Archives

Apr-–July 08 Aug–Dec 08 Jan–Apr 09 May-–July 09

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please userfy Buereau of Energy Efficiency for me? I created that article, and I would like to re-create it and this I would like to add some details and make sure it does NOT violate any policies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The article can now be found at User:Rsrikanth05/Bureau of Energy Efficiency. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. :D Cheers... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! You saved me a rental. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on now... I figured you were looking forward to learning all about America's first serial killer. That video was a wonderful accompaniment to my morning yogurt and muesli. (Meh, okay... who am I kidding? You didn't miss anything.) — CactusWriter | ^needles 17:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I've actually read a book about the guy some time back. But, no, I'd rather not see it. :) It was next on my queue to be mailed, and I removed it posthaste! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give me some examples of what seems to be biased please? I would like to get the banner removed as soon as possible. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctorhobomd (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright violation banner cannot be removed until permission to use the text has been received at WP:OTRS. This can take a few days to process -- that is why we allow 7+1 days for processing -- so please be patient. On the other hand, as is mentioned on your talk page, the text can also be released by simply changing the copyright information on the website with a note that states that re-use is permitted ''under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later and Creative Commons Share Alike (CC-BY-SA), versions 3.0 or later, under CC-BY-SA, versions 3.0 or later, or that the material is released into the public domain. If we don't have permission in time, the article will be deleted. However, don't worry because the article can and will be restored if or when the permsission arrives.

Concerning sentences in the article with are not encyclopedic: here are just a few examples.

Dave’s warm and engaging stage patter, audience participation and obvious joy of performing that makes for an enjoyable evening, a veritable folk festival unto itself

Dave has excited and energized whole schools with his songwriting residencies

Dave is a wonderful entertainer of the preschool set

Dave's friendly introduction to the joys of acoustic guitar... continues to encourage beginning guitarists all over.

These all contain Peacock wording and come across as advertising copy. Equally important is that the article contains no inline citations which substantiate the text. This is a typical problem of articles which are created by the individuals themselves or family members -- and it is why WP strongly discourages editors from creating articles about themselves, family or friends. The guidelines for Neutral point of view can provide you some help on how to improve the article. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several defamation attempts and counterfactual statements made on her page such as "She is also known locally by the nickname: "Princess Skunk Cabbage"." and "Upon the unsealing of her settled lawsuit, it was revealed that her demotion stemmed from fraudulently using sick days for a canoeing trip over the 4th of July" which were based on unchallenged and unsubstantiated rumors and were represented as fact on her wikipedia page. Though they were quickly changed by vigilant wikipedia users, we would like to request that this page is locked. Spamd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the edit history for Susan Hutchison. There have been very few edits in the past month and only two recent instances of blatant vandalism [1] [2] -- and both were reverted within one minute. The edits by the other IP are not vandalism but rather constitute a disagreement about content. For example, this edit was a correct attempt to neutralize the language (following WP:NPOV policy) as well as a poor attempt to add information about a dispute (biased and poorly sourced). But these are content disputes and should be discussed on the talk page. I notice there has been no attempt to engage in discussion and would encourage the editors to do so. At the moment, there is no reason for protecting the page -- but I'll keep it watch listed in case there are future problems.. (The Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection helps explain when semi-protection might be considered.)

Now, as far as the content dispute goes: a quick google news search shows Hutchison's dismissal from KIRO, her subsequent lawsuit and the recent court order about sealed information are significant events. These are not rumors, but are reported in the large metropolitan newspapers [3], [4]. Yet, her WP bio doesn't mention these events at all. Biographies of living persons should include both criticism and praise when it is significant. I think a couple of sentences about these events, written in a neutral, encyclopedic tone, should be added to this article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reverting the article to pre-copyvio status. I should become more familiar with the type of tools you use such that I can apply some corrective measures to the 4,700+ articles I monitor. Again thanks for your help, --HJKeats (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for keeping such a watchful eye. Or eyes. 4700+? You must be a busy bee. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so bad, all the articles I keep a keen eye on (whenever I can now mind ya) are of a common theme "Everything Newfoundland" :-) --HJKeats (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. 4700 Newfoundland articles! I didn't realize that. Cool. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Aerides multiflorum at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 August 5, that was a new one! Kind of interesting, sometimes, figuring out how to handle these. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! You answered it already. I was just in the middle of researching a response to that one. Glad to see it was a lot easier than I thought. (I actually found a PD text that the contributor could use to fix it). Oh, well. Learn somethin' new... — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with proposing that, too. I see that the contributor has recently usurped an account at the Spanish Wikipedia. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter! I just wanted to let you know that I reused your "close paraphrasing" message here. I hope you don't mind. By the way, I noticed that you live in Denmark. Kan du prata svenska? :) Theleftorium 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Feel free to use it. ...Og, nej, det kan jeg ikke. Desværre. Jeg kan kun snakke Dansk -- med en utrolig voldsom Amerikansk udtale. — CactusWriter | ^needles 04:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey CactusWriter. Sorry to bother you again, but should 87th Pennsylvania Infantry, 126th Ohio Infantry, and 138th Pennsylvania Infantry be listed at WP:CP? The author says it is a "bot error", but it seems to me like the text is copied from petersburgbreakthrough.org. Thanks, --Theleftorium 14:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No bother at all. I appreciate you asking. In this case, the bot wasn't wrong because the text was copied -- however, it appears to be in the public domain. The website shows the source as Source - A Compendium of the War of the Rebellion by Frederick H. Dyer. It's a book published in 1908 which places it in the PD. Here's the online version at the US Park Service. It appears most every Civil War website uses the same source. So its use is okay. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't see that. Thanks for taking a look! :) Theleftorium 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Hemant17 keeps removing stuff from my talk page and user page and despite warnings, he says he has full right to do whatever he feels with his contributions. Please Comment.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll take a look. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I am sorry that you have had problems with this editor -- especially after you tried to help him. I see that he hasn't reverted any edits or touched your user page since your last message to him. I have had a discussion with him today. It is probable that it all stems from his rough introduction to article writing, which has been a series of problems and deletions - and appears to have left him frustrated. I'll keep a watch and take action if there is any return to uncivil behavior. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much..

