User talk:Moonriddengirl

edit count | edit summary usage Wikipedia Ads file info – show another – #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. Happy Halloween from Moonriddengirl! 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 18:27, November 1, 2014 UTC (). Refresh your page to see what time it is now. How to attribute this? Hi MRG! Here's one that's popped up a couple of times, and so far they've been CSD'd, but in case one is not I'm wondering how to handle the attribution required: An article is created and contributed to by several/many people. It is mirrored out to one of the many WP mirrors. The article is deleted, by Prod or AfD. Subsequently, a different user than the original creator re-creates the article in Draft space with the intent on improving it based on AfD feedback. The article's content is very close/identical to the WP mirror. So there's a couple of possibilities: the user could have grabbed the WP mirror and pasted it into the new Draft, or they could have saved a copy from when it was at AfD and have pasted that text back in. In either case, the text in question was contributed to by many people, but in its current state there is no attribution history. What do you do? What DO you do? :-) CrowCaw 21:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC) You do one of two things, user:Crow. :) You restore the deleted article and do a history merge, or you grab the full list of contributors for the talk page. Generally, easier to restore the deleted article! Then you tell the contributor why he can't do that and how to request restoration of articles in the future. You have a history needs restoring? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Potentially... Stefan Siegel was deleted with a very weak consensus (1 commenter weakly supporting delete). Draft:Stefan Siegel has popped up as a SCV from a different author than the original (I checked with deleting admin), which is sourced to a WP mirror, so is probably the content of the deleted article. The draft has been submitted for AFC review with very minor changes from the mirror, so it may be a weak case for a G4 in this state, or it may just need a decline for more work as the subject seems marginally notable by himself, and his company more so. CrowCaw 21:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Well, it seems that the wheels of Wikipedia have resolved this one. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I'm smelling a sock DocOfSoc (talk · contribs) reminds me of ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) - remember how that user created dozens of personas, many with tragic, sympathy-inspiring back stories? And a penchant for mass copy and paste writing? I don't want to trash someone if I'm wrong, but the tone really strikes me as eerily familiar, see my further comments and links at the CCI. Montanabw(talk) 07:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Not a fucking chance. I've known DocOfSoc for years, and she is not ItsLassieTime. At all. Doc talk 08:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Personal familiarity with the user is helpful. :) I don't know either of them very well. I'm not really all that familiar with sock puppetry investigations and have been surprised more than once before, but that said I would still be really surprised to find any connection here. DocOfSoc's areas of interest and behavior with content feels very different to me (it's less mass copy and paste writing, I think, and more occasional but still regular lapses). Still, just to fully alleviate (I hope) your concerns, User:Montanabw, I checked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime/Archive. She'd have probably been picked up in a sock drawer CU check if she were. They had coinciding activity patterns at least in early 2010, and her IP addresses would have been in the system then. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC) If you guys are reassured, then no worries. I just spotted the copy and paste behavior combined with highly dramatic tragic personal story and it sounded familiar (ILT's socks included a disabled old man, an abused teenager, etc... all to distract attention and avoid detection.) But if this person is legit, then mea culpa for thinking they were a sock, but it was a good faith concern, FWIW. I just spotted it in passing and went "hmmm?" Y'all take care now. Montanabw(talk) 19:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC) I think it's fine to ask, User:Montanabw. I've been in positions in the past where I've wondered about somebody and not said anything for fear of being wrong only to later find out (because somebody else did say something) that I was right. You saw what looked like a pattern to you and did a gut-check, without a lot of fuss or drama. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Yes - and sorry for the coarse language. There was clearly no intention of bad faith in your part, and if I wasn't so familiar with this user I would have been far less "harsh" concerning your legit inquiry. DocOfSoc has had, and continues to have, some very serious RL health setbacks. One of our mutual Wikifriends, (Crohnie (talk · contribs)), died recently; and these two were very close on and off-wiki. The copyright issues are left to those best suited to deal with them (and MRG is the best around). I will say that I absolutely do believe her when she says she did not maliciously intend to violate copyright policy. Doc talk 02:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Halloween greetings! Happy Halloween! Hello Moonriddengirl: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun Halloween!     – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Thank you! and Happy Halloween to you, User:SW3 5DL. :) You inspired me to dust off my old "Happy Halloween" notice from my talk page header, although User:Northamerica1000's design is considerably more sophisticated than mine. :D I love Halloween. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I like your Halloween message atop your page herein. Happy Halloween! NorthAmerica1000 11:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Quick question What's our policy on linking (in "External links") to material that is in the public domain in some places (Canada, for instance) but is protected by copyright in the U.S.? Deor (talk) 11:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure I have enough information to give you a straightforward answer, Deor. :) But even if I did, there might not be a straightforward answer. WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER are both clear that it's okay to link to copyrighted works being displayed elsewhere as long as the website has licensed the work or are using it under fair use (and we don't circumvent that fair use by bypassing the content and deep-linking the work, for instance). It doesn't mention at all cases where copyright doesn't apply to the content in one place but does another, although we do know that we are bound by U.S. law (as WP:C makes clear), and technically publication of content that is copyrighted under U.S. law without license or outside the provisions of fair use is a violation of copyright in U.S. law and hence verboten. I think our application of that is going to require some solid good sense. The US doesn't have a copyright agreement with Iraq, for instance, so as far as Iraq is concerned, all US content is PD. But I would strongly oppose linking to, say, American blockbuster films being hosted on an Iraqi website. There's a cause I would fight. :) I would personally be far less motivated to complain if a work by a Canadian author PD in Canada but protected by URAA in the U.S. is linked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC) I guess I should have been more explicit about what prompted my question (though it's somthing I've wondered about previously). Here, someone linked to a Canadian site that has complete texts of C. S. Lewis books online—as I understand it, Canadian copyright is for life+50, so they are, I assume, PD there. I guess anyone who wants to read the works can find them simply by Googling, so it probably doesn't matter much if we link to them; but as I said, it's something I've wondered about. Deor (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Ah, yeah. While I wouldn't bother too much about a URAA case, Deor, Lewis is a different kettle of fish. Lewis's works were actively registered and renewed in the U.S. They aren't copyrighted out of courtesy. See, for instance, [1]. The Lewis estate has a reputation for, um, vigilance with respect to copyright. Understandable, perhaps, as those properties are still cash cows. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Copyright question Hello Moonriddengirl, I have a enquiry regarding copyrights, which I would like to ask you as I believe you're the person with excellent copyright knowledge. A few song title articles connected to WikiProject Eurovision have recently had word-for-word copy of song lyrics added to them (see this example). Upon reading WP:NOTLYRICS I am under the impression that lyrics are copyright protected and should not be added to an article, is this correct? Also some articles have had a description of music videos and/or information on the upload of a music video along with its running time, with citation to the artists's YouTube video, those videos either published via the European Broadcasting Union's page, or via Vevo. Again would this be violating copyrights? Thank you in advance.   Wes Mouse | chat  17:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Hi, User:Wesley Mouse. :) Word for word lyrics are almost always a problem, except where the content is free licensed or public domain. I can't think of any lyrics that are freely licensed off the top of my head, but all songs are public domain once they get old enough. :) Sadly, that's unlikely to apply to modern popular music. Those should be removed. In terms of videos, linking to the video where it is officially hosted (or hosted with permission) is okay. But we can't link to it where it's hosted illegally (per WP:LINKVIO and WP:ELNEVER). Descriptions of music videos should be okay, but, weird as it sounds, should remain relatively high level. From what I understand, descriptions that are overly detailed may run a risk of turning into a derivative work. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the reply, Moonriddengirl, I thought lyrics may be a problem, and thankfully I did remove the one I exampled above. As for music videos, Det är dit vi ska uses one as a reference, just to give an example of what I mean. Wes Mouse | T@lk 08:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Thanks, User:Wesley Mouse. :) In that case, it should be okay, as the YouTube channel is the official one of the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. If it were uploaded by some random fan, we could not use it. In such cases, the video can be cited as a source without linking to it, however. We don't require that sources be accessible online, although it's always nice when they are! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC) Article Copyright posting at Talk:Philip_B._Gordon Greetings, Even though I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia I have updated about a dozen biography articles. Tonight I saw the notice at Talk:Philip_B._Gordon page. I did copy & paste all of previous Revision history into a file on my computer. Question: would it be OK if I attempt, first to restucture entire article into a better biography format? After that, I could attempt to summarize the content text. Not sure what text may be copyright, so a shorter article may be OK. Final questions - I did see the notice about creating a temporary sub-page to place the article rewrite. Is that what I should do? Or post a first draft here? Or on the article's talk page? Whatever you could recommend would be better than me guessing. Thanks. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Hello, JoeHebda. :) You would be most welcome to help fix this problem by rewriting the article! Rewrites for copyright problems must be from scratch - you cannot use the text from the original unless you are sure that it isn't a problem, and since this user has a history of copying content from inaccessible books that can't be relied on. :/ It is definitely possible to create a shorter version of an article flagged for copyright that should be okay - what you would want to do is use different structure and language entirely. (By structure, I mean in terms of the arrangement of sentences, not the article itself - you are welcome to restructure that article as part of your rewrite as suits you.) Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing has some good suggestions for how to do this work; with content that has already been flagged as a copyright problem, we are typically careful to avoid reintroducing content that may still infringe. It's a little harder to defend contributing to a copyright problem that you should have already known was there, so rewriting from scratch protects everyone. You certainly do not need to post your draft here. The article is supposed to go at Talk:Philip B. Gordon/Temp, but technically that article is past due for handling. It could be stubbed or deleted at any time. If it is, working on it in your "sandbox" space for development (for you later to move into article space), you can find or create your own user sandbox here. Sandboxes are a good place to work in leisure. But by no means required. :) Alternatively, you can work on the article space once that article is processed and the problem content removed. Please be sure not to paste any of the content that had been in the article on Wikipedia in working on your draft. If you want to store it somewhere for review, in case the old history is deleted, please do so outside of Wikipedia. Whenever you place content anywhere on Wikipedia, you are verifying that it meets our license requirements. Even in sandbox space, content must conform. :) Thanks for your interest, and I appreciate your desire to salvage the article! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Hello Moonriddengirl, In taking a fresh look this morning, making a completely new article is beyond my capabilities at this point. I also checked at wikimedia commons & it looks like all the image files might also be copyright (from the book source?). While I do enjoy reading about early Wisconsin history and our pioneers, and communities, etc. this is not really my area of expertise. Most biography articles can be sectioned off into two or three basic sub-sections & I see this one has many more. If this article becomes stub or deleted, I will still keep what I have from last night offline. If no one else jumps in to work on the article, I might be able to help over the upcoming winter months. :-) Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC) Yes, the images are also a real concern. This user seems to have uploaded content without much evidence as to publication to allow us to determine copyright status. :/ They are all listed for review, although it may take some time to complete. And with regards to rebuilding content, there is no rush. Whenever you want to help restore it to some semblance of completion, JoeHebda, you would be very welcome! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC) The Signpost: 29 October 2014 Featured content: Go West, young man (By the way, there is a monster at the end of this article) In the media: Wikipedia a trusted source on Ebola; Wikipedia study labeled government waste; football biography goes viral Maps tagathon: Find 10,000 digitised maps this weekend Recent research: Informed consent and privacy; newsmaking on Wikipedia; Wikipedia and organizational theories Traffic report: Ebola, Ultron, and Creepy Articles Read this Signpost in full Single-page Unsubscribe MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC) License vio in fork site? Hi MRG, what do you make of This Mirror/Fork site. They say they contain exact copies of AfD-listed WP articles, and their license is PD. Are they allowed to downgrade the license, even on deleted content. Which assumes also that only deleted content is there, which may not always be the case if an article is copied there and subsequently survives AfD. CrowCaw 22:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)