Template talk:Copyvio/Archive 1

Re-wording and automation
I've re-worked the current template. Why? It conveyed all of the essential information, but in a reader-unfriendly format. The same information is presented in a better format here: User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT.

The current, live template also confuses editors who flag articles as copyvios... the current text makes it seem that the pages are automatically added to WP:CP. This is not the case! I added a notice at the top of my draft template to make it clear that copyvios must be manually added to WP:CP.

In a perfect world, there would be a mechanism that automatically adds new copyvios to the WP:CP. I don't know if that's possible, but I tried to design my tempate to capture the necessary data that could be auto-added to WP:CP.

Also, I'm not sure about some of the date-stamp functionality if/when this template is transferred from my user space to the template space. Someone with more knowledge of wiki coding might need to tweak/add/delete to correct any mistakes I've made.

Please take a look at User:Feco/Templates/copyvioDRAFT and tell me what you think. Feco 01:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Feco. I've seen instances where editors posting copyvio material have pulled off the copyvio notice without even reading it. The instructions are much clearer now, for all parties. Cheers, -Willmcw 21:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Feco, I think your new template is fine. Some suggestions...
 * Reduce the numbers of words wherever possible to help clarity. It should be noted that the can be removed from the second to last bullet, for example.
 * Is there a way to make the this temporary subpage link more inviting? I'm thinking positioning and possibly text style --Duk 18:48, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Revisions made per users' suggestions. Can someone with knowledge of wiki automation review to verify that the arguments (url, text, comment) and functions (using subst function to get "static" dates) will work? Feco 19:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Another suggestion, place a note on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems soliciting comments--Duk 20:05, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spam vandalism?
This template is great, but it doesn't address the problem of people who just use copyvio as a form of spam vandalism. If we use this template, we'll still be creating a link to their page, which will still help these vandals increase their pagerank. Can we modify this template somehow so that it doesn't actually create a link to the offending url? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:32, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * The page get's deleted in a week or so. (Assuming it is vandalism) so I don't think this is a major issue. JesseW 07:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is a significant issue. With the correct timing, that week-long window makes for quite effective Googlebombing.  However, being able to do things such as  is quite useful.  The easy way to neuter advertising hyperlinks, which doesn't involve modifying this template, is given at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G 15:53, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Format
I've made some changes to this... Oven Fresh &#9786;  21:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I made other changes. violet/riga (t) 11:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this?

User:Vague Rant/Copyvio

Vague | Rant 09:22, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I quite like the strength of it, but don't really like the border. This is mainly because when signing it the signature appears outside of the border and doesn't quite look right.  violet/riga (t) 11:52, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I like that quite a bit. Although maybe with a #f8fcff background. Oven Fresh  &#9786;  22:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * How about now? Same link, but I've fiddled with it a little. Kind of ugly markup, but the Wiki is smart enough to close the table if I leave off the end. So you can sign it, and it will sit inside the border, and then it will close. The only thing is, I believe that Category:Possible copyright violations will appear within the border, which may bother some. - Vague | Rant 11:49, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. violet/riga (t) 11:51, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I like it! &mdash; Oven Fresh &#9786;  02:05, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

History link broken
On articles with two-word titles, the "history link" link doesn't work, because a space goes in the URL. Everything before that space becomes the link target, and everything after it goes in the text. Is there a way to fix this? Right now the link is not only ugly but nonfunctional. &mdash;Etaoin 01:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I do not think it can be fixed and thus I removed it. Oven Fresh  &#9786;  02:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Table Closed
I've closed the table for the copyvio template because it distorts several pages. There is the option to make a another thing so you could type  but a lot of people would not like that, so we could create a new signature template for copyvios with that included. For example: User:Oven Fresh/copyvio which when used would look like User:Oven Fresh/copyvio/Temp. &mdash; Oven Fresh &#9786;  18:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, I've made it. Template:cvs. So... ! &mdash; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  18:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Having the table closed, of course, makes the signature appear outside the border, which could also be considered as "distorting" pages. What pages are you referring to? Since this template is always used the same way ( ~ ), all pages should look the same, shouldn't they? Brianjd 06:47, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)