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rsrikanth05. I appreciate the nice thought. I'm glad you're having a better day, too. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO problems at all. Have a happy Day... :D --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. Nothing in those sources say that there is a branch of the Atrash clan in Egypt, he have made it up himself. The only thing it says is about Alia fleeing Syria with her children to Egypt, this is not a branch nor has it ever been a branch. These people are dead. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read, each of the sources appear to support the claims as written in the text of the article -- that some members of a Druze family named Atrash emigrated to Egypt. You will need to refute those sources. As I said in the edit summary, take the discussion to the talk page. I have no interest in the matter other that to see an end to the edit war. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No they do not support the claims he have written, there is no branch, nothing in the sources say its a branch, one mother and her 3 children (all of them dead) is not a branch of a clan consisting of thousands of people. Listen, me and this guy have been arguing over the Asmahan article for almost half a year (thats right) we have been through 3 mediators (him not listening to the first two and going against what the third mediator/administrator has said on several issues) and rfcs, I'm not gonna take it to the talkpage cause he doesn't listen to common sense or other peoples opinions, only engaging in edit warring. I was the one that told him several times that he couldn't plagiarize in the Asmahan article and he didn't listen. So I would really appreciate it if you yourself do not want to get involved in this at the talkpage and mediate, that you do not interfere when I remove this false information from the article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to end the edit war you should lock the article at its original state at 2 August.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is an article which has been entirely unreferenced since its creation. Now that one editor is adding some sourced information for the article, your only contributions have been blanket deletions. If you actually want to improve the article -- than get some references. If you have problems with the language (like the word "branch") -- than reword it. Your blanket reversions are outside of process and your persistence in doing so is edit warring (After your previous block, I would expect you to be familiar with this.) I am peripherally familiar with the long-running disputes and litany of complaints between you and the other editor. It appears to me that this continued petty bickering and POV-pushing from both sides is becoming disruptive and may require a topic ban for each of you. My advice is: learn to cooperate or find some other articles to edit. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therese a difference between adding information to an article and adding text that is of absolutely no relevance to the article. You have a message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtrash&diff=308857746&oldid=308843646 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on the article talk page. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have reply: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtrash&diff=308869340&oldid=308860945 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original line in article mediator had written was: "Later in life when Asmahan spoke about her childhood in Suwayda, she remembered it as a happy and carefree period, although she did not spend much time in the Jabal, it was what she saw as her "home" rather then Lebanon or Turkey"

Although this is close to what the source is, user Arab Cowboy changed it so it resembled the source even more : "Later in life, Asmahan told Muhammad al-Tabaʿi about her childhood in the Jabal. She remembered it as a happy and carefree period. Although she did not spend much time in the Jabal and she might have recalled visits in the early 1920s, it was what she saw as her "home" rather than her residences in Lebanon and Turkey."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 36: "In her late twenties, Asmahan told her friend and admirer al-Tab`i about her childhood in the mountains of the Druze. She remembered a happy and carfree period. She did not actually spend much time in the Jabal itself and probably remembered visits in early 1920s. Still, it was the Jabal Druze that had imprinted itself as "home" on her consciousness, rather than her family's residences in Turkey and in Beirut.

http://books.google.se/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Adham+Khanjar+Incident&source=bl&ots=A8mYmpk5VC&sig=0AUqXfiPIaM7VndOFkIsJIcYnD8&hl=sv&ei=4spRStfPOKWKmwPQy6ioBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Adham%20Khanjar%20Incident&f=false

Also in the Egypt influence section in a quote it says "(although she was in reality a third cousin, twice removed)" in the source it says "although she was actually a third cousin twice removed" http://books.google.se/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=Adham+Khanjar+Incident&source=bl&ots=A8mYmpk5VC&sig=0AUqXfiPIaM7VndOFkIsJIcYnD8&hl=sv&ei=4spRStfPOKWKmwPQy6ioBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=Adham%20Khanjar%20Incident&f=false

and also the sentence "The other side of her patriotism belonged to Egypt." in the source it says "The other side of her patriotism was to her adopted country, Egypt" Third section under "Syrian or Egyptian?" part http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/excerpts/exzuhasp.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing these further examples to attention. I created a section on the article talk page Talk:Asmahan#Plagiarism issues where these can be listed. This will allow any other administrator from WP:CV to visit the page and see that there are other violations. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you will not do anything about this? like you did with the WW2 section? You want me to ad this text to the talkpage?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead and add it to the talk page. I will deal with it as soon as I get a chance. At the moment, I am a bit swamped. (Note that we allow 7+1 days after notification for involved editors to rectify copyright violations before taking administrative action). — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed some things as you said, replaced the consciousness sentence, I don't think the early life section (excluding emigration to Egypt) have any more plagiarism issues, please say if they do. I removed the "awkward POV statement" about her patriotism and removed the parenthetical insertion in the quote, and some other fixes, but I still believe there are a lot of plagiarism in that section and also elsewhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=309225253&oldid=308686775 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, I understand that the page does not belong to Susan Hutchison but the labeling of her as a conservative in a non-partisan election is not only dirty politics but common among her opponents to do so. Please do not block me from wikipedia for correcting an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toljin (talk • contribs) 21:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your blanket deletions were not simply correcting a minor error, but resulted in the removal of portions of text and references. If you have a disagreement with single items of text, please use the article talk page to discuss them with other editors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, you wrote on User:Hemant 17's talk page: "There are many experienced editors here who have been trying to help. I must now insist that you heed the warnings, listen to other editors' advice, and discuss any changes in the article." I have to ask you, seriously—do you think he's listened to your advice? In particular, this page appears to have the same issues as this page, which you deleted just last week.

