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 . 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.
|
Archives
|
|
|
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 Wikipedia frequently between 12:00 and 23:00 Coordinated Universal Time. When you loaded this page, it was 18:42, 19 July 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.
Hi :) I wonder if I can ask a favour of you on behalf of the milhist project? We publish a newsletter every month which is circulated around the membership and a few others who've signed up to receive it, and this normally includes an editorial feature. Given your work with copyright issues and in the light of the recent notice you posted at milhist, would you be willing to write an editorial for us? I was thinking something along the lines of how to check articles for copvios, how to report them and how to clean them up, but anything you feel is appropriate would be very welcome. The idea is partly to try to drum up assistance for the cleanup, partly to inform us all better in this area, and partly to supply content that can be reused in our Academy as the basis for a suitable course.
This would be for an upcoming issue (probably August), so there's plenty of time as we don't usually get the newsletter out until late the first week of the following month. If you want to take a look at former editorials there's a list here. I hope this isn't too much of an imposition; please feel free to decline if it is (I know how busy you are!) All the best, EyeSerenetalk 11:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, and I'm so pleased that you asked! I'm always happy to talk about copyright cleanup. :) I'll have to find somebody to copy-edit me, though. I tend to run long, and WP:TLDR is a problem. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great, thank you! You can either create a page in our essay space here or use your sandbox, whatever you prefer, and add a link to the submissions table when you're ready :) Don't worry too much about TLDR; we generally copyedit anyway before publication (not that much will be needed, I'm sure). Thanks again, EyeSerenetalk 12:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With editorials being on their own page, I think TLDR isn't a problem. :-) Thanks for agreeing to write it; I'm looking forward to it! Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All righty. Beginning work on this and commenting on it here to keep it alive. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you opening the discussion up and all, but I really feel like its not neutral the way User:Dlabtot and Jrod2 are commenting, the latter at my talk page as well. They quote/cite the same guideline(s) and don't consider my comment, responding defensively rather than to the actual comment. Others' comments as well, particularly the few in support. At times, they make unjustified claims, like the recent one Dlabtot made about one source not being self-publised and giving me a link to a guideline he was citing. Then I responded with a comment that expressed an opposing claim based on a policy I cited from a wikilink available at his link, but then he tells me I am being disruptive and that the policy hasnt anything to do with his link. Its nothing but verbiage and sly remarks, even in the edit summaries of their comments. It really feels like I am just dealing with these two, and I have asked several users recently, pending of course. Sure, other editors have commented, but that was before I cleared up the authorship issue with the source, which some editors expressed as the initial problem. In short, I dont believe it fair for the discussion to be left up to anyone of us since its looking like a 2:1 consensus, if that even is a consensus. If this message did not make much sense or shows me in a troubled light, then you can understand how much I need help with this matter. If there is anything more u can do, I would appreciate it. Dan56 (talk) 03:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Dan. The neutrality of the board doesn't necessarily mean that the people there will remain neutral in their opinion on a question. It means that they start out without any preconceived ideas of the position they want to support and they aren't drafted for the purpose of supporting one side or another. Bringing others into disussion on Wikipedia is always a tricky business; we can't all monitor all conversations, so we try to get a cross-section of interested editors to help get a sense of community consensus. You took a good first step asking at the Wikiproject, but I've long known that our project is hit or miss. I figure we must be a pretty introverted bunch, because not a lot of us like to talk. :) People who go to WP:RSNB generally do. If the discussion there doesn't bring clear consensus, it may be possible to bring wider participation by asking for feedback at another point as well, but you have to do it in a way that doesn't sway your readers to one side or the other. Usually, it's better to just briefly announce the discussion and ask for feedback.
- I'll come take a look at the conversation at RSNB and see what's going on, if I can. I'm expecting a computer technician any minute to fix my tricky internet issues, though, so I may be interrupted. (With any luck, once he's gone, I won't be interrupted anymore!) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Girl, wuz up? Ya know Moon, i think the discussion at the noticeboard is come to full stop. In part, 'cause of the lengthy opinions now and before (myself included) of users like Johnuniq, Binksternet (which had nothing to do with Elevado's anecdotal comments) and part 'cause this kinda thing bout forums has been discussed already many times. BTW, I'm pretty sure what Jayjg was saying 'bout WP:SPS had nothing to do with the Red Bull video....So i just wanna ask you what ya think of all this. Do you believe that this loophole with personal forums should permit WP users to add new (anecdotal & personal research) content or should we enforce the notion that our predecessors had when they wrote the exemptions for personal blogs?? Im sure they never realized that a public forum would host sub-forums with experts who, because of their backlinks to their personal sites, their thoughts and ideas can be used as content for Wikipedia. Peace. Jrod2 (talk) 13:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Joe. :) Personally, I think forums would need to be used with extreme care. I started off thinking that they should not be used at all, but I am persuaded by the arguments that if it can be positively verified that the person who posted is the individual, it's as reliable as any WP:SPS. I wonder if this is worth an WP:RFC so we can get something codified in WP:RS (either for or against) and stop the constant conversations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Im right there wit ya, Girl....U read my mind. This is a serious *loophole* and we gotta bring this up for a more serious discussion to make these change on all our guidelines and policy articles (like this one) that will be effected by these new caveats. IMO whats more at risk here is the inclusion of a ton of trivial content supported by forum links that will create edit disputes and wide spread of vandalism regardless whether editors are using due diligence identifying the source or not. Jrod2 (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI the noticeboard discussion is now archived. Jrod2 (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment; I'm also soliciting admin opinions at User talk:Dank#UAA clerks. Would adding some form of clerkship at WP:SCV make your life easier or harder, or would you like to wait and see how clerkship develops elsewhere? