User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

AWB

For what it's worth, the difference is that the bot doesn't distinguish between real content categories and hidden maintenance categories like Category:Article Feedback Pilot, while the actual categorization policy (and the uncategorized articles list) exclude the maintenance categories since they're hidden and not really meant for user browsing. Thanks for the heads-up, though; I've used the alternative workaround, tagging the article as needing additional categories, instead. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I hadn't looked into how either AWB or the bot figured it, it was just getting old watching the silly edit keep popping up on my watchlist. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification please

I am a long-standing member of the Wikipedia community, and am quite a conscientious editor, so it was a surprise to get your message here. I would be grateful if you could elaborate on what you have said and point out some of the articles which have caused you particular concern. Johnfos (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Initially when I read your note I felt indignant. But now I just feel upset -- to think that I have been causing problems for over 3 years. An early reply would be appreciated. Johnfos (talk) 08:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Bots on strike?

As lovely as it is to think it, I doubt that there's a legitimate reason for Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2011-04-24 to be redlinked and empty this late in the day. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I left a message earlier.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Great. :) By the way, I've noticed and am appreciating your work there. Thanks. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the CSB code is rather fragile when it gets errors and I forgot to start it properly the last time I rebooted, so when my backup copy broke it stayed down. VWBot is restarted now, although it still may be a while before it lists something at SCV since a surprisingly large number of articles are tagged or deleted due to its 5 minute delay that CorenSearchBot normally lists. Thanks for the bump, I don't think I would've noticed it today otherwise. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) BTW, now that you've replied, would you like me to remove my response to the above from his talk page? I know you're not online as much on weekends and wanted him to have something in case you didn't pop by. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No, your answers are almost always more diplomatic than mine, so there's no reason to remove it. I didn't even notice that you had replied until just now - it didn't give me an edit conflict. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks as well for restarting them. Your welcome Moonriddengirl, I enjoy working in the copyright spaces.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

Thanks for looking them over for me!

Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Web capitalisation

Hello! You wrote on my talk page the notice of Web caps. Here is a site from Oracle that show you are not right. It is an official site, using the spelling Web server. Sae1962 (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied at your talk. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

Good Morning VernoWhitney,

I finished the article but decided to wait a few days and go back and do a final edit before moving. Glad I did because I ended up cutting it down a great deal, adding new references and deleting others. Then I moved it to: [1]

I realize that you're busy but when you have a chance would you please review it for me (given all the assistance you've given, you already know more about it than anyone else).

Once again - I wouldn't have finished this without you and I do appreciate all the help.

Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to take a look at it later today. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

Thanks, I do appreciate it.

Best regards,

  Robert    Sinclairindex (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

About CopyRight

Hi, Dear VernoWhitney. We come from Web Marketing Term from TradeTuber.com. I had pusted a item who named "TradeTuber". But it had been deleted yesterday. It was displayed "it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.tradetuber.com/help". So, But, this page(http://www.tradetuber.com/help) is belong to us. I copy some words which belong to ourself. Is it a CopyRight? Now, what can I do, could you tell me? Many Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoulang107 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

As was indicated on your talk page, we need you to follow the steps outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, as we otherwise have no way of verifying your identity. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

America: A Call to Greatness Article

Hi VernoWhitney,

Thanks for reviewing. You've been a terrific help!

Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Other names

Please move Isla de S'Espalmador to S'Espalmador. Thank you. Xufanc (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

 Okee dokee! VernoWhitney (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I aprreciate your help. I have another request. I'd like to move Moncayo (mountain) to Moncayo Massif because it is not a single mountain and I have been there and I think Moncayo Massif describes better what that mountainous area is. Thank you. Xufanc (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem.  Done VernoWhitney (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

El Mont should be moved to Mare de Déu del Mont and Cinca (Spain) to Cinca River (Aragon) if it isn't too much trouble for you. Thank you once more for your help. Xufanc (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Both done. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please move present Morella, Spain to Morella (city). I need Morella, Spain for a disambiguation page. The reason is there is more than one location in Spain with that name. Also, La Plana Novella shold be moved to Plana Novella. Thank you so much for your help. Xufanc (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I have moved Morella (city) to Morella, Castellon in accordance with Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title. I note that there is in fact only one municipality of that name to be found in Spain using Geody which is usually reliable. You should be careful about page moves, especially from users known to edit war to support their own linguistic/ethnological preferences. I also fixed the redircets and linked pages which you had not done. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am careful about page moves, which is why I looked at Wikipedia:Article titles before I moved the article, and I note that it doesn't say anything discouraging a stand-alone city name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) provides some more particular recommendations, but I don't know enough about the situation to see anything wrong about the requested move, nor are there Spain-specific guidelines. At a quick glance of Xufanc's talk page I don't see anything to suggest edit warring to support a particular preference, and their block log is as clean as yours. Double-redirects are fixed by bots and, as with the article name itself, I don't know enough about the situation to appropriately retarget regular wikilinks, particularly when there's a yet-to-be-created DAB page on the way. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The issue is 'city' vs. 'mountain', not linguistic/ethnological. User:Jezhotwells got carried away because I was away during the weekend and had no time to make the Morella, Spain disambiguation page. He should be careful about his accusations, which are unfair and unfounded; I am not a user engaging in edit war to support any linguistic/ethnological preferences. I have deep knowledge of Spain and have a neutral point of view, considering how difficult it is to please the different sides. Morella is a city (it has had this title since ancient times) and the term "city" is neutral enough.Xufanc (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC).

The dab page has existed for some time, it is Morella. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you speak "template"?

I find myself wanting to modify the behavior of Template:Dual so that one of the parameters is optional and the url will go elsewhere if the parameter is not used. Would you have any idea how to do such a thing? If so, would you mind pitching in at Template talk:Dual? (The person who created that template is barely competent in such things. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I know some. I'll try to take a look tonight. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In general appreciation

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your work on the project in so many areas and specifically prompted by your tremendous assistance with the images tagged with Template:PD-PRGov-IPC. Truly, you are quite an asset to Wikipedia. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Above and beyond, sir. :) Truly, I am grateful for all you do for Wikipedia, not the least when you are helping me. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! And here I thought going through them all like that was only what was required in order to make sure that they weren't overlooked or deleted when they should've been kept or kept when they should've been deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would guess that's because diligence is part of your nature. :D Crafting FURs didn't require all the rest of the mop up, but I surely do appreciate it, and I admire your work ethic. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, adding FURs (or just reverting to the ones used before they were relicensed as PD) was really an add-on to "all the rest of the mop up" as you put it, but far be it from me to turn down more bling. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Re:File:Jose de Diego 2.jpg

Thank you for letting me know. As I have stated before I fully trust your judgements when it comes to issues involving images. You take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey there

If a user is blocked, his alternative account has to be blocked too, right? If so can you please handle the situation with User:Rodhullandemu who was blocked by decision of the ArbCom and his alternative account User:RodhullandemuSecond. mauchoeagle _(c) 01:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know what the policy is regarding alternate accounts, and I'm not familiar with the situation so I'm not really comfortable blocking an alt account which hasn't been used in years (and so isn't being used for block evasion). Perhaps this should be taken up at WP:AN? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS check please

Hi VernoWhitney, would you be so kind as to verify the OTRS that is claimed here?. Time like this I regret somewhat letting my access lapse. Thanks in advance - Peripitus (Talk) 10:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously they shouldn't be tagging it themselves, but their screenshot looks like valid permission to me. I'd approve it and add the ticket number if someone else hadn't already grabbed it. I have those images watchlisted and I'll keep an eye on the ticket. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Chillerama image, redux