 * Tutorial pages and partial copyright violation pages are effected. The template:cvs table closes, but it has a near the end, in which your signature can be placed. So  would close the table and keep your signature within the table. &mdash; Oven Fresh  &#9786;  17:00, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bad color choice?
Is it me or are the (linked) words "copyright infringement" at the top of the template all but unreadable, being dark blue on a black background? (This is true for me in IE 5.5 & 6.0, as well as Netscape 4.79 & 6.2.) - dcljr 23:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There was a workaround placed there but it wasn't working. I've changed it slightly now and think it's better. violet/riga (t) 00:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Prominent link to /Temp page
171.64.66.154's edit of 22:52, 15 Feb 2005, summarised as "reorganize, since people keep putting comments on the temp page", has completely de-emphasised the link to the /Temp page. Has anyone else found it to be true that people were putting comments on /Temp pages? I don't recall a big problem with that, and I was looking at a lot of week-old copyvios, but then maybe RC patrol was deleting them all. I'd rather have the big link (Rewrite article at: /Temp ) back, myself. --rbrwr&plusmn; 22:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changing wording of notice
Can we change the wording of the notice to remind whomever flags something copyvio that they must manually post a link on WP:CP? I have found many, many users who flag things copyvio, but assume the squiggle-bracket function automatically posts the article to WP:CP. The current text of the notice even states that the article is "now posted to" WP:CP. Feco 21:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Square brackets bug-1951
There is no way of "escaping" square brackets in a URL. You have to replace "[" by "%5B" and "]" by "%5D". This has been recorded as bug 1951 in the bug recordng system for MediaWiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Order of info in box
I looked thru this talk page (but didn't look for any archives) before making these changes. I rearranged things slightly and added a tiny clarification (I agree that it shouldn't be wordy, but we lost a little info that made the thing make more sense). Most important things are that one must not edit THIS article and that if you have the copyright or permission, you should let us know. Elf | Talk 17:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Policy link
Should this link directly to Copyright? Bovlb 23:55:59, 2005-07-19 (UTC)

adding the URL parameter instructions
i learned the hard way that { {copyvio|url=www.somethingwasrippedfromhere.com} } is the actual correct way to link to the offended URL. is this common sense or are there instructions somewhere that explains the URL parameter? if not, if I modify the main template page, will that affect the template code itself? say if I modified it outside ofthe { } brackets. i already screwed the template up once so i don't want to do it again... -- Bubbachuck 06:18, 12 August 2005 (UTC).
 * If you look at the template, where the URL should go, it says, which kinda hints at a URL parameter. also, there are   tags, so you don't have to do the { {copyvio} } thing. Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

subst:the date?
Any objection to subst:ing the parts of the date? At the moment, the link on each copyvio'd page changes each day. Or should I be subst:ing the whole template? I had thought not since "what links here" is probably useful in this case. -Splash 00:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we subst: the whole template? I used it and did not.  Some clarification from someone wiser then I would help.  Scottanon 22:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, answered my own question, sort of. Template substitution clearly states that copyvio SHOULD be subst:ed.  So I'll fix mine.  Scottanon 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a mistake on WP:SUBST's part. The template should not be substed. There's far too much wikicode and substing it would break a bot that relies upon it, and remove the convenience of the deletion summary. Sorry, you've been mislead. -Splash talk
 * Okay, I'll fix it right this time. Thanks Scottanon 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes
Shouldn't the template mention what to do when the copyvio template is added in error? Mrs Beeton got slapped with a copyvio template, even though it's obvious that they copied us, but the template offers nowhere to point that out.--Prosfilaes 02:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added a note about this. It could use a better wording, however.  Wcquidditch | Talk 23:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Added warning not to just modify it
After the link to the temporary page, I added:


 * Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation &mdash; it is best to write the article from scratch.

I had a recent experience with a new user who was blocked after repeatedly reintroducing copyrighted content. It turned out they were slightly altering it under the mistaken belief that this made it not a copyvio. I hope this helps prevent this in the future. Deco 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Not From URL
What if the source of the copied material is not on the web with a URL, such as the song lyrics in this topic? What's the best way to have the content administratively removed from Wikipedia? -- Mikeblas 22:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In a case like this I would normally just remove the offending material. If you want the old revision removed, I'm not sure exactly what the best forum for that is. If you want to use the copyvio template, you can specify the source in any manner you like, such as:
 * And so on. I find copyvios from sources such as these are considerably more infrequent however, as they require substantially more effort. Deco 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just trimmed the lyrics from the page. -- Mikeblas 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And so on. I find copyvios from sources such as these are considerably more infrequent however, as they require substantially more effort. Deco 23:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just trimmed the lyrics from the page. -- Mikeblas 00:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

