Jump to content

User talk:Moonriddengirl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moonriddengirl (talk | contribs) at 12:09, 15 October 2012 (→Omdo again: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup
Wikipedia adsfile info – #178
Welcome

If you are here with questions about an article I have deleted or a copyright concern, please consider first reading my personal policies with regards to deletion and copyright, as these may provide your answer.

While you can email me to reach me in my volunteer capacity, I don't recommend it. I very seldom check that email account. If you do email me, please leave a note here telling me so or I may never see it. I hardly ever check that account.

To leave a message for me, press the "new section" or "+" tab at the top of the page, or simply click here. Remember to sign your message with ~~~~. I will respond to all civil messages.

I attempt to keep conversations in one location, as I find it easier to follow them that way when they are archived. If you open a new conversation here, I will respond to you here. Please watchlist this page or check back for my reply; I will leave you a "talkback" notice if you request one and will generally try to trigger your automatic notification even if you don't. (I sometimes fail to be consistent there; please excuse me if I overlook it.) If I have already left a message at your talk page, unless I've requested follow-up here or it is a standard template message, I am watching it, but I would nevertheless appreciate it you could trigger my automatic notification. {{Ping}} works well for that. If you leave your reply here, I may respond at your talk page if it seems better for context. If you aren't sure if I'm watching your page, feel free to approach me here.

Admins, if you see that I've made a mistake, please fix it.
Hours of Operation

In general, I check in with Wikipedia under this account around 12:00 Coordinated Universal Time on weekdays. I try to check back in at least once more during the day. On weekends, I'm here more often. When you loaded this page, it was 05:18, 14 October 2024 UTC [refresh]. Refresh your page to see what time it is now.


This might be tricky

There's a discussion at Talk:Zoological_conspiracy_theories_(Israel_related)#Shark_rewrite whether linking to videoclips posted on the youtube channel of MEMRI is appropriate or not with respect to potential copyright violations by them. Perhaps you can help illuminate that aspect? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This may well be tricky. :/ News footage can be legally protected by copyright; if they are reproducing somebody else's news footage, even if they are subtitling it, there may well be copyright issues if the content is not licensed...but only if it's from a country with which the US has copyright relations (see Wikipedia:Non-US copyrights#Countries without copyright relations with the United States). Only a court can determine when copyright infringement exists; there may be defenses they could sustain even if making unauthorized derivatives of foreign interviews and news footage. I have tried to do a general internet search to see if I can find anything about MEMRI and copyright, but what I found is pretty clearly not a RS ([1]) Is it at all possible to link to the originals? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not replaceable with another web link because the clips are generally from pretty obscure shows in Arab media. I see that the country in question in this case, Egypt, does have a copyright agreement with the US. Given that MEMRI has been accused of pro-Israeli bias, I find it unlikely the Arab media would have granted them redistribution rights for the relatively lengthy clips that MEMRI posts on their channel. The one in question here is about 4 minutes long (although presumably from a talk show that was an hour long or so, although I suspect the "famous diver" didn't get a full hour for himself). I also suspect that the Arab media probably can't be bothered to send DMCA requests to youtube, assuming they even know. ¶ I don't know if the translated clip would qualify for fair use though. The newspaper quotes from the "famous diver" have been generally much shorter (a sentence or two) than the exchange in the clip (if it were transcribed). It's true that the clip does provoke a smirk (at least in me) due to the roundabout way the diver guy goes about advancing his theory. And the moderator surely has his part in that. But alas no secondary source has commented on those issues; that's just my WP:OR. It's not possible to say that the clip is subject to commentary in some sources more than the much shorter quotes (from the diver guy) which appeared in the printed press. Since we generally prefer the least infringing method of quoting someone, it seems to me that there's no compelling argument to link to that clip on fair use grounds. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the last link you gave actually does say something about copyright, and it's what I expected:

No comment needed, assuming it's a real interview; that page you linked to looks like a copyvio itself, because I found [2]: "Lawrence Swaim is the Executive Director of the Inerfaith Freedom Foundation. He taught for eight years at Pacific Union College, and his academic specialities are American Studies and American literature. His column address current affairs from a progressive Christian and Interfaith perspective. His column is reprinted with permission of InFocus, California's largest Muslim newspaper" on another site. So apparently it was initially published in Southern California InFocus, which looks less creepy than that website you found. And this a bit of background on Swaim, in his own words, which makes it somewhat plausible that Carmon would have agreed to be interviewed/quoted by Swaim. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, translation is a derivative work under definition of US law. If they have not licensed the original content (assuming it originates in a country with which the US has copyright relations), their hosting of those videos may well be a copyright issue. What I was trying to find out, really, was whether or not they've licensed the content.I'm not sure how good a fair use case they can make without critical commentary about the material; its usage doesn't seem transformative to me. I would not myself be comfortable posting those videos in accordance with WP:LINKVIO. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio from editor with 700 edits