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I don't know. The only real problems we run into at SCV are when we get new helpers there who really aren't at all familiar with the work. (There's always a little learning curve; I'm not talking about the ones who need a bit of mentoring to get up to speed, but the rare few who are so far off that they do more harm than good.) I think we might be better off leaving SCV wide open, since we currently need way more copyright workers than we have and I'm happy to lure in those I can who wander through that door. :D A trial clerkship could be beneficial at WP:CP, though. There have been a couple of non-admin editors who have been willing to systematically pitch in there, but few who have stuff around. The only one we currently have is User:VernoWhitney. Articles are listed at CP for a full week before admin closure, and having CP clerks to make sure that the proper formalities are followed (articles blanked, contributor notified where possible, material that is PD or proper licensed is not listed) could be very useful, if we could find people up for the job. Any talk page stalkers have thoughts on this? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) WP:SCV is one of the areas where clerkships aren't needed - the investigation a clerk would need to make to determine whether a report is a false positive or merits further action is the entirety of the investigation to be conducted there. In terms of (text) copyvio work, WP:CCI is the one area where clerkship makes a difference, and hence we already established one for that :) The only SCV area that would require clerking is Coren's talk page :D MLauba (Talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Clerkship for Coren's talk page would be fab. :) What do you think of having clerks investigate new listings at CP? A good idea or wheel spinning? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Re:CP, dunno how much clerking is really needed. Often just the two of us (well, mostly MRG, I'm merely the helper) are enough to deal with the backlog in a timely manner. I think actually that checking whether the formalities are observed could be another VWBot task - akin to (is it Smackbot?) the bot that checks that AfD formalities are observed, the clerical tasks there could be automated pretty well. MLauba (Talk) 15:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- VernoWhitney seems to be doing a great job. This may be premature ... I don't know if there will be wide support for more clerking in general ... but do you think VernoWhitney would be able to do a better job if deleted contribs were visible? It's entirely possible clerkship will never involve any extra userrights, but if it does, my money is on that one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That might help. Let's ask Verno. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Deleted edits being visible would, I believe, be a net plus for WP:CCI clerking. One thing I'm worried about, though, is that if a formal clerk userright is created, granting the status may quickly become RFA-lite, and at the risk of running afoul of WP:OWN, I'd rather not have some people who never in their life lifted one single finger to help out on copyright matters and wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole vote on whether a Verno is suitable for the task or not. MLauba (Talk) 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does occur to me that there is one way that official clerks might help at SCV: coordinating volunteers. I'm not sure if Verno or any of our other SCV people would want the added responsibility or how it would even work. But even the good volunteers we get generally need to learn a bit about copyright policies on Wikipedia. If clerks could note newcomers and spot-check them as I tend to do, that might be helpful. (Not to borrow trouble, so to speak, but the one problem I've yet to see in my 2+ years of copyright work here is a bad reviewer who just won't give up. The ones who aren't suitable almost always lose interest quickly. I don't know what we'd do if they didn't.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm caught up on the conversation, but please forgive me if I've missed something. I'm not sure what particular formalities MLauba's referring to with regards to CP, but that's exactly the kind of thing that I'd like to get VWBot to do. Depending on the details it may take some doing to implement (which is why automatic notification of contributors of blanked content is on indefinite hold), but at least generating a list of possible issues for human follow-up should be possible. Just let me know any ideas for CopyClean bot tasks and I'll put it on my list of things to program.
- As far as clerking goes, I think SCV is de facto clerking for CP, since it's the cursory review and the admins still have to take care of deletions and the like at the end of the week and can at that point double-check other article assessments (and I thought everybody that worked SCV already watchlisted Coren's page...). I also don't really see that CCI clerking would benefit all that much from viewing deleted contributions, since everything should be logged as G12 deleted or at least linked to from a CP daily page, and either of these are good prima facie evidence that there are copyvio problems which could need investigating and a CCI should be opened. Finding out which pages they've created that have been deleted in the first place is generally provided by whoever requests a CCI. Viewing deleted material would definitely help out with OTRS work, but that's rather off-topic. Moving on to MRG's last point here, there really aren't that many volunteers to coordinate, and I already tend to spot-check assessments from non-regulars. I'd certainly be willing to do something more formally, since I prefer following rules and established procedures rather than winginng it, but that's just me. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Clerking bot tasks for CP: beyond listing on behalf of the broken DumbBot that you already have as task, here are a couple of "nice to have" functions, with complete disregard for complexity of implementation:
- blanking of the article page once the {{subst:copyvio}} template is in place
- creating a list of entries where the alleged source is a .mil or .gov domain - if we check this one daily we don't need to keep something on the CP log for 7 daysx
- similarly, checking whether the article has an acceptable attribution template on it (one of the PDs or of the CCs), and list these along with the others.
- an advanced modification of the Bot task 4 would be to add a commentary below any entries on a CP day giving the notification status of the article's creator. Does no harm if the creator is not the one who didn't add the copyvio but saves a relist if he was. It could also add an information when the creator has not edited in more than 12 months for instance.