User warning template
You can use: as a standard warning to users who upload copyrighted material. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: The preferred templates are uw-copyright1 through uw-copyright4, which start out much gentler than cv (no immediate threats of blocking to scare the newbies) and wind up much sterner (with the usual "this is your last warning" message). Since the uw templates are available, cv really should never be used anymore. --Quuxplusone 02:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, only two warnings would ever be appropriate, the first explaining politely that they cannot copy material without explicit permission, and the second telling them they will be blocked for it. If someone has violated copyright three times after being told twice not to do it, they must be blocked; Wikipedia is not a venue for allowing repeated illegal actions. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Temporary page location
Since we no longer use /'s for subpages in main space, should the temporary article link be changed to "Talk:Article/Temp"?--ragesoss 14:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * what's changed recently that we shouldn't rewrite copyvios at /Temp? --Duk 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What's changed is that /'s no longer make a subpage. So rather than Article/Temp being a subpage of Article, it's just a new article with a slash in the title.  See Subpages.  I'm going to change the template accordingly.--ragesoss 18:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this broke the existing copyvio pages. See Nevada State Route 171 as an example, as the temp page was Nevada State Route 171/Temp.  The temp pages therefore have to be moved. --Geopgeop 09:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Aaarggh, this could, potentially, be a bit of a significant issue. When deleting articles I personally just skim read the template and if the temp page link is red presume there is no replacement article.  However, once the template was changed the link would have showed red if a replacement page had been created at the old location (ie. article/temp). This means, there may be /Temp articles floating around that should have been used as replacements but have now been cast adrift.  I've put a note on the copyvio page and talk page highlighting this to admins and asking them to ensure that they check both possible locations for a replacement.  The issue will percolate out of the system once any articles that had been tagged with the older template have been deleted/had the template removed, so this issue only applies to articles tagged prior to 18:37 on 4 June 2006.  People, please be careful when editing this template.  Is there any merit in protecting this template to ensure people carefully consider any edits?  This is a very widely used, and very important, template that is not subst'd and so prone to any changes. Kcordina Talk 10:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Pseudo-subpage have been like this for ages. I will revert this change unless someone has an exceptionally good reason for changing something that isn't broken. Somebody has just gotten confused in reading Subpages, which has made clear for a long time that articlespace subpages are disabled on enwiki.-Splash - tk 13:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Since February. Not too recent, but recent by the standards of the discussion on this page.  But this template should have been changed back then anyway.  Since temporary pages are supposed to be in talk space, I see no reason why we should keep the copyvio temp pages in article space.  Anyway, it should be a non-issue once the current crop is through (which should be in just a few more days).--ragesoss 20:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the case. The history of Subpages indicates that it's been disabled in article space very much longer than that. The earliest revision that makes explicit the disabling is from March 2004 indicates that "The MediaWiki software still supports the creation of subpages in certain namespaces, such as the User, Talk, and Wikipedia namespaces, but subpages cannot be created in the main encyclopedia". -Splash - tk 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Changing it back again is going to extend the length of the problem period as then the problem will exist the other way round. It doesn't really matter where they live, so lets just leave it as it is now and all will be well. Anyone know of an easy way to hunt out any Temp pages that may have been missed when deleting copyvios? Kcordina Talk 08:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Uesr:Splash has changed the template back to how it was, which means the problem now exists in both directions - articles saying the replacement is at Article/Temp, when it's actually at Talk:Article/Temp, and vice versa. Keep your eyes open when deleting copyvios please folks otherwise things are going to fall through the cracks. Please don't change this template again until we settle on where they pages should go. Kcordina Talk 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes better sense to have about 2 days of dodgy /Temp links than 2+ weeks. There are, say, 100 CV's in two days. From experience, less than 10% of those will have a rewrite on a /Temp page of any kind, and so the loss is minimal. There is no obvious way to locate a /Temp page, but the instructions do ask that the editor mention the fact on the usual talk page. I always check that if the link to talk is blue. Sometimes, there's an outside chance that when you check Special:Whatlinkshere, you might discover it then. -Splash - tk 10:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I got confused about the recent back and forth with the intro to Subpages. Sorry about the hasty change. Still, this template should have been changed in 2004, and it still should be changed.  The existing pages can be moved.  If it's that big of a chore, we can hold off and get someone to run a bot for it, but sooner or later it should happen.--ragesoss 11:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article replacement should be at Article/Temp (not Talk:Article/Temp) in accordance with Copyright_problems.--Burzum 07:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The main namespace does not and should not have subpages. Having the temporary subpage at the location linked in this template is more appropriate. I have changed the text at the Copyright problems page. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A possible migration strategy
I was thinking about this and I reached the conclusion that I do agree that the psuedo-subpage approach should be phased out. Principally, this is because such 'sub'pages can be reach via Special:Randompage and the appearance of /Temp in the article title in such cases is clearly undesirable. However, this is fairly minor given the ration of the number of such pages to the total number of articles. That said, it would be cleaner and more technically consistent to make the /Temp page subordinate to Talk:.

