Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

I notice you requested a history purge for this article, but there is an OTRS permission tag on the talk page. I have therefore removed the history purge request as it appears to be unnecessary; please re-add it if there is something I am missing. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I probably had a good reason when I added the tag but at present, I can't remember what I was thinking. Probably something along the lines of "since it's been rewritten anyway, why leave the CSB notice in there?" but in retrospect, it doesn't make that much of a sense anymore. Good catch. MLauba (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that a good speechless or a bad speechless because are about 300 more to do. --Kumioko (talk) 11:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

An impressed one :) Is AWB speeding up things much for this kind of repetitive tasks? I may have to give that one another look if it is. MLauba (talk) 12:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah thats what AWB is for is doing repetetive tasks like tike this, replacing categories, cleaning up typos and formatting and things of that nature. --Kumioko (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and was tasked with creating a page for our company. I was using approved content that I originally created and am unsure how to verify that I am the author. In an effort to keep our messaging and brand consistent we try to use the same verbiage when describing what we do. As does almost every other company listed... Still not sure what the exact problem is with our entry, in the meantime I'll have our copywriter work on some new content that is written in a less promotional fashion. How do I verify that I can use content we created? Pschwab08 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The deal is two-fold: first, that permission must be verified externally, as indicated on User talk:Pschwab08, by following the steps highlighted at WP:PERMISSION.

The second thing is, writing about your own company is regarded as a conflict of interests and I'd like to caution you against using promotional language. "Almost every other company listed" either gets written about by uninvolved editors in accordance with critical policies like maintaining a neutral point of view, supported through independent, third-party sources, or they eventually get challenged for removal. In this respect, clearing the copyright issue will only, I'm afraid, represent the first hurdle in the process of getting an article up.

That being said, the first hurdle is currently the most pressing one. You have 6 days left to either provide permisson through the means explained at WP:PERMISSION or rewrite the content from scratch without copying pre-existing content, even if it is your corporation's own, otherwise the article will be deleted.

This may seem harsh, but Wikipedia applies a strict precautionary principle on copyright matters when it is being made aware of these. This stance eventually also benefits third party companies, preventing unwanted dissemination of their intellectual property, as material placed on wikipedia carries rights to modification and re-use, including by other unaffiliated third party mirrors.

Verification of permission thus also serves to ensure that the party granting permission really measures what this permission entails, as any corporation granting permission would also be in no position to request later take-down of the material, even if such a corporation would suddenly find other editors adding mentions of unwanted press to their article.

In other words, whatever is placed on Wikipedia under WP:PERMISSION will be bound by an irrevocable Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license, and there's no way back from that.

I hope this explains why we force these extra miles on contributors. Best, MLauba (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that you'd give me that warning, because now, I've reported you for harrassment of a user.--Red Slayer 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

Hi, you tagged DWEC-TV for G12 because the article was a copy from Wikipilipinas. However, the source site has a notice at the bottom that says "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License 1.2". Is it still a copyright violation, despite the original being available under GFDL? Jafeluv (talk) 07:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Since the licensing change, the source must be GFDL 1.3 AND allow dual licensing, or CC-BY-SA. The author also appears to be part of a sock farm, see User talk:Plastikspork/Archive 1#Block of User:Paul kenneth monroyo moraMLauba (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the info. Jafeluv (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Re the Everybody's article you flagged:

FYI I am the creator/owner/editor/whatever of the Milesago website (www.milesago.com). I am in the process of transferring material I originally published (or intended to publish) on my site to Wikipedia, since I have decided that I will not continue to maintain/update my site.

I presume I need to add a declaration to this general effect to this article? If so I shall do so ASAP.

Thanks for your input. - Dunks (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is perfectly correct. As we do not verify user identities upon account creation, claims of authorship of third party materials must be verified through the process highlighted at WP:DCM - note that a declaration on the article or its talk page is not enough, the external verification is absolutely required.

This process helps us ensure that you are indeed the owner of the material and in a position to donate it to Wikipedia. Once this is done, the copyvio template will be removed and the article cleared off. Best, MLauba (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Will this suffice? Cheers, Dunks (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite, although I'd like to suggest you review WP:NPA carefully before you edit again. The wording you used was neither necessary nor is it productive in any way. Good day to you. MLauba (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have learned to respect other editors and debate with them in a proper manner.

