User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Playboy Cyber Club

Hi. What exactly does "prod eligible" mean?

Also, I've come to understand that articles can be nominated multiple times for deletion, as I've seen it done. Is this not the case? Nightscream (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposed deletion states "An article may not be proposed for deletion ("PRODed") if it has been PRODed before, or if it has been the subject of a review through the Articles for Deletion (AfD) process." Once it's been to AfD it needs to go back through the process at WP:AFD. You also failed to indicate an actual lack of notability in either of your prod tags. In particular I note that the fact that an article includes no secondary sources to establish independent notability does not mean that such sources don't exist, which is what's required. In this case I haven't actually done the research to find such sources, but I think there's at least a chance they exist and should be searched for before it's deleted outright. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

VW Bot mistake

Hello! I wanted to report a potential bot error:

The bot placed a tag in the page God of war 3 in hindi saying that it had substantially copied from the page "God of war 3 in hindi" (the same page). I believe the bot meant to indicate the similarly named God of war 3in hindi. Hope this helps. Zujua (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the report. In this case it actually did point to the second article you mentioned, although there is a similar bug in the code where yesterday it tagged TOP Girl - Georgia's Next Top Model as a copy of itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

VWBot possible false positive at Worthing Swimming Club

This looks to me to be a false positive. Regards! VQuakr (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Thanks for the report. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mistake

Sean Murphy (boxer) is most certainly not a "substantial copy" of http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_id=5237&cat=boxer - you might want to check again! Regards, GiantSnowman 19:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I'll look into the matching code again. Thanks for the feedback. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The Ignerents

Hi Verno Whitney - I have amended the ORIGINAL pages where the material is housed - these are here - http://www.theignerents.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/ignerents-discography.html and here http://www.theignerents.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/ignerents-brief-history-in-time.html

If you wanted to double check that I wrote the material on the website your Bot identified (on the 'Bored Teenagers' website) you will see I am actually credited as the author on that site http://www.boredteenagers.co.uk/ignerents.htm (as 'Ben Challis')

Have Wiki ever thought about moving on to a better system than Creative Commons - it has its limitations? Just an idea

best wishes, and have a good day

Ben

I'm sorry for the delay in clearing up the matter regarding this article, I saw your message this morning and then forgot about it when I resumed editing later. I'll get to it tomorrow since there are a few steps I need to go through to document your relicensing.

As far as changing to a different licensing system goes... I don't recall anything in particular, but I wouldn't rule it out. The license was exclusively GFDL until a few years ago when it was updated to rely on CC-BY-SA as the primary license, so a migration has happened once before. And images are usable with a wide variety of free licenses so long as they meet certain requirement, so there's some more precedent for a broader scope. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Verno Whitney - the page has now disappeared and the replacement text says " the previous content of this page has been identified as posing a potential copyright issue, as a copy or modification of the text from the source(s) below, and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems (listing): http://www.boredteenagers.co.uk/ignerents.htm (Duplication Detector report) Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it may be deleted one week after the time of its listing". Can you action this and reinstate the text - or is there anything else I need to do - as you can imagine its frustrating in as much as I am NAMED as the author on the page that is now being used 'against' me ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benchallis (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I apologize for the delay. The tag has been removed from the article and there should be no further confusion over its copyright status. Thank you for your patience. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt and thoughtful actions. It is much appreciated. 82.47.213.133 (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Ben

CCI update

And may I add how lovely it is to see your name popping up in my watchlist again? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hooray! I was beginning to think that one might never get finished given the lack of interest in image copyvios in particular. It's good to be back, and I'm hoping I'll be able to stick around for awhile. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Pre-Raphaelite Society

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia so am feeling my way. You've just deleted my page The Pre-Raphaelite Society for copyright infringement. I can see why; however, I am writing it on behalf of the Society and we own the copyright for the webpages you cited, and wish to use them on Wikipedia. I had taken a break from working on it (as I am completely confused by how Wikipedia entry creation works!) and was going to try to verify the external website in order to permit the use of the same words, but now it's been deleted I can't. I didn't think what I had written was live so didn't think it mattered - was it public? And if not, can you reinstate it so I can finish? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SerenaTrowbridge (talk • contribs) 14:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The page was indeed live and public visible, and so it had to be removed per our copyright policy. If you can follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to verify that the copyright holder is releasing it under a free license then the article can be promptly restored so you can finish working on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Duke Siegfried August in Bavaria

Hello! I am thanking for attention. Page: Siegfried August Maximilian Maria, Duke in Bavaria is incorrect. Can you dismiss her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamLeyton (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're requesting that the article be redirected to Duke Siegfried August in Bavaria, then it's already been done. My bot's message was just a reminder that two articles shouldn't be created duplicating the same text, but instead it should be moved if it needs to be renamed to something else. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Buglife

Hi. Thanks for sorting out the copyvio at Buglife. I've done a bit of detective work on this and it seems that the editor who added all of that content is actually the Communications Manager at Buglife, so may be willing to release it under an appropriate licence. I'll leave it to you to decide whether to contact him. SP-KP (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The templated message you left at User talk:Paul Hetherington65 already has the information about how to donate copyrighted materials as does the one I left at Talk:Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust. If they're to be active on Wikipedia I would imagine those should be sufficient. If you want to go above and beyond to try to get ahold of him, by all means feel free, but I generally leave it up to the copyright holders to take the next step once I've left notices like that. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

16:10

Hi VernoWhitney! Thank you very much for your help in the article 16:10. I have totally rewritten the DisplaySearch part and I would really appreciate if you could have a look at it. Thank you again for all your help!/Urklistre (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to learn more about Wiki copyright before I right the new part so give me a few days please. I will contact you when I am finished. /Urklistre (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tagging error made by VWBot

Hi. I'm just writing to notify you that your bot, VWBot, made an error in tagging a page earlier - the page, at Foundation for the Development of the Caribbean Children was marked as being a direct duplicate of itself. I don't know what you can do with the bot to stop it doing this, but I have removed the tag for now, per the instructions contained in its message. Thank you. Fish^Barking? 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

That was not an error. It tagged Foundation for the Development of Caribbean Children as being a duplicate of Foundation for the Development of the Caribbean Children. Note the extra 'the' in the second article's title. Tags such as this help to locate cut/paste moves and duplicate articles, which oftentimes require additional attribution, redirection, or deletion. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

16:10

Hi, thanks for sorting out the copyvio at 16:10. If you could take a quick look at the replacement text I wrote (see here) and let me know if it's OK (or if not, what could be improved), it'd be much appreciated. Indrek (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any copyright problems with what you've written there as replacement text. Beyond that I can't say I really have an opinion, since I haven't read the rest of the sources or all of the conversation on the talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I haven't dealt with copyright issues on Wikipedia a lot yet, so advice from more experienced editors is always welcome. Cheers! Indrek (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

EUROPEAN PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE

Dear VernoWhitney,

Regarding the EUROPEAN PARALYMPIC COMMITTEE wiki page, you made some updates on the 19th August 2012. I am an employee of the EPC and updated the information to include all of the correct and current information. Your change on the 19th reverted the information back to the outdated and incorrect information. Could you let me know if there is any issue with the site and how this can be stopped from happening in the future?

Thanks EuroParalympics (talk) 08:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As was indicated on your talk page, if you are the copyright holder then you need to follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...Strange

For whatever reason, Huggle interpreted your most recent edit (removing spam links from GreenAndJellow.jpeg) as possible vandalism. Don't worry, though - I've added you to the whitelist. Quinxorin (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats rather amusing actually. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucius Petronius Taurus Volusianus

I was led to question the origin of this on the basis of the academic nature of the writing, which is in a style rarely seen in Wikipedia, and on the intermixing of analysis with the description, standard in academic writing, but usually considered WP:OR on Wikipedia. A notable example of this is the conclusion: "By any standards Volusianus's was a remarkable career. There is, of course, no indication how he behaved in office - i.e. whether he deserved his elevation to the very pinnacle of the Imperial Service. As indicated, it is possible to speculate that he was not an inspired military commander: that he was not a capable administrator or wise counsellor. Whatever his merits the favour of Gallienus - possibly based on some family and/or Etruscan connection - was certainly crucial at all stages. However, given the general quality of the men Gallienus appointed to high office, it seems unlikely that the Emperor would have advanced Volusianus to such heights on the mere basis of a shared origin had the man no other quality to recommend him." , or the earlier "It is normally assumed that Volusianus was done to death in the senatorial purge that followed the murder of Gallienus in 268. Although he was not an Illyrian and, therefore, almost certainly not of the clique of generals born in the Balkans that removed Gallienus it is likely that he was highly regarded in the lower ranks of the Imperial Field Army in which he had served with such distinction and, as such, he could have been a focus for its discontent at the murder of the Emperor."