Given that he still isn't using preview or edit summaries or talk pages, I'm having enough trouble assuming good faith that I've given up trying to help him. And when I see that it appears he has multiple accounts (see below), has been on Wikipedia over five years (based on on this talk page) and appears to have been using at least two accounts simultaneously less than three weeks ago, well, I gotta say this is a job for an admin.

Here's a list of possible accounts:

• Hemant 17 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hemant (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• EMT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• HemantEMT (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Exergetic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 125.99.191.250 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 60.254.104.86 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

What's your take on this? — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dori, Yikes, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I should have looked into this deeper. I was completely unaware that this user had a previous history with copyright violations on Wikipedia. Let me look into this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have indefinitely blocked Hemant 17 for the copyright violations. The sockpuppetry case seems pretty open and shut. If you can, please list the sockpuppetry case at WP:SPI. I'll add my commeents there. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've written it up at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Hemant and notified all the accounts listed above. I'd appreciate your input over there, and thanks! — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I added my comments there. I wasn't certain about two of the users -- but including them as you did is fine. The clerks and admins at SPI can make the call. Thanks for following though on this. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could you please take a look at File:Vega vena kava.jpg and File:Whipkraft2.jpg? I think that they can be speedy deleted as blatant copyvio. Thank you in advance--Trixt (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Trixt. Off-hand, I am hesitant to call either photo a blatant copyright violation. Although this photo appears on their website, there is an assertion that the contributor owns the original rights to the photo. He asserts the same thing on the other photo, which I can't find outside of WP. However, I must say that I am not very familiar with copyright issues for images. I would recommend that you list your concerns at WP:PUI where the editors are much more knowledgeable about photos. Sorry that I couldn't be of more help to you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done--Trixt (talk) 10:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch for removing copyvio! Spent last week in a schizophrenic state being accused of violating my own copyright ;-) But it made me improving the article, too. Everything's good that ends good. oxana (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think it is great that the NorduGrid page is now readable again, as is the SOA4All page. But you did not yet release AssessGrid and several others. I think these pages should not have been put on the speedy delition list in the first place because:

These articles' copyright are perfectly in line with Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:DCM. The orginal contributers are part of the project, as can be easily verified. The webpages mentioned is owned by the project described. Hence one should assume the content was put on Wikipedia under Wikipedia style of copyright license as stated in Wikipedia:DCM. If there are doubts, this could be discussed with the contributors or on the article's discussion page. But I do not see evidence of either. So putting these articles on a list for speedy deletion is not correct.

These articles should not have been put on the list for speedy deletion because of possible copyright violation. See Wikipedia:CSD non-criterium 10

Could you please comment in this. It would really save time to everyone if we know what to do on beforehand. Because now dozens of pages get unnecessary blocked which takes a lot of time of the contributors and the admins. Ademmen (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ademmen. I rechecked the article histories and can find no sign that any of these articles was ever marked for Speedy deletion. I believe you may have a misunderstanding here. The process for Non-blatant copyright violation is not a speedy deletion, but rather provides 7+1 days for the article to be revised or cleared for use before being checked by an administrator.

For the articles you mention: the sources for NorduGrid were determined to be in the public domain and the source for SOA4All indicated a proper release by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0 -- so they were cleared for use. The source website for AssessGrid shows no copyright release. However, this talk page comment shows the contributor was following through on instructions for dealing with the problem, which were left on the user talk page at the time the article was tagged. Given that the contributor stated that an e-mail was sent to WP:OTRS, I relisted the page rather than delete it, giving them an additional 7 days for OTRS to process the request. (Note that even if the article is deleted and then OTRS permission is received, there is no problem with undeleting the original article - and a message noting that is also left on the user page).

As I am sure you can appreciate, WP takes the problem of copyright violation very seriously. The thorough checking of all articles submitted to the encyclopedia is deemed necessary. This protects not only Wikipedia, but also all the hard work of people who are creating the publications and websites which are sourced here. With thousands of new pages submitted to WP every day, it takes time for the volunteer staff to process it all. I know that it's certainly frustrating at times. But it is important that it be done. And it often requires a little extra patience on all our parts. I hope this answers your questions. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear CactusWriter,

Thanks for your answer. It clarifies a lot, but I still have one question. When I understand the procedure correctly the copyright violation banner blocking text should only be placed when there are doubts whether the material put on the Wikipedia page was - on the Wikipedia page - not released under the Open Source license. However if you are sure that it is, the fact alone that there are other places were the texts are published under different licenses is not enough reason to block the page. Because it is OK to have material published under different licenses as long as the Wikipedia text is released under the correct Open Source License. If you see that the contributors are the same as the people that contributed to the website, you can assume they know what they are doing and did release the material on Wikipedia under the right license. If you think they may not know what they are doing, for what ever reason, ask them. And if they do not answer, satisfactorily or within in a reasonable amount of time then put out the copyright violation banner. But do not put on a banner if you are absolutely sure the contributors to Wikipedia did know what they are doing. Is that interpretation correct?