One question I do have for you. When you informed me about the report, you said thank you at the end. My question is not accusing you or saying anything offensive about you and if you find it offensive, I swear I did not mean for it to be.

My question is why did you say thank you at the end of that message even though that message hurt my feelings?--Red Slayer 00:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyrie Red (talk • contribs)

That is actually a completely standard template message to notify anyone about a thread on one of the administrator noticeboards, and I expect that the closing thank you is meant to say "thank you for the attention you paid to this message". There's nothing more to it, really. MLauba (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I noticed you flagged this article as being plagiarised from another source. As I noted on the talk page. I read the sources and wrote my own words. I believe I took the bulk of the work and wrote it up chronologically as was written from the sources. Plagiarism is the "use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work." As no one owns articles any Wikipedia. All I did was bring to the attention of others, the trouble that broke out after an African American soldier was wounded by a White Cop in Harlem.

As another editor is reporting you for bullying, before replying I checked your archives which were very useful (I love hubris as it always gives the arrogant enough rope to hang themselves). As it is quite clear that you are nothing more than a Rules lawyer.

I didn't sign the work, I just wrote up the facts. Therefore it's not plagiarism as I am not passing the work of as my own. As any fule knows, anyone can edit Wikipedia. So someone could come along and rewrite the works to. All of it could be plagiarised from one article to the next!!!

By the way I noticed you are ignorant as well as stupid as I used two sources to write the article - not just one. But you fail to mention the second source. Or were just too lazy by then?Riot. I used this one to get my figures and it is used to reference three pars. Just like the other source.

People like you are all too common on Wikiepdia, you are not interested in the idea of an Internet Encylopedia you are only interested in the machinations and the power that you can wield over others.

Because at the end of the day, all your high-handed and petty actions have achieved is to deprive people of new INFORMATION.

No one "wins" on Wikipedia as no one owns any of it. The role of writing article is a labor of love not a job that demands reimbursement! But a martinet like you is more interested in the rules than the content because your reward is power.

Sad, but that summarises you!

Best wishes Exit1234 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.245 (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The article in question contains WP:Close paraphrasing, which is in violation of our copyright policies. If you disagree with the tagging, you are welcome to bring it up for a (early) review at WT:CP, though I suggest cutting the personal attacks and the drama. Barring that, it will be reviewed by a third party anyway within a few more days.

That being said, the fact that you automatically assumed racism as a motive says a lot more about you than it does about me, I'm afraid. MLauba (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Remember, G12 is only for unambiguous copyvios. If someone, like here, just used an excessive quotation, just remove that part and leave a stub. It's better to do so than to delete them imho. Regards SoWhy 09:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I think it's a matter of balance. The quotation represents 60% of the article's text and if you remove it, we have an A1 candidate. Judgment call here, but you're the reviewing admin :) MLauba (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it's not an A1 candidate, the context is quite clear. It's a stub but that's fine. Stubs invite people to work on an article. Deletion usually scares them off. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-sequitur aside, did you actually see the release for Everybody’s (Australian magazine)? I presume you did, but I can't find it. Maybe he took it down? If not, we should link to the release on the talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wait. I found it here. I'll link. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad it's all sorted. Hope you liked it as much as I did :) MLauba (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not the first such notice I've encountered. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised, given some of the reactions I started to encounter in the two months I've been dealing with SCV. Your calm and patience is a constant inspiration to me. MLauba (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes my mouth pays the price. :D Balancing it out, we occasionally get a copyright holder who seems to understand that our caution is to his or her benefit, too. Sometimes they even say thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The e-mail exchange I had as a conclusion of one error of my part, later corrected, is a constant motivator, and I'm fortunate this was the result of one of my earliest actions. :)MLauba (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your maintenance work on the Lower Ngau Tau Kok (II) Estate that I had created under my User:Underwaterbuffalo alternate account. I have rewritten a part of your sentence in the article, for the sake of clarity, while avoiding copyright issues. I have also added a new paragraph. Any concern, please let me know. Thank you. olivier (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