Additional factors include: the use of abbreviations standard in academy writing on the period "CIL" for Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum; the use of "op. cit", which is discouraged in WP citation practice as unnecessary archaism, the mixture of bibliographic with substantive footnotes, the use of some particularly non-contemporary phrases such as "It is a pity that the paucity of our records of this era renders any attempt to assess the political and military significance of his career purely speculative" and the inclusion of didactic footnote not directly related to the immediate content, such as ref. 10., and the willingness to make judgements that nothing is known about some particular subtopic.

All of this is characteristic of the writing of User:Pjbjas. In response to my comments, he merely revised the language slightly. In the absence on inline sourcing, it will be necessary to check all the sources; I may do that; though this is not my prime area of historical interest, which focuses on the early and central middle ages, not late antiquity, it is within my admittedly amateur competence.

I am particularly concerned here, because this and the others of this series of articles is that I think this is the sort of topic which we absolutely should cover in Wikipedia, and which very few people are interested enough to write. What we need to do, is get them to write appropriately . The same general sort of problem has happened previously, and our success rate in convincing the amateur experts has not been that great.My own success in doing such persuasions has been no greater than anyone else. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your in-depth reply. That sounds like a situation which will require some significant research above and beyond the daily grind at WP:CP. I agree with you that Wikipedia needs serious articles about those less-commonly explored areas of history. <sigh> Hopefully it will turn out that they're just writing how they've learned how and not copying from elsewhere.

And on a different topic, I wholeheartedly agree that many of the articles we receive OTRS permission for are unsuitable (such as you found by stalking my contributions yesterday ^_^ ), I just try to keep my OTRS/copyright hat separate and don't often get involved in articles which I've taken the permissions for unless it's especially egregious (and vice versa, I try to avoid handling permissions for articles I've interacted with extensively beyond copyright issues). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Lit Arts pic

Hi Verno,

Curious if you got Mark's new email. Is there a form or something he needs to fill out? Atrivedi (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I've received it and will reply via email. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot: false positive

This edit was inappropriate for two reasons; there was an {{Tl|Inuse} ta on the article; and the web age referred to is a Wikipedia mirror (note string "wikipedia" in URL). I reverted the bot and the original author has continued editing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just assume you're talking about VWBot, not DYKUpdateBot. You are correct that the tagging was a false positive since it wasn't copied from that particular source, but it did need to attribution to the original article at de:Otto Lauffer or else it would have been a copyright violation; the bot's not smart enough to comprehend the edit summary provided by Johnheaven, it just checks new articles for a number of different attribution templates. Thanks for the heads up though. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Andranik Ozanian

Could you please explain me what level of paraphrasing is acceptable in here? I see no violation of using some few sentences from a few hundred pages long book. How much should I change it from the original text for it not to be violation? I would like you to closely explain this to me.--Yerevanci (talk) 02:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

To start with, the easy line to draw would be that no paraphrasing is acceptable, especially when it comes to an article you hope to be featured as one of the best parts of Wikipedia. If you write the text entirely from scratch and only use the source as a reference to support the content of the article then there is no problem. While a firm stance of 'no paraphrasing' may be unrealistic, it should certainly be the goal as opposed to determining just how much of it you can get away with. From one of the links I already provided to you, I would again recommend that you read Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content specifically for a positive example of how a source can be used and the content rewritten to avoid a copyright violation.

In the text that you added it doesn't appear that any serious effort was put into writing your own prose, only in abbreviating it and meshing it with the rest of the article. For example, some of your proposed text read:

Andranik first attempted to unite with the British forces in Northern Iran, but he had backtrack to Nakhichevan when his columns were intercepted by Turkish division near Khoy.

where the source says

Andranik initially attempted to unite with the British expeditionary force operating in North Persia, but he had to backtrack to Nakhichevan when his columns were intercepted by Turkish divisions near Khoi.

I've bolded the identical words for ease of comparison. By any standard, this is unacceptable.

As far as you seeing "no violation of using some few sentences from a few hundred pages long book", I'll reply by saying that some time ago I researched case law and found that using as little as 1% of the same content as an original copyrighted work has been found to be infringement. I didn't do an exhaustive search, so I couldn't say for sure what smaller amount has been found to be non-infringing, but the goal of Wikipedia being free involves being more restrictive than the law requires to avoid plausible copyright lawsuits.

In your case your edit added approximately 758 words, or about 2 pages worth of very closely paraphrased text out of a 547 page book (including bibliography, index, etc.), which comes out to about 0.4%. Of course you're not picking pieces from the entire book to write about those two years in Armenian history; you're picking the pieces which directly deal with General Ozanian, which is a significantly smaller portion of the book. Judging from the index it's about 16 pages in total, which then means you're closely paraphrasing 12.5% of it (and I believe some of those pages are maps, making the percentage even higher).

Now, if we assume all 16 pages are text and an average of 400 words per page, then even 64 words (say 1 paragraph) from those selections could be considered copyright infringement under the law, and (as I mentioned above) Wikipedia strives to avoid being anywhere near the legal threshold. Perhaps that gives you some idea of how little paraphrasing is acceptable. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I kind of got your point. Let me ask you another question. Can you do me a favor and paraphrase this sentence to such a level that it won't be considered violation.

Andranik initially attempted to unite with the British expeditionary force operating in North Persia, but he had to backtrack to Nakhichevan when his columns were intercepted by Turkish divisions near Khoi.

I'll use your example for the rest of the text. Thank you! --Yerevanci (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me first point out that taking one example sentence and expanding that to the rest probably won't work. If the content is paraphrased one sentence at a time then even if each sentence is different the overall flow could still follow that of the book which is still a problem. The information from that book really needs to be combined with information from other reliable sources covering the same events.

That said, when looking at that single sentence in isolation my first stab would be to say something like this:

As Andranik's forces moved south, he encountered elements from the Turkish army at Khoi. This prevented him from linking up with the British Expeditionary Forces which were in the area and he was forced to retreat to Nakhichevan.

Do note that I'm examining it out of context, so please forgive me if I've gotten some of the surrounding facts wrong. I'm also releasing that content into the public domain, so if it is accurate feel free to incorporate it into the article without attributing me. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If I may interject, I'm reminded of a point I learned from, I believe SandyGeorgia. I didn't save the reference, so I'll, uh, paraphrase: it is also problematic if you copy the structure of material subject to copyright, even if you change every single word.

So if a source is structured: Point1, Point2, Point3..., and you rewrite each and every point, but leave them in the same order, you may still be guilty of violation.

The canned advice I use is:

However, it is my opinion that the results constitute a Close paraphrasing of the original. I've found that if I copy and paste the material, and try to rewrite it, that it still ends up too close to the original. A better approach is to find more than one source (always desirable), then, put them aside, and write about the subject in one's own words. After writing, return to the original text, and determine whether it is too close (if you have a better memory than I do), or if some points would be better made by an explicit quote and attribution, with the quote suitably short.

--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think your comment about the different points in order is a better way of putting what I was trying to say about when each sentence is paraphrased but the overall flow is left the same it can still be a problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yusaku Maezawa

Dear VernoWhitney, you made this change citing "remove unsourced BLP info; remove copyright violation". Can you let me know what BLP violation was there and why was this termed as unsourced? You may want to read the source page (here) where it clearly reads that quote "Source of Wealth: Online retailing, Self-made". I am puzzled as to if the update was unsourced then where is the question is copyright violation? Cheers AKS 05:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that I missed the "Self-made" line in the source, which is why I removed the whole sentence. That part of the sentence could be restored then. I still don't see anything that supports the assertion that he's "a first generation entrepreneur", however.