- At least that's what I can think of atm. MLauba (Talk) 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm following the conversation, I'm just avoiding the urge to comment on everything I see :) I'm very pleasantly surprised at the various conversations ... imagine talking about some process with a new userright and a new voting process at WT:RFA and not getting a single "stopper" objection out of a hundred replies :) I think we may have something here. I'm putting together a panel discussion at the NYC Wikiconference this month, and it may be time to turn this link blue: WP:Clerking. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Next step for people who are interested: WT:CSD#Clerking. The question is: if there are clerks that handle G12 speedy deletion issues (such as removing misplaced tags), would it make more sense for them to be trained and vetted as "CSD clerks" by "CSD people" or as copyright clerks? - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems like an idea with some good promise. :) And I'd say copyright clerks for sure. Surely it's good for all admins on Wikipedia to have a good grasp of copyright policy, but I've seen plenty who are a bit behind the times. :) (Particularly with licensing transition.) If clerks get "training", getting it from people who are current on copyright issues is probably best. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)My gut instinct: CSD clerks. G12 is an easy determination. Is it blatant? If not, but doubts subsist, convert to {{subst:copyvio}} or {{Close paraphrase}}. If yes, check article history, talk, and contrib talk page to check if there's any claim of permission or ownership, if there's one, tag {{subst:copyvio}}, list on CP, and move on. The only caveat is to make sure that anything licensed GFDL-only doesn't get cleared but posted at CP (we've had that discussion a couple of times :) ). I'd say that in the grand scheme of things, G12 is probably easier than G11 to handle. MLauba (Talk) 20:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, opposite conclusions. I still say CSD clerks, but nothing stands in the way of WP:Copyclean writing the instructions for G12. MRG loves writing these. ;) MLauba (Talk) 20:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I lean towards copyright clerks. I come across issues with GFDL-licensing and blanking-when-permission-is-asserted on a fairly regular basis, even with admins. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but admins believe they know because they used to, they look at a CAT:CSD queue and handle G12 like A7 by experience and instinct, even when both are outdated or wrong. A CSD clerk follows a procedure because if he doesn't, he has no business clerking in the first place. Plus, let's be realists here. What proportion of potential clerk candidates would want to work on copyright matters? And it doesn't have to be exclusive - if someone is clerking on CCI and is bored, he certainly has the experience to clerk at G12 too. MLauba (Talk) 21:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point ... seeing deleted contribs is a long-shot and something for the future; for now, the only difference between a clerk and a non-clerk would be that the clerks get to use
Clerk note: on the board(s) where they ran for clerkship ... but admins aren't likely to care, admins will make up their own minds who's doing a good job. - Dank (push to talk) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a preference whether there are "CSD clerks", but I don't want to say that what they do should necessarily be so easy that it won't require much oversight; who knows what they'll do, or what people will want them to do. Some clerks may be highly skilled and highly valued. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point MLauba makes about the newbies being less likely to err based on old expectations. :) Also about the concerns with the clerk process. Verno is a fabulous CCI clerk and surely one of the major players at SCV, but he started his work without wide experience, I believe. How would we avoid clerking becoming RFA-lite? If people who did not work copyright looked at Verno's contribs at the time and objected - say because he had not then much content contrib - the project would have lost a great asset in CCI. Speaking specifically of CSD clerks, I'm not sure that they are as necessary as some other fields, since any user other than the creator can remove a CSD tag. Perhaps the best thing I can think of for them might be to review removed CSD tags. We have a flag when somebody removes a {{copyvio}}, but I'm not sure if we have similar for {{db-G12}} or {{db-G10}}. Do we? In those cases, it might be very good to have a reviewer who can take further action. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If clerkship becomes something desirable (which would be a good thing ... we want good, motivated, competitive clerk candidates), there's no way we can stop RFA voters or anyone else from participating, and we'll be better off if we extend an invitation to RFA when clerk votes are happening than if we try to "hide" it from them. With a very few exceptions, people who oppose at RFA are doing it for some reason involving content or competence or attitude. I actually expect that when they're confronted with a different question ... will this person make a good clerk? ... they're likely to give the same advice they would at RFA, such as "you need to be more focused on content", but then support instead of oppose, since clerks have no powers and little prestige and can't destroy the wiki (not that I buy that admins can destroy the wiki, but that's the fear at RFA and I have no problem with people voting in line with their concerns). On CSD clerks, so far I'm seeing no support at WT:CSD or anywhere else for slicing up clerkship that way; it's looking like clerkship is going to get tied to specific noticeboards, although we can't stop clerks from doing deletion work connected to their clerking, can't stop admins from advising them how to do it ... and wouldn't want to, would we? - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will admit freely I didn't know what I was doing; sorry for creating the mess to clean-up. However, the only thing I find a bit odd is that you reverted my c/p move rather than cleaning it up and leaving it as intended. What is the point of doing it this way, where now I have to go do the move correctly, and in this case, ask for another admin to assist because one page would not move with the tool? Seems like a mighty duplication and waste of effort.Vertigo Acid (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Actually, somebody else reverted your c/p moves. What I did was merge the new content at Prunus avium back into the article which had been restored at Wild Cherry. It consisted primarily of links, but it seemed a shame to lose them in the transition. Actually, the fact that I did so is the reason you were able to move the article...becuase there was nothing at the destination name but a redirect. No new content had been added at Prunus cerasus, so I did not use the administrator tools there at all; that's why there's content in its history that prevents your making the move. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G'day MRG :-) - I've just been chatting on IRC, where Ottava has pointed out a possible problem - his concern follows;
Hey, chat! Attention! Someone needs to contact Moonriddengirl about massive plagiarism - here - major copy and paste and the rest. It isn't just on that page but practically all pages dealing with the banglapedia - see here
Doing a quick search of any of the pages on that list and compare them with the pages on banglapedia show major copy and paste yet banglapedia is not copyright compatible.
He'd like you to be aware of the issue, so I hope that's cool :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) Unless I'm mistaken, MRG has stated that she didn't wish any furhter contact with Ottava Rima. But beyond reminding him of that next time you chat with him on IRC, you can also kindly point out that the next time he finds something, he can direct his call of assistance for someone to post a copyright problem on the Copyright Problems noticeboard, where they belong. MLauba (Talk) 08:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, MLauba and thanks, Privatemusings. :) To clarify my stance: I don't mind civil communication with Ottava, but I would prefer not to talk to Ottava via e-mail. Wikipedia has a great underbelly of off-wiki communication. Some of this I'm uncomfortable with, as it is far too politically charged for me. When politics are likely to be (or become) involved, I particularly prefer transparency. I'm not a politician, and I would prefer not to be inadvertently swept into political seas.