MLauba You are wrong, I quote "Information contained in the online Country Studies is not copyrighted and thus is available for free and unrestricted use by researchers. As a courtesy, however, appropriate credit should be given to the series." see here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/about.html --Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

{{LOC}} wilco.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help --Johnson Lau (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The original entry comes from Wikipedia, I think, and it appears that it was only added to that other site by another Wikipedian, User:JASpencer. ADM (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How can we prove it? There's no deletion record to indicate the existence of a prior article. MLauba (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The pirated entry comes from October 7 2007, but the associated content already existed on Wikipedia before that date. Therefore, the copied content definitely comes from the early Wikipedia version. ADM (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Assuming GF and that the source is indeed wikipedia, the article is nonetheless a violation which should remain blanked until it can be attributed properly (both GFDL and CC-BY-SA require attribution). The proper way to do it is to keep the article with the copyvio template UNTIL the source can be demonstrated, not the other way around.

• And I'm probably slow witted but I don't see how the two links you posted demonstrate that the source is indeed Wikipedia. MLauba (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just doing a content fork of an earlier text from Divine Providence, putting it in a more specific entry, because one sub-section had morphed into a separate subject, as it often happens. If you want to know more about the original sources, for which I was not responsible, you should maybe ask a question to User:JASpencer, who apparently created the pirated version on the other site from associated wiki-content. ADM (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh. Finally gotcha. I was confused because the two diffs above are from hareidi. That's OK then, but in order to provide proper attribution, there's two things you may want to do for future forks, both to ensure proper attribution and to save you any grief about copyright issues: first, explicitely mention in the edit summary of the new page what article it has been forked from, and add the {{Copied}} template to both articles' talk pages. That way all the information is handy and no long explanations are needed :) MLauba (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mlauba a site admin bearcat deleted the NatureWalks with Mark Wiki page but without a plausible cause. Seems like it was well written and carried accurate content. Reviewing it looks like that admin is very quick to delete pages without peer discussion as seen in that talk page about bearcat. I contacted you since many of the edits etc were yours. How does one correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.2.121.202 (talk • contribs)

I don't remember doing much work on the article but I'll take it up with the deleting admin. MLauba (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article didn't make an assertion of importance, merely one of existence. And importance and notability are the same thing.

Just to clarify: the article failed to even mention where the show airs (which is a basic piece of information that's rather critically necessary in a TV show's article), but looking at the show's website it seems that it airs only on a number of local public access channels (which doesn't make a show notable). And the article's only source was a local community newspaper (which don't meet our reliability requirements).

Bottom line: I can certainly restore it if necessary, but the article would get WP:SNOWed out on WP:AFD anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I have no objections if this goes through AfD or PROD, but CSD is very narrow on purpose, and TV shows are not part of the eligible A7 candidates. Further, the notion that "importance and notability are the same thing" is quite disputed by precendent and overwhelming consensus at WT:CSD, but I'll be quite happy to bring this topic there for a reaffirmation of this.

That being said, thank you for the gesture of goodwill with the restoration of the article, it is appreciated. Further, if the AfD closes at delete, the article becomes eligible for G4 upon recreation, a net plus in such cases. Best, MLauba (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What difference could there possibly be between importance and notability? It's impossible for something to be important but not notable, and it's impossible for something to be notable but not important — so how can they mean anything different from each other? Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I brought it up at WT:CSD#A7 notability vs importance, A7 for TV shows for wider community input. MLauba (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you for letting me know about that. I thought it was still allowed since we had Template:GFDLSource, but I guess I was wrong. :) Have the articles been deleted/rewritten now? Regards, Theleftorium 18:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Didn't get a chance to touch them yet, what with RL interfering. I can probably tackle these tomorrow, though I think I'll start with the quick fix of "post them to WP:CP" first and deal with the rewriting next week, when / if I have more time to myself. MLauba (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll list them at WP:CP now, since you're busy. I can probably rewrite them tomorrow or on Saturday. :) Theleftorium 19:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

ML, what's your opinion on this website release notice. Compliant or incompatibly variant? — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Can'o'Worms. Let's see. "We own this". No problem, that's an assertion of copyright. "You can use it": you are allowed to reprint it, even incorporate it into materials licensed differently. And while it acknowledges that derivative works may be created once it is being incorporated elsewhere, it's not a "remix-reshare" type of license. Too vague. Using this material under that license would only be permissible as a direct and attributed quote. Assuming all other pages have a similar wording (I checked their summary page and it does too), I'd suggest rewriting, OTRS, or getting back at them and suggesting they simply reformulate their site footer as "copyright 2008-2009 by EDGeS. Licensed under CC-BY-SA 3.0", or even "licensed under CC-BY-SA for Wikipedia and its affiliates and mirrors, all other rights reserved if they must."