A suggestion: If these projects when they write texts on Wikipedia that they also publish elswere, as most of them do, tell this on the Article's Talk page? Something like: "Some texts I did contribute to this article are also published elswere under different copyright schemes. However, I did put these texts on Wikipedia under the Wikipedia Open Source License scheme, and I am entitled to do so." would that be enough so that they do no risk of getting a copyright violation banner on their website? Probably that whould save a lot of people a lot of time.

Of course I agree with you it is important to respect all the copyrights. I am looking for a way to prevent a lot of, I think needless, work by many people. Just trying to help to make the process a bit more efficient. Ademmen (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ademen, making the process more efficient is always a great goal. And any suggestions or improvements would be appreciated. However, the very openness of the Wikipedia editing process (its founding principle) is the very thing which will always cause some slowdown of the procedures, including checking for copyright violations. First, anyone can register on WP and claim to be anyone else. Someone can claim to be the owner of a website or a book or anything, and claim to release those materials for use, without actually being that person. (It happens a lot). So it is not possible to know the identity of any editor on WP simply from their own or any other editor's claims. Only by going through the OTRS office can someone's identity be verified. This is the basis for WP:DCM procedures. It is not simply to obtain permission, but also to verify that the individual is who they say they are and has the authority to release the copyrighted material.

Second, legal statutes require that WP makes a good faith effort to avoid any copyright infringement. This means that we must attempt to examine every article. With thousands of new articles daily, this requires hundreds of volunteers checking these articles. And not just the new articles, many additions to existing articles are quick copy-pastes from online sites. So now there are tens of thousands of articles which require checking daily. There is no way that each of these volunteers should be expected to examine every detail about a article and the article's creator -- most checks are cursory: a simple search for copied text, etc. Many of the copyright violations are found by bot programs which scan Wikipedia for language matches. Blatant and obvious violations are marked, then quickly checked by an admin and deleted if correct. Uncertain copyright status pages are tagged and listed at WP:CV. Editors who create an article with uncertain copyright status, receive a message outlining the procedure for addressing the issues. And an attempt is made to process every non-speedy tagged article within 7 days. The law requires that we make diligent efforts.

Like other people here, I personally check hundreds of copyright violation complaints everyday -- this involves examining text, checking sources, reading article histories, investigating contributors, discussing procedures, rewriting articles to make them compliant and pursuing follow-ups. I think the temporary templates on a few articles is only a small inconvenience for allowing a free encyclopedia of more than 3 million articles to remain open to anyone to edit. After all, that's why we all make the effort.

— CactusWriter | ^needles 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short and to the point, there are two ways to speed up the process: either release the source material under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and never worry about it again, or send the permission mail to OTRS proactively right when you post the article, and immediately note that you have done so on the new article's talk page. MLauba (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nice suggestion -- but then they wouldn't get to read all my whine and blather. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. A net loss, undoubtedly. Or worse, my dry and patronizing prose if it was CSB who picked the violation. MLauba (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MLauba I see your point. I did assume that if you publish something on WP you are bound to the rules and regulations of WP. Who you are can always be traced back later. So if you do something illegal that can be corrected the moment you do something illegal and action can be undertaken. But also volunteers that check also can do something illegal. So that is why this permission mail to OTRS has been designed. (Probably there are more reasons.) I can see some potential problems with that too, but I first look at that page again. If my idea does not work, then I think the best advise to the projects that now write these pages that are marked with possible copyright violation banners would be to be not so lazy as to copy from their existing material but write something new for WP. A little more work for the projects, but less work for the admins, better articles in WP, which again is better for the projects. Thanks again to you and CactusWriter for taking the time to answer my questions. This is really appreciated.

Ademmen (talk) 16:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CactusWriter. Is the OTRS template on Talk:J. John Mann correct? It was added by the author of the article. Theleftorium 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can this be used on Wikipedia? "Limited copyright is granted for you to use and/or republish any story on this site for any legitimate media purpose as long as you reference 7thSpace and any source mentioned in the story above." Theleftorium 19:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the same question to User:Stifle, I suddenly completely forgot that CactusWriter is OTRS too :). To answer the second question, no, it allows reuse, but not derivatives, that's incompatible with copyleft in general. MLauba (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, I am not a member of OTRS. You should definitely ask someone there first -- Stifle is a good choice. It appears the contributor is adding the same ticket to a dozen pages he has created about doctors. I am assuming it will show permission to use info from [New York State Psychiatric Institute] website. We will need to know how specific the ticket is. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just got word on the OTRS ticket from Keegan -- it all checks out correctly for that editor. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. I'll remove it from WP:SCV. Theleftorium 20:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article needs help -- I deleted his first version as it was almost all copyvio, then, after he insulted me a couple of times, felt pity on him and reinstated the article with a couple of sentences. He was pretty clear that he had copied the stuff and said he was 'rewriting' it, but it was still going to be copyvio no matter what he did given how much he'd copied straight from one particular writer. He's now gone back to copy and paste from the web (his own writing is pretty bad by the way, any time you see good English from him....). I've been discussing it as has one other editor, but as we are both editors who would have been watching an article like this carefully anyway due to its content, a 3rd party comment to him might help him if in fact he can grasp the problem (and I'm not sure he can, he seems to think just re-arranging some words is enough). Thanks Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. That is a rough one. Seems to be a lot of misplaced "passion" on that editor's part. I'll try to lend another neutral voice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, that was a very good reply you made. I'm not optimistic, but we should try to keep an editor who is at least keen. Hopefully other editors will add to the article anyway. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A good thought. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CactusWriter:

Could you please explain to me why you tagged Asmahan with "copyright infringement"? what specific statements do you see as being a copyright violation? And, why did you tag the "Role in WWII" section in particular and not the rest of the article? If you think that sentences in this section are CV, then the whole article is CV. User: Supreme Deliciousness has only raised CV concerns about sentences that do not suit his agenda. I have, as such, tagged the whole article until further review.