So, we could make a new copyvio template at some convenient name, with the subpage link to Talk:/Temp, and replace the instructions with that. Announce the change fairly widely, and it will be picked up. Then, after some time, all uses of the old copyvio will be resolved one way or anohter, and we can swap the new one into its place, and either delete the old one (best way to prevent resurfacing) or move it somewhere non-obvious in case of existing usages that got missed. -Splash - tk 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't a simpler way be to change the link on the template, and then insert a note somewhere on the template saying something like Administrators - This template has recently been amended and the link above may not point to the correct location of a replacement article; please also check at articlename/Temp for a replacement article. Kcordina Talk 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that is suboptimal for exactly the reasons in the section above: it breaks all existing links, and admins simply won't check properly before deleting. I mean, what admin bothers to read the text of the template itself before deleting, or, for that matter, is likely to notice a new bullet point in instructions they read ages ago? -Splash - tk 15:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't we start moving all the existing pages to talk; the links will still work because it will retain a redirect. Then, once all pages have been moved, we can change the template, and optionally delete the redirects (although they won't matter for randompage).--ragesoss 17:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't be bothered to manually go through the 300-odd copyvios we currently have to find the ones with /Temp pages. -Splash - tk 19:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't need to go through and read the whole template - all the admin would need to do is skim read read two links to see if they're red, rather than skim read one link, as hopefully everyone does at the moment. Kcordina Talk 08:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed it back to the talk space links. I moved or redirected all the existing temp pages, so now the talk space links don't break anything.--ragesoss 02:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done - top stuff. Kcordina Talk 08:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of sections
It seems a little distracting to have procedural instructions for the template user ("If you have just labeled this page...") at the top of the template. How do people feel about moving this section to the bottom of the template, or at least below the "main" section ("The previous content of this page appears to infringe...")? I know it's convenient for those of us who use this template frequently to have that stuff up there, but it seems potentially disorienting for new users, and placing it a little lower would place little burden on template users. Thoughts? —Caesura(t) 19:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No one objected, so I did it. Maybe we'll hear some objections now. —Caesura(t) 23:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, when you do it, then you get responses. :) I liked the old way better, it was faster. I didn't had to scroll down to the bottom of the page every time. Especially since this template is more for editors than for readers anyway, considering it's only on there for a a couple of days until it gets deleted. But why would it be disorienting for new users? For new users who labeled the article, it was easier to see what to do. For new users who simply see the template when looking up an article, know that they don't have to do anything since they haven't done the tagging. Garion96 (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For the (usually brand new) user who created the article, it seems better to have an explanation at the top of the template rather than instructions that have nothing to do with them. How do you feel about a compromise of putting the procedural instructions somewhere in the middle of the template (say, below the "The previous content of this page..." section and above the numbered section), so that it's above the fold for us but won't be the first thing people unfamiliar with the template read? (Obvious disadvantage: this breaks up the main text of the template.) If you don't like this compromise, you can just revert the change; I'm not that attached to it. —Caesura(t) 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you're not that attached to it, I reverted it. If there is another way great. But breaking up the text is also not good, since it's quite important for editors who created the article to read the whole text without having the risk they might stop halfway. If you think of another way, please let me know or just edit the template and I will know that way. :) Garion96 (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem with a URL
Trying to use this template with http://www.music.org.za/artist.asp?id=178 as fails to accept the URL. I had to use it as. I am not completely sure why this is happening, but maybe adding a nowiki tag to the parameter may solve it. -- ReyBrujo 20:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is the presence of an = sign confusing the parser. The existence of the parameter is intended to fix the problem, as you discovered. -Splash - tk 20:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Dated categories
After receiving no response on the Administrator's noticeboard and on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems, I was going to try and figure out how to do dated categories for this. I was going to make the change as minimal as possible using pipes for category sections, but this is not feasible because piping in a category only takes the first letter after the pipe. Therefore, this requires assistance from a bot, presumably either the on that already does PROD, User:DumbBOT, or the one that does creation and archiving for Copyright problems, User:Zorglbot. The proposed template would work in the same way as Template:Prod, with a subst:copyvio resulting in a dated copyvio. A non-subst'ed copyvio would work the same as it does not, but it would put them in an "undated" category. I noticed above a mention of a bot that currently parses teh copyvio templates, is this still true? If it is referring to a bot that listed pages in that category on Copyright problems, it looks as though that doesn't happen anymore. —Centrx→talk &bull; 07:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have made the change, and it is backward compatible to be functionally identical when copyvio is not subst'ed and to put it in a dated category when it is subst'ituted. You may note a slight discrepancy in formatting, but this was all I could do to make it work like Template:Prod without having a lot of errant text. After the category bot, User:DumbBOT, is set up, I think it would be appropriate to have a short message about subst'ing when it is not. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, what is the point of this? Other than feeding a bot... -Splash - tk 13:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are over 1000 copyvios in CAT:CP, and it appears to be growing fairly fast. Having them sorted by date means that the oldest ones can be dealt with first. Currently, it is hit and miss to go through this category, because half the ones you click on will be more recent than 7 days, and in nearly all cases, there is nothing to do about it. This is less productive and is discouraging to someone going through the category. Conversely, among this 1000+, there remain copyvios that lay there for weeks, with no one checking on them. Unlike CAT:CSD, which can be brought down to 0 entries because it has no delay, this is more like CAT:PROD, which has dated categories.
 * Having dated categories means that an older copyvio is deleted before a newer one, and an older claim is followed up before a newer claim. I also made it backward compatible, anyone can still use copyvio without subst and it will work the same. With your consideration, I might add a small note informing the user to substitute it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what Copyright problems is for. They are all ordered in different date pages there. And sometimes someone comments on an article there, which an admin would miss otherwise. Garion96 (talk) 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, read the above comments not carefully enough. But still not convinced it's necessary. There are not that many copyvio's. (well there are) but not that many articles with this template tagged on. Garion96 (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The same script run you can find at the bottom of 2006-07-25 that found 1082 copyvios, found only about 480 at the beginning of July.