The Chillerama poster was just uploaded again. File:Chilleramaposterofficial.jpg Didn't really know what speedy deletion tag to use and since you knew about the image, thought I would let you know. —Mike Allen 02:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've passed the information on to Christine (WMF) (talk · contribs) since she's the one that actually handled the takedown request. I'm not in the loop there, so I don't know if Sk8erock filed a counter-notice defending their fair use or what, so I'll leave any DMCA-related deletion decision to those above my paygrade. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Demians

I may have been a bit over the top, but the dude was caught in two utterly blatant false fabrications about his own edit-history. I've never seen any WP editor do that before. Maybe I've been watching "The Ed Show" too often. (I said he was either a pathological liar OR psychotic. I guess that doesn't really cut it either.)--WickerGuy (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the other option you gave wasn't much better. Anyways, as you appear to have noticed and was spelled out in the discussion above, the rest of us were missing a detail which explains the actions a bit better, so hopefully we can avoid personal attacks all around. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk)

Help

Hi, I need some assistance and you may be in the position help me. After the fair use review that concluded that the star-child image could be used only on Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey, I removed it from 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). It actually doesn't even have a fair use rationale for that article!

User User:WickerGuy reverted that asking me to "Please give precise details as to how this violates WP:NFCC on Talk page. There are 10 criteria. Explain which are being violated & how". I removed the image again and explained the matter on the talk page.

Now came User:Dreadstar, accused me of edit warring on the talk page, and reverted me again claiming on the edit summary the image "Does not violate NFCC". He completely ignored my explanation about the WP:NFCC#10 failure.

After that, Dreadstar duplicated a passage from Interpretations of 2001: A Space Odyssey (the article where the image is allowed) into 2001: A Space Odyssey (film), probably in a tentative to justify the duplication of the image there.

I reverted that, explaining the issue on the edit summary and on the article's talk page. But Dreadstar reverted it back and threatened me of blocking on the articles talk page and on my talk page.

I reverted revert and at this point I understood I'm being driven (again) into a 3RR trap. This is not the first time this happens to me.

There are other editors involved that seem capable of sustaining a discussion about the issue, but it's simply not working with Dreadstar.

And parallel to all that, I have been trying to edit the image description's page to remove a stalled fair use rationale for the article 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the image is not even used in! But the same Dreadstar has reverted me two times, right after one more revert by other user. His cryptic edit summaries do not allow me to know what's the reasoning for that, besides the joy of following my contributions and reverting them all, as he recently took as his main activity on Wiki a few weeks ago (seriously!).

I trust you to do whatever is the right thing to do, and ask you to do it. Usually, whenever I complain about some editor, I have the impression that the only real merit on a dispute is the number of entries on your block log. And this is an RPG I always loose. I wish this issue could be judged by what's really going on.

Thanks in advance (just in case I get blocked).--Damiens.rf 07:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first of all the discussion at NFCR was only about the Interpretations article, its use on the main 2001 article was not discussed at all which is why I didn't list it in the {{Non-free reviewed}} tag. As to your next comment, it's not exactly a point in your favor that you removed the FUR and then cited NFCC#10 as a reason for its removal from the article.

I haven't looked through the archives of Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film) so I may be missing some more recent conversation, but the last deletion discussion for the image (at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_16#File:2001child2.JPG) was closed as a keep, with more support for retaining it in the main article than in the interpretations article, and unless I'm missing something it's certainly not a clear-cut violation of NFC usage.

Since Dreadstar has been involved with the image for 2+ years I don't see that any other actions of theirs from a few weeks ago are particularly relevant to this situation. I have to run off for a bit, so I'm not going to take any action right now, but I'll look at this again later today. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not correct that I "removed the FUR and then cited NFCC#10 as a reason for its removal from the article". There was no FUR for 2001: A Space Odyssey (film). Indeed, as stated above, I removed a stalled fair use rationale for the article 2001: A Space Odyssey, where the image is not even used in!

It's of my understanding that the result of the review is that the image use was acceptable after new sourced text was added to the article (the three last votes from MASEM, RussNelson and BQZip01. And that this file's use on other pages or in different contexts may require additional review. Did I got something wrong? --Damiens.rf 13:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I see the issue now that you explained it. The image originally had a FUR for the article on the film but when it was updated during the FfD in '09 it was incorrectly pointed to the general story article, so you are correct - it was an invalid FUR for the film article. I didn't catch that before now, and apparently neither did anyone else besides you, since they were just reverting to the same incorrect FUR. That said, since the image was never (as far as I can tell) on the general story article, it seems clear to me that the FUR you removed was just a mistake and was intended for the film article, and so a quick editing of the FUR to correct that mistake should resolve the immediate issue with WP:NFCC#10.

You are correct that the consensus supported the inclusion of the image in the interpretations article because there was sourced commentary. Now the de facto consensus up until now was that the image could also be included on the article for the film. If you still think there's a problem with its use on the film article once #10 is resolved (say with NFCC#3 - overuse) then that can certainly be discussed, but in the meantime please be careful of your language - calling interactions with other editors nauseating isn't going to help anything. I have to run out again, so I apologize if I missed anything above. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a new non-free content review for the other article? Wouldn't it be a little bit over-bureaucratic? Anyone reading the review could understand the newly added text is what justify the image, and unless we really want to duplicate that text just to justify the duplication of the image use, we have no case for using the image there.

I also dislike the idea of starting a new review because I know some users will use that (again) as an opportunity to throw hostilities towards me (and I'll have to hold the nausea). --Damiens.rf 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, now that I'm back and have had time to look at it again, my suggestion is to go ahead and reinstate the image into the article. As I mentioned above the image has been sitting in the article for a long time, consensus at the FfD appeared to be in favor of keeping it, and from the conversation on the talk page today I would hazard a guess that consensus still exists to retain the image there as well as on the interpretations page. Keep in mind that that was just a suggestion, although it would have the added benefit of (hopefully) avoiding further name-calling and general unpleasantness.

If you are uncomfortable with that and still think that it is a misuse of non-free content, then the image should stay off the article until it's clear that there's consensus for keeping it on the article's talk page and/or another NFCR discussion. Sometimes there's just no avoiding a bit of bureaucracy given the way things work here if no clear consensus forms. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:TAGAirlines.jpg

Images aren't normally my thing but while checking copyright speedy deletion candidates I came across this. I've untagged this since I suspect it's probably in the public domain. It's a US work and as far as I can see (from the full size images of both front and back on the source website) it contains no copyright notice. It seems reasonable that this was published in 1961 and so, as it contains no copyright notice, is in the public domain. Presumably someone has scanned it it but my understanding is, as this does not introduce any originality, it is still PD. As I say I'm not used to working in images and are still feeling my way around copyright in general so thought I'd check things with you. Dpmuk (talk) 14:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if it was published in the US in 1961 without a copyright notice (which is what it looks like to me as well) then it's now public domain. And yes, scanning/photographing in order to simply create a faithful copy adds no new creativity. It looks to me like it can just be retagged {{PD-Pre1978}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So tagged. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 22:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Signature of India Politician

I have some doubt about Signature of popular living people. Are signature is public domain material or can any one upload signature of any popular living people like politician claming that his work?? Another issue the user upload all signature, without any reliable and verifiable source.How we treat this images?