Regards, --Arab Cowboy (talk) 10:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Arab Cowboy. You can find my reasons posted on August 18 on the article's talk page under "Plagiarism issues". A lengthy discussion with explanations followed. Please read Talk:Asmahanand feel free to respond there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cactus: Thank you for your reply. I had already read the discussion. The issue is that the whole article is written in the same way. SD had alerted you only to sentences that do not suit his agenda, but if you apply the same standards to the whole article, then it should all be tagged or deleted. Tagging just the one section and removing statements that SD does not like is selective. So, what do you suggest. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your comment to article talk page and responded there. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I shouldn't get involved in dealing with copyright violations, esp. image ones. A while back I blocked Bottracker (talk · contribs), who I blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks but mainly to get him to enter into a dialogue which he was refusing to do, just deleting all the notices. 2 other Admins declined an unblock request, a 3rd blocked his user page and mentioned that his username was problematic, and now he's been unblocked and given a 'sincere apology' and advised that his block wasn't justified. The discussion (which I think should be on ANI) is here. This came to the unblocking Admin's attention because the 3rd Admin, who locked his talk page, had blocked several people for username problems, although this was not a factor in my original block. Sure, I could have tried to get him to stop deleting warnings and discuss, but that seemed very unlikely unless it was made clear to him that he couldn't just continue to delete warnings. My own take on indef blocks is that they can be lifted and should be lifted at any time, even within minutes, once the user shows a desire to understand the reasons and change their behavior. I don't know if you feel you have the time or inclination to comment, but I feel the blocked editor has now been told his behavior was acceptable. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, sorry, I was reading through the diffs on this when I got waylayed by a big edit war. "Sigh" is right. There are good days, and there are bad ones. The block was absolutely understandable -- a runaway editor uploading dozens of pictures without regard for warnings. Only taking time to rant against another editor as well as telling an editor who left a personal message about the CV problem to essentially go away. Yeah, the block was needed. The unblock doesn't bother me, but the message is absurd. It should certainly have come with a small caveat about Copyright and Civility. I am inclined to comment. Let me think about it. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User Arab Cowboy have blanked the whole Asmahan article although I have told him repeatedly that the first part of the early life section is not plagiarism, there was one sentence there that you commented on and I changed it to your suggestion, and thats it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the Talk page of the article, I demand a review of the whole article. Do not blank one section in deference of the others. Until that happens, the whole article should be blanked, not just one section of it. Plagiarism standards should apply equivocally to all sentences in the article. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me have a minute to take a look. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Arab Cowboy for persistent edit warring. Supreme Deliciousness, I came close to blocking you as well, but I took into account you fell one edit short of 3RR, used the discussion page and finally sought advice. I have written another review of the article on the talk page with my suggestions to remove the copyright violations. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, thank you. And I'm sorry. My edits was based on you at that time only had identified that specific section as plagiarism. And the warning sign was specific for that section, it was disruptive edits from him. You have reply here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=309611557&oldid=309609842 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have reply, don't know if you saw it but for the second part, the source was in the page under:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAsmahan&diff=309619499&oldid=309615515 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey cactus, I have added some texts, but there are problems with sources nr 7, there is some kind of error.

Also there are two things I would like to ad, they both resemble the source very much and I cant figure out how to rewrite them any better so I wanted to check with you first and maybe you can come with your own suggestion. My example: "The dependence on the Egyptian elite forced Asmahan and other singers to sing praising songs for the king and of national themes."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 13: quote "she and other singers were dependent upon the Egyptian elites, as were the recording studios. They were required to sing songs of praise for the king and his line and other songs with republican themes."

my example "She always mentioned her father and Sultan al-Atrash to clarify her ancestry—once saying to a friend: "Don't you know who I am? Why I am the daughter of Fahd al Atrash and cousin to the Amir al Atrash and the Druze revolutionary hero Sultan al-Atrash."

Source: Asmahans Secrets p 37: "Later in her life, Asmahan always refereed to her relative, Sultan al-Atrash, along with her father, to assert her lineage and status, and to substantiate her ability to act for the British. She told a friend, "Dont you know who I am? Why I am the daughter of Fahd al-Atrash and cousin (although she was actually a third cousin twice removed) to the Amir al-Atrash (Hassan) and the Druze revolutionary hero Sultan al-Atrash""

Is this ok? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you work on rebuilding the early life section first. After that is complete, then move forward to the next section, proceeding in a linear fashion. The reference error is caused by a broken link. I changed them to Harv style. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done with the early life section. Can you answer at my suggestions? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first passage is plagiarism. It is a close construct of the original sentence and idea. More problematic, the word "forced" alters the meaning and creates a negative connotation that is not in the original source. Most importantly, you should stop picking random sentences from a source, altering their structure and adding them to the text. Why do you want to include that single sentence? It was part of an entire chapter explaining the author's idea. You should to read the entire chapter, understand what the source is saying, and then summarize it in one or two sentences using your own words. It s best to ask yourself, "what was the author's conclusion?", and that write that.