As long as the BY (Attribution) is being respected by all derivatives down the line, the reader will always be able to go straight back to the source and find for himself if "you change the text too much it are not the EDGeS project objectives anymore". That is way better for their protection, as what they have right now doesn't, technically, enforce attribution. It protects them better, it protects us and is fully compliant.

I'm fully aware that grid scientists have little use for legalese, but I can guarantee that if push ever came to shove, they would be incredibly better served with having established a formal and pre-existing license rather than their own ambiguous release (mandatory disclaimer: IANAL, for valid legal advice, consult with a lawyer).

You can of course point the authors to this discussion straight away :) MLauba (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. It's also what I thought -- just a bit too weirdly variant. I had already replied to the contributor suggesting they use the exact wording from WP:DCM. But I liked your use of the words vague and ambiguous. So I've clarified my reply along those lines and included your suggested footer as well. By the way, this editor is the same one with the long complaint about the slow CV process on my talk page. So here he writes his own strange copyright notice and then wonders why everything goes so slow? Hmm, a wonder indeed. — CactusWriter | ^needles 19:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

These are some of the top-notch computer scientists in the world. A properly working grid is a thing of beauty. Copyright issues are scary to most of our admins (see my latest request on WT:COPYCLEAN for an example), and light years removed from what these guys deal with and the kind of problem they usually solve. I don't fault them for trying. :) MLauba (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Took me a little while to find the ANI case -- already archived. I noticed the article had only been tagged with the corenbot and speedy tags. Those little ones are often only a passing irritation to new editors (especially if they are ESL). Slapping the big copyvio template on an article has a better READ ME quality and is a good first step in stopping a run-away editor. It usually opens the needed dialogue -- which I always begin with a non-template "ask me" type message. Than if they persist, I block. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you use a template for that message? If so, where can I find it? Theleftorium 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's good old {{cclean}} :) I'm sorry BTW, we were both looking at the same article but I'm muuuuch slower than you ;) MLauba (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks! I'll make sure I use it in the future. :) Theleftorium 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi- Thank you for your explanation. I have been trying for 4 hours to upload a picture on my article. I own the painting and have already uploaded the image on wikimedia commons. However when I attempt to insert it into my article using

File:Helen by Aaron Berkman

it does not show up. Instead there is only an empty file link. Please help! Thanks, Jeanette (Jeanettehendler (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

I'm sorry, I tried to look on Commons but I cannot find any images under either the above name or the one in the article. What you need to do is simply use the complete filename (example: bergman.jpg or bergman_aaron.png) and it should be able to find it. MLauba (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find your message to me, which Wikipedia mentioned had been sent. Do you have desire to correspond? William R. Buckley (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot seem to find your message to me, which Wikipedia mentioned had been sent. Do you have desire to correspond? William R. Buckley (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will enjoy it! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

still 12 days to go... can't wait. Thanks :) MLauba (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, enjoy it! But please be careful, I have heard alarming things about this "real life" you are going to. Regards SoWhy 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi MLauba,

Thanks again for taking the time to edit the Exinda article with expanded references etc. I see that at the end of the deletion review page, the recommendation is "permit recreation." What does that mean exactly? How do we get the Exinda page over to the live site? Do I simply copy and paste from my user page to a new page? Thanks again for your time and efforts. Hass2009 (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

