD template may still be removed, though the other contents of the page should not be edited. I would also tell him that even if he follows through with the permissions process by the supplied procedures, he will need to consider the concerns raised in the PROD and address those. If you weigh a "PROD" against a copyvio concern, a copyvio is going to win every time, because anyone can challenge a PROD and have the article restored, but articles that violate copyright should not be. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks – I have done as you suggested. – Sadalmelik☎ 08:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that RfC ...
heya Moonriddengirl - i decided to come here instead of bringing it up on the already-overloaded page where the RfC is going on - i hope that's okay. i just now noticed the reason you gave when you listed the RfC - "reason=Should genre be removed as a field from Template:Infobox Album to reduce edit warring?" - and since that's what's presented to the wider wikipedia public, i wanted to ask you to consider changing it to something more accurate. the RfC is actually proposing the reinstatement of the genre field, not its removal; and edit warring is only one of the reasons people have stated for not wanting it reinstated. i feel like a more accurate and neutral entry in the "reason" slot would be "reason=Should the genre field be reinstated in the Template:Infobox Album?" technically i guess anyone can amend the reason listed, but i feel it's most fitting for you to do it, if you agree; and in my limited experience with RfCs the change wouldn't make the RfC go kablooey. thanks for thinking about it. Sssoul (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) Absolutely okay. You are more than welcome. (I've found you extremely pleasant to talk to about this, as far as that's concerned.) My understanding was that the change was made to deal with edit warring--that's what I grokked when I first heard of it, anyway--but I certainly do see that other objections exist. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know if I've accidentally redirected the discussion to the main page or something. :) I'm trying to get a copyright problem handled before cooking supper...which I should have started 15 minutes ago. Eep! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks & brava! it looks good to me so far - now we have to see if the bot gizmo picks up the change the next time it makes the rounds. i'm simultaneously experimenting with an RfC of my own to see how to make the change take effect - maybe refreshing the timestamp is called for as well? ie replacing the five tildes with five new ones ... i'm just guessing about that part, though.
and yeah, it's a good conversation, even if it *is* taking up 3/4ths of the page! 8) Sssoul (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
update: cool, your amendment worked, leads to the right place, etc - you left the question mark off the end of it, but that's easily repaired when you have time. meanwhile my experiment with my own RfC caused it to vanish from the list :[ so off i go to see if i can coax it back. Sssoul (talk) 22:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
another day, another "helpful" suggestion: do you think it would help newcomers navigate the discussion if the "RfC Comments" header were moved to right under your "Statement in favour of ..." ? it seems like people keep missing the discussion below - maybe on purpose 8) - but it still seems worth keeping the comments in the "comments" section if possible, and moving the header is the simplest way to achieve that. Sssoul (talk) 08:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) I wonder if my "statement in favour of" should perhaps be moved into the RfC comments section? I'm a bit chary of such a sweeping change, though, since it will instantly make the whole conversation about the placement of conversation following mine absolutely confusing. :) I worry that moving everything after mine will seem to give mine more authority than it deserves, and so far nobody has put up a specific rebuttal anyway, so it might just as well be clumped with the others. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[pondering the logistics of that ... ] you mean moving the "RfC Comments" header up to above your statement and just removing the = signs from around the title of yours? yeah, that seems like it would work just as well. the comments following yours are already all out of any kind of order, so i don't think i'd worry about that too much 8) Sssoul (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
go for it, i say! i really don't see how it will garble things more than they're already garbled, and might even lead to more newcomers adding their views at the bottom of the discussion, restoring some modicum of chronology to it. Sssoul (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Need Help
Dear,
Hope u r fine enough. Dear i m editing and creating articles on wiki for a long time but i dont have any right till now. Please tell me if this is automatic process for becoming an administrator or i need to fill any application.