- That said, this is transparent, and I don't see anything remotely political about investigating copyright concerns from Banglapedia, so I'm quite willing to take a look into it and appreciate the heads up. Can't say I'm looking forward to it, though. :/ The world of copyright cleanup on Wikipedia is never ending. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've found a couple of links where it served no purpose and didn't relate to a Banglapedia article and one other blatant. Does anybody know how to turn this text into a wiki list? It would surely be easier to work with, since we could mark articles that are cleared. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it. MLauba (Talk) 14:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out User:MLauba/Sandbox2. MLauba (Talk) 14:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fabulous! Good thing I've got my internet connection back. (Or not, maybe.... :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(←) Bad news, There's probably a good additional 70ish links from http://search.com.bd/banglapedia which point (broken links) back to banglapedia. Adding to the sandbox in a moment. MLauba (Talk) 08:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And if we just thought 80 is still manageable, there's also http://banglapedia.search.com.bd/ with a million results. Adding... *sigh* MLauba (Talk) 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1131 text links, and we also have a bunch of files. Will move these to a separate sandbox page, but I suggest that at this stage, the best course of action is to move all this to WP:CCI as a special case. MLauba (Talk) 09:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Yikes! :( Agree. Is there any way to run through and consolidate repeats? Where more than one Banglapedia page is linked, the article will be listed several times, and not necessarily together. I don't know if this is something easy to do or otherwise. And if nothing else, asking the WikiProject to help may make sure that some of the participants realize it's not a copy left source. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- That's a good start. :) We can remove links for user space and project space, which will help clarify the scope. Is there any way other than manually to carry over the annotations? If not, I can do that, but I figure I'll ask. For all I know, it's just a matter of waving your magic wand. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by carrying over the annotations, so I'm afraid I can't answer that. I should also mention that my sandbox is only an alphabetization of MLauba's supplemental content from his Sandbox4, not the whole kit and caboodle. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Yeah, I ran out of time before I had to run off to work this morning, and my software during the day just isn't up to par, so someone else will have to merge it or just wait until tonight to get it all integrated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Verno's page would be great, I think, since it's already organized by article name. It'll be easier to merge together anything that's already been cleared, and we won't be checking the same article in multiple locations. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, just so you know, you missed the copyvio/plagiarism at Space Research and Remote Sensing Organization. I've decided to go through User:Tanweer Morshed's contributions (http://toolserver.org/~dcoetzee/contributionsurveyor/survey.php?user=Tanweer+Morshed) since some of it isn't just copied from Banglapedia. Theleftorium (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now included all of the content from User:MLauba/Sandbox2, so User:VernoWhitney/Sandbox3 should have everything, including the notes which were already made, it just doesn't have any of the sectioning at the moment, I think I'll just use letters to break it up since there're so many duplicate article entries. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are fabulous. :) I'll move it to CCI so we can invite other eyes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Open at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source). Verno knows, because he listed it, but I thought I'd let the rest of you in on it. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is one of those fun recurring topics and there're a lot of opinions floating around already but I think more opinions (and your nice way of explaining copyright issues) may be helpful. Beginning with OTRS:5251902 we have the blanking of two articles comprising tables of information (1976 Lady Wigram Trophy and 1976 New Zealand Grand Prix, listed on the 8th and 9th respectively). There's conversation in OTRS and on the 8th and it's now moved to my talk page. If you could take a look and provide your opinion, or just let me know if you don't want to get involved, I would appreciate it. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I frequently don't want to, but I usually do anyway. :D (see BanglaPedia, above.) I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, read through OTRS. Off to look at your talk. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As you've been so helpful on this, may I ask you a related question? This section is headed "Table creativity". Is the issue here that the information is displayed in tabular form? Underneath the race results I have a section headed "notes on the cars" and a typical entry describes the history of the car in a simple paragraph or two of text. These entries weren't copied. Would Wikipedia also regard this text as "fair game" or is it only the information displayed in a table? Allen Brown (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. :) Wikipedia would absolutely not regard copying that text as "fair game". I know you've done your reading on US copyright law, so I know that you're very aware that the threshold for creativity is very low. A sentence like "John Brown was born on July 15, 1940" is not copyrightable by itself, because it does not clear that threshold. But as text begins to aggregate, creativity rises because creativity also covers which facts are chosen for inclusion and the structure of text. Even if John Brown's fictitious biographer strung together a series of uncopyrightable sentences, the whole would almost certainly have copyright protection. (Where structure is obvious copyright is weakened--but even with obvious organization, there is generally going to be some element of creativity in a couple of paragraphs of text.)
- What makes tables and lists more difficult is that "obvious organization" comes into play. The facts you put in a table are not copyrightable, no matter how obscure (material that relies on human judgment is), but your organization and selection of these facts may be. A chronological bibliography of John Brown's works is not copyrightable. A "select" bibliography can be, unless the criteria for selection is obvious and non-creative. But evgen a chronological table of John Brown's publications can be creative if it includes elements in a way that is not obvious--say, adding columns for page count, dates started and the number of times he used the word "amazing" in the body of the book. That information is not copyrightable; the fact that the biographer chose to table it in a certain way is. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A most informative reply. Thank you. So may we look at a specific example. Would the information at this address meet the definition of copyrightable used by Wikipedia? This is my site's USP and I need to know whether it is safe. If it is, my attitude towards Wikpedia's use of other information from my pages may alter. 16:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenbrown (talk • contribs)
- Can you provide me a link to a specific page? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry! Both forgot to sign it and forgot to add the link: http://www.oldracingcars.com/results/result.php?RaceID=F76G#notes. I'm trying to function without my afternoon cup of tea and that's never a good idea! Allen Brown (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. :) Yes, definitely; copying that content onto Wikipedia would violate our copyright policies. It clears the creativity threshold quite handily, particularly with highly individual language such as "The remains of the old tub were sold to the Domingo brothers...." --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You realise I may be quoting you on this in the future don't you? Feeling confident? And yes, I pride myself in my 'highly individual language' :) Allen Brown (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may regret being so helpful! Another part of my site that is regularly 'reused' is 'Where Are They Now' (WATN). Here's a typical entry: http://www.oldracingcars.com/driver/Chris_Amon. Am I right in assuming that you would regard the tabulated information in between the pictures as 'fair game' but the biography underneath as copyrightable? Second question - and I'm going to let you take the rest of the day off after this one - if any of the information at the top of the page is used, must it receive adequate credit? Chris Amon is a bad example because his details are so well known but there are others where WATN is the only known source of biographical data because our sleuths are the only ones to have found it. This isn't a copyright issue specifically; it's more to do with plagiarism. Allen Brown (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote away. I'm on the record. :) Yes, you are right that I would regard the tabulated information as fair game and the biography as copyrightable. To use it, somebody would need to rewrite the information in it completely in their own language. And they should cite you per WP:V, if your website is reliable (I mean to cast no aspersions on your website); if it's not reliable, they shouldn't use it at all.