For the time being, we only wait until the article becomes unprotected, and then we make use of the "Move" function. Most likely the admin who will unprotect will also perform the move. MLauba (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Mlauba, So now there seems to be a notability debate about Exinda going back to 2008. Who ultimately decides whether Exinda is notable enough to be listed or not? I do believe the sources you cited were credible and speak to the notability of the company. Thanks again, Hass2009 (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and guidance. I would be happy to verifi my claims and have the copyright holder send an email to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" to donate copyright material under Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Documentation License. I appreaciate you helpfulness and patience rather then just deleting the article, which has happend to me in the past without any recommendation from the individual. Using the wikipedia technology is still kinda new for me and I'm still learning. 68.62.182.35 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Deadalus821 (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

i've referenced the Robert Conley page well. Would you remove the two honking caveat bars on top of the page (cleanup and refimprove). I was told by you not to meddle with those. But the page looks pretty good, I hope you'[ll agree.

Whaddayathinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.2.120 (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2009 69.203.2.120 (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup yes, refimprove definitely not. The references provided are either articles written by Conley, which says nothing about him, or only trivial mentions focusing more on 'All things considered'. There needs to be references about Conley and his work. MLauba (talk) 07:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The way you redesigned the Robert Conley page has left too many edit boxes in one of the sections. May I remove them? Or would you? Have a good vacation.

Sinequaoui (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're refering to but go ahead, you don't need my (or anyone else) permission for fixing the article :) MLauba (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, MLauba. All the references on Robert Conley are primary source material from highly credible sources (The New York Times Archives, NBC News ARchives, NPR online, Carnegie Foundation), not self-published, but published from major American publishing entities. I'm not sure what references you need beyond primary material. You say "the articles say nothing 'about' him," yet there are no claims about him needing such support. The work talks for itself as to the who, what, where, and when he did his work. While you're on vacation, may I communicate with Bkonrad, one of the other editors on this article?

Sincerely, Sinequaoui (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To keep this short as I have only little time before leaving, you can communicate with whoever you wish on this matter, I'm not some sort of authority or whatever, merely a separate pair of eyes.

On the sourcing issue, briefly, normally any topic needs secondary sources at some stage, in particular when dealing with biographies of living persons, in order to support what is being stated in the article. It's not enough to list his own journalistic work, you also need to be able to show how it has been received and perceived by the audience of the times and whether (and how) Conley has influenced others. If nobody ever bothered talking about what Conley did, Wikipedia wouldn't be the right place to start doing so.

I've posted a note on WT:WikiProject Living people#Robert Conley to request expert editors to weigh in on the matter, so that you get other feedback than mine (in particular while I'm away). Best, MLauba (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi MLauba,

Just a quick note to say thanks so much for your help with the Exinda listing, and for your guidance on how to make future additions to the article. Hope you enjoy your vacation in real-life.

Hass2009 (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you are the sole editor of {{Copyvio-histpurge}}, so I'll ask here: How should the diff parameter used? If it should be just number of the revision, then I think the template is broken (the link leads for example to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/313078406). If it should be used differently, then the documentation should mention that. Svick (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The way it's been written asks for the URL of the entire diff revision (I usually right-click and copy the link in the page history). I'll update the documentation to clarify (and see if I can fix the template so that both methods work).

Thanks for letting me know. --MLauba (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If I undestand you correctly, you mean entering something like diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shannon-Fano-Elias_coding&oldid=313078406, right? But that doesn't work either, it generates link to [1] that is again invalid. Svick (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixed (hopefully). MLauba (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems to be OK now. Svick (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I loved this comment of yours. Especially the last bit. Brilliant stuff. Unfortunately, he ignored the whole point and eventually Moonriddengirl was forced to do a beautiful rewrite of the entire article. Anyway... I hope you've had a great vacation away from the madhouse. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Vacation was great :) Pity for the editor, but in the end, it may be his loss, not ours, I guess. MLauba (talk) 07:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On the surface of things, it appears your reply may have confused MuZemike with MBisanz. If you did in fact confuse both, you may want to strike your comments and issue appropriate apologies for your totally unwarranted ad hominem attack. Best, MLauba (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments removed, I did indeed confuse the two. Thanks for pointing that out. Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this RFC, I prefer to keep the conversation on the RFC. Ikip (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the right thing. MLauba (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, once you remove the copyright information you don't have to put up the large banner saying that there was copyright information. It is one of those one or the other kinds of things. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Once it is removed, indeed. In that particular case, the banner hid the not-yet-removed information from view, as is meant to be done. MLauba (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