As far as the copyright violation goes, that's why I removed the history section. As I indicated on the talk page it appears to have been copied from the source. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_pulse&action=history

How Can you say its copyright violation ? any proofs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) 10:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As I indicated on the talk page it was copied directly from http://www.bombshock.com/electronics/how-to-protect-yourself-from-electro-magnetic-pulse.html. Unless there's some reason I'm missing that text is automatically copyrighted as soon as it was published. The site even explicitly claims "Copyright © 2008-2012 bombshock.com". VernoWhitney (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Regional Trial Court

Don't bother looking for an old discussion. Read this: {{Template:PD-PhilippinesPubDoc}}. As the text is a work of the Philippine government, it is in the public domain and can be used in verbatim. –HTD 15:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

hi there! quick question

Hi there good sir, I'm newer to wikipedia and I'm trying to make myself useful but I found something that I didn't know what to do and saw you were an admin and in a category I was perusing so I thought I'd ask for some assistance :3.. So I recently found out about WikiFauna and so I added the userbox I felt I fit in. Then I noticed it didn't add a category to my userpage when I had seen the wikignome category before. So I went and found the parent category which was fun (sarcasm xD), Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia editing philosophy. Then I saw there wasn't a category for the WikiSloth, so then I went looking and found that it was deleted in 2007. My issue isn't with it being deleted and all, I was just more-or-less wondering howcome it could be deleted when there's other sub-cats in the parent category with a much smaller population. Here's a bit of an example. (wikignomes/fairies added for perspective)

• Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes‎ (1 C, 2,374 P)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiFairies (291 P)
• Number of Wikisloths: ~175-200 (taken from # of links to the wikisloth userbox)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiCats‎ (24 P)
• Category:Wikipedian WikiChefs‎ (8 P) - note: up for deletion
• Category:Wikipedian WikiJanitors‎ (7 P) - note: 4 actual users
• Category:Transwikist Wikipedians (2 P)
• Category:WikiNomad (2 P) - note: up for deletion, 1 actual user
• Category:Wikipedians open to poking (1 P)
• Category:Mediawikianist Wikipedians‎ (1 P)

Well this turned out a lot longer than I was thinking... but I was just curious what your take was basically, or if this is just very silly for me to even bring this up, I'm not sure how this stuff is resolved or whatnot. Do you think there should be 1 category for each wikifauna added into their respective userboxes (which I could do and wouldn't mind doing at all, i'm kinda like a wikignome in that regard) or should it only be for wikignomes type of deal being that there are so many? Your opinion/advice would be greatly appreciated good sir :) I look forward to your reply! daintalk   07:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! WikiFauna are rather an odd intersection between pure fun and actually useful boxes to put people in. The relevant user guideline I believe you're looking for is at WP:USERCAT. It includes into a lot of detail, but as far as the categories you're interested in goes, it really comes down to how useful the category is, not how many users are/would be included in it.

In particular, we want to ask if such a category can legitimately be used to find a type of editor to work with. As I see it one key dividing line is between what they do (acceptable categories) and their motivations for doing it (unacceptable categories). Wikignomes tidy up odds and ends, while Wikifairies make things prettier. In either case, you could use these categories to track down someone who can tidy/prettify an article you're working on. Wikisloths edit based on "random interest", which seems unhelpful as far as a category goes for finding another editor to collaborate with. Wikinomad seems to be up for deletion for the same reason.

I haven't looked through all of the rest, but Transwikist and Mediawikinist are certainly odd ducks out. While they are very small groups at the moment, they do at least seem like the could be useful in tracking down an editor to help with those sorts of tasks (transwiking content to Wikisource/wikibooks/etc., and working on template syntax/mediawiki bugs/requests respectively).

Anyways, as to your actual question, I would recommend against (re)creating any (more) WikiFauna categories based on the previous deletion discussions. If you disagree with the guideline and feel that it should be changed so that more user categories should be allowed, such as those for largely or entirely humorous reasons, I would recommend that you weigh in your opinion at the two deletion discussions, and at Wikipedia talk:User categories or Wikipedia:Categorization/Noticeboard. Does that help? VernoWhitney (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of the MarketStar page

I'd like to discuss getting the opportunity to fix the issues stated relating to the MarketStar entry. I believe I can fix the references cited given the chance. Thanks. Squirtg (talk) 03:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There was not an issue with the references. It was deleted because the only substantial content in the article was copied from the company's website without any evidence of permission, making it a copyright violation. That said, even if such permission were granted, it doesn't appear to have been a terribly suitable article as (among other things) it never contained any reliable sources. If you wish to fix the issues with the MarketStar article, it would be best to start from scratch. Please let me know if you have any further questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

OTRS question

There are a few requests at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Is_this_ticket_valid.3F_.28III.29 about some old tickets.

Two of the items (File:Payphone1.jpg and File:Transamerica Pyramid Grant.jpg linked to a ticket with your name. 2011010610010188. I would have respnded myself, but I didn't see the file names in the email chain (to be fair, I didn't look hard). I thought you'd be in a better position to comment.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Plus File:Six Sea Nettles.jpg and File:Tuning pegs.jpg--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, replied there. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Liquid Latex Page

I wrote the Liquid Latex wiki page and now I see that you have deleted the article and made the page redirect to latex clothing. This is not what liquid latex is. Can you undo this redirect and replace the page that I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.250.251 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was redirected because the text was almost entirely copied from elsewhere on the internet, and as such a possible copyright violation. If you are the copyright holder of the text at http://www.futureclassx.com/words/2009/LiquidLatex/IllusionLiquidLatex.htm then the article can be restored as soon as you follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have now read the message that indicated the issue. Yes, this is my own webpage that is referenced so I am also the author of the source material. I have followed the instructions on the message and sent an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to grant permission for reuse of my article under creative commons. Please let me know if there is any additional info or efforts needed from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgreenawalt (talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I followed the directions, but the original text has still not been replaced. Is there something else that I can do to replace it? I found a cached version of it, I can just repost it. I'm trying to follow the rules though. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgreenawalt (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

DpmukBOT and VWBot

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Dpmuk's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bot problem with distinguishing info box fields

The VWBot performed a web search with the contents of Makary, Cameroon, and it suggested that it included material copied directly from: http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html (Duplication Detector report). What was duplicated appears to be the blank portions of the Template:Infobox settlement, which isn't a copyright problem, but it is a bot problem that could, conceivably, be fixed. --Bejnar (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate it if you used authentic timestamps when leaving messages on my page. Also to the best of my knowledge that bug has already been fixed. If you are aware of a more recent occurrence of that particular bug, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_pulse&action=history

It isn't copied from this Site. Some sentence may match, its a matter of Coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly a direct copy of [1], even to the capital letters in 'THE' in the original. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sidney H. Griffith

Hi.

I'm curious to find out how the case with Sidney H. Griffith will turn out. I find the notification logs difficult to navigate, and am concerned that the case might have been forgotten.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, an admin may review it any time now. That said, there are still some pages which were tagged for copyright problems back in June which haven't been reviewed yet. It's a sadly understaffed area--which is why I completely forgot to go back and look at your rewrite for it when I removed my bot's tag a couple of weeks ago. I'll try to get to that here in the next few hours. Thanks for your patience. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And late again, but finally  Done. You did a pretty good job rewriting it without having to trim the information down to a minimum. There were a couple of close sentences which still followed closely from the source, so I looked up an additional source (it happens to be primary, so clearly not the best, but it should be sufficient for this purpose) and used its additional information to reword the sentences a bit more. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the good work. It was instructive. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pound Puppies (2010 TV series)

Hi! I have been slowly trying to address/fix some of the issues on the Pound Puppies page. I saw your note on the talk page, and I added a reference to the "Plot" section, as well as modified the text and removed some of the excess quotes. Can the "unreferenced section" tag be removed now, or is this section still considered incomplete in regards to references? I would really appreciate your input. Thanks--Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes (reply)

Thanks for the information. Will undo everything immediately. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Eric Burroughs photo

This is about the third time that people have given me grief about this image, which is some sort of record even for WP photo rights... The long and short of it: it is a publicity photo created by Burroughs himself, he paid for the shot and retained rights. His son and literary executor signed the permission form, per policy. The permission email addie for ENWP did not work and the image is housed at ENWP, not Commons. Sending the form to Commons apparently has accomplished jack. So tell me, please, where should the permission form be emailed for ENWP (not Commons). Thank you. Agitated, Carrite (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be sent to the email address which is included twice in the template left on your talk page: permissions-en@wikimedia.org . Before tagging the image I did search the OTRS system for prior emails but was unable to locate any corresponding to this image. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the notification re the Lincoln statue. I've taken care of it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh... What?

You removed an image I had on an article in my sandbox (I'm guessing you found it via a bot). For future reference, are you telling me that it's OK to link to an image in an article, but you can't link to the exact same image in the sandbox article it originated from because the first is not a copyright violation, but the other is? I'm curious to see the legal backing for that determination. 5minutes (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Linking to an image is fine, actually displaying that image outside of articles is a violation of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. It has some to do with the sheer quantity of fair use images being used across the project, but it also has to do with maintaining Wikipedia's mission to be a free content provider. VernoWhitney (talk)

uDigits Wiki page

Previously it has been deleted. The user, who did was banned from Wiki administrators, as he did it by personal motivation. We do not want to make complain about you. This is official Wiki info about the official popular game Doodle Digits (uDigits). Thank you.