Hi. There is a documenting describing what administrators on Wikipedia do and how to become one here. In brief, the tools used by administrators are granted after a community discussion where a candidates contributions are analyzed to see if (a) the candidate can be trusted with the tools and (b) the candidate needs them. If you are considering requesting adminship, you will probably want to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. That gives you an idea of what some people look for and will help you evaluate if you are prepared. If you have any questions about those documents, please let me know. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for your help.It's a busy job! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 22:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
copyright thingy
User:Morleyj is adding large amounts of useful info from [3], she has included in her edit summary a name for someone to contact to prove they have given permission.[4] I said I would find out for her what proof of permission she needs to provide. Giving a contact name seems to comply, but is her putting it in the edit summary enough proof or does she need to let some other page/person know? She is a good faith contributor adding excellent, useful info and she might well have permission. StickyParkin 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) There's two things she can do. One of them is easy, and one of them is a pain in the neck. The easy way is for her to ask them to put a note on the website releasing their material under GFDL. (They have to be specific that the release is GFDL or public domain; it can't be released for Wikipedia only.) If they do that, she can put a link to that release on the article's talk pages or on the image page. The contact name is unfortunately not enough proof. If the organization doesn't want to place a notice releasing material on their website, she can send a release letter from them to the Wikimedia Foundation according to the process described at WP:Permission. The e-mail must go to the Permission address there. This isn't something that can be processed by just any editor or administrator. The Communications Committee of the Wikimedia Foundation has a special task force for logging and addressing these things.
This process takes a little more time and sometimes requires follow-up, as I have had letters to the Wikimedia Foundation go unanswered. (I've always gotten a response by my second round.) It usually takes a week or two to clear the matter in this case. The permission letter also needs to be specific that the release is GFDL or public domain. WP:Permission has a link to a boiler plate release form that can be used for this purpose. Once she's sent the letters, {{OTRS pending}} can be pasted on the talk page of the articles. However, until the permissions letter is processed, any articles including material copied from these external sites should be blanked with the {{copyvio}} template. Please explain to her that this is only temporary until we go through the necessary verification procedure, and it is both to protect the copyright holder and Wikipedia.
Also, please, let me know if I can be of any assistance with any of this. :) I appreciate your working with her to help get things ironed out. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 17:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I thought it might be hard work. Out of interest, if someone says a site gives them permission is this often true (not saying they're lying, but that someone along the line doesn't realise it entails them effectively partly losing control of their work and that anyone can use it?) It strikes me that usually only another wiki or free site that is very keen on the idea of freeness would willingly do it, rather than the average person who has written the info on a site etc. themselves. StickyParkin 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrights...again <sigh>
Hi again, you know much more about this than I; hence, I am approaching you. I recently noticed that Guggenheim Abu Dhabi was being reviewed for GA. The article is largely a quote-farm, similar to Louvre Abu Dhabi. I would not consider this encyclopedic, and am concerned that such use of quotes is innapropriate for Wikipedia. However, I do not know if this is the case; thus, I approach you. Thank you for help. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say that I do know more about this than you, as I have only been involved in one GA review. :) I don't believe that the article is a concern for copyright reasons, though I agree with you that it has too many quotes to be encyclopedic. I don't think there's enough quotes from any one source to be a problem for non-free content concerns (if you disagree with me, though, please let me know. As you know, I spent a great deal of time combing through this contributor's work and found many problematic articles. It's possible that there's more drawn from a single source there than I'm remembering or noticing at a glance.) If it's not a copyright concern, perhaps you could point out to him Wikipedia:Quotations? (And if you want to see a blatant quotefarm, please check out this diff. Oi. It could be worse. :)) If you'd just like to brainstorm ways to suggest difference in prose to him, I'd be happy to bounce ideas around. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I'm just unsure. I found two more attribution errors: one was attributed to a different source and not in quotes; the second was a direct quotation without attribution to the author. See the GA Review, where I commented here. The thing is that it, to my guess, it delicately straddles the line. I mirror your comments: it takes hours to clean this up; and I fear having to do this for a string of his GA noms. It also worries me that these go through GA/DYK without being verified. Eeek. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I hate to break it to ya, but you're now my copyright go-to person. My copyright Plaxico Burress. Lazulilasher (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I'm glad you wikilinked. I know a bit about copyrights, but nothing about football. :D I'm looking at the expansion he did to the lead, where he copied and duplicated a quote from the body. Obviously, this is a rather graceless way to expand the lead, and it suggests he still doesn't understand that material has to be written in fresh language by him. I don't see any sign that he has pasted new material from external sites since you first disclosed the problem on October 5th, so it may be that he understands that he can't use stuff now without at least utilizing quotation marks. It's very possible, though, that he's lost track of where stuff came from to begin with and has forgotten what text he wrote, and what he didn't. Do you have an idea of how best to address this? I wonder if he would benefit from mentoring, perhaps with somebody from his dominant project? --Moonriddengirl(talk) 19:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I am from his dominant project; thus, my reluctance to be too critical (we need bodies!). I have been trying to emphasize the importance of these issues, without being discouraging. My suspicion is that he naively doesn't understand the problem, I sense no malicious intent. I've been trying to "nudge" him into the projectspace (I know, that's generally frowned upon...but, I couldn't think of anything else), maybe to help with adminny tasks. For example, I recommend he lead the WP:FRANCE newsletter: which he did well.
About the articles? Sigh...I don't know...realistically, it needs to be assiduously checked; and finding remaining problems may be more trouble than it's worth. I wonder if there'd be an objection to reverting to a "clean" version, and asking him to rewrite. While he rewrites, we could look over his shoulder and "cite check". Kind of a big deal, but it may have the added benefit of teaching how to do the job properly; eventually, he'd be able to do it on his own. As it stands, we're going to have to verify all of his work, anyway. Just an idea....Lazulilasher (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Working Woman's Barnstar
The Working Woman's Barnstar
For setting right, for many days, all the copyright issues that had been left for someone to look after for this copyleft encyclopedia. Thanks for working away at a thankless task, the quotidianliness of which is quite impressive!
Well, thank you, kindly! I admit that some mornings it is daunting to face The List (though I'm always happy that about half of them are generally already gone), but it's very satisfying to help keep the "backlog" tag off of the page. :D --Moonriddengirl(talk) 23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gaudi (Music Producer / Solo Artist)
Dear Moonriddengirl
I am writing with regards to my Wikipedia article on Gaudi (Music producer / Solo Artist) which is currently in suspension due to questioning of copyright ownership. I was hoping you could let me know what the status is at the moment as i have followed all the steps to confirm that i am the original copyright owner and that i have given permission for the material to be used under the terms of the GNU free documentation license. I have left a note on the articles talk page and i have also sent 2 emails (on the 6th and 9th October) to permissions-en@wikimedia.org confirming the same. These emails where sent from an email address related to the source material as requested. A copy of my email follows:
I have posted the message below on the article's discussion page as per instruction:"In response to the following message: "The CorenSearchBot has performed a web search with the contents of this page, and it appears to include a substantial copy of: http://www.bigchill.net/story/2113/gaudi.html"
The article that the CorenSearchBot refers to above on the big chill website is in fact an almost verbatim copy of my original work. I originally researched and wrote the article for use on Gaudi's official website and as the copyright owner I have also also used parts of it (albeit an edited version) for this Wikipedia entry. Groovereviewer (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)"
As the page has now been made unavailable i am writing to you to further confirm that i am the copyright owner of the material in the article. It is all my original work and I permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
You can find the full version of my work on Gaudi's official website - www.gaudimusic.com - in the biography section. For my Wikipedia article i have used an edited down version backed by notable sources. My original work has been used on many websites that are linked to Gaudi in some professional manner in either it's full version or an abbreviated form. The Big Chill Website have used my work word for word.
Please feel free to contact me should you need any further confirmation or information. In the meantime i hope this confirmation is enough for you to re-instate the article.
I hope that you can shed some light on the status of this issue and thank you in advance for you help with this matter.