To expand on that, the lead is actually quite decent, and to have me paraphrase it so that it is no longer a copyvio would end up as a quite horrible hack, in particular since I don't have access to sources directly in order to write a suitable lead paragraph. I was hoping someone who's familiar with Lewry could string together something that's worth reading. MLauba (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that you were waiting for someone to paraphrase the info to keep it. I just assumed you were removing it until someone came by and made the fixes. Could you leave a note on the talk page about the above (that you are waiting for a paraphrase of the material)? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out. MLauba (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi MLauba, I felt that your recent edits to the article on Avraham Kefeli removed much valuable text information about this person. I understand that you have an issue with the copyright status of part of the article (the image)? I believe User:Hayim Malkhasy is responsible for adding the image and please address this issue with him. As for the text, has this been copied from another source without being cited? I'm not aware of anything of the sort. I had been correcting grammatical errors and re-wording it to make his accomplishments clearer and emphasize notability.

Which part(s) of the article were problematic in terms of copyright and why? --AFriedman (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be possible to leave the image out but readd the text? To me, the text seems innocuous enough. --AFriedman (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the core of the text coming from http://karaim-institute.narod.ru/kenassa/kefelia.htm - that is, the entire text body you tried to fix. Unfortunately, that material remains copyrighted and needs to be either completely rewritten from scratch, or User:Hayim Malkhasy to provide the permission he claims to have. MLauba (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can definitely rewrite the Kefeli article so it contains original text. --AFriedman (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Terrific, that would solve all of the issues in one stroke. MLauba (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done --AFriedman (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello MLauba, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Stream of Life has been removed. It was removed by Sandyiit with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Sandyiit 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) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know that I have name checked you at User talk:Pr3st0n (specifically here). I suspect you won't mind, but I thought to let you know in case he does decide to consult you for further feedback. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. How was your summer, did everything go fine? I've seen that you are back doing a great job with copyright stuff, so I wanted to ask (again, nag nag, I know) about whether you have decided about running for admin. I think you could use the tools at where you work here and I'd be happy to nom you if you like. Regards SoWhy 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ML, you've certainly been a power engine and a great communicator at copyright problems. Anytime you want to lower yourself to swabbing duties, we would welcome your extra help at CP. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the vote of confidence. The thing you'll have to be aware of is that SCV still needs work, so the immediate impact on CP is only that the things I currently cannot handle wouldn't end up there anymore (but it still lessens the load, doesn't it?).

But I haven't really responded, have I?

I actually did think of it since the first time SoWhy suggested I do so (think), and a couple of recent cases on SCV have made it abundantly clear that User:Toon05 or User:Theleftorium are just a lot more efficient at it with the mop than I am without it - just look at the backlog history deletions piling up.

So to answer the question, I now believe that having the mop would help me pulling my share of the load better, and that I'd be more efficient with it than I am now. I'd be honoured if you were to nom me. MLauba (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that, so here is your official nomination template :-D Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) has expressed her willingness to nom/co-nom you, so I would wait for her to do so before transcluding. Remember to fix the end time when doing so and good luck :-) Regards SoWhy 14:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. I am honored to nom you. :) If you want to talk about it before going "live", please be patient. I am four minutes from running out the door for a few hours! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and no hurry, I won't even be ready for the transclusion before another 24h. MLauba (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My ride is late. :/ By the way, it occurred to me that I did not check to see if you wanted me to nom you. :) If you'd rather I didn't, let me know, and I'll pull my nom statement and won't even vote oppose for it later. ;) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was about to mail you and ask if you were willing to consider co-noming me :) Thanks for the trust, it means a lot, and I'll do my darnest best to keep living up to it, regardless of the outcome. MLauba (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to point out that User:Theleftorium is not an administrator at the English Wikipedia, so his efficiency has nothing to do with that :) Oh, and good luck with your RfA! Regards, decltype (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol, true, more credit to him. MLauba (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to wish you luck, although I'm sure you won't need it. – Toon 12:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :) MLauba (talk) 13:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)