I am surprised that the early life is done already. I recall there was a lot about the immigration to Egypt and the family's early life there. Isn't the early life incomplete without that? — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you deleted the page Diaa had created, here is something else. I don't know if this is the same page or something else and you maybe missed it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asmahan/temp

That sentence about her "being required" to sing fits in the "Asmahan and her debut" section about her singing. You said that the author's idea in that chapter was awkward pov and did not belong in an encyclopedia so why should I summarize it? But she "being required" to sing is a fact, and fits in anywhere about her signing, so that's why I would like to ad it. Do you have any rewritten suggestions for it?

I have already added that they emigrated to Palestine and then to Egypt. Something should indeed be added about they're early life there but I did not ad that text from the beginning and I am not able to rewrite texts in a good way. (I am not a native speaker of english) --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with emphasizing only a single sentence is that it misses the overall point the author was making in the chapter. The way I understand it the point of the entire chapter entitled "Syrian or Egyptian?" is that Asmahan was proud of her Syrian heritage, but it was the freedom of being Egyptian which allowed her to flourish as a singer and actress. Of course, I have only read a few chapters and am not an well-versed on her life. I am moving this entire conversation to Talk:Asmahan so that more knowledgeable editors can help you. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stifle, Can you please check if this ticket would be appropriate on the File:Susan hutchison.jpg. I am clueless as to whether OTRS permissions apply only to a specific user or only to a specific website or both. In this case, the file (uploaded by a different user) was deleted after I tagged it for improper fair use. User:Spamd has re-uploaded it, and after tagging again, I realized this contributor filed the above OTRS. I cannot find the photo on the campaign website, however the file source says Friends of Susan Hutchison which would be her campaign fund. I guess my question is: how specific are OTRS permissions to what can be uploaded? Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That ticket applies only to text, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. One other quick question... For a file has been deleted once already for improper fair use, and then is uploaded again, is the tagging process repeated (meaning another RFU template)? Or is there a different CSD deletion tag to be used? — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, you have to use the RFU template again. The only way to perform a "stickier" deletion would be to list the image for FFD and get it deleted there. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing it here because my posts has previously been deleted at his talkpage. "My suggestion is to avoid one another and do not alter each other's edits, but rather have a neutral third editor make changes for you."

I asked for an official 3O on Asmahan, HelloAnnyong, AC did not listen to him, I asked for help from an administrator and Diaa showed up to mediate, AC did not follow the mediation process, Diaa left. I asked for help from administrator Ameer, AC did listen on some points but he did not listen to him on several other issues. Ameer then left. I do not feel that "both of you both have been equally culpable" is true. I do no not want to be topic banned in any article. Now I would be happy if you edit the "trigger" issues as you did with the Atrash article, although I do not agree with that being in the article because it has nothing to do with the clan which the article is about, but I accept it. But as you can see he doesn't listen to help from outside in any way, talking with him leads to nothing, outside help he doesn't listen to. So what am I supposed to do? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find you equally culpable because of antagonizing POV-pushing edits. Edits like this, this, this, this, this, to just name a few, suggest you may have an an agenda. Persisting in constant reversions suggests intractability and antagonizing behavior. I haven't determined whether you are actually anti-Egyptian or just determined to add the word Syrian into every article whether its appropriate, but I do note that you seem to be in edit wars on most every article in which you are involved. So it doesn't surprise me that you don't agree. I can understand other administrators and mediators growing tired of this and walking away. Because of the enormous amount of time everyone spends resolving petty disputes between you and Arab Cowboy, the best solution for the Wikipedia may be a flat-out topic ban.

I am glad you did not post at Arab Cowboy's page. Don't. I'm certain you know that would antagonize him. Avoid the places he edits. And stop trying to insert Syrian into biographies simply because somebody's grandfather was Syrian -- it's trivial. If you notice one of his edits which needs to (and I mean actually "needs to" be changed or Wikipedia is going to explode), then ask someone neutral to look into it. I think both of you need to try more patience, take some breaths and leave each other alone. There are far too many other articles in Wikipedia that need attention. I notice you created three stub articles about Syrian topics. There are lots more of those which need to be created. I think it would be most beneficial for you and the Wikipedia if you concentrated on that for awhile. That's my advice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take great offense at these words. I do not have any kind of agenda but to bring the truth through documented evidence. What am I supposed to do when sourced info gets reverted and no one does anything? When I ask for help many times including moderators and nothing happens? The best solution is you going to these pages, seeing for yourself what the sources say. I really hope there will be no topic ban.

this edit the only source I had said he was of Syrian descent, after this, I found several others saying he was of lebanese and partly Syrian descent. The most reliable one was from New York Times and it said he was born into a Lebanese-Egyptian family. So why shouldn't I ad this into the article? Its a biography article and this is his background, this is the same case for Soad Hosny and Anwar Wagdy. In the case of this and several other Egyptian sources now added to the article says she had a Syrian family background. Arab cowboy has removed this several times together with other sourced info and removed the category Egyptians of Syrian descent. [5]

The same thing with this and this , the only source at that time said he was Syrian, now I have added one saying he is of Syrian decent, Arab Cowboy has removed the source and changed the text without any kind of source and removed the category Egyptians of Syrian descent link So who has the agenda here? Am I not allowed to ad sourced info about people? And when this is removed I am the one that suddenly have an agenda? I invite you to go to these articles and look at the sources, what are they saying? Do they say that Wagdy was of Syrian descent or his father? Why was the sentence saying Hosny had a Syrian family background removed and replaced with her father when the source does not say this? Why are these category's being removed from the articles?