Kind regards,
uWaver Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Wolt (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was deemed not to meet the standards for notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDigits and the article you reposted wasn't improved from its previous incarnation. I don't see that either admin who previously deleted the article was banned for any reason, but even if they were the consensus would still hold.

If you wish to restore the article you should find more reliable sources which contain significant coverage about the game. If you wish to make claims about the actions of other admins ("he did it by personal motivation"), you should provide links to relevant discussions or diffs.

I'm afraid I see no compelling case for the article to be restored at this time. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear VernoWhitney,

Could you tell us, what exactly is wrong with article, please? We would like to fix it. Thank you.

Kind regards,
uWaver Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Wolt (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did above: you need to find more reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the game. Currently a single Ovi Daily App review was provided, but that's all. I strongly recommend you read WP:GNG. Given your association with the game, I will also direct you to our conflict of interest guideline, which strongly discourages articles written about your own products. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear VernoWhitney,
We managed to find more references and updated the following section (if you are thinking it is still not enough for the article, please let us know):
"The complete rules are available on the game's official web site and a review by Nokia's Ovi Daily App and other sources includes screenshots and impressions from the game."
Thank you,
uWaver ltd— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Wolt (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal blogs are generally not reliable sources, neither is facebook. Such sources when authored by the creators of the game (or your friends/coworkers/etc.) would be usable to discuss features of the game or other such details, but they do not establish notability. You need to read WP:GNG and find at least one additional source which meets all of the requirements spelled out in that section. If such a source can be located, then the article could be recreated. Now the could still be deleted again, but would need to go through another discussion at WP:AFD rather than being subject to summary and speedy deletion. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

photo of article Sri Prakash Lohia

Hi Verno Whitney - I have uploaded the photograph of Sri Prakash Lohia, in wiki common on Sep 6 with filename "File:Founder of Indorama Corp - Mr.Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg", and latter on Sep 13 on wiki local with filename "Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg". The original photograph was given by Amit Lohia, and do editing for the size. One of my contact will send the email to wiki common, so please do no remove it if possible or if it has to be removed, please keept it one with the name "Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg" in wiki. I'm sure that this image not crop from that site mentioned.Thanks/Thomas Sumartono. Thomas Sumartono (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are not the copyright holder, the you must stop claiming the work as your own. If the copyright holder is in fact Amit Lohia (or someone else), then they need to finish following the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials so that we can verify that they do in fact agree to the terms required in order to release the image under the chosen free license. If the image is deleted it can be restored and it can always be renamed later; there's no need to reupload it multiple times. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Verno Whitney - Thank you for your detail explanation, I am really sorry for putting the wrong term in the source as "Own Work" in those 2 files mentioned. Would you please consider the email which I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org related to this photograph and still allow to be used in wiki for the artilcle of Sri Prakash Lohia? Thank you very much for your helping me on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Sumartono (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Another volunteer should handle the email you sent and mark the image appropriately. Thanks for your understanding. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Verno Whitney - Thanks for your update. My hoping and appreciating if one of the volunteer may get that my email communication which I forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and mark the image appropriately.Thanks for ur help.Thomas Sumartono (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Verno Whitney - I am forwarding email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org today with the detail permission taken by email communcation,I would like to request your help so that the image will be marked appropriately. Please guide me if anything missing in the email communication.BTW:"File:Founder of Indorama Corp - Mr.Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg" has been deleted? I am not able to see it today. Thank you.Thomas Sumartono (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That file was deleted because it too was lacking evidence of permission. Once the volunteers who handle email have processed it and verified that the permission provided is sufficient it will be restored and replaced into the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing image from a project template

Hi there,

I noticed that you removed an image from Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest which is actually an article template for Project Eurovision which as far as I am aware is allowable within project space. An admin member on the project even stated that it would not be a problem having the image on something that is designed to act as a template for article layout for members of the project that are not familiar. Is there anything that you can suggest to get around this issue? (please TB me so that I know you have replied) Thank you Wesley♦^Mouse 14:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid whichever admin informed you that it would not be a problem was mistaken. Any use of non-free images outside of articles is a violation of point 9 of the non-free content policy. The only exceptions are for areas of the project dedicated to the management of non-free content, such as Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source.

If you were using it as a substituted template, I would say wrapping it within <includeonly> tags should work as then it would only appear on the created articles. Since it appears that it is set up to be copied and pasted into the article, however, I'm afraid nothing quite so straightforward occurs to me just at the moment. If the issue is with remembering the exact file name, then placing it within an html comment (in place of the NonFreeImageRemoved.svg which I left there) or something of that nature ought to make it simple enough to restore when using the template to create a new article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I might be confused here. The template isn't an article as such, but a guideline for project members on how Eurovision by year article should look. The images used was to show to a member that an annual logo would be placed in that particular section - and we used the generic logo for the purpose of providing an example. The actual generic logo would not be used on other articles. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so if it's primarily being used as an example, then perhaps you could just use a generic free logo (such as File:Boeing wordmark.svg or something else unambiguously plain text) instead? Obviously it won't be a Eurovision logo, but the only issue is that the logo you were using there is non-free. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh that's a good idea. I could use my own logo-type image that is used on my user page File:WesleyMouse Logo.png just to show a logo of sorts would appear in that particular section of the article. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That would certainly work. Your mouse is some nice work too; it makes me smile. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Image on userbox

Hi, I see you removed an image from one of my userboxes [2]. I reverted your edit, since the same image is available on Commons [3] and the Wikipedia copy will probably be deleted soon [4]. Thanks. — Mr White 17:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy

Let me just get this straight because I plan on copy and pasting what I have there onto the actual United Sikkim page. I cant use the logos on the page as it is under User:Arsenalkid700 but I can use them on the actual United Sikkim page. I am more concerned about whether the pictures are okay or not. Cheers for the reply. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the article or your sandbox version of it so I can't say for sure if it's appropriate or not. I would guess, however, that the gallery of alternative logos would still be a problem in the article under the non-free content guideline. While such use isn't explicitly forbidden like the use of non-free images in user-space, there should be significant and reliably sourced commentary on the different logos or else there is the possibility that all of the logos except for the current one will be removed from the actual article. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Morning277

I now see you are dealing with much of the Morning277 mess. I'm sorry to say I overdid AGF a bit and probably contributed. However, I think the Mouawad situation is legitimate. See 2012040410009347--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your reply I just forgot to say so on your talk page. Short of going through each of the images for that collection/ticket and make sure they were all spelled out by name, I agree--those should be good. I am trying to deal with some of Morning277's fallout, but most of it is just a side effect of working my way through images with really old OTRS pending tags. I actually expect that most if not all of their permission tags are legitimate, they just didn't follow through with all of the details we require from the copyright holders. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mike O'Brien jpeg

I'm unsure as to why you posted a speedy deletion notice for Mike_O'Brien_Smiling.jpg, as I provided permission from the creator (Mike O'Brien) to wikipedia volunteers months ago, who accordingly approved it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Additionally, though you posted on my talk page, I see no speedy deletion notice on the image itself. I'd be happy to make any modifications needed, but was perplexed by why this is happening. AkaMartin7 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My internet connection has been flaky this morning, but it does appear that I tagged the image itself in this edit. As to the core of your question, however, I tagged it because no such permission is linked to on the image page itself, and so unless the email was misdirected and never received then it was mishandled by the volunteer(s) handling it. The search capabilities of our email system leave something to be desired, and I have been unable to locate any email referring to this image. If you could provide me with the exact date such an email was sent so I can conduct a more thorough search or forward a copy of it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org again so that I can keep an eye out for it personally it would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Androcles illustration

Dear VernoWhitney, You've been helpful now and, so far as I can remember, have been helpful with advice in the past. In the present instance, the replacement illustration you have found for the Androcles article is ingenious but not of immediately obvious relevance.

I've been in touch with the irascible Silver Tiger who, like me, is a bit at sea when it comes to the mass of rather unhelpful guidelines. I seem to remember, and it may have been you who pointed it out to me, that it is possible to upload a picture to English Commons and license it so it is used for the single article it illustrates, or by permission for others, but certainly not for free commercial use. It was I who suggested this to Silver Tiger in the first place and must take responsibility for not licensing it properly. He now writes that he is ready to resupply the picture for that purpose, if it can be arranged.