see the list of Signature of India Politician by User:GaneshBhakt. I found proposed policy Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons. Please look in to that matter. --- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 20:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's certainly precedent for uploading non-creative signatures (e.g., File:Barack Obama signature.svg), but the proposed guideline makes a good point that it's not clear cut. They also really need to provide the original sources for the signatures so that you know they belong to the people in question and aren't fraudulent (or fraudulently obtained). I don't know if they would qualify for speedy deletion, but if the uploader can't/won't provide the original source(s) of the signatures then I think they at least need to go through FfD for that reason. Does that answer your question? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. The uploader is not mention any verifiable source of those signature.(this File:Barack Obama signature.svg The original source is http://obama.senate.gov/img/sig.gif" this site no longer exists) but it was verifiable). So I start FfD. Thanks again for your suggestion.-- - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 07:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing statements

Do you plan to add some closing statements to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_April_18#File:Paul-Newman-portrait.jpg? --Damiens.rf 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on it, but I will now. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

...And apparently it was rather a moot decision anyways since it was already moved to Commons. <shrug> VernoWhitney (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I used the discussion to nominate it on commons. That was the importance of your closing statements. Thanks. --Damiens.rf 17:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You're just using me for my summation. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

You have better credentials. --Damiens.rf 18:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal financing / funding / fluffy bunnies

Hi Verno, I'm sorry to drop this on you but I don't have the concentration needed to sort this out. There's a "new" user Schytzophrenic (talk · contribs · count) (from Oct 2010, with a single edit before recently) who has been putting in what looks like a cut and paste from somewhere to Lawsuit funding and Legal finance and Legal financing. At the moment I have two of the above redirecting to the third, but I'd like to sort out which is the older article and if the content isn't copyvio then which article should be retained as the target of the redirects and such.

If you don't have time to look into it, thats fine. I'll try again on Monday. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look and see what I can find. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation

I haven't come across a case like this yet. What's your view?--NortyNort (Holla) 12:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Content translated from copyrighted works are derivative works and so still a problem just like close paraphrases, and so need to be completely rewritten or removed. If it's the whole article it can be deleted. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I thought so. And can you double-check my judgement on this one? Thanks for the help.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I'll take a look at it when I try to go through SCV and CP later today after I work through a bit of backlog with OTRS permissions this morning. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your handling of the text there is just fine, since it does appear to be only GFDL so we can't use it. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OTRS question

Hi—I'm a little new to OTRS permissions, and I saw that the {{OTRS received}} template was added to File:Miva miva.ogg, indicating there was a problem with the email I forwarded. Do you know what I should do to fix this situation? Thanks in advance for your help. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 14:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I replied to the email with some details, but in short we need to clarify which particular Creative Commons license the copyright holder is releasing the content under, since not all of them are usable. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hehe, I didn't see the reply until now. OK, I'll forward the request for specifics to my source and ask if she can confirm the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Thanks! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've forwarded an updated permission email to OTRS. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 02:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Compatibility

Does this chart apply only to images? ...considering the paragraph right above it. This article used text from a CC-BY 3.0 source. Is that ok? Thanks again!--NortyNort (Holla) 08:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that chart does apply to text. Images are allowed under a much wider range of licenses, with most of them (I believe) viewable at Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Free licenses. When dealing with text the only thing that needs to be done different with a CC only source is to add {{CCBYSASource}} to the references section, since the lack of GFDL means copying of that article is a bit more restrictive than usual. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I figured as much but wanted to check. I know images are a lot 'easier' to use. I have been adding that template to CC-BY-SA-sourced articles; two today as a matter of fact. I have been meaning to ask you as well...do you mind the nickname V-Dub?--NortyNort (Holla) 12:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I don't know how Verno feels about it, but I love it. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with it - I always thought VW was easier to type (thus VWBot), but whatever works for you. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That is easier but "dub" is a colloquialism for "w" where I come from so it comes to mind. Haha. I was wondering if you could do three RD1s? Here (insertion on creation),here (insertion 23 April 2010) and here (insertion 13 May 2010). I often see articles in NPP or from other editors that are copyvios but don't get tagged. Thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to pronounce it, that makes sense, sure. Requested revision deletions done. Usually I don't worry too much about revision deletion unless there's a likelihood that someone will just revert to or copy/paste from the copyvio version. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Thanks again.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

New Mail

Hello, VernoWhitney. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nomination of History of Wyandanch for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of Wyandanch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Wyandanch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

File-Sayid Paper Stags Cricket Logo.jpg

I made this logo myself and it has no copyright whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aizads (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If it is an unofficial logo then it should not be used on Wikipedia. If it is an official logo and has been previously published then it is automatically copyrighted and needs to be explicitly released into the public domain or under a free license by the copyright holder as outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Since we have no way of verifying your identity on wiki we need you to follow these steps even when you are the logo creator. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Rahul Bhandari

Hi - Malik Shabazz deleted "Rahul Bhandari" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion (CSDH)). His Talk page does not allow for leaving messages and so unable to contact him. OTRS permission was provided and verified by you previously. G11 CSDH no applicable since post is Biographies of living persons (BLP), consistent with guidelines (NPOV, V and NOR) and others similar BLP pages. Request to reinstate the page or provide additional guidance. Thanks. Mangopr (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Permission to use the content doesn't mean that content is acceptable in all other ways, so that's not really an issue here. I haven't looked at the article recently and am afraid I don't have the time to do so right now. You should be able to edit Malik's talk page in a few hours when protection expires and he should be able to tell you why he thought it violated NPOV so much as to require deletion, since I don't know. I'm sorry I can't be more help at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Bots

V-Dub, it looks like CSB is down. No edits or postings to SCV in about a day. Just thought i'd give you a heads up.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Verno is MIA, and I am worried about him. :( He hasn't edited since the 19th, and he hasn't responded to a recent e-mail. Hope all is well with him! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine, I just had some real life to deal with for a while. I'll take a look this evening and see if I can figure out why VWBot's CSB-backup function is broken. Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem, good to see you around.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War

I have added the following comment to the copyright violation page and hope you will agree. I have notified User:Kirk who brought the original complaint and will notify others who have commented. Thanks. The two editors who have worked on this article most recently have reviewed the entries and checked them against the citations; and added additional citations and a few entries. We believe there should now be no objection to restoration of this article. Donner60 (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I see Moonriddengirl has already handled this situation. I apologize for not being as prompt. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Brain stem death

Thank you very much for unmerging this section from 'brain death'. It is a great relief to see it back in its correct and hopefully helpful form. As mentioned, confusion of these states has dogged discussion and debate about their validity as bases for the diagnosis of human death for the past 3 decades. I would like to see the flag removed from the 'Controversial aspects' section - which was intended to explain how prognosis became confused with diagnosis and how the idiosyncratic UK definition of death came into being. As it is seen as biased, I am anxious to do whatever is necessary to present the relevant facts objectively - or to delete most of that section if you think it detracts from the effort to inform helpfully. Should I attempt an edit - which will, I fear, upset the references and links which you have kindly restored? DavidDWEvansMD (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Since I don't know anything about the topic and unfortunately don't have access to most of the sources or time to read them if I did have access, I'm afraid I don't feel qualified to substantially edit it myself. The concerns regarding that section are laid out on the talk page at Talk:Brain stem death#POV issues. If you can address the issues which have been raised then by all means, please go ahead and edit it - I'm keeping an eye on the article and can fix and standardize the references after you straighten out any problems with the wording (or if you're feeling brave you can read up on the syntax used at WP:REF, but that's entirely optional so long as I and other readers can tell what information is being cited to what source). Please let me know if you have any further questions about this or any other topic. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Verno. I will have a go at editing out the contentious bits within the next few days - hopefully without disturbing the references too much. DavidDWEvansMD (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to subsitute the following paragraph for the current two paragraphs under 'Controversial aspects'?