In the case of this, I don't know how much you know about the middle east but the Golan is not Israel, and it has never been Israel. Its an occupation of Syrian land according to the united international community, so indeed he or she who added this was wrong claiming this village was in Israel, and I corrected it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your reply. My advice from above remains unchanged. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, did you mean in your previous reply, that nothing should be written in the Hosny and Wagdy articles about them being of Syrian descent?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its trivial - has undue weight and not worth a war. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial? almost every single biography article on wikipedia has a section where family, background and descent is written. From Barack Obama, Zlatan Ibrahimović, Zinedine Zidane, Shakira, Paul Anka or anyone else that descend from somewhere else it is written in the article so I cant really understand how an administrator can say its trivial. Its not against UW. To have one line in each article that is sourced explaining the background is appropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When articles are expanded to the size of those, where large portions of life and career are developed, than minor details gain weight. But unless it is known that the one grandfather's nationality played a significant factor in shaping the person's life and career, in stub articles its trivial. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Soad Hosny article is not a stub and is pretty expanded including a family members section. You have not given any valid reason for it not being in the article. And Anwar Wagdy being of Syrian origin is not a minor detail, it is not his grandfather, it is him being of Syrian origin. It is something directly related to him and its a biography article. So what is wrong with this? There is no harm in its inclusion. You said the info AC added about certain Atrash members were trivial to the Atrash clan article yet you said it should stay because it is sourced. And that had nothing to do with the clan yet this is about Wagdy. You have not given any valid reason for Syrian background also not being in this article.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that verified facts can be added. That is not the issue. Please remember that WP:V and WP:NPOV are never independent of each other -- that is, a fact's relevance and weight are determined by the size of its impact on a topic in proportion to the coverage of the topic. I think this has now been discussed enough. I'm glad you took my advice here. Please continue to ask for consensus advice before making possibly contentious edits. Good luck with your editing. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CactusWriter, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Shortyo has been removed. It was removed by 204.186.110.97 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 204.186.110.97 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I should just use G12 on Dagoth Ur, then? Theleftorium 12:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it is now, yes, it's a G12. On the other hand, this page is available for copy. It's up to you, but there are a lot of other issues there it seems.. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll just redirect it to The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind. Theleftorium 12:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) Just wanted to let you know that the FAQ was badly misleading. :/ I've corrected it to accord with the Foundation's Terms of Use. 2.5 should be compatible with 3.0 (I've explained why in more details at my talk page). I'm glad you pointed that out! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you clarifying that. Maybe one of these days I'll get it all straight. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you do. :) I'm always finding things I have to track down somebody to clarify. I haven't had to write Mike Godwin in a while, but I bet he still cringes when he sees an e-mail from me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I didn't catch the clean versions of George Stephen Morrison. Yesterday, I missed the "noncommercial" part of a license. I'm so not myself yet. :) Anyway, I accidentally deleted your cleanup of that, but I've restored it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There was some earlier copyvio on that one back in 2005, but it was cleaned up back then. And then it appeared that there was good edits. So I reverted to the version before all the newspaper copy-pasted additions and was trying to tidy it up a bit. You got pretty sharp elbows when you get them flying -- but I prefer them flying around than not. I can usually duck pretty good. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I'll try to pad them. :D Even though I'm fresh off the narcotics, I'm just not thinking as well as I usually (think I) do. With that one, I actually looked at the history, looked at the first one on my page, and completely forgot that there might be earlier. How nuts is that? Scares me that I'll do something else boneheaded. :/ I'm looking at Spyros Vassiliou right now to see if any of the new text is copyvio. By all means, don't duck out of my way. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that article, it looks clean to me now. Maybe he profited from your last note? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange one. Looks like weird paraphrasing. "Older wise men"? That's the thesaurus version of elders. But it's all probably okay now. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to work on an article. If you don't mind keeping up the CP, I could probably better use my efforts right now in more routine work. :) I'll be able to pull my weight again soon, I'm sure. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You've been pulling more than your weight. I'll get to today's listing a little later. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACs edits at the asmahan article. Amongst them: this was removed "'Alia and the three children moved to Beirut, then to Haifa, Palestine and eventually immigrated to Egypt." and also in the marriage section he removed that she had "returned" to Syria to "relocated". Because he doesn't think she lived there. We have been over this before, the author uses the word "returned" at one point and "relocated" at another. He also removed that she had been "required" to sing. Dont know if you actually supported the removal of it. And also he added something to the first part of the early life section that I do not believe have anything to to with early life. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why he removed Beirut and Palestine, they were both referenced. Relocated or returned - either way -- because the reader will already understand that she lived there as a child. The "required to sing" was still being discussed, but as you know, I found it fairly meaningless anyway. And if you are talking about the "princely family" paragraph, not only is that meaningless to the biography, it appears to be an extreme fringe viewpoint. The Al-Taba'i book (which was written in 1965, only republished in 2009) was mostly discredited by Zuhur. Any other source lists Al-Atrash as Amir, Prince, Druze leader, etc. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? shouldn't the discussion begin if someone wants to delete something from the article as he did in two places? And is it really necessary to discuss a clarification of where al-Qrayya is?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. You have been warned too often for just this kind of thing -- quick reversions. You need to slow down. Grabbing my opinion off this talk page, pasting it onto the article talk page and then using that as an excuse to make your own reversions is poor form. Especially, when you deleted AC's paragraph because I said it was out of context or "meaningless", but replaced your own sentence even though I had also told you I considered it out of context. You need to use the talk page and allow for discussion or response. It might take days for a response. This isn't life or death surgery. Have some patience. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you accept him deleting the sentence that I had added then? Why didn't you revert it when he deleted it? Discussion with him hasnt worked for half a year, so why would it now? Until now it has been his way or edit war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like an answer to my post here above why you let him delete the sentence I had added. And what am I supposed to do now at the talkpage? Your post has been added there.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take it to WP:3O or WP:DRR. If you are interested in actual mediation, than you must be willing to accept third-party advice -- even when that opinion goes against your own wishes. You have previously had mediation from good editors who walked away after growing weary of constant arguing over minor issues - especially after giving an opinion. I fully relate to their experience. I also recommend that you find a mediator who understands Arabic since some of the references require it. I think you should refamiliarize yourself with the entire editing policy page starting with WP:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you even suggest something like that when i have told you before that I asked for 3O and AC did not listen to him and we got another mediator that AC did not listen to? You have not answered me above and I want an answer. I'm serious. Why did you accept him deleting the sentences that I had added, yet you reverted my edits? Including an explanation for where Al-Qrayya is which is of no controversy at all? You said to me: "use the talk page and allow for discussion and response." Then why didnt you revert my edits AC had deleted and tell him to do the same? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After only two weeks, you have made an incredible 43 edits to my talk page. And I responded -- even though I told you that I did not have the time to mediate your editing. It's is a shame that you have found my advice to be of no use. My apologies, but enough is enough. It is time for me to drop this stick. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok dont mediate but don't tell me to go to the talkpage for adding two sentences while AC ads tons of texts and deleted and changed the things I added without going to the talkpage, without you doing anything. Just so you know AC added some stuff that you said was copyright violation before and put them in quotation marks: "Egypt was a planetary distance from the small villages of the Druze" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number 44. Your welcome. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at this text that AC has recently added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Sharif&diff=311065654&oldid=311027382 "Life outside of Egypt gave him glory, but a lot of loneliness and a lot of missing his own people and his own country" This is almost exact as the source: 06.10 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYD0LTKaFc4&feature=related --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have a moment. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Great interview. Sharif is remarkable. As far as the entry, this was easily remedied with a slight edit and quotation marks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was asked by my boss, the founder/owner of Rat Pak Records to create a Rat Pak Records Wikipedia, however, the page has been deleted because of copywrite issues. I'm not sure what to do or how to go about asking for it to be "un-deleted". All the information I added to that page, came directly from the owner of Rat Pak Records and I simply copied and pasted it (rather than re-write it all) and added the information to the page. I tried to leave a message when this initially happened, but was confused on exactly what to do or what was required of me. Would you be able to help/assist me please? My boss would very much like to solve this issue.