I discovered Mariepr (talk · contribs) from a post someone left about copyvio at SS Santa Paula (1916) at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#SS Santa Paula 1916. I looked into more of her edits and much is copyrighted, but it is difficult to spot. Phrases like "dividing fashion into seasons and for deciding to sell paper patterns of his creations to the international market, preferring to sell his own ideas himself, rather than falling victim to inevitable imitations" have been copied from here to here. Another phrase, "his aggressive self-promotion earned him the titles "father of haute couture" and "the first couturier." was copied from here in the same edit. It is the fact that she's copying from multiple sources at once that makes it difficult to spot. What should we do about this? CCI? Ryan Vesey 14:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what we traditionally do. :/ My general approach is to spot check an editor's contrib history and see if I find five articles with clear issues. I don't know if you've ever taken the dupdet tool for a test drive, but it is a sweet way of organizing this work and making it manageable.
For instance, this contributor really only has about 30 articles to be concerned about; that's a whole lot more doable than 700 edits. :) (This link will expire). I grabbed one at random (SS Santa Paula (1932) and confirmed that there's some close following on one of its sources. I didn't find it by checking the sources; I found it by grabbing a sentence at random and performing a google search. But my experience suggests that in this kind of situation you have an entirely good faith misunderstanding of how much rewriting is expected. I would be surprised to find any duplication to a source that is not cited, based just on that one article. I think there is no intent to violate either WP:Copyrights or WP:Plagiarism.
In this kind of case, if the contributor is amenable, it can be a good idea to point out diplomatically that the issue may exist in additional articles and to ask her (presuming from name) to check and revise where necessary. (I would not do this if my spot-check found issues substantial enough that I felt I had to blank the articles, but only where the {{close paraphrasing}} tag seems sufficient to me - generally, when I think that the content is not substantially similar to a given source.) There is sometimes some initial dismay; I find it really helpful to point out from the start that our local policy simply requires that all information taken from non-free sources, aside from explicitly marked quotations, must be put into your own words. Since you've already established a connection, you might want to give it a go, but - if you can - could you please spot-check a few more articles in case there are more extensive issues than we realize? After a holiday weekend, I'm expecting a pretty busy day today. :D If you want assistance with this - poking about or talking - please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk)
What do you think of this duplication I found at Stephen Payne (designer)[3] [4]. There's an obvious attempt at rewriting it, but it seems way too close. Ryan Vesey 23:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While many of the matches flagged by dupdet are incidental, I think there are a couple of phrases that need rewriting or quoting. I would flag that with {{close paraphrasing}} or mention it to her. It's the kind of thing that I might under some circumstances simply rewrite myself - when there is no pattern of issue, anybody can have an off day - but where there is pattern, the most important thing is helping the editor learn local best practices so that she can continue adding content without encountering further or worse problems. Win-win. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, this is where we are at right now. I've checked articles through March 10. Ryan Vesey 15:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mariepr here. I found this page during my checks of the SS Santa Rosa (1932) page for duplications. I know that I am intruding into a private dialogue but may I be permitted to personally address some of the issues raised here and at User_talk:Mariepr#Copyvio and at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#House_of_Worth_Copyvio. Most importantly, may I outline what I am doing to correct any close paraphrasing problems.