The diagnostic criteria were originally published for the purpose of identifying a clinical state associated with a fatal prognosis (see above). The change of use to criteria for the diagnosis of death itself was protested from the first[21][22][23]. The initial basis for that change of use was the claim that satisfaction of the criteria sufficed for the diagnosis of the death of the brain as a whole despite the persistence of demonstrable activity in parts of the brain[24]. That claim was formally abandoned in 1995[7]. Since that time the diagnosis of death by the specified testing of brain stem functions has been based on a new definition of death, viz. the permanent loss of the capacity for consciousness and spontaneous breathing. It is not clear that this concept is generally understood and accepted or that the specified testing is stringent enough to determine that state.

You will see that I have omitted the Skegg reference so subsequent references will require renumbering (as I have done in this new para only). I hope this attempt to satisfy the partiality criticism will prove successful and that seeing to the references and links will not be too onerous.

If this succeeds I'll be happy to keep an eye on this entry with a view to updating - always dependent upon your expert help!

Thanks again - David DWEvansMD (talk) 20:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Brain stem death

Good to see the shorter, hopefully more acceptable, paragraph under 'Controversial aspects'. Thanks for that Verno. But the references aren't right yet and I can't fix them. In the 'References' section, Reference 21 - Skegg PDG - needs deleting so that Ref 21 becomes Evans DW, Lum LC. Cardiac transplantation. Lancet 1980;I:933-4. Subsequent Refs must then be renumbered accordingly, the current Ref 23 becoming Ref 22, and so on. Looking forward to seeing the site OK - DavidDWEvansMD (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understood you correctly, and all that needed changing was the Skegg reference deleted entirely and so I've done that. The numbering in the References section is generated automatically, so it didn't need anything extra done there. If I've misunderstood and something else needs changed, let me know and I'll take another stab at it. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Brain stem death

The references are fine now Verno. Thank you very much! DavidDWEvansMD (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

James Linden

This stub I just created was tagged as a copyvio by your bot. The supposedly infringed upon text shares no more than two words with the article text "James Linden". Strikehold (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I apologize for the false positive. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a problem, thanks for rectifying it. Strikehold (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot error

VWBot notified me about finding similarities between the newly created Ciudad del Plata and http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/C.A._Pe%C3%B1arol . I am not familiar with the bots operation , but there is nothing common between the two. Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 19:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the false positive. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Clerk question

Can you weigh in? Need a couple of copyright admins. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I recently updated the instigatorzine page. Please check if there is any problems. I will be updating it soon once I have time! Thank you.

Kind Regards, Rai — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.255.192 (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine now, thanks for letting me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, VernoWhitney, for the vandalism help at the article Internet and Technology Law Desk Reference. Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Originality in photographs

Would you mind taking a look at the conversation at User_talk:J_Milburn#Question and comment if you feel you have anything to add. Dpmuk (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time to spend on Wikipedia these days, so I'm afraid I probably won't have the time to read through or join any new conversations. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Enough people weighed in while you were away that I'm happy enough anyway. Hope it's good things that have taken you away from wikipedia. Dpmuk (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

about my article about Tommy Abad

i am tommy abad and i wrote here about myself. tell me what do you need to accept my bio a legal. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbad2010 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Details were already left on your talk page: You need to follow the procedure listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Since the article was also deleted for reasons other than the unclear copyright situation, I also strongly recommend that you read through Wikipedia:Your first article before resubmitting the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

VernoWhitney, thank you for the clarification regarding the copyright issue. I believe that all World Bank material is public domain, but honestly I can't find anywhere that precisely says so on their website. As such, I have rewritten the page, using my language and only shorter, cited quotes from the WBL page. I was hoping there might be a way I could show you a preview in order to determine whether it is a violation of any kind before posting it. Either way, thank you for your assistance.Win.monroe —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

If you post it on your user page at User:Win.monroe I'll take a look before we move it back to the main article space. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Its up, if you want to check it out. I appreciate the assistance.Win.monroe —Preceding undated comment added 16:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC).

I'm afraid that I think it's still a problem. Our non-free content guidelines allow for "brief quotations ... used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." I'm of the opinion that a good chunk of the quotes about the methodology and the Gender Law Library could be removed and replaced with your own material without losing any of the essential details. Now of course we are getting into subjective judgements here, so feel free to get another opinion - Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) is my general go-to editor for such questions as she has been handling all sorts of text copyright situations on Wikipedia for years. All of that said, if you think World Bank would approve of the free distribution of their material on Wikipedia and elsewhere then we do have steps outlined at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission which would make this whole copyright situation moot.

Unrelated to the copyright issues there's another problem that needs resolving in that every article should have third-party reliable sources which talk about it, in order to establish notability. This means that the article should include references in news articles or books or things of that nature, and not be sourced entirely to World Bank, otherwise it may be deleted for that reason. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to help me in this learning process. As you suggested, I have removed most of the longer quotations, added more of my own language and added a couple third party references (a point I had completely overlooked!). I've also add a "See Also" and "External Links" section. The latter, when I add the World Bank, creates a nifty little footer bar. If you have a moment, let me know if you think I've adequately addressed the issues you've raised. Thanks again for your guidance and advice. User:Win.monroe —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

NeuN article

You are correct that the text in the above article was copied from the Encorbio site, but I own that company and I wrote that text, so there should be no problem. Regards, Gerry Shaw, CEO and owner, EnCor Biotechnology Inc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerryShaw (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Have tagged this article as a potential copyvio while we await confirmation of permission. I have also left a notice at your talk page while this is necessary. The article was original tagged by a bot not by a person, although the owner of that bot is VernoWhitney (hence how you ended up here). However they are currently quite busy so I thought I'd help out by replying and hopefully helping you understand what needs to happen now. Dpmuk (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dpmuk! Since you (GerryShaw) added the release to the source webpage I've gone ahead and unblanked the page. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

List of Wii U games

I created a new article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_U_games Using some text from my own website: http://www.wugames.org/list-of-wii-u-games/ You deleted it because you thought I stole copyrighted stuff. But I did not, I took it from my site. I'm the copyright owner and I allow any usage of it.

I sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, using the template from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENT

What should I do next to restore the page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wii_U_games)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren yo (talk • contribs) 20:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

An admin will restore it once a volunteer handles the email. You don't have to do anything unless you get a reply to your email asking for more information. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Any idea of how long that might take? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren yo (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Usually only a day or two, but since it's all volunteers I can't give you a firm deadline. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has been restored. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for everything! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oren yo (talk • contribs) 14:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Notice of False Positive

Hi, Just leaving a quick note of a false positive on International_Society_of_Renal_Nutrition_and_Metabolism - VWBot got it a short while ago. I've manually checked the entire site over, and cannot find any of the content on the article, listed on the organizations website. I think the main reason it looks like copyvio is because all the internal refs are mostly from the ISRNM. Many thanks, Fish^Barking? 10:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

A couple of more clerks

Hi. :) We've got a couple of more clerks proposed to help NortyNort, who is still doing some amazing heavy lifting. See Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems/Clerks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

False positive

Hello, I think that there's a false VWBot positive in the Chat en poche article. I'm explaining why in the Talk page. Hervegirod (talk) 12:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That does look very much like a false positive and I've removed the tag. I apologize for the inconvenience. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem!! And thanks for your useful work BTW! Hervegirod (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

public domain works over 100 years old

is it considered copyvio, when material is copied from Public domain, and out of copyright works like this "Journal of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society for the year ..., Volumes 27-28", published over 116 years ago? If we are allowed to copy them, can I strike them off my copyvio investigation?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

VWBot

I think you are aware but the bot hasn't been shifting and adding daily entries correctly at CP and SCV.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, something or another got screwed up somehow so it's not running automatically and there's nothing obviously wrong, so there's no immediately clear fix for it. I've been busy enough recently that I haven't been remembering to run it manually, and I probably won't have time to try and track down the problem and put it back online on automatic for at least another week. The only task that's still working at the moment is the CorenSearchBot backup which is completely different code that I only have to restart manually when the server's rebooted. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Is VWBot on a completely separate computer? I am not too familiar with how the bots operate. I was a Visual Basic programmer in the mid-late 1990s but that was the extent of my programming knowledge and experience.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think CSBot went down, no edit in over 12 hours.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"Luther" redirect move discussion re-opened at new page

I'm inviting everyone who contributed to the previous discussion to weigh in (again) at Talk:Luther (disambiguation). Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your comments.

I am having a discussion on my talk page here which relates to an image that you approved through OTRS after a discussion here. The talk page of the article concerned is Talk:Wall decals. Would you care to comment on the issue? noq (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OTRS

See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:PermissionOTRSid2010021110004952 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.171.25 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Miss you!

Boy, are you missed. :) Realizing you probably won't be around soon, if you should happen by in the next day or two would you mind weighing in on our copyright tools and bots at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Bot on CCI? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

CP bot problems

It would appear we have quite a serious problem with bots no longer listing things at WP:CP, please see Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Bot problems for more. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've been meaning to get my own bot up and running to help with other copyright tasks but I'm happy to help you get this bot up and running again first if you want as that seems more urgent. Let me know if you want any help. Dpmuk (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank your for your support

	Thank You
	Thank You for supporting on my article "Pagani Detention Center" in April 2010 Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Intercontinental Releasing Corporation

Good Morning VernoWhitney,

I know that you're swamped here on Wikipedia (not counting in the world) but whenever you have a chance would you mind reviewing an article for me on Intercontinental Releasing Corporation located at [2].

Have a great weekend!

Many thanks (Robert) Sinclairindex (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view policies, practice what you preach!

On a few articles which you felt should have been deleted because you were too lazy to accept sources that were verified as fact when it comes to writing an article on a living musician who happened to set records that will not be broken for a long time.

Why is it that wikipedia accepts personal attacks on Mr. Winston in an article written about him from a neutral point of view which talked about his successes as musician, but yet allow non neutral points of view (slandering and smearing and vandalization of said pages when those malicious edits clearly violate the policy of neutral points of view? Isn't it about time you practice what you preach! Now we will present our facts as fact in a court of law to get this dispute settled once and for all for protection of set page if need be. We were more than willing to provide sources of proof for the facts that were indeed verified as truth which is something you don't seem to know about or care about. Our sources which prove our facts to be fact have been issued by betarecords.com who creates these charts from a neutral point of view as well as mp3.com which also verified these facts as truth and are very neutral and we have hard copies of said charts to prove this and once and for all we are willing to take this matter to a court if need be unless you agree to look at our documents as proof of verification. (The charts themselves) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemayfolksinger (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...Okay, I'm really not sure why you left a message for me about this. If you would like to leave me a more succinct message with details about a specific article and issues, I can look into it. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Tom Kahn

Hi Verno!

I trust that you are well. I have lately left the peace & quiet of statistics ;) for sectarian disputes about American socialism, where consensus takes a bit longer to achieve ....

Would you look at the Tom Kahn article, please? I uploaded two pictures from Kahn's former assistant and an agent of his estate (according to the Library of Congress), which ultimately come from the AFL-CIO. (My source stated that one picture was given to Kahn by a roaming photographer at a convention, and that the other was the publicity picture taken of all dept. heads of the AFL-CIO.

I can imagine that I made a mistake, and that I should have used an English-WP only fair-use license, if we do need to get permission from the AFL-CIO for the pictures first. If I erred (expanding my areas of incompetence), please revdelete the pictures and I'll upload them to English Wikipedia per fair use (and write the AFL-CIO for permission).

Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I have seen your message and will get back to you in the next day or two once I have time to actually sit down and look into it. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:39 Clues logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:39 Clues logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This fair use image was restored to the article and the speedy deletion tag has been removed. Camw (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Camw! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

CCI update

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/FlyingToaster is now complete. Thank you for your assistance in the evaluation of this CCI.

Review is finally complete. Look: a snazzy new CCI update template!--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello VernoWhitney! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tomas logo 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tomas logo 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The 39 Clues Set.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The 39 Clues Set.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Janus logo2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Janus logo2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lucian logo 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lucian logo 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ekaterina logo 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ekaterina logo 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Major deletion from page for "Sedo"

Hello, you removed a major portion of the text from the "Sedo" page, claiming it was copyright violation. What is the reason for this? I find your claims to be misplaced. Please let me know. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.140.129 (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At least some of the material added at the end of September appears to be copied from some of Sedo's prior publications. I've provided some specific examples at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 November 13. If you have permission to use this text, you need to follow the process outlined at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Please let me know if you have any further questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ekaterina logo 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ekaterina logo 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Janus logo2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Janus logo2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tomas logo 2.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tomas logo 2.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:Advizor Solutions

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Talk:Advizor Solutions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunflow

Please do NOT block me from viewing the past revisions. I had written lots of new text and brought a lot of new content in myself and now I cannot access any of it. If you have identified the copy written content please specify and I'll exclude it. Please start with giving me a copy of the older version. I need to see what I had written in order to identify copied sections. MOST OF WHAT I WROTE WAS MY OWN. Thanks -- Tom Jenkins ^(reply) 12:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

All of the content you added to the article was copied word for word from http://sunflow.sourceforge.net/index.php?pg=feat, so feel free to look at that page. Please do not restore that material, however. It must be rewritten entirely from scratch. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:South Park Catholic League.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:South Park Catholic League.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear VernoWhitney,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.115.210 (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

Hi VernoWhitney,

The DYK hook for Discipline Global Mobile involves the image File:"Possible Productions knotwork" by Steve Ball.JPG, for which a request for an OTRS authorization has been made (at my talk page).

I would prefer to reveal my secret identity to you rather than J. Haphazard OTRS Volunteer. Would that suffice?

If so, would you send me your email, please?

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Pandering to your vanity, I'll note that I left similar messages also at the pages of only Fetchcomms and HJ Mitchell.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can be ready and waiting to be the one that handles the email when you send it in, but it would still need to be sent (or at least forwarded) to the regular OTRS address so that other people could verify the permission should it be called into question at a later date--even if I was completely inactive by such time. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I should clarify: One of the others you contacted may be willing to handle it entirely out of the usual system somehow, but given my intermittent activity here of late I'm afraid I am simply not comfortable going down that route. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I would have preferred to use a known user. There are only a few OTRS volunteers whose judgments have made me scratch my head a few times, but whose honesty and integrity I don't doubt. I shall just send the correspondence to OTRS.