Thank you, ~~Cheekypeek~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheekypeek (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying in CactusWriter's absence: Since we do not verify user identities upon account creation, any claim of permission needs to be verified externally. This is done by following the procedures highlighted at WP:PERMISSION. Please note that Wikipedia cannot leave disputed content up for display until permission is obtained per the above means.

Further, to save you some additional hassle beyond the copyright issues, please note that it is in general a very bad idea to write about topics you are directly connected with, such as the company you work for. This constitutes a clear conflict of interest, and I'd advise you to familiarize yourself with WP:COI before attempting to create the article on your employer. Last but not least, please be aware that Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia, and will not let itself be used as a vehicle for promotion. Any topic deemed worthy of an article should be covered by multiple, non trivial independent third-party reliable sources and written in a neutral tone.

The exact requirements are explained in this essay about writing your first Wikipedia article, which I recommend you also familiarize yourself.

Best, MLauba (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MLauba, for the assist here. Cheekypeek, all the links and advice offered by MLauba should help you solve any issues. Good luck. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CactusWriter,

Yes, I know it sounds crazy but I got unblocked. I asked an Admin on the IRC if can please edit again. I was just wondering if you could adopt me. Also, Congrats on the adminship. Rowdy the Ant (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rowdy the Ant. Thanks and welcome back!. I don't think it's crazy. I'm afraid I have my hands full these days and don't have the time to devote to an adoptee. But it is great that you are seeking one out.

Here are a couple of suggestions that I hope will help. I think it is good idea for an adoptee to find an adopter who lives close to their own time zone (in your case, in the United States or Canada). That way, they are more likely to be online at the same time as you when you need to ask a question. You can look through the list of editors willing to adopt at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User/Adoptee's Area/Adopters and see if anyone strikes you as a good match. You might want to find an editor with a similar area of interest as you. As I recall, you were interested in Toon Disney, Veggietales and other cartoons. I took a quick look through the Adopters list and thought one of these editors might be a good choice: User:Figureskatingfan, User:Tiggerjay, User:McDoobAU93, User:Jayron32, User:Ktr101. Take a look at their user pages and see if they might.

Then drop a note onto their talk page and ask them just like you asked me. (Remember to ask only one at a time). Also tell them a little bit about the topics or Wikipedia area that you are interested in. If they have any questions about your block, you can always refer them to me. Good luck with the editing. Let me know when you have found an adopter. Cheers. — CactusWriter | ^needles 07:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus, as expected, SD is edit warring again. He's adding "of Syrian descent" categories to prominent Egyptians' biographies, e.g., Tamer Hosny, Soad Hosny, Anwar Wagdi, etc., as you said, just because they have a relative who was Syrian. Admin Sancho had stated on Omar Sharif's Talk page that going from both his parents were Syrian or Lebanese to "he was of Syrian descent" would be an unacceptable leap in WP. Please take action as necessary. I suggest you ban him from editing articles of Egyptians; he's insitigating edit wars where he does not belong. --Arab Cowboy (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is so life-or-death critical that either of you should be instantaneously reverting one another. Post a separate request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Egypt asking for input and wait for a consensus from the editors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]