I don't think this is necessary and have two slight concerns;
 * 1) If an inexperienced admin tried to resolve the oldest copyvios by looking in the proposed dated category (and failed to read all the comments at WP:CP) it could be a real disaster. It's the oldest listings that are the most difficult to resolve. Much better to see a chronological listing of copyvios by looking at WP:CP.
 * 2) Say a page is tagged as a copyvio for a month but isn't listed at WP:CP, once it finally gets listed it needs to stay listed for the seven day period. A dated category would misrepresent its status. (I run a script from time to time that finds these unlisted pages and adds them to WP:CP). The seven day listing period for comments really makes a difference. Some false taggings are found, some permissions are solicited and obtained, and the discussion educates admins and editors about copyrights.--Duk 22:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it getting through them though? The same script run at the bottom of 2006-07-25 that found 1082 copyvios in the category, found only about 480 at the beginning of July. Is someone e-mailing a thousand websites? The vast majority of entries on WP:CP have no discussion at all. If a copyvio has a claim or is under discussion, can't it just be taken out of the dated category? Can we not warning instructions on the header to the category? —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems entirely reasonable that in 25 days some 600 copyvios (net) should be added to the list. How would the removal from the dated category work? This would just seem likely to create another crack in the process (or alternatively a backlog!) of pages that hadn't been removed but did have discussion. Add a warning about what? In any case, people don't read warnings; they just dive in. -Splash - tk 02:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The point was that they would just keep being added, that it would be double that or more in 50 days. If, as stated below, this is just fluctuation, that makes more sense, but that still wouldn't mean it would keep scaling, or explain why several articles that are almost speedy deletion candidates should remain for 3 weeks. If a page has discussion and isn't moved to an alternate category, this is still the miniscule minority of cases out of a small minority of articles with discussion. I don't see why clear instructions wouldn't be helpful, and I don't see how the current process prevents a headlong administrator from deleting copyvios without carefully checking their situation. —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it getting through them though? - yes. The backlog fluctuates depending on the admins working the page. Generally, one or more admins will clear out the backlog and keep the page up to date for a month or two. Then they get burned out and the backlog goes up again until a few new admins step in. These fluctuations have been the norm ever since I've watched the listing page- about a year and a half. Currently they fluctuate between about 500 and 1500. There is no magic way to get these listings to disappear, people have to do the work of reviewing them.
 * The vast majority of entries on WP:CP have no discussion at all - The older listings have a lot of discussion.
 * If a copyvio has a claim or is under discussion, can't it just be taken out of the dated category? Can we not [add] warning instructions on the header to the category? - I really don't see any improvement here, you still need to go and look at the discussions when resolving copyvios. While most listings won't have any discussion, some will. Having different categories for listing with and without discussions won't change anything, they all still need to be reviewed. --Duk 05:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you mean listings that are now archived, why was there more discussion then and almost none now? If you mean old listings that remain on the page, the older listings have discussion because those are the ones that were not already deleted; most all of them still get resolved without discussion. If a copyvio is in a dated category—rather than a pending discussion category—for two weeks ago, has no clean history and no claim on its Talk page, why can it not just be deleted? How are these not the vast majority of cases? —Centrx→talk &bull; 06:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the vast majority of the cases don't have discussion and can be deleted after the listing period ... and after being reviewed. I completely agree with you on this point. However, adding new categories based on dates and whether listings have discussion or not won't help the review process at all, it'll just add more categories. All listings need to be individually reviewed regardless of what hypothetical category they are in. Adding more categories won't make reviewing the listings any easier, it's feature creep. And I still have the (minor) concerns listed above. --Duk 23:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Less prominent version?
Could we have a template version that is less prominent, for cases where a reporter is truly unsure if copyright has bee violated and he doesn't want to add such a bold gigantic statement?