  • Sources: I can unilaterally say that none of my edits contain any source material what was not cited in References sections. (Where other editors obtained their source material is something only they can know.) In the interest of verifiability only source text available on the internet is used and not any from "dead tree" sources. In one way it's a shame because a book edited by a major publisher would tend to have the facts right and therefore be far more reliable regarding content. But if the source material is online other editors can check it for relevant content - or duplication. Giving as a source a printed book on say, Ships of the Grace Line, another editor would have to be an expert in the subject to have it on his/her shelf or would have to make a time consuming trip to a reference library. (Or, spend the money to buy the eBook as is increasingly possible.)
  • House of Worth: I had no role in the press releases that had been incorporated into it over the past two years but my attempts to write a neutral POV and add inline citations confused the attributions to the point where it become difficult to identify which editors were responsible. A "clean" subpage has been drafted and I am working with User talk:Voceditenore to resolve the matter. One thing that I have learned from this is that press releases are copyrighted material! This was astonishing to me because a press release is written specifically to promote a product or service in the hopes that its contents will be indeed be copied and disseminated as news.
  • Close Paraphrasing: My usual approach to drafting an article is to do so in my own userspace sandbox. This gives me full functionality for inserting inline citations, wikilinks, etc. I prefer to do this as the article is developed rather than pick through it and insert the citations later. I'm aware that uploading an article with copy/paste directly from sources is a copyright violation so I don't (intentionally) do it. What I have done is to paste into the sandbox source text, re-write it, then delete the source text. What appears to be the problem is that too much remained as verbatim source text. I had not until this week known that Toolhaus Duplication Detector existed! While I was aware of the CorenSearchBot I thought that duplication detectors were Administrator tools. What I would have done differently was to run the Duplication Detector on each of the cited references and change any significant matches found.
  • New Article Review: Several of the articles which I authored regard cargo and passenger ships. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships (where I am not a member) does patrol for new articles which might fall within their scope. They review and grade articles according to their own project standards. After uploading an article and having it reviewed by at least two other editors, I hope you can understand my astonishment that months later there might copyright compliance problems after that review. My initial trials with Duplication Detector have turned up matches for vessel technical information (US government agency public domain material) and a lot of technical but generic ship vocabulary. (How many ways can it be said that a vessel "was scrapped in 1985"?) One example of an article passing project review was Typaldos Lines and, since it mentioned a lawsuit, included in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Law - a group which should be very aware of copyright and other legal issues. What I would do differently is outlined above. And if the same "generic phrases" come too close together it can be construed as duplication.
  • Past edits: I have begun to use Duplication Detector against the articles which I had authored. Those edited with the past two days are Type_C6_ship, Horizon Lines, Ted Alan Worth, SS Santa Rosa (1932), and Typaldos Lines. I will continue checking the articles which I had authored and will next move to those where I added substantial content. If it has been a while since the article was last visited inline citations may have been lost by subsequent editors.
  • Lessons Learned: Any material, electronic or printed, is copyright protected unless specifically in the public domain or formally released for use. In some of my past hobbies group newsletters often didn't mind if their material was re-used so long as they were given credit for it. But those were non-profit groups and there was no commercial interest to copyright.
  • Going forward: My interest right now is to help clear any copyright problems that may be associated with my contibutions. I'm aware it was brought up from the very beginning that this normally has to head down the CCI path, if for no other reason to protect Wikipedia. That is indeed regretful and most importantly it exhausts volunteer time that would otherwise have been spent on the development of content. However should that nonetheless be necessary I want to cooperate and help "clean up any messes". NightSt✷r (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You're welcome here. :) I appreciate your working to assist with this and certainly do understand your astonishment. People do not always look for paraphrasing issues when reviewing articles, so sometimes articles that have undergone peer review do turn out to have issues that were missed. Fortunately, these can be cleaned up later. :)
If I may speak to some of your specific points:
  • Offline references are okay, although online sources do have the advantages you mention. You just need to be careful to provide full citation information and, of course, to put the information in your own words, unless you are explicitly quoting.
  • Yes, until and unless some court definitively declares otherwise, press releases can be copyrighted material. The people who put them out may have choices about who publishes them, where and in what context, and they certainly may object to modifications of the material.
  • The Duplication Detector is a great tool for helping to pinpoint problems but does have some limitations in that it searches for text strings only. To try to make why this is a problem more clear - if you translate from Chinese into English, you are replacing every word, but you are still infringing the copyright of the original (see Derivative work). Rewriting to avoid taking creative content from your sources goes beyond word substitution, into the the structure of the piece as well. I can talk about this more, if you'd like. :)
Again, I do appreciate your work here. I hope that it will not prove to be too difficult. If you have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to come by. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Conk 9? Well, a sock puppet of [[User talk:Conk 9 has returned as User talk:GoUrban.