- well indeed - how exactly did my website satisfy WP:RS? Technically I'm self-published. So <pauses to stroke white cat> if I could show that my site was unreliable, does that mean Wikipedians would be forbidden from using its content? Have I found my loophole? I feel a highly unreliable article coming on... Allen Brown (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As to crediting you for the top of the page, they should credit you under WP:V, but I suspect that the content would not be viewed as creative enough to warrant credit per Wikipedia:Plagiarism, as "Simple, non-creative lists of information". But I have to note that I am myself very conservative on this issue; I credit like crazy, and I would certainly regard giving you credit as the right thing to do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting. I would have expected that if a website was the only source of a particular item of information, even if the item was as simple and factual as a place of birth, Wikipedia would still want to credit the source. Like you, I'd be very conservative on this issue. I'm not expecting anyone to stop using ORC as a source and am indeed happy that they do - as long as they credit appropriately. Thanks for your time. Allen Brown (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, loopholes. :) Wikipedia does want to credit you, under WP:VER. WP:PLAG, on the other hand, is a bit more liberal...and, I'll note, was not universally supported even at that. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's back! With an account this time... Since it's a sockpuppet does he just receive a permanent block now? He's received lots of warnings from other editors. Jayy008 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He's not a sockpuppet. His blocks had expired on his IPs, so he's free to create an account. I've warned him, though, about consensus. And if you can explain at WP:AIV what makes what he's doing vandalism, that could help. --Moonriddengirl (talk)18:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did my best. But it's difficult because it's a long list of things to explain. It's hard for somebody to understand who doesn't watch it. Jayy008 (talk) 18:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, before I go ahead and do the whole page. When referring to seasons should it be formatted 3, 5, 7 or 3; 5; 7. I have been changing to the latter, but I thought I'd ask [a grammer question] Jayy008 (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends on how it is used, but generally you'd go with just 3, 5, 7. In that context, you'd likely only use ; if there were other clauses to distinguish (for example: "3, which aired on these dates; 5, which aired on these dates and included episodes 4-4000; 7" --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused, sorry. The last bit confused me lol. So unless you're adding other clauses like (episodes 1-13); then you'd use a comma? Jayy008 (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. :) Basically, the ";" is used in that kind of situation to help avoid confusion if you've already got "," lying around. A "," is like a little pause. A ";" is like a big one. If you don't have little pauses already lying around, the "," should be fine. And if your little pauses are set off by "(", you can still use ",". Better? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, much better. He's made the edit again :(. Just after loads of work I was doing, I don't want to revert and get into an edit war. Jayy008 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've indeffed him. I warned him clearly that he needed to follow consensus processes. He's still edit warring, just as he did under his multiple IPs. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) (talk page stalker) In lists, use of a semicolon is often advisable to avoid a comma splice. For instance:
Incorrect Season 1, airing on these dates, season 2, airing on these dates, season 3, airing on these dates.
Correct Season 1, airing on these dates; season 2, airing on these dates; season 3, airing on these dates.
Also correct Season 1, season 2, season 3.
- The confusion's been resolved already, but I'm bored and felt like being a stalker :P Chickenmonkey 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free. :) Stalkers are always welcome here. (Wait, that sounds really weird...) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the help as always MRG, I'll just inform you everytime he does it. For some reason, I don't think we've seen the last of him? and great ChickenMonkey, I definitely understand the concept. Jayy008 (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Moonriddengirl. Avraham suggested I ask you the following questions. If a building is 1000+ years old, is the floorplan of that building in the public domain? Or is it copyrighted by whatever author (or publisher) put the floorplan together 50 years ago? nableezy - 19:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <blink blink> Well, now, there's an interesting question. Let me ponder that one for a minute. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here's the thing. Copyright protects creative expression. Architecturally, the creativity is in the building design, and copyright has long since expired in that. However, reproductions of what one sees are also creative expressions (not digital reproductions, under U.S. law, but creative photography or drawings). They cannot prevent you making your own floor plan based on the design (since they can't retroactively impose copyright), but they may be able to protect their creative expression of it, particularly to the extent that it contains artistic flourishes. (Then, of course, there's the additional question: if the floorplan was published 50 years ago, is it still under copyright even if it does contain artistic flourishes?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you posted on the relevant ANI thread and as an experienced user I thought I'd ask you what you think it's best to do about the RfC/U I started on this user. My current plan is to leave it up for the normal 48 hours in case they make a very quick return. After that it will either be deleted if uncertified (if it isn't I'll ask for it to be) or very quickly archived. If the user comes back I can always ask for an undeletion or re-start the RfC/U. Does this seem fair and sensible to you? Dpmuk (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but that said I'd be very surprised if this retirement is permanent. I think this RfC probably needs to happen. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also be surprised if it's permanent but an RfC/U is useless without participation from the user involved so I'll wait and see if they come back. Off away for the weekend but will look at things again on my return Sunday evening. Dpmuk (talk) 18:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. I've sent an email to OTRS (commons) about http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maggie_Roswell.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maggie_Roswell_and_Hal_Rayle_2010.jpg. User:Bastique has checked the email and told me on IRC that everything looks good, but he is too busy to update the description pages of the images. Do you think you could take a look at the email (the title is "Images of Maggie Roswell")? This is the first time I've requested copyrighted content from someone so I want to make sure everything has been done correctly. Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well. :/ There's a couple of issues. She doesn't state that she owns the copyright of these images; we're supposed to seek clarification of that from people who permit images of themselves (since copyright is owned by the photographer, usually). And she's only joking, I'm sure, but her bit about te moustaches imposes additional restrictions. (Ticket:2010081310007168, for talk page stalkers.) Do you want me to take the ticket and ask her to formally verify the license and her copyright ownership? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. If she states that she isn't the copyright owner of those photos, can you ask her to provided another photo that she is the owner of? (Note: It may take her a few days to respond to your email). Theleftorium (talk) 18:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You bet! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot. Let me know what happens. :) Theleftorium (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have CC'ed you in my letter to her. I will certainly keep you informed. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great! Thank you. By the way, I just noticed that yesterday, it had been exactly a year since my first edit to SCV and the first time we talked. Time just flies by, huh? :-) Theleftorium (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, I feel like I've known you forever! Happy anniversary. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New emails have been sent. Can you check? :) Theleftorium (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have checked. I found hers, but not his. Can you poke at me once in a while to recheck? As you know, things get busy. :) If he doesn't use the same ticket# (which I failed to mention to her!) it'll go into the general queue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you do a quick check again? :) Theleftorium (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure! I did a system search for her name, and all I found was our existing thread. Searching for his doesn't find anything, I'm afraid except that same thread. I did a visual scan of the Commons permission queue from the 12th forward but didn't find anything. He evidently hasn't sent it yet, or if he has it's gone astray. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well. Thanks for checking. Let's wait a few days and if nothing happens, we'll contact Maggie again. Theleftorium (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any familiarity with http://oocities.com? See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Bot making hundreds of links to oocities.com, when links to Archive.org would be better. Would these links violate WP:COPYLINK? –xenotalk 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they do. Replied there. Mass reversion seems a possibility. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have done. Thanks for your input. –xenotalk 20:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see here, an editor is objecting to my deletion of a link to his website, saying " My page didn't violate the rules, it maybe further-linked to copyrighted material, but it was not itself and directly." Where is the actual guidance on this? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (talk page stalker) WP:LINKVIO. If they host copyright violations they're almost always off limits. Even if they just link to copyright violations then there is still likely contributory copyright infringement going on, and there should be a good reason to use them. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, weird. I didn't get the "you have messages" flag until you replied to Doug, Verno. :/ Thanks! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Verno. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, is that picture good for insertion and transfer to commons now? Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, it's all properly licensed now. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your attention. Off2riorob (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a copyvio, although there is the usual decent chance it was written by a staff member...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh-oh. For our intents and purposes, it's a copyvio until cleared, either way. I've put the template and will follow the process. Forgot to blank the text, though. I'm having trouble getting used to our new (or, rather, old) processes. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl, may I ask you for your opinion on this copyright matter? An IP started tinkering with a whole section, putting in spammy links and later there was an alleged claim that all the content had been copyrighted elsewhere. I'm at a loss as I can't verify the (c) claims and I'm tempted to restore the article. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'll be happy to come take a look at it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that the content was removed by User:Daniel, who is an WP:OTRS volunteer. Although I didn't find it, there may be an e-mail about it in the Wikimedia Foundation's sytem. Let me see if I can figure out what's going on. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the effort so far :) De728631 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've asked Daniel for more information and will let you know what I find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth the effort? I've blocked Ardfern (talk · contribs) after detecting two recent copyright violations from him (Ballypatrick Forest and Peatlands Park). After reviewing just a tiny bit of his other contributions, I've found more problems:
It dates back to 2005: User_talk:Ardfern/Archive_1#Your_plagiarism. Unfortunately, many of the sources he has used are offline. What do you (and your talk page stalkers) think? Theleftorium (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't ever say no to that question, even when I would like to run away screaming. :/ The backlog is mounting, but it looks like we'll have to add to it.