I'm in this situation right now because Simultaneous brightness contrast looks a lot like, but I would like to attract experts on the subject. I like the article and I don't want to basically "kill" it with a huge warning label, just based on my opinion, without any expert advice. A small "possible copyright violation" banner that also adds the article to the relevant category would be perfect for this task.

So - could we have an alternative smaller version of the template for those cases? Peter S. 14:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That particular case is clearly a copyvio. But in instances where a small amount of text has been copied, or other truly minor examples, then the answer would be to either remove the material or inquire on the talk page. -Will Beback 22:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. But... the talk page solutions has two problems:
 * Talk pages are not regularly visited, therefore such a page could exist for a long time
 * Banner-Templates also allow the wikipedia community to do a more fine-grained workflow, where people can just add a little info very quickly and somebody else takes it from there. Like "needs expert attention": added in a few seconds, and later an expert goes through that list and does his thing. Having such a banner for copyvio would be very advantageous as well.
 * Do you agree that such a smaller banner would be a good idea? Peter S.
 * Yes, I agree. A smaller banner would be a good idea. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. Strictly as a proposal, I have created the PotentialCopyvio template (though "PossibleCopyvio" may be a better name). I have not yet added the new template to any instruction pages or anything like that, as this is purely a proposal. Please review the design, make any needed improvements, and leave comments on the talk page there. Kickaha Ota 00:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like wrong warning template to give at bottom
"Maintenance use only: ~" Seems incorrect for this template, as that says it is being speedied, but this (Copyvio) is not the template that would be used, were it a speedy. It seems it should be changed to (pagehere) ~. Or am I misunderstanding what "maintenance use" it is referring to, as I assumed that was to help people just copy that onto the creator's talk page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed to Template:Nothanks. —Centrx→talk &bull; 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Um...
Dosent this template that takes up a full screen of text seem overly obnoxious to anyone else? 72.2.21.73
 * No. A substantial amount of information is necessary. Please stop replacing it with a different (and inapplicaple) template. --RobthTalk 06:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then why not provide a link like every other template, why should copyvio be any different?