May I delete non-essential correspondence, personal chit-chat and the like...?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can delete any of the non-essential correspondence, so long as that regarding the image and its licensing remains intact. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Verno!

Following the example of another anonymous crusader, I emailed OTRS from my KW account, with the correspondence (with personal details removed).

Thanks for your help!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done OTRS ticket handled and the image page has been marked appropriately on commons. Happy to help. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear Verno!

Thanks for your help! Thanks also to Sven M. for kind explanations.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello VernoWhitney. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

atomic49er

It was late and well frankly all of you seem to evade coming up with a credentialed system (so I choose to mock you) add to the complaint free speech in a supposedly open forum my concern is authenticity and the potential to replace reliable sources could you all work harder to understand the potential to HARM reliable sources (as you all say) STOP "HARMING" RELIABLE SOURCES It is important to preserve those existing encyclopedia and dictionaries the are extremely credible I am asking you to begin to provide a synopsis of existing reference material where one might purchase fully researched versions and texts on subject matter ok? User:atomic49er (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic49er (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by a "credentialed system" or what issue you seem to be having that relates to free speech. I also don't understand quite how you believe Wikipedia is harming reliable sources or how you expect us to instruct you as to how to purchase "fully researched versions and texts on subject matter". Since you have now been blocked for continuing personal attacks, if you wish for this discussion to continue, I will be watching your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

SAG-AFTRA "blanked"

YOU ARE HARMING THE WORLDS REFERENCE RESOURCES PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST DO NOT WASTE MY TIME PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomic49er (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As you have been informed previously, if you wish to import previously published content into Wikipedia, you must follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are unable or unwilling to follow those steps, then you can ask for help with the process. If you are unable or unwilling to ask for help then I'm afraid we will be unable to accept such content. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:The_Cahill_Fire.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The_Cahill_Fire.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 01:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that an IP editor accidentally removed the FUR a few months back, I've restored it. Dpmuk (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it wasn't my upload in the first place, but silly things like that bother me. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Philip Galanes & Michael Haverland

I just left a note on Talk:Philip Galanes in reply to you (a comment you wrote a loooong time ago) about Philip Galanes and Michael Haverland saying those two pages seem to be self promotional autobiographies. They may be notable enough for somebody else to write about, I don't know, but the reason those pages aren't that good is that they are ego driven. I try to help improve/keep wikipedia clean, but I don't keep track of all the rules about deletion policies, etc. so just thought I'd flag this and hand it off to you. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.37.144 (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, the conflict of interest is obvious and they may not be good pages, but they have enough sources that I'm not going to nominate them for deletion without going through them and actually checking to see if they do support notability, which I'm afraid I don't have time to do right now. Thanks for making a note about the possible problem, though. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Image rights issues

Hi,

You arranged for removal of a number of images due to copyright concerns. See User talk:PeterMVaughan.

OTRS has received a communication indicating that the images:

1. were in a journal associated with the Optical Society of America
2. Submissions to such journals are licensed per http://www.opticsinfobase.org/submit/forms/copyxfer.pdf
3. That agreement reads, in part:

In some cases, Author(s) may submit datasets or “Media Objects”, defined as video files, image files, sound files, and their constituent computer code) to accompany and enhance the Work. It is understood and agreed by the Parties that the Author(s) may retain ownership of any dataset(s) and Media Objects that accompany the Work and use the dataset(s) and Media Objects in future work. However, Author(s) grant OSA an unrestricted, nonexclusive, perpetual, transferable license to republish all dataset(s) and Media Objects submitted either accompanying the Work, in a compilation containing the Work, in a derivative work based on the Work, or independent of the Work, in any format, including but not limited to print and electronic. Author(s) acknowledge and agree that the dataset(s) and Media Objects will be made publicly available to readers, and may be used freely by the public for any purpose. OSA shall notify readers that they must credit Author(s) as the source of the dataset(s) and Media Objects when using any portion of the dataset(s) in other work.

I read that sentence as consistent with a PD license.

I don't think that was shared with you at the time the issue arose.

There still are some issues to button up. I want to see if you agree that the agreement is a PD license. (item 3) Then we need to connect the dots, with some affirmation that the journal in question http://books.google.com/books?id=D7ag4U6aWL8C

is one of those covered by the agreement.(item 1)

Are you in agreement?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, at the time I removed them there was no indication as to how they had been released as PD. The license almost reads as PD for me, except for that last sentence (emphasis added): "OSA shall notify readers that they must credit Author(s) as the source of the dataset(s) and Media Objects when using any portion of the dataset(s) in other work."

Now since we're just talking Media Objects and not datasets (I think--I haven't looked at all of the images again), I'm not sure whether that last line is actually enforceable in this case. Reading it again, it's a requirement for OSA, but doesn't actually seem to impose a restriction on the actual end user, it just tries to...

In any case, I'm pretty sure that such images are in fact usable (like you said, if the journal in question is covered by that license). To be on the safe side, though, in case that language actually is somehow enforceable on "the public" given access to the "Media Objects", I don't think I'd label them PD. It's more like a variation on a CC-BY license with that bit about crediting the Author(s).

And getting off-topic from the images, I haven't read over the text portion of that agreement in detail, so I have no opinion regarding its copyright status at the moment. Oh, and just a note to myself: This is Ticket:2012060410011581. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Responded to you at my talkpage (see here). Feel free to remove this message. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 13:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

thank you for your help, and a query

Hello and thank you for cleaning up my entry; I'm still new to editing Wikipedia entries. Are you at all available to talk about Wikipedia's approach to fair use, or refer me to others who may want to? I'm trying to get a grip on the fair use issues on it for an academic and journalistic article, and have been visiting different pages to see the discussion. I'm at paufder AT american.edu, thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paufder (talk • contribs) 16:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

While I am available to talk about Wikipedia's approach to fair use, as you may have gathered I am only here infrequently, as most of my time is being monopolized by other pursuits. For a more timely response, I'll direct you to Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs), as she's the acknowledged resident copyright guru, at least when it comes to text concerns. I don't know that there is a comparable single person when it comes to images, although I do know that Masem (talk · contribs) is frequently available and works in that area. If you are interested in speaking with me particularly (or in addition to others), feel free to ask your questions here or using the E-mail this user function and I will do my best to reply promptly, although I can't promise a particular timetable for my responses. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Static edits

In addition to providing the correct terminology from the previous edits in regards that specific subject, I summarized the subject in my own words, as well as provided a link to the source in regard's to the character's naming. Though I'm not sure how that qualifies as vandalism. If you feel the quote is too close to the source article, I'll reword it again. Sookenon (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The marking of your edit as vandalism was in error, thus my null edit clarifying that it was in fact copyright violation, since you copied rather a large portion of the original relevant text from the source.