- Speaking of which, I've been thinking about offering a barnstar reward for CCI work, or maybe even a bounty. I don't know if it's a good idea. Or how to go about it. But if we could get some more willing bodies.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The other day I got a CorenSearchBot warning on Patrick Karegeya. The article is just a first cut and needs a lot of work, but there is no copyright violation. I start quite a lot of articles and have got these notices before, but this one really bugged me. I pounded out an draft essay at User:Aymatth2/CorenSearchBot. Before I put it into a more public forum, I would appreciate sane advice. Maybe I should just let it go. I suppose the bot has some value and the occasional warnings can be ignored. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm sorry. :( I know that false positives can be very frustrating to the contributors who receive them, but, really, the bot does have great value. Looking at the day you were tagged alone, there were 48 hits. Of the ones that were not copyvios (5? 6? It's late here, so I'm tired. :)), 3 look to be false positives. 2 weren't false positives, but weren't copyvios, either, because the content was either not copyrightable or was correctly attributed, and another was correctly repaired at the external site in accordance with the Bot's instructions. 5 were not problems; it seems that 43 (give or take :)) were. On the day you mention, it seems that 67 were.
- Copyright problems can be pretty serious for our website and for copyright holders, particularly since our content is so quickly mirrored. By the time we receive a take-down notice two days later, that content is already spread internationally. If we don't receive the take-down notice until two years later (when the copyright holder notices), it could well be in print...and with our encouragement. We not only owe it to copyright holders, but also to the downstream content reusers who accept our offer to reuse our content to try to deal with this material as quickly as possible. We might spare them considerable trouble and potential expense. Not to mention that quick action is part of our protection under OCILLA. Our due diligence in the face of "red flags" will serve us well in case we ever do face action.
- Do you think perhaps there's some change to the template that can help take the sting out of the notice? I am myself pretty clueless about bots and suchlike, so I don't know if anything can be done to reduce the number of false positives, but I share your concern about the discouragement for good contributors, while at the same time thinking that CorenSearchBot is something we really need. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I had not thought about the mirroring issue. I assume that our invitation to reuse includes a careful disclaimer of responsibility for any copyright issues. Knowing the quality of some of the articles, a publisher should check them very carefully before putting them into print. But I suppose it does happen...
I am not advocating closing down CorenSearchBot, and in fact suggest it should be expanded to review significant edits to existing articles, since these will often introduce copyright violations that would not at present be detected.
There is no way to avoid false positives altogether. An imaginary example:
- John Smith was born on 13 March 1949 in Willowdale, Rhode Island and attended Willowdale High School, where he was captain of the football team. He was admitted to Harvard in 1967 and gained a degree in Economics in 1970. Going on to the Harvard Business School, he obtained an MBA degree in 1972.
Assuming John Smith became highly notable, several reference sources are likely to hold text very similar to the above, and the bot may well report a possible copyright violation. That is reasonable, and the editor will find it understandable if they are given a polite warning.
My concern is that the bot has got over-elaborate. The false positive that bugged me reported a copyright violation that seemed to be related to two sentences:
- Article: Karegeya was arrested and served an 18-month sentence for desertion and insubordination.[3] He was stripped of his rank of Colonel on 13 July 2006 by a military tribunal and fled the country in 2007.[1]
- Web source: Former spy chief Patrick Karegeya yesterday walked out of the coolers after completing his 18-month sentence. Karegeya, who was also stripped of his military Colonel rank on July 13, 2006 by the Military Tribunal, has been serving time for desertion and insubordination.
The facts are of course the same since the article drew from the web source, citing it, and inevitably some of the words and phrases are the same, but the bot is being far too sensitive. I checked two other false positives, Charles-Auguste Questel and Robinson (Paris RER), and they had even less in common with the source. The Robinson one is amusing: a very short article on a railway station matched to a very short web source on a helicopter company, with the one word "Robinson" in common.
So what I am advocating is to expand the scope of checks by CorenSearchBot to include edits to existing articles and to check more online sources, which will greatly increase the number of violations detected although many will still slip through. But in parallel review false positives like the ones given above and either remove logic that is creating them or add logic to weed out similar ones. E.g. "If the article and source have only one word in common, there is no violation."