Could you advise me, step by step, how that can be managed, if it is still possible? We'd both by grateful. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there simply isn't a way to upload a picture to Wikipedia or to Commons and license it for a single article (or in any other manner restrict the commercial reuse of the images). commons:Commons:Licensing explicitly includes the sentence "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted as well." If I or someone else led you to that conclusion, I sincerely apologize.

Here on Wikipedia we at least can allow for non-free images under fair use, but only in circumstances where someone else would not be able to go and take a similar picture and freely license it. I truly appreciate the effort you went to in trying to secure the image for use here, but any sort of non-commercial restriction would mean we could only use the image if it fell within the narrow confines of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, which it doesn't (for reasons I won't go into now to avoid the risk of swamping you even further with complicated rules).

If I haven't answered all of your questions (about this image or anything else), please don't hesitate to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give add'l seven

Hi, thank you for the notice re image Christian Freeling.jpg. Could you please give me an additional 7 days? (I would really appreciate it; I want to study the Email received from OTRS previous, it confused me when I got it re whether the image belongs on Commons or WP, and if requirements were different for both. Anyway, the OTRS stuff confuses me in general and I'd like to try to digest again so can send a reasonably clear understanding why what's needed to the busy inventor/author. An add'l week would really help me out.) Thanks for consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done And if for some reason it takes more than a week an admin can always restore the image, so it shouldn't be a big issue either way. If you have any questions about the permissions process, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to clear things up if I can. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving the extra week. I've been reading re copyright on WP, and use permissions, etc. I see what WP needs from the copyright holder, but, when I contact him to ask him to give it, I'd like to be able also to let him know expectations. (Problem is, to do that, I have to understand them myself. And, I don't! It is very confusing, and seemingly contradictory as well. I have several questions to help me understand things! What is the best/most efficient way to get answers? I think the dialogue could be too extensive for your user Talk. I see there is a Help page for copyright questions, can I go to that Talk instead? Can you reply there? Does that page have support from OTRS volunteers?) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've opened secs at Media Copyright Questions and OTRS Noticeboard. (Which to use if either? I notice there is a Commons noticeboard as well. I guess the confusion starts with not being sure which board to use for my permission-use questions!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that your question at WP:OTRSN is getting some responses, which is good. I'll read through it later today and address some of your unanswered questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:Official portrait of Andreas Thorstensson.jpg

Okay, thanks for the notice. I contacted Andreas, so I'm sure you'll get the confirmation that he requested that I upload the file soon enough. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Andreas has now informed me that he has emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the necessary confirmation. Are there any other steps necessary to verify this, or is the file now safe? DarthBotto _talk•cont 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The volunteer(s) who handle the email will take care of it from here, including if there are any remaining question about or problems with the permission for the file. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Michele Ragussis - Guy Fieri.jpg

• If this image was deleted, then what exactly is the point of the {{Non-free television screenshot}} template? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is to use when something can only be represented by a non-free image of a television screenshot, such as using an image from a particular episode in an article about that episode. In this case it was being used merely to show the appearance of a living person, which violated WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UUI point 1. If there was sourced commentary on her meeting with Fieri, to the point that such use would meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 (which seems unlikely from my brief review of the article), then it could possibly have been used to illustrate that situation, but not simply to show her appearance as she is still alive and not a notable recluce or otherwise inaccessible to the general public. VernoWhitney (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ghostwriter Images

I've updated the tags as best I can, if you still think they should be deleted please do an Image for Deletion. If the majority consensus is to delete, they I'd be willing to let them go. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The tags were never a problem. The problem is that they are non-free images being used to show the appearance of living people. As such, there is a strong presumption that free images can be obtained, and thus they are in violation of our policy and guideline regarding non-free content, specifically WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UUI point 1. If there is a reason why taking new photographs of them is impossible, that information would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, there in no free image available. The only way to show in image of these characters is to either take a screenshot from the video or scan a bookcover, both non-free. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the characters, then that is correct. The catch is that they aren't being used to show the appearance of the characters, they're being used to show the appearance of the actors. If there are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability for one or more of the characters, then feel free to create such an article and the image can be used there. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Images in users' sandboxes

HI. Instead of removing images in users' sandboxes, how about commenting them out instead? I often copy-and-paste articles into my sandbox when I want to rewrite them, and tracking down the names of the image files again can be a pain. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I could, but usually I just stick with whatever seems the easiest way to remove the non-free content at the time. Regardless, I figure if someone's doing what you are then it's only a single 'undo' to get the images back either way. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Y did U remove the singles sounds in music???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.238.104 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Because their use in that article was contrary to our policy concerning the use of non-free media, the specific points of which I linked to in my edit summary. Should you wish to continue this conversation, I would appreciate it if you could at least attempt to use proper spelling. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

But a lot of articles have audio files, like that. Can I put it back Pls??--189.191.238.104 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the policy I linked to? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yess, I don't get it pls explain mi --189.191.238.104 (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Pls explain mi--189.191.238.104 (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Kiva Logo

Hi Verno. I'd like to say thank you for helping police Wikipedia. I had used the Kiva logo (a non-free, copyrighted contribution) in an userbox and, while it seems Kiva has given explicit permission for use of their logo to promote Kiva, I understand why Wikipedia's policy is more strict. And, by the way: Cool name. :) --Vernhart (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's refreshing to get a message about my activities which isn't questioning my activities or the policy, so thank you very much for your nice message. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Permission questions

Hello again. Thanks again for extending the time I have to get proper permission from the copyright holder. I do not want to waste the copyright holder's time. I want to give him clear instructions. I want to keep it simple. I want to have an understanding what I'm suggesting he enter into, when he agrees to release under CC-BY-SA 3.0. The documetation on WP is confusing and seeminly contradictory on some matters. I went to the OTRS noticeboard with my 5 Qs (and potential 6th Q). I was assured it is the correct place to get answers. The volunteer has quit trying to help me, and I do not understand why. My questions are simple. (Please see the 5 Qs at the noticeboard; I tried to be very specific.) I am a little frustrated at this point, because I've presented reasonable questions, then now I feel like I'm being treated like a troublemaker. And I'm running out of time now thanks to the experience at the noticeboard. (Yuk.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on a response for the noticeboard right now. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe don't bother. (I'm feeling "done" there.) May I Email you instead about things? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see that you already replied there, but should you have any questions in the future you can certainly email me or just ask on my talk page if you'd feel more comfortable with that. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I have no more Qs now. (Except that, by agreeing to CC-BY-SA 3.0, does it automatically signon to GNU? If so how does that happen? And if so what does it mean/imply? Maybe the answer is already in the thread, I'll go read it again ...) Thanks again for all your help. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, agreeing to CC-BY-SA does not automatically license it under GFDL as well. We just recommend them both because that's how our text is licensed for various historical reasons, but CC alone is fine. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that explain.

Another point I gave up trying to understand, but you might be able to help me understand a little bit ... Why is this statement, found at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission, not self-contradictory?:

By submitting a photo to us under one of these licenses, you are allowing anyone to copy and modify this photo for any purpose. This includes using it commercially, but you still retain personality rights that may limit commercial exploitation of your likeness.

At Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission it says:

The main legal thing that is important to explain to potential contributors: they would be agreeing that their picture (or text) can be used freely by Wikipedia AND its downstream users, and that such use might include commercial use, for which the contributor is not entitled to royalties or compensation.

But then the WP:Personality rights stuff says essentially "Uh-uh, can't do that, not without consent from the copyright holder." (This seems contadictory, and thus inherently confusing. Except to an attorney?!?) Thank you again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

They seem contradictory because copyright and personality rights are two separate things, often held by two separate parties: the photographer and the subject(s) of the photograph respectively. Both parts that you quoted are correct, but the first is more thorough. Submitted pictures can be used commercially, but there can be restrictions regarding how such an image can be used commercially(such as falsely implying endorsement of a product). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so when the copyright holder is the same person as depicted in the image, am I understanding?, because to me the copyright part seems a little confusing or unnecessary or misleading, since any use of the image also depicts the person. Here is a source of my confusion too ... there was a dialogue on Jimbo's Talk that suggested to me that Personality rights isn't conditioned by how an image is used commercially, but whether it can be used at all commercially without consent of the person depicted. The dialogue is here, specifically:

Jimbo's image is already licensed for use on a t-shirt or anything else you might want to produce. -- FormerIP

Actually, no, that isn't right. Copyright permissions don't cover personality rights. You can't use my image to sell products without my permission. -- Jimbo Wales

Thanks for any add'l words to help me understand. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

When the copyright holder is the same person as depicted in the image, then yes, the image is protected by the same person's copyright and personality rights. As to the extent of personality rights, using a person's image for advertising or merchandising (such as the mentioned t-shirt) are generally prohibited activities, but selling an encyclopedia which contains the image in an article (e.g. selling a copy of Wikipedia) would be acceptable.