The source says:

after the black man who waged a midcentury fight to be admitted to law school at the University of Florida, a process that eventually led to the desegregation of Florida’s public university system

Your text read:

after the African-American whose efforts to be admitted to law school at the University of Florida eventually led to the desegregation of Florida’s public university system

I have bolded the identical text for emphasis. It needs to be rewritten entirely in your own words in order to be retained. Even a close paraphrase of the source would be problematic. I also note that there's still no source establishing any relationship from either the real person or the comic character to the Roman poets. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The official community of The Beatles (I ask to provide control)

Hello. I ask you to provide the control, because the such control not exists here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:OTRS_noticeboard&action=history (please, make rollback and warning: 05:16, 22 July 2012). Here copy of my post, who got illegal damage:

This is the real community, see: http://musicbrainz.org/artist/b10bbbfc-cf9e-42e0-be17-e2c3e1d2600d/relationships / http://my.mail.ru/community/beatles-gold-tv/131D0B9D72565564.html (The Beatles Coalition for Cultural Diversity).

Russia ratified law about joining to WTO http://www.mk.ru/politics/russia/article/2012/07/18/726819-sovet-federatsii-ratifitsiroval-protokol-o-vstuplenii-rossii-v-vto.html (exist several stages till finish) several weeks ago and now is need to implement agreement http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm (TRIPS). People from the Federal Security Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service_(Russia) can implement integration into the such communities after asking of access. They have agreement with copyright holders on reciprocal basis (deletion of illegal content in return for some concessions in favor of human rights). Agents from this community http://my.mail.ru/community/beatles-gold-tv/131D0B9D72565564.html suggest favor for Wikipedia (to reach global results in this scope). Thus, all on legal grounds (and owners agree, because they get benefits also). Thank you for attention. - 95.29.94.215 (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC).

• Hello! What is new on this issue? - News50000 (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC).

The news is the same as I previously indicated. You can only release under a usably free license those materials which you unambiguously hold the copyright to. Human rights have nothing to do with it, and any material originally from the Beatles would need to be released directly by the owners. I'm afraid we can't simply take your word that they agree to your distribution of their material. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• Я только посредник. Проблемы были из-за строгости закона о секретных службах в России. Но нашли способ: License to use the materials in the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation (правообладатели согласны). Это - репозиторий для артистов EMI (один из разделов). Кроме того, Вы можете использовать проект с открытым исходным кодом: Music of band The Beatles for Education. Письмо шлите для Red Sun на старый адрес электронной почты (так ему удобней). И ещё: старые незаконные материалы должны быть удалены, если будут найдены (ведь это главное основание для того, чтобы благо для Знания стало реальностью: осуществление соглашения TRIPS). Благодарю за внимание!
  

http://translate.google.com - News50000 (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

I'm afraid you'll have to post in English if you expect me to reply. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Verno - FYI, the Beatles copy vio guy got a community ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive231#ban discussion from ANI. Although from that conversation it's not clear it's referring to the same guy but I'm pretty sure it's the same guy. Hence I've just indeffed this account. Even without the ban, given the serious WP:IDHT displayed at the WP:OTRS Noticeboard and User talk:Sphilbrick a competence block is more than justified! Dpmuk (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had been told that about their IPs before and seen the mention over at WP:BANLIST, so no worries and thanks for the heads up on their latest block. I've been trying to be optimistic and hoping that the problems stem from some language barrier which might be worked around if the same thing gets said enough different ways... We'll see. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to give it a try - it would appear they've found another IP (again). But given the number of months this has been going on I'll be amazed if you get anywhere. I always feel a bit uncomfortable blocking them when they've only posted on someone else's talk page but I don't know what else we can do. As long as they're only post here I'll leave them unblocked until you let me know you feel otherwise. Dpmuk (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Crazy human implements the vandalism (my IP - above: I am creator of this topic). Okey, translation of Russian text. I'm the intermediary. All troubles were due by strictness of the legislation on secret services in Russia (security and so on). But was found the such optimal way: License to use the materials in the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation (owners agreed: they gave the permission to use the materials under the CC license). This is - the repository for artists of the EMI (one of the sections). Also, you can use the project to open source: Music of band The Beatles for Education. Message for Red Sun you can send on the old e-mail address (so it is more convenient). And else: old illegal materials must be removed (The Beatles), if they will found (big favor for Education and Culture is the reality because of the implementation of the agreement TRIPS). Thank you for your attention! - 95.29.135.46 (talk) 05:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

• Verno and Dpmuk, because my username was blocked by the mistake only, I ask restore my username (and very bad things are reason to implement the such blocking, they were used and this is the moral damage for my honor). From my side, I apologize at Dpmuk (because I used the word "crazy"). Thanks for attention! - 95.29.86.254 (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

If you are a banned user then you aren't supposed to be editing Wikipedia at all. Per policy, you are "forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances" and can expect to be blocked at any time. That said, as I indicated above I am for the moment optimistic that this is primarily a language issue that can be resolved. Now to the point of copyright: TRIPS and the Berne Convention just mean that Russia has to respect the same copyright laws as the United States and United Kingdom (and other countries), so as far as I'm aware there's no concern over the "strictness of the legislation on secret services in Russia". The problem is that the videos served from your site have not been licensed by the original copyright holders. Any audio, lyrics, photographs, etc. must also be licensed by the original copyright holders. We (which is to say, the Wikipedia community as well as the Wikimedia Foundation) are unable to rely solely on your word that EMI or any of the other copyright holders agreed to any such terms. They must contact OTRS themselves if they wish to freely license the content. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is not language barrier; this user also banned in ruwiki - long-term trolling, spam (not only in Beatles-associated group of articles), WP:NLT etc; so... it's highly recommended to WP:DNFTT. OneLittleMouse (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Official registr of films on the website of the ministry of culture of Russia (EVEN) contains info about the trouble: http://mkrf.ru/activity/register/search/?ganr=&strana=&year=Y&year_from=50&year_to=105&kateg=&color=&nud=&firm_z=&keywords=%C1%E8%F2%EB%E7&q= (results of search by the keyword "Битлз" - "The Beatles" by Russian). Full length movies with the Beatles are the public domain of Russia and the such sad situation is used inside of the jurisdiction of Russia many years already. Is need to translate this phrase on pages with info about every film: Фильм перешел в общественное достояние. ПРОКАТНОЕ УДОСТОВЕРЕНИЕ УТРАТИЛО СИЛУ. http://translate.google.com Nobody will help to Apple Corps and EMI, because this is not fighting against drugs or against pe....philia, for example (interests of foreign copyright holders among these issues are little toy for child). Favor for owners can be in the one case: separate agreement with owners and nothing more). In the context of Wikipedia (USA) Russian agents - very weak people (not jurisdiction of Russia and owners of the works of The Beatles can not use the such instrument as agents, which remove illegal content in accordance with agreement). To be higher than restrictions of the law on the secret services of Russia, is used alternative methods (totally common sence). Red Sun said, that he always sent copies of the messages on this issue (for OTRS) for copyright holders (they know about all actions of the representatives). If illegally - owner of course will give know about violations for participants in the correspondence. License in the directory for artists of EMI - says more, than millions of any words or documents. This is called: tacit approval (and common sense in first). About blocking: if somebody was blocked by mistake and got moral damage, the such person has greatest right to be restored (become free of damage for honor). And copyright holders will have the such situation else millions of olds (including, on Wikipedia does not exist possibility to get respecting: because Wikipedia does not give to take actions (Russian agents can not do something useful in favor of owners): mechanism works only in the case, when Wikipedia took the permission of owners through their representatives - Russian agents). But Wikipedia does not want take the permission. As result: owners - greedy companies (in the eyes of society), and they not have possibility delete illegal materials not only in Wikipedia, but everywhere in Russia - mutual benefit has not been created, copyright - not fighting against drugs and nobody will help). Situation in Russia: http://video.yandex.ru/#search?text=the%20beatles (poor owners). Trouble began here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_relations_of_Russia#Berne_Convention (foreign works prior 1973). - 95.29.86.254 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