As for the wording of the notice, the talk page message is probably o.k., although "and it appears to include a substantial copy of [url]" could perhaps be replaced by "and it appears to copy content from [url]". The banner placed on the article page is far too aggressive, particularly given the current level of inaccuracy of the bot. It should be more like a warning:
Sorry for rambling on, but I do think there is a problem. We are so short of contributors... Aymatth2 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be great if we could get something like CorenSearchBot to review other major expansions...particularly to articles that are prone to issues. After slightly more than two years of full time copyright on Wikipedia, I'm starting to feel like some articles are old friends. :) On the other hand, it's also quite a daunting thought to me. We have constant and overwhelming backlog in copyright work. We've got enough volunteers going now to keep up with WP:SCV and WP:CP, but WP:CCI has listings over a year old, and I'm pretty sure that WP:SCV would rapidly be overwhelmed if we tried to review all potentially problematic text. Which doesn't mean we don't need to. I just couldn't fathom how we can. :/
- As I said above, I'm not really the bot type (or remotely), so I don't know how Coren has this thing set or how its sensitivity can be adjusted, but perhaps if we modify the warnings we can soften the blow. Coren has been missing for a while—at least from Wikipedia. (I don't know where he is and hope all is well with him!) He's always been very gracious about my making changes to the bot's notices, so I'll go take a look. I'm conservative about overhauling things in the absence of their creators, but maybe incremental modifications can get us in that direction. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I've changed Template:Csb-pageincludes with some of the language you recommend. What do you think? I'll look at the bot's other notices. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also made changes to Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes and Template:Csb-notice-pageincluded. I'll seek feedback on those changes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new wording better, although the article banner is still very aggressive. The change I propose could in fact help the review process. If the bot checked significant changes (whatever that means) as well as new pages, but focussed on blatant copies where large chunks of text are almost exactly the same as the source, it would not just reduce the false positives but would also increase the number of serious violations caught, which are the ones most likely to cause trouble and also the ones most easily reviewed. The more subtle ones where a shorter amount of text is involved and there has been an attempt at paraphrasing are harder to review and less likely to cause problems. With limited resources, better to work on the obvious ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least it seems to be a step in the right direction. :) I've alerted some others about the conversation here; maybe we can arrive at some additional changes. The problem is that the template on the article needs to retain directions for addressing the problem. Maybe those could be collapsed to make the whole thing less "in your face"? I'd prefer to get additional feedback on that one before implementing, though.
- I have no idea the feasibility of bot reivew of major contributions. I've heard talk of it bandied about, but since I am so not a coder, I've stayed out of it. :) A couple of the people I've talked to do code, though, so maybe they have feedback on that. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the edits you made to Template:Csb-pageincludes, but I don't agree with Aymatth2 that it is still "very aggressive". I don't think it's aggressive at all actually. But it might be worth adding something like this. Theleftorium (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this mock-up? The linked guidelines can be expanded to give a much more complete explanation, and the warning banner is no longer the most dramatic one in Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think the instructions should stay on the template. This just makes it more confusing for the article creators (who may even miss the wikilink). What is it about the instructions that make the template aggressive, anyway? Theleftorium (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The template just has to link to a page that gives directions. The page can give a much more complete explanation than can reasonably be put into the template. I can't see any reason a bot should not review major contributions. Maybe it could piggyback on ClueBot, which checks all edits for vandalism anyway. ClueBot would pass selected pages or diffs over to CorenSearchBot to check for copyvios. CorenSearchBot would have to be made less sensitive to avoid flooding the review queue, or else should sort out reports into different headings: "Red", "Orange", "Yellow", "Gray" etc., which could be useful anyway. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the list of options/instructions needs to be on the template, since most of the people who's articles get tagged are new contributors and may not bother clicking through to read lengthy explanations. The option to "revert to one of the previous versions of the article" does strike me as absurd though, since it's only new pages which are checked. While we may be short of contributors, I think we're shorter on copyright cleaners. Onto the other topic, having a bot checking major contributions for copyvio is something that would be great to do (and is one of the many things on my wishlist for the bot I'm working on) but it would probably take a lot of tweaking to do it right, even using CSBot or EarwigBot as a base, since as MRG says, it may start overwhelming the CopyCleanCrew's daily workload, so we'd need to find the most likely vios and make the least work for human follow-up. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it is just me, but I find the size of the template, plus the colors, very intense. It takes up most of my screen when I open the page. Most warning templates are smaller, quieter, and point to another page with instructions. The page is going to be reviewed anyway and either marked clean, fixed or deleted. I prefer not to jolt the editor too hard since they may well become a valuable contributor. We should assume good faith. Now, if there were very few false positives I would much less concerned about the appearance of the warning, and it is not the most important issue anyway.
- On the bot question, I don't think it is all that big a change (easy for me to say!). The main change would be to have it check pages reported by ClueBot as being suspicious instead of checking new pages. As far as I can tell, CorenSearchBot scores articles and then reports ones above a certain threshold. Push up the threshold, which is probably in a config file, and there would be fewer reports and presumably many fewer false positives. Or else just have the bot add an icon to the message in the review queue that indicates how high the score is. When there is a backlog the crew could skip the lower-scoring ones. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see the colors as being that big of an issue, since it's only the line down the side, not like a speedy delete tag. Maybe the options part of the could be reduced in size some to shrink it overall?
- As far as the bot goes, CSBot does use a threshold system, but it would need to be modified to check only the added text and not the whole page, and may need to have the calculation itself adjusted - I'm not sure since it's been a while since I looked through the code in detail. As far as pushing up the threshold (either for checking major changes or just in general) to reduce false positives, that could work but it might then miss valid close paraphrase issues - a whole series of different articles would probably have to be run and spit out feedback so we could see what the tradeoff is between false positives and false negatives before there can be an informed discussion about tweaking the code. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breakout?
Maybe this should be cut-and-paste moved to a separate discussion page. There seem to be at least three separate threads:
- What should the templates look like?
- What rules should the bot follow and how should it present results?
- How can the bot be adapted to check changes to existing pages?