  1. His IP is the same. An autoblock caught him, but it was lifted.
  2. He's tried other sock at User talk:Jcon9.
  3. Both have same editing areas of buildings and sights around Hampton Roads, Virginia and Pittsburgh. See especially GoUrban's re-creation of Norfolk Southern Tower and Bank of America Center (Norfolk), both of which had been previously created by Conk 9.
  4. Both have uploaded strikingly similar images File:BankofAmericaCenterNorfolk.JPG versus File:DowntownNorfolk1.JPG. It's even the same camera style seen in the CCI.
  5. Both had no userpage.

I spent a long time cleaning up this guy's copyvios, and I'd hate to see him introduce more and more copyvios. Would you agree that we have a WP:DUCK here?--GrapedApe (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Well, first, SPI is not at all my thing. There are a couple of sock puppeteers I watch out for, but mostly I list them myself at WP:SPI because I like an admin with more experience there to evaluate before blocking. In this case, I think you present a really strong case. The question is how best to handle it. Conk 9's copyright issues were related to images. I see only one image uploaded by GoUrban. If he's staying away from the problem area, maybe the best way to handle it would be to erase the subterfuge, openly connect the contributors and seek an image upload ban (or impose a "pre-screen" via an experienced editor)? Are you aware of any other problems with Conk 9's work? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately, GoUrban has uploaded images at commons. File:NorfolkMontage2011.jpg is particularly suspicious.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a whole different kettle of fish. :/ Commons doesn't recognize our sanctions anyway, although of course as we have shared goals they do sometimes impose sanctions of their own on contributors sanctioned here. Some of those images have consistent metadata, and some of them have no metadata at all (Commons:File:Olde Towne Portsmouth VA.jpg). It's possible that they don't have metadata because he snagged them from his Facebook? I don't know. Images are not really my area. But the one you flag as particularly suspicious is a concern.
I see a couple of possibilities here. First, I can go to Commons and ask him to identify the individual images that make up that montage. If he cannot, I will nominate it for deletion. Alternatively, on the basis of his history, I can nominate the image for deletion straightaway. Or, I can go to the Administrator's Noticeboard there and alert Common's admins to the issues (prior history of copyvios; indef block on Wikipedia) and ask them to look into it. (I'm not an admin on Commons.)
You did great work at that CCI, in terms of meticulously evaluating the data and cleaning up after him, and I certainly understand your wish not to see it happen again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for the several resources you've assembled here.

I have a question concerning wikipedia's stance on the use of facsimile editions. As an example, a particular book (Hariot's Virginia) was published in 1588. The History Book Club issued a facsimile edition (effectively a photographic reproduction of each of the pages of the 1588 edition) in 1951. There is no copyright notice in the 1951 edition.

Based on Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., my understanding is that I'm able to scan both text and images from this book and upload them to Wikipedia as being in the public domain: the History Book Club did not add sufficient creativity (as defined by Bridgeman) in creating the facsimile, nor did I in creating a scan, for any copyright to accrue.

While I think this is a legally conservative position, I wanted to check in to see if this was Wikipedia policy as well.

I would appreciate any guidance you might offer.

Best,

GaramondLethe 19:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm happy if I've been helpful. :) I can't give legal advice for multiple reasons, including that I'm not a lawyer and that if I'm wrong I wouldn't be the one to suffer, but I would myself feel entirely comfortable scanning text and images from a faithful facsimile reproduction, as long as there are no creative flourishes that might attract copyright as a derivative work. I would upload them on Commons, using {{PD-old-100}}, and explain both the source details on the original and the facsimile, noting that the facsimile is faithful. If you prefer to upload them here, you can: {{PD-old}} would apply. There is precedent; see, for example, Commons:Category:First Folio. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. I'd like this to be recorded somewhere other than your talk page archive, but I'm not sure the WP:Copyright FAQ is the best place (the question isn't exactly frequent). Not sure it deserves its own page, either. If you have a suggestion as to where to put it I'd be happy to take the lead in crafting the text. GaramondLethe 16:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it really useful to see a new template {{PD-Faithful-facsimile-old-100}} which really spelt out the reasoning above. Could that be taken into consideration at the same time. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I have no idea where we would gather brief answers to copyright questions, and while I would feel comfortable uploading such content myself would really suggest broader discussion before codifying it. :) I wonder if the folks at WP:MCQ would want to weigh in on whether or not a new template would be appropriate? Again, though, these would generally go on Commons, which would make it more of a Commons question. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 October 2012