 * Because copyvio should be used only on blanked pages, where the only thing for readers to see, and the only thing we want readers to see, is the instructions about how to deal with a copyvio or prove ownership. --RobthTalk 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Preface v. replace
I have noticed that some pages that only contain content supsected of copyrighted infrigement are tagged as possible copyright violations but continue to include the questionable content. Copyright violations states that
 * "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there."

I think that we should include a notice to editors/taggers to replace the page with the tag (if all the content is a possible copyright violation) rather than merely preface the page with the tag. --Iamunknown 07:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the template says "Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing." (emphasis added) This implies that the text is to remain on the page, which is not in accordance with Copyright violations. I would like to be bold, but am too cowardly to change such a prominent and official template. --Iamunknown 20:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem.
When using the URL= parameter, the text for inclusion on the copyright problems list does not come up properly. One gets
 * * article-name from [Notice given at Wikipedia:Copyright problems]. ~

A link to the url appears in the displayed text of the template, but not in the text for cut and paste into the copyright problems listing.--Srleffler 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This was a temporary error due to an edit that was quickly reverted. —Centrx→talk &bull; 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate of Copyright?
This appears to have the exact same content as, so why do we have both?--RyanB88 03:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright is just a redirect to here. —Centrx→talk &bull; 03:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with php
FOr example this url http://cinema.muslib.ru/groupe_info.php?groupe=597 does not show on the template, instead is shown. Andreas (T) 15:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The culprit is the equal sign: mediawiki does not allow an equal sign in a parameter. This is mediawiki bug 5138 Andreas (T) 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Workaround: enclose parameters with ...
 * Your &lt;/nowiki> doesn't appear above, you need another of  &lt;/nowiki> wrapping around it to show. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 13:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See this sandbox page: User:Raphaelmak/Sandbox/Copyviotemptest. I have tested the template on a number of conditions. The only workaround is to add url= before the source (i.e. do not omit param name). The fact is that the Mediawiki software, upon reading the equal sign, treated http://cinema.muslib.ru/groupe_info.php?groupe as param name and 597 as param value. -- : Raphaelmak : [ talk ] [ contribs ] 13:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to put an explanation of the above on the template page but was reverted Andreas  (T) 01:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I only reverted you because your edit made the template disappear. Every article on which the template was on only showed white space. Garion96 (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, fixed. Andreas  (T) 12:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

IEEPA
I just saw that the underlined phrase was recently added to the template:
 * "If this text is in the public domain, or is already under a license suitable for Wikipedia, or the copyright holder is subject to IEEPA sanctions which prohibit enforcing the copyright :
 * Explain this on this article's discussion page, with reference to evidence."

Has there been any discussion about this? Can we relicense text copyrighted in other nations under the GFDL? I find it hard to believe that such text would be freely usable outside the US. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Even if there were not problems with this because it is U.S.-specific and because it may be temporary, it would still be needlessly specific. I have removed it. —Centrx→talk &bull; 01:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

When a re-write is appropriate

 * Now this produces a major problem, at least if we take it literally. Take the following example. A, B, C and umpteen other people write the article Blue-nosed dolphin, in the best of Wikipedian ideals and ethics, totally non-copyvio. It grows to be a large and valued article. Then some guy adds a substantial part of text, which is later found to be copyvio. According to this note, this article is then unsalvageable. It would have to be written totally anew.


 * Long-winded example, short message: If it is possible to clearly identify the copyvio part, expecting a rewrite would be stupid. In fact, it could be used to sabotage an article, and the work of faithful editors.MadMaxDog 12:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Produced a rephrase of the section of this template. See the example template at User:MadMaxDog/Copyvio. Acceptable for a new version of this template? MadMaxDog 08:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't ANYONE else feel that the whole "Delete this whole article, rewrite it anew, ohmegod!!!" is an invitation to sabotage of Wikipedia? Where the copyvio is identifiable lets not shave our heads just to get rid of some gray hairs!