They probably all need more time to resolve. Moonriddengirl, it is your talk page and your call. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If my talk page is of use to you, you are welcome to have at it. :) If you want to move it elsewhere, that's fine, too. I've been loosely following, but am trying to wrap up a CCI today. I won't make it, but I'm trying. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a shot at breaking it out it tomorrow. I am really optimistic that a lot can be achieved, but it should be first discussed thoroughly to get consensus. Not a simple problem and we have to stay open minded, but I should make it clear that I am determined to get agreement on the Robinson rule: "If the article and source have only one word in common, there is no copyright violation.". Aymatth2 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! Those of us who work copyright certainly agree; we have quite a lot to do as it is. :) I wonder if WT:SCV would be a good place for a conversation about the templates? But, really, you're welcome to keep it here. Those of us who do copyright work tend to congregate anyway. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say at the moment except that the shorter the template is the more likely it is to be read. MER-C 11:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Moonriddengirl. I was hoping that you could comment on an issue that someone brought up regarding criteria for redaction #1 with regards to articles that are copyright violations from their inception but are then stubbified. The thread is here. Thanks, NW (Talk) 13:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! NW (Talk) 13:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First I think I need to be part of the OTRS team otherwise I am going to be coming here a lot now. I was checking out some "in need of attention" and the first few I clicked on have been tagged for years with no number. I just dealt with some of them myself as they were fairly easy but having said that: File:Pledgemusicscreenshot.png is a screen grab of a web site. Normally a copyvio but could fall under Fair use. However in this case we have a notice that says an OTRS has been submitted and, supposedly, it says "Authorisation has been explicitly given by PledgeMusic for its use within Wikipedia" which, if that is the case, means it needs to be speedied. However the fact that it also states "Image is fair use as it is provided for commentary within wikipedia article" add a little twist on it. Just as an aside, as you may know the whole "for wikipedia use only" concept vs the "just slap a fur on it" idea has bothered me for a long time. I have been vocal about the fact the foundation set solid rules down about images marked as "for Wikipedia use only" must be "deleted on site" so I do not agree with the more common un-official add on "...unless an editor tags it with a FUR". This image is almost thought out that way, if you follow me. So I am not sure how to tag this one if, indeed, the OTRS says "Wikipedia use only".
Following that up with another OTRS in waiting image. File:Selenagrammy.jpg is an image of the late Selena backstage in the press room at the Grammy awards. What I am wondering about with this one is the statement "Photo taken at the 1994 Grammy Awards at Radio City Music Hall, New York on June 11, 1994, by the mother of user:AJon1992, who agrees to release it under the terms of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL". As a photographer who has shot the Grammys before I know that access to the press area is very limited, they don't let fans hang out back there. Before anyone feels I am assuming bad faith I say this because User_talk:AJona1992 contains a discussion where the editor explains his mother and grandmother were Selena fans and his "grandmother used to live in Corpus Christi, Texas and began attending her concerts and taking pictures" and that between 1992, when the editor was born, and when Selena died in 1995 they watched TV, read news papers and "kept playing her songs while they clean, or on the radio." After moving to Florida the user says his grandmother and mother gave him "their collections (pictures, signatures, vhs tapes, etc)." So as with another recent OTRS case I suspect this image is not one taken by the mother, but by a member of the media, a print of which was obtained by the mother, clearly a huge fan, and became part of her Selena "collection".
Than we have File:Wash Post MSK2.jpg which was upped March 22, tagged the same day with {{di-no license}} and the uploader removed that tag and added an {{OTRS Pending}} tag the next day. Nothing has changed since.
How hard is it to get OTRS ability? Thanks Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, #3 was a tip of the ice berg. I've tagged it and all of his other image uploads with NPD. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, #2 is pretty unlikely. Several other images uploaded by this contributor recently exist elsewhere on the web. I have some doubts about File:Selenaperfume.jpg, given the watermark and the low resolution. Does it look like he took it himself? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And with #1, I find nothing in OTRS. I find the search function wonky, though, so that doesn't prove it isn't there. If the OTRS said "Wikipedia use only", I hope the OTRS agent would have rejected it. :)
- Now, as to how hard it is to become an OTRS agent, it's not that hard provided you have the right skillset and attitude. They look for volunteers who are knowledgeable about the issues (which you certainly are) and who are patient and unfailingly polite. Many OTRS letters go through without a hitch, but you might go through half a dozen e-mails just to get a usable release from somebody who just can't seem to get what we need them to say. The need particularly for image OTRS agents is extreme; we have a backlog of 150 an en permissions and 528 at Commons. They do prefer admins, and given your focus I wonder if you do much on Commons or have considered seeking adminship there. It's not essential, but it helps. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I have a fair use picture question with File:Gilda-Radner.jpg's use in Saturday Night Live cast, in that I don't think it's use is not in compliance with WP:NFCC#10c nor do I think a fair use claim can be made - I have removed the picture twice now here and here but now it has been re-added for the third time thought I should check with you for what you think. Codf1977 (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, it can't be used without a valid FUR. :/ I was about to remove it myself, but he's trying to replace it with another image. Watching. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seen - thanks for looking. Codf1977 (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent you a message. Please read. AboundingHinata (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Thanks for your note. I've read your e-mail, but I'm afraid you need a Wikipedia:Bureaucrat. Wikipedia:Administrators have different tools. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD hasn't had any new votes for three days. Can it be closed now or do we have to wait the full 7 days of the re-listment period? SilverserenC 17:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could be closed now, but I'm afraid that there's a bit of a Catch-22. :) Given that you took a position, my closure of it might be seen as a conflict. It doesn't do any harm to leave it for a few more days until an admin does the necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. Sorry for bothering you. It just seems like a long time period sometimes. SilverserenC 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, no problem. You didn't bother me. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...*pokes* You're magic, aren't you? How did you do that? SilverserenC 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL! More than once I've noticed a thread at somebody else's talk page where I've chosen to take action. Last time concerned a sock that an admin felt he could not block; I could. I suspect something of the sort. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raised at User talk:Piotrus. I know my motives are not the purest, due to our long-standing conflicts, so will try to compensate by working on other unrelated copyvio problems. Novickas (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied here. I don't think it is very difficult, because over the past few years as I got interested in copyvios, I tried to ensure that my old edits from the time I didn't fully understand the policy have been rewritten. A few sentences somewhere may still be problematic... if anything comes up, do let me know and I'll be more than happy to rewrite anything that's needed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there...I wonder if you can advise me a bit about a copyright issue; I was concerned about copyright troubles by an editor, so I looked at all the things they'd created and compiled a list [1] - however, I didn't want to be 'bitey' so I just asked them about a couple of specific ones, and also fixed what I could. The user did add attribution on a couple of the copypasted articles.
Yesterday I asked about Doodle4Google on User talk:Mono#Doodle4Google copyright violations, and they did indeed edit it (and wrote fixed) but I don't really think that their edit constitutes appropriate paraphrasing. I've been trying to 'gently' ask them to look at their contribs and fix things. I wonder if you can help at all; I'd be very grateful. Best, Chzz ► 22:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|