I'm not nearly well versed in personality rights as I am with copyright, in part because it is not a United States federal statute, but dependent upon each state's laws. As such, I would recommend our article on the subject (and its external links) as a starting point for the topic, and beyond that I would suggest consulting with a lawyer with experience in the area regarding any specific questions, since it can get very complicated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. (I never had read any distinction, Tee-shirt-type product versus "in a book", etc. And I didn't read anything about copyright protecting the person if image is of the copyright holder -- just Personality rights giving protection.) Anyway, I won't be giving my $ to any attorney to learn it!

I heard from Christian that he sent in his license release permission already. (Can I be in the loop somehow re status when it is processed?) Thx for all your help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC) "This is the Nostromo, siging off."

I was just trying to mention that copyright protection doesn't change based on whether they are the subject of the photo or not. <shrug> Anyways, when the email's processed the file page will be edited by the volunteer, so you can just keep an eye on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Right but in this context (releasing under CC-BY-SA license) copyright doesn't afford any protection (right?). (Because all the WP doc says can be used commercially without consent [only attribution] and without providing compensation or royalties, etc. So in the context of releasing the license I'm not understading any protection at all [outside of attribution] extended by copyright, only Personality rights. Am I messed up?) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting back into the realm of intersecting legalities -- in this case copyright and licensing. The actual copyright of the image is in no way voided or diminished by its release under CC-BY-SA. The CC license allows its use so long as the work is attributed (BY) and also shared under a similar free license (SA). Neither of those requirements are required by copyright itself, just the CC license. Now should either of those requirements (technically, any of the more precise terms within the legal code) be ignored/violated then the use could be copyright infringement just the same as reusing any other photograph which hadn't been licensed under CC-BY-SA. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That almost helped! ... (I never considered violation possibility previously). So!, if CC-BY-SA terms are violated, it sounds like copyright then acts as fall-back protection *for use of the photo* (but not for the person depicted? -- this is what I don't understand ... if copyright protects use of the photo then, and the copyright holder is the image in the photo, then copyright is protecting use of the person's image, so why then are Personality rights needed to do that?). I'm understanding that Personality rights is protection for the image of the person, against certain commercial exploitations (like Tee-shirts not compendium books), regardless what the status is with CC-BY-SA adherence (whether it's been violated or is being complied with). How am I doing?! (Sheesh!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes it easier if you think of the copyright holder and the subject of the photograph as two separate entities -- like if you took a photograph of me, for example, and did not transfer the copyright to me via contract or some other means. You would hold the copyright to the photograph, but still wouldn't be able to sell t-shirts with my face on them thanks to personality rights. I couldn't take it and sell t-shirts with my face on them thanks to copyright (I'm completely ignoring any consideration of fair use, since that's an even fuzzier subject).

When the copyright holder and the subject of the photograph are the same, it really becomes two different types of protection, only one of which is being granted some exceptions to its normal via the CC license. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm getting this ... it seems copyright can be "stronger" than even Personality rights ... if a CC-BY-SA is being violated due to lack of attribution, let's say in case of a compendium book product that features the photo (attribution is required in that case, right?), then copyright fall-back would offer protection against use of the photo in the book, whereas Personality rights doesn't cover that type of commercial exploitation of person's image. (Is that right?) When the copyright holder and the person imaged are the same, it's confusing because any protection of the (physical) snapshot also at same time protects any use of the image of the person (conceptual). (When copyright holder and person imaged are not the same, as you point out it's clear, but when they are the same, there really isn't any meaningful distinction, it seems. [The law doesn't try and maintain a meaningful distinction in that case, does it? Because if it does try to do that when there isn't any, that is inherently confusing/crazy-making!]) p.s. Who gets the barnstar when we're done here? (You for explaining? Or me for understanding?) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this is/was the language in the form which caused me concern:

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise

(Not being an attorney, how would I be assured this langauge cannot or would not be interpretable somehow as an override or waiver to the copyright holder's Personality rights, when the photo released images the copyright holder? [Just being assured "we use it all the time successfully" seems not to be adequate confidence given to that specific question; e.g., if it ever came up as issue, would anyone in position to answer my permission Qs on WP know about it?] Anyway that is my can-of-worms Q6 that I never got around to asking at the noticeboard. I had other reasons as well for not liking forms.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I haven't forgotten you; my connection was flaky earlier and now my brain is scattered so I'm going to avoid giving any answers beyond rote replies. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

When my brain is scattered I kick the synapses w/ strong cup of Seattle's Best. I got cc'd today on OTRS efficient processing of Christian's permission submission (say that 10 times fast!). Do you know when/if the image will be put from WP to Commons? (I would like to add Personality rights template, and I notice that template exists on Commons but not on WP. [Is there a reason for that, or just oversight?]) Once again thank you for all your help. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. I don't know that I'd say copyright is stronger, because it always allows for the possibility of fair use. They're just different. Off the top of my head I don't know of any cases which involved both copyright and personality rights, so I don't know what sort of distinction would be made beyond a normal case with multiple issues: you just have to walk through each point of contention independently.

Re Q6: Without formal opinion from a lawyer, you can't really be assured of any legal standing (and even then you'll get differences of opinion -- thus judges and appeals and more appeals...). That said, that line acknowledges the right to commercial reuse (which is already covered by the actual text of the CC-BY-SA license) but does not touch on how the image may be reused, which is the part covered by personality rights. It's my personal opinion that the sentence does not constitute any waiver of personality rights and that such a waiver would involve a statement more like you'd find in the official rules of a sweepstakes, e.g. "grants permission to use subject's name, likeness, image, and statements for purposes of advertising, promotion and publicity".

It could be moved to commons at any time; there's no real schedule and there are thousands of images which can be moved, they each just get handled one-by-one to double-check their status. The personality rights template is basically an FYI for reusers, which is arguably more important on Commons since their entire raison d'être is hosting content for others to reuse. I could certainly make a local copy of it if you'd like, or even just put a custom message on this image. I don't know that it's an oversight so much as Wikipedia is more concerned with text than images, and theirs a limited amount of volunteer editor time to handle tags and the like--and not many that enjoy dealing with media files en masse. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of non-free image

Why did you remobe the non-free image from my Freck Langsam submission? I have permission from the owner to use it, and am awaiting article approval.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksfan0807 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 1 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Any use of non-free images outside of an actual article (not just a submission) is a violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. If/when the submission is approved the image can be restored. Alternatively, if the copyright holder is willing to release the image under a free license it could be restored to your submission promptly as well as used anywhere else on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: WP:NFCC#9 Violation

Hey VernoWhitney,

You deleted the VBS logo on my talk page...BUT! You forgot one more thing: You didn't delete the VBS logo on my USER page.

--Thewikicontributor (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Could you leave a message on my talk page before you revert stuff? Although I'm on the Wikipedia mailing list, I would really like to have someone who's reverting stuff to remind me because I'm a newbie.

Thanks for the heads up -- there are a few hundred such policy violations on Wikipedia, so I've been working on them in a somewhat haphazard fashion. I'll let you know if/when I remove things from your userspace, but I primarily work in non-free content and copyright policy enforcement, which are generally not subject to debate or consensus, so I usually don't leave messages unless something is actually going to be deleted rather than simply removed from a page. Anyways, please consider this notice: I'll be removing the logo from your userpage shortly. 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why delete image in my sandbox>?