Larix laricina

Hello Moonriddengirl. I'm trying to help a bit with the backlog of WP:CP. Please, could you check out my contributions to the article Larix laricina and my reviews at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 August 4? I searched for help at various guidelines and sites, however, the scale of problems I encountered at WP:CP is broad and I would like to know if I can continue. I apologize for bothering you and wasting your time ... but I think your advice could help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please. :) Wanting to help out at WP:CP is never going to be bothering me and wasting my time. I'm delighted. That said, I will now go take a look at that day and that article. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the day, it looks good to me. :) A few notes:
  • I messed up with American Society for the Judicial Settlement of International Disputes, as I thought putting in the "free=yes" parameter would keep it from listing at WP:CP. Since it evidently did not, I've removed the template after repairing the Wikipedia:Plagiarism issue with an attribution template. Probably need to look into the bot listing of "free=yes" templates.
  • I agree with you that Larix laricina seems to be a PD source, but not necessarily due to the statement you located. It does not explicitly authorize modification, and "public information" is distinct from "public domain" (Wikipedia:PD#Public records). There have been sources that have sought to allow distribution but to control change. When I see those kinds of statements, I take it as promising, but not 100% conclusive. But that's a US Federal Government website, and their publications are generally PD because they are produced by US government employees. Just to be 100% sure, I did a bit of poking into the specific publication and found this: "This work is within the Public Domain". Nailed. :)
  • Spot on with Types of capacitor.
Again, it looks good to me. I'm so very grateful for your taking some time to pitch in there. Whatever you want to give is desperately needed. :) And I welcome you to come by any time you want a second opinion or feedback on work there. I don't have as much time to pitch in at WP:CP as I used to (and feel kind of personally guilty about the backlog), but I'm still very interested in the work! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the "free=no" parameter, I think that was a lack of documentation on the template. DpmukBOT only recognized (recognizes?) the similar and otherwise entirely undocumented and lacking any other effect "copyright=no" parameter. VWBot recognizes both now. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, awesome! Thanks, Verno. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you. It looks even more complicated than I expected. Thanks for your offer of help Moonriddengirl. I'll continue :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Omdo again

Since the last unblock, Omdo has continued to make changes without talkpage discussion. After I explicitly noted on their talkpage that they needed to discuss things, this conversation emerged. As can be seen, there's no actual discussion, and the English used is as obtuse as the English used in articles. This suggests to me a competence issue of some sort, possibly language-related, despite their being able to write well enough to make a few beneficial edits. In my opinion Omdo is well past the point of being disruptive, despite their blocks, something made a more frustrating as they edit in places very few people do. As an admin who has previously blocked Omdo, are you able to take action, or do I have to report to another forum? Regards, CMD (talk) 11:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The language use there is a bit alarming. :/ He seems to be attempting to discuss issues, though. I think, though, that it is probably a matter beyond me. I am comfortable addressing edit warring and content dispute issues on occasion, but competence blocks are a pretty big deal. If he is capable of constructive contributions, maybe the thing to do is narrow down where the issue is and propose mentoring or limitations there? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was an initial blunt statement that doesn't seem to have much relevance to the topic, a statement that we shouldn't get distracted from the topic, and then a disparagement to my common sense. After that another long blunt post which again explains nothing. It doesn't feel much like discussion to me, especially as none of the statements are in the most understandable of English. The problem of limitations is that all of their edits are on the same theme, that of Sabah and Sarawak. They seem to be a SPA pushing some personal viewpoint that Sabah and Sarawak are special, and trying to support this with a lot of primary documents. Their constructive contributions often become disruptive once they go past a certain point, and even then I often end up having to fix the English I can understand. I think that the only mentoring that could possibly work is one in their native language, which I assume is some form of Malay. CMD (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that mentorship is unlikely to help, probably the best thing to do is assemble some links demonstrating the global issue and consider a ban discussion. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes to this template of yours, so that it can be added to Twinkle. Hope it suits you. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 05:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi Ankit. I tried it out and it works OK (I don't use Twinkle). However, I clarified the wording in the doc. You had put "if you are a student - yes or leave it blank". I changed it to: "if the editor is a student put yes or leave it blank". MRG, is that OK?
Aye, my mistake (nice observation). Anyway, Voceditnore why didn't you sign your reply. --Ankit MaityTalkContribs 06:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fine with me. And I imagine Voceditenore overlooked it. Unless she is trying to be mysterious. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moonriddengirl&oldid=517918313"