Please do not edit anyone else's comments on my page, or I will take that as a sign that you have no serious interest in this discussion. If you could also please avoid comparisons to drugs and mutual benefit and instead focus on actual copyright law, it would be greatly appreciated. As indicated at International copyright relations of Russia#Berne Convention which you linked to, law 72-FL restored copyright to older content from foreign sources retroactively. Even if that were not the case, Wikipedia is bound by United States copyright law, and not Russian. Again, we need explicit permission from the copyright holders, and cannot rely upon tacit approval. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• The meaning is slightly different (prior 1973) in our case: songs protected on paper only (not on practice). Our task - to implement on practice. Nobody else will implement the such restoration simply so. You can make search on Yandex (search of films, including): nothing changed (near hundred of big and small films). Materials are available for everyone freely so far (and 1000 years later nothing will be changed). About "anyone else's comments": insults - very bad thing (any human has right to defend its honor in any jurisdiction, using any legal methods). I not will edit not my comments (but please ban any insults). Mickey Mouse created great damage for my honor (he forgot say about the presumption of innocence). For example: "Possible, this guy is offender..". Almost the same situation - restore of my username: If I am offender - you must to forbid me editing of your page totally. Exists very wild paradox: you discuss issue with "offender" (when my username is under great shame: sock). Strange situation: band The Beatles lets to use its music (but Wikipedia does not take this). Very probably you think that they are greedy guys (only "for sale" - in direct sence). You can send me to hell, why to wait. Why have talk with sockpuppet. - 95.29.86.254 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC).

And we're done here. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A request regarding the aftermath of an AFD you closed

Hi there. I’m approaching you because you closed the death watch beetle AFD last week, a mass AFD regarding more than 20 D&D-related articles. I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I wanted to ask if you would please restore some of these articles and initiate a procedural AFD on them. I’ll explain why I think this is necessary. When the AFD was initiated, most if not all of the articles had only one source independent from the publisher. About halfway through the course of the AFD, another user mentioned that at least one of the articles was likely featured in another source, so I discussed the possibility of this source on that user’s talk page. As a result of this mention, the nominator in good faith withdrew that article and two others for which additional sourcing had been found. While discussing this source on the user’s talk page, I investigated a little further and found that this source was part of a series, and that the books from this series apparently covered more than half of the articles in the AFD. I did not mention this discovery on the AFD, because the other user was unsure of the viability of the source, so I wanted to continue discussing it with him and ease his concerns before mentioning it. Unfortunately, we needed a few days to go over this before the other user was comfortable with the source, and did not complete this research before you closed the AFD.

Your closure was reasonable based on the fact that the remaining articles were discussed by the participants as if each article only had one independent reliable source, which was true at the time the AFD was started, and when it was closed. The source we discovered was only mentioned on the AFD in the context of how it pertained to one article, and discussed only briefly in a small portion of that great wall of text before that article was removed from the nomination, I do not believe the source was given due consideration in the AFD because most respondents likely did not notice. I would add that source to the articles now, as your closing statement indicated that if further reliable sources to support their notability were found, the articles could be restored. I do believe that this source supports the notability of the articles in question, and I am not alone. However, the AFD and its aftermath were highly contentious, and other users have insisted that it would be disruptive for me to restore any of them for any reason. DRV seems inappropriate, both because your close was reasonable, and because there are several articles from the AFD for which we did not find additional sourcing, and discussion at the WikiProject has been as contentious as that on the AFD itself. Therefore, that is why I am requesting a new AFD to reconsider only the articles which will have at least two independent reliable sources, and we will continue to search for more.

The result of a new AFD may or may not be the same as the last one, but it will hopefully be a preferred result to continued acrimony. If you are willing to do this to hopefully help better settle the matter, the articles I am requesting to be restored are the following:

• Brownie (Dungeons & Dragons), Adherer, and Caryatid column (Dungeons & Dragons) – these were withdrawn from the AFD, but edit-warring has kept them as redirects, so perhaps a new discussion will resolve this conflict

• These were redirected as a result of the outcome of the prior AFD, to which I will add the sources I have if they are restored: Basidirond, Cave fisher, Aurumvorax, Slicer beetle, Blindheim (Dungeons & Dragons), Bunyip (Dungeons & Dragons), Crypt thing, Ascomoid, Atomie (Dungeons & Dragons), and Axe beak; also consider adding Amphisbaena (Dungeons & Dragons) from a prior AFD, to which the same new source can be added

• Deva (Dungeons & Dragons), Hydroloth, Dergholoth, and Piscoloth – these have never been at AFD, but involve the same set of sources and the same sort of edit-warring as the three which were withdrawn from the prior AFD

Thank you taking the time to consider this request. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I purposefully just redirected the articles rather than deleting them and recreating redirects so that they could be restored by any editor and not just me or another admin since there was both 1) the possibility that some content was worth merging and 2) there was an active search for reliable sources ongoing. Now part of the issue covered in general in that discussion was what exactly constituted a reliable source when it came to fictional gaming creatures, and while you have discussed this particular source with Sangrolu, I think it may be wise to bring it up for discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for some fresh and uninvolved eyes. At the least I would suggest bringing it up at the D&D project talk page and not just using edit summaries to continue the discussion, because I would rather not have to worry about issuing warnings and/or blocks if the edit warring continues.

For a further possible way forward, there's a line in Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)#What Wikipedia is not which seems appropriate (I've bolded some portions for emphasis).

Articles on fiction elements are expected to cover more about "real-world" aspects of the element, such as its development and reception, than "in-universe" details.

Since whether the presence of a creature in X books supports notability or not is a significant portion of the disagreement as I understand it, perhaps it would be easier to find common ground regarding the usability of sources which address who created/designed a creature, why its stats were set up a certain way, any explicit ties it has to historical/mythological creatures, why the name was changed between different editions, that sort of thing.

For example (to use a different article than the ones you've mentioned), the comparison of Swanmays to Swan maidens would be a clear connection to the real-world if it were reliably sourced. It's not, and so that article too has been subject to change between article and redirect, albeit much more slowly than some others. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding 129.33.19.254 that, indeed, one of the points of the AfD was to object to the qualification of the sources presented (whether before or during the nomination) as "independent" (and "secondary"/"significant"). I'll also add that the issue on source validity has already been brought up to RS/N on two similar occasions, about the merge of Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) ([3], incidentally, it is about the very source that IP has come up with now), and a thread was opened when the "Death watch beetle" AfD started. Considering this last AfD had 28 participants (a significantly higher number than the usual 6 or 8 from recent AfDs on similar topics) and an outcome consistent with these other AfDs and the input from RS/N, it seems reasonable to assume that a consensus in the negative has been reached regarding the independence or secondary nature of the individual sources already present in the articles.
Anyway, I agree that each new source should be discussed before any attempt at implementation (and thus at restoration of articles). However, it would be against consensus to claim, as the IP does, that the articles are just one source short of notability on the grounds that they already "had one independent reliable source" (which again was specifically objected to by the AfD consensus).Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I knew one of the representatives from my fan club would show up eventually!  :) Anyway, I guess I will have to leave these as redirects for now. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I had missed that it had been brought up so recently at RS/N. Thanks for the pointer. A pity it didn't attract a broader range of responses. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)