Why would you deleted 2 images from my sandbox? I am working on a page and I am using sandbox before placing the changes in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjSeptimus (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The images were not deleted, they were removed. Now as I indicated in my edit summary, their use in your sandbox was a violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. Any use of non-free images outside of an actual article (not just a submission) is not allowed in keeping with our free content mission. If/when you put the content into the article you can use the images, but not in your userspace. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that continuing to edit in blatant violation of policy can be viewed as disruptive behaviour and you may be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It IS in the article. Plus how am I supposed to work on articles if I don't have an exact reference as to how the articl will look once I save it? Please stop abusing you admin powers and find someone who actually posses threat to Wikiepdia. I am merely trying to contribute and am currently doing research to write for the article. Plus I am using the image under fair use so I see no reason why you should bother me — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjSeptimus (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You can always use the 'Preview' function. It is not an issue of fair use, it is an issue of the non-free content policy and guidelines which are explicitly stricter than required by fair use. The namespace restriction is not an optional or subjective issue, or subject to exceptions for sandboxes. If you have a problem with the policy, you can direct questions or proposals to its talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

I am sorry about the non-free image on a wiki page. I did not mean to on this instance as I had to quickly copy and paste my edits (I was editing directly on the ONGC page) and move it to my sandbox and I just forgot. I know about this policy and I will try to abide to it from now on. Again I am sorry about that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries; it's not something that comes up very often. Thanks for remembering the policy. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

—== Deletion of files due to incorrect permissions ==

Hi Verno,

Thank you for explaining specifically what the problem was re my files up for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_of_a_Sinixt_pithouse_in_the_Slocan_Valley.jpg

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Royal_University_from_across_the_pond.jpg

I believe I have now corrected the problem by changing the licenses on my flickr pages. I have therefore removed the deletion notices.

There are still 'ticket' notices on each page. Would you mind removing them if you agree with me that the problem is solved?

Thanks very much

Kootenayvolcano (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

Hi. You just left a couple of messages on my talk page about the copyright/licensing of several pictures I had uploaded. Most of the pictures are that of coat of arms of several towns/cities here in Puerto Rico. I understand that such images can be uploaded. If they indeed are, what is the appropriate licensing tag for them? Thanks in advance. Thief12 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have it in the wrong order: first we need to know what the license(s) is/are and then we can determine how they can be used on Wikipedia. The appropriate licensing tag depends on who created them and when. If they are a work of the federal government then they're in the public domain; if they are the work of municipal governments/associations or individual artists then they are copyrighted by default, and so it would depend upon how old the coat of arms is. If it turns out that they are copyrighted (which must be our default assumption if we can't find evidence to the contrary), they should be usable on the individual town/city article, but that would probably be it under our non-free content guidelines.

Now I tried looking up some of the sources you linked to from the images to see if they provided any more information, but the websites were down. If you have more information about who created the coat of arms and when, we can use that to figure out the appropriate licensing tags.

I'd strongly recommend starting up a conversation at WP:MCQ about these coats of arms rather than just leaving it here on my page though, since that gets many more pairs of eyes who handle image copyrights. I'd rather make sure we don't overlook something while we get the licenses sorted out. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also updated the source website from where I got the images. The site went down about a year or two ago, but they moved everything to another site. Here's one example. Thief12 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The updated source links are much appreciated. I was hoping for someone else to reply to your post at MCQ with a better idea. As is, I think your change relicensing them as non-free is the safest thing to do without additional information regarding the history or origination of them, which I didn't see on the Link to PR site. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes to my userspace

Hi! I think it would courteous to leave a message on someone's talk page when you alter that person's user space... Don't you agree? Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I think it would a good idea to read the policy linked to in an edit summary before reverting the edit... Don't you agree? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Snark aside now that I'm more awake, I generally don't leave a message after the first removal/edit of non-free content simply because there are so many violations already, and doing so without using a script of some sort would approximately double my workload. After the second reversion I generally do leave a message when I have reason to believe that the editor is new and/or unaware of our policy regarding non-free content. Judging from your gallery page, you clearly are aware of the policy, so I'm afraid I am at a loss as to why you replaced the image into the gallery. Assuming it to be merely an oversight on your part, I did not leave a message assuming (again) that once you looked at the edit summaries you would realize the reasons for my edits and would not need a further refresher. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For that particular image, there is some question/argument as to copyright status. Simply put, it's a snapshot of a mural in a US Post Office... so it's the work of the Federal Government... but some others argue it's under copyright of the artist. Whatever, it's all fine. Have a good day. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy reference resources

Greetings,

I would like to include the logos for the various philosophy reference resources templates. For instance, Template:Philosophy_reference_resources, and obviously Template:SEP. How would I go about satisfying the conditions for that? I am sure that SEP, InPho, and PhilPapers would be willing to grant permission formally, if that is necessary, as I have been in communication with them. Currently the SEP includes these logos in their links, and they look very good. Also, I am curious why the image appears with a double red box around it, and how I can disable that as well. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In order for images to be used in any sort of template it needs to be either in the public domain or be available under a free license. The copyright holder of each logo would need to follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a lot there, but the short of it is that we need an explicit release, more than just a "Sure, you can use it on Wikipedia" sort of remark. If you have any questions about this part, feel free to ask.

As far as the red box goes...I really couldn't say. That's not something I can recall ever seeing (and I don't see it now). VernoWhitney (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The red box thing is curious. Greg Bard (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did figure out what the red border on images is. When an image is tagged, it appears in Monobook this way. I am in the process of getting all the permissions, and currently have informal approval from the relevant parties, and am waiting for them to send an email to permissions at wikimedia. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.Greg Bard (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I use monobook and it's not showing that. Probably some other fiddly setting somewhere. Anyways, once a volunteer receives and processes a usable permission statement they'll change the OTRS and license tags on the image files, so that should be all set unless something goes awry. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

marketstar

Why did you delete the marketstar page? there where no obvious copyright violations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.167.9 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what page you are thinking of, since MarketStar was copied nearly verbatim from a pair of webpages about the company. There had been no indication of permission or attempt made at rewriting the article without the copied material and so it was deleted. There were other issues with the article, but nothing else which rose to that same level, and so the article can certainly be recreated so long as the copyright issue is resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

War Years Remembered and War Years Remembered Museum

Hello Verno Whitney

I am David McCallion

founder owner and curator of the War Years Museum here in Northern Ireland There is no breach of copy right as it is my own domain name and content

can you please add the war years remembered to your sight

many thanks

David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveywaryears (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Vera

I am confused I have only tried to add a page on the War Years Remembered Museum can you recover the original page yours David — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveywaryears (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

As was indicated on your talk page when the article was deleted, if you want to copy previously published material from elsewhere into Wikipedia we need you to follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials in order for us to verify that you are the copyright holder and releasing it under the free licenses needed.

In additon, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Your first article, so that your article(s) are not deleted for any reasons other than copyright concerns. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

David, please stop re-creating the articles until you have dealt with the above. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Verno can you PLEASE help me build a page that is satisfactory about the war years remembered museum so that people can find out about it as it is not on the museum list for this site for Northern Ireland yours David McCallion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveywaryears (talk • contribs) 19:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly try. The first step is compiling a list of reliable sources which provide information about War Years Remembered. Have you done that? Can you post it here? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

NFCC#9

WP:NFCC#9 doesn't match reality as the image is not in my user space, it is only displayed there. Spshu (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The policy doesn't logically parse that way, or else non-free content could only ever possibly be in the File namespace since that's where the images are hosted, so to speak. Another way of phrasing point 9 is that non-free content may not be displayed anywhere except for non-disambiguation articles, subject to very narrow exemptions which do not include user sandboxes. If there is a better way of writing it so that it is clearer, please bring it up at the talk page so we can update the policy and avoid any such future misunderstandings. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Image removal...

Just to say thanks for removing the non-free image on my sandbox, I'd not spotted it! Nice catch. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. Database reports make finding things like that much easier. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Move request

Could you move Kings Peak over the redirect King's Peak as the name actually includes a possessive apostrophe. Thanks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 22:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done VernoWhitney (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Could you move the talk pages as well? Thanks.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sorry about missing that the first time - the page asks me if I want to delete the target article and asks if I want to move the talk page also but then silently fails to delete the talk page when it also exists. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 23:52, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fine, I've done that before on other wiki's. My cache was also playing up - every time I clicked on a talk link it took me somewhere different.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 23:55, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit my WIP pages

I appreciate that you're working on maintaining copyright. Please leave me a message on any objectionable content and I will be happy to review/revise. Please be respectful and refrain from making unannounced edits on my work in progress pages, as you did on Harlan Thompson. Thank you! — Safety Cap (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider this an announced edit: The use of non-free images in userspace is a clear violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. Continuing to do so can be viewed as disruptive behaviour and you may be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Safety Cap's talk page. —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 13 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Deleted Image from my Sandbox

Hi, you deleted an image from my sandbox for violation of copyright or something - I work for Cultured Code and have rights for the image. Why wouldn't you inquire before removing my content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickPayne (talk • contribs) 18:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The use of non-free content anywhere on Wikipedia except for articles is not allowed by our policies and guidelines. Unless and until the image is released by the copyright holder under a free license (this requires more than just permission to use the image on Wikipedia) by following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials it can't be used in your (or anyone else's) sandbox. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey

On the sandbox images I did not realize that it wasnt aloud at first to begin with. And the page I created Tune, in Tokyo is set to be deleted so in case it does I copied it over and hit save to save my work in my sandbox. So I didnt realize that the image was posted with it. I didnt just add it back on purpose so I just forgot when I copied the work over that the image was as well. So it was just a misunderstanding BlackDragon 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well now you have been informed of the policy via edit summary, on IllaZilla's talk page, and on your own. I understand that accidents happen and things get overlooked, so no worries about putting it there by accident, but please take care to not make a habit of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Non-free image

Hi, I noted that you removed a non-free image from my user page. I did not know or see that it was "non-free". Please notify me if you need to do that again. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Emmette Hernandez Coleman's talk page.
Message added 03:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Ya'fur

I think I've addressed the two points you cite from NFCC now - if not, I trust you'll let me know. Sorry, I totally forgot it took a separate extra rationale at the image file itself. Wnt (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

10c has definitely been addressed, as to #8 I'll leave that to the discussion at WP:NFCR to determine. It's an improvement at least. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of images on Userpages/Userboxes.

Please in the future do not delete any images in my userpages or userboxes without speaking to me directly via my talkpage first. To do so may be considered vandalism. Thank you in advance. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverted your policy violation and left a message on your talk. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, received your message and changed image in my Silver userbox to one that utilizes an image posted by another Wikipedia user who owned that image and released it into the public domain. Hopefully this is fix any concerns. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 01:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:AN/TPS-43

As you asked, not a test at Talk:AN/TPS-43 but pure vandalism. This is a known vandal from Colombia that targets this article for some reason. Always places extraneous images in it, sometimes NSFW. Please keep this article in your watchlist and block on sight. I started chasing him two years ago and started doing the usual 31 hours, and escalating from there. Past the point where now any named account is indeffed and any IP gets one year. You can look at the article's history to get a feel. BTW, I never protected the article because it is only one guy and doing so may move him to vandalizing other articles. Strange nut. Does not talk back, just hunts for another open IP he can find to start the cycle again. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's some of the stranger vandalism I've seen. Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Guillaume2303's talk page.
Message added 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guillaume2303 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fliegende Blätter

Thanks for removing a non-free image from my sandbox and the page Fliegende Blätter. I hadn't actually looked at the status of the picture, so didn't realise that it was a non-free one. Fram (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I figured it was something like that. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Heydenryk, Jr.

Hi. You recently removed a non-free image from this article queued in the Articles for Creation process, and the article's author is confused about what you've done. If you could give your thoughts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Henry Heydenryk, Jr., it would be much appreciated. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup barnstar

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For dedication in cleaning up NFCC-related issues. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This was a wonderful surprise for me to wake up to this morning. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:

Ok, You can use this file File:John Cena 2010.jpg. The Rated R Superstar 我的演講 01:40 25 oct 12 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. If you want to post that image to your userpage you certainly can. The only issue is with images (or other media) which aren't freely licensed. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 03:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I left a second response. I was confused over which image you were talking about. I explained myself on my talk page. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

You give me shivers, Bubba

I'm not in favor of non-free images appearing anywhere. But exactly what were you doing in my sandbox within moments after I edited it?. How would you know I was in there?— Maile (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

There was a database report from yesterday which showed non-free images being used in User:Maile66/Person. Since you had removed the content from that page and it was no longer in violation, I looked to see where the images were being used today, and those led me to Michigan Women's Hall of Fame and your other sandboxes. Just a quirk of timing that you were editing there at the same time I suppose. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

OMG I have to thank you. I always forget to check the images when i copy the article to mainspace and I'm glad to see that you are aware and remove them, so I say thank you :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning

I noticed you removed the image I had put in that userbox I created, but since it wasn't a free image, thanks for the removal, didn't want to break the rules.

I replaced it with something I created myself and uploaded under the proper licenses compatible with Wikipedia.

Again, thank you for catching that. Arcane21 (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)Arcane21

No problem. It's not a rule that comes up very often. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

VWBot duplicates at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 31

Perhaps VWBot is malfunctioning; I note it has added a lot of duplicate entries to Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 31. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's an odd one. It's not a regular bug though so I'll have to look at my logs and see what broke. Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

London Heritage Farm

Hi there,

The administrator at the London Heritage Farm wants to release the information to Wikipedia. What wording does she need to use in the email to permissions so that the page can be unblocked? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceubren (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We provide a template which at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries which we recommend using, because it covers all of the details we need for a release to be usable. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The Farm administrator has sent through a new email to permissions with the declaration of consent. Please let me know when you receive it - thanks!! Ceubren 6 November 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

Working through WP:NFCC violations is a laudable thing to do. Doing it without any comment and by replacing images rather than commenting them out comes across as a little rude. Just something to consider. violet/riga _^[talk] 22:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Given the size of the backlog I generally don't leave messages for users the first time I find something in one of their sandboxes. Particularly when it's an experienced editor who is expected to know and follow policy I assume it to be merely an oversight. As to the replacement rather than commenting out...what action I take just depends on the situation and my whims at the time. In most cases it's a single 'undo' to restore the image no matter how I remove it.

Anyways, I appreciate the feedback and will consider my methods some more. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

your assistance please

You recently deleted File:Mohammed Sulamon Barre, at a press conference in Somaliland, shortly after repatriation 2009-12-22.jpg as F7.

Could you please direct me to where the deletion of this image was discussed?

There is no heads-up on User talk:Geo Swan that its deletion was under consideration, and I disagree that a replacement could be made. Like most former Guantanamo captives he has chosen to drop from sight. He also lives in a war zone. Geo Swan (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It was not discussed as it qualified for immediate speedy deletion. See the second bullet point of WP:CSD#F7, and the corresponding WP:NFCC#2. The source was a commercial news agency (Agence France-Presse), and it was not being used to discuss the photograph itself, but rather the subject of the picture.

While the image was not deleted for being replaceable (which would be the third bullet point of WP:CSD#F7/WP:NFCC#1), the very fact that he was photographed and interviewed by the AFP is a clear indication that he was not completely inaccessible and nothing in the article indicates that the situation has changed substantially in that regards. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, let me suggest that no free images of that press conference exist, we have no time machines, so none will ever be available. Realistically Barre will never give another press conference, so AFP being able to find his first and only press conference does not suggest another image will emerge. Geo Swan (talk) 03:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is indeed the only photograph of him and is notable for being such, enough so that there is sourced discussion about the photograph itself, then it could be restored. Otherwise the primary reason for deletion stands and debate regarding its replaceability is merely academic. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Marguerite Young

The current Marguerite Young page reads like some essay/obituary or the like. It certainly is not WP-style, with personal opinions passed off as fact. But worse, it seems entirely too polished, like it's a copyvio. I see that you dealt with copyvio problems on this page before, and would appreciate your opinion. Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll look into it right now. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it was definitely copied. I've reverted the article to its last clean version and left another note on the talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, why?

Why did you change the user box on my user page? It is my page, after all. TollHRT52 (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2012 (AEDST)

Replied at your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

File:WPC Yvonne Fletcher shot.jpg

Hi. I noticed that you deleted File:WPC Yvonne Fletcher shot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'm interested to know if this was in connection with a tag placed by another user, or if it was simply spotted by you or perhaps you were notified by some other means. If a tag was placed, such information is already publicly available via the user's list of contributions. If this is the case, it would be greatly appreciated if you could please let me know which user placed the tag. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That image was just spotted by me (I don't recall at the moment how I happened to wander across it in the first place), not tagged by anyone else. If you have any questions which aren't answered by the template left on your talk page or the reason I left in the deletion log itself, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If I'd had a proper look, I'd have asked this question first! Sorry. -- Trevj (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied/replying there then. No worries. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Emmaprofile.jpg

I was just wondering if there is a free version of this image or an image of the author if you could direct me to it to replace the image? I am a bit confused though as to my knowledge this was an image free to use.
Thanks DavefaceFMS (talk) 03:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

In order for it to be considered a free image to use on Wikipedia, the copyright holder (which is generally the photographer and not the subject of the photo) must follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and clearly release it under a free license. I'm afraid we require that somewhat more formal process in order to be sure that the copyright holder is clear as to what exactly they are agreeing to, since it is more than just permission to use it on Wikipedia and similar sites. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)