 * "Identifiable": clear in extent, or, more likely in when it was introduced - revert to old version, even if very old.MadMaxDog 12:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Following WP:BOLD, after a week of no answers, I have now changed the template as I suggested last week. MadMaxDog 11:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One reason no one responded is you randomly interjected your comments in past sections, and unrelated ones at that. That said, the change you made is quite fine. Also, keep in mind that all revisions that contain the copyrighted text, which is often all subsequent revisions, are forfeit from a legal standpoint, but there is no practical way to require deletion rather than reversion or removal of such revisions. —Centrx→talk &bull; 16:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say this may be a flaw in the software. It should be possible for a bureaucrat to delete a particular version of an article or to replace part of the text of a particular version by some kind of tag. Should I make a request to the developers or does anybody know if this is doable or in the works? Andreas  (T) 17:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Administrators can delete particular revisions of an article, but I believe each revision is stored in toto, not by diffs i.e. the changes made, such that implementing this would require a complete overhaul of the storage mechanism. So, there is no way to simply delete the change and have the deletion propagate through all subsequent revisions; every subsequent revision would contain the text in question and therefore would need to be deleted if the copyright holder were to contact the Wikimedia Foundation. —Centrx→talk &bull; 19:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for agreeing with the change, Centrx. As for inserting my comment into an 'unrelated section', no, I inserted it straight where the previous user talked about the sentence that I extended to clarify. Also, I thought that people watchlisting this would look at the diff for the talk page when seeing that someone added new text? MadMaxDog 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many people just look at the bottom of the page or to sections where they are involved in a discussion, not to month- or year-old sections. —Centrx→talk &bull; 02:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not all copyvios are from online sources!
This template is currently set up with a single parameter, url, to specify the online location of the copied text. However, this is not sufficient, as in some cases editors have copied material from printed sources which are not available online. Could someone proficient in parameterized wikisyntax please revise this template to allow its users to specify sources other than URLs? —Psychonaut 09:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * All you have to do is put, no changes needed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any copyrighted books for which the text isn't available online? --88.77.235.17 13:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite yes. The majority of copyrighted books is not available online. Garion96 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Temp Page
Is there a reason for the temp page to be a talk page? Most of the time, the violation is on an article page, so shouldn't the temp page be an article page too? Could someone please clarify the reason for this for me? Thank you. Manu-ve Pro Ski (talk) 01:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure. Perhaps the fact that clicking on random article won't bring you to talk pages. Garion96 (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The main namespace does not have subpages, so from a practical as well as a theoretical standpoint, only actual articles belong in the main namespace not temporary or provisional or potentially illegal articles. —Centrx→talk &bull; 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

more than one URL
How do I write the syntax if there are two URLs to refer to? Kingturtle (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to replace the csd tag with this one when uploader asserts ownership?
Where the uploader asserts ownership but has not properly identified the grant of the GFDL as to an image, and an editor has tagged the image with db-imgcopyvio, is it appropriate to remove the CSD tag and replace it with this one to give the creator more time to fix the problem? I've seen several image CSDs where this is the case. In particular one group of images where the creator had specifically asked for help on his talk page with posting copyrights. Some of them oddly bore both tags.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, although for image imagevio is better. Speedy deletion a copyvio happens only when there is no assertion of permission. Garion96 (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

long comment
This template is often used by blanking the page. I've noticed several long comments being added to the page afterwards to keep the page from showing up on Special:Shortpages. Is it possible to some how incorporate a subst long comment into this template? I'm not very hot with templates, so I may be all wet.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The template would be {{subst:Longcomment}}, but I think to make it work, this template would have to be moved to another location and the long comment added here as a parameter so that the new template would be an invocation of copyvio PLUS the subst long comment, without losing the functionality of the url parameter. I'm not sure how to do that.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since there seems to be a nice bot adding the extra comment every time, why bother? Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed that, I'd seen several edited manually to add the comment - which is how this came to my attention.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 22:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't actually see that this is happening. In most instances the nominator is failing to blank the page.  No Bot fixes that, but even if they do blank the page, or someone else does afterwards, I don't find Bots doing anything about it.  User:DumbBOT is the only Bot I've seen involved and all it does is complete the nomination by posting it on WP:CV.  I have seen editors adding the comment, presumably as they work through the list of Special:Shortpages.  (I have inquired about a bot to blank the pages, and it could add the long comment if I can find one, but it won't fix the problem of user nominations that don't include the comment)--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Another editor had raised this issue at WT:CP, it's now going on both places, let's centralize the discussion there. BTW, I think that User:TexasAndroid may have been mistaken for a bot, as that is the only user I've seen adding long comments.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You...... are......  correct......    I...... am....... not...... a........ bot...... (More useful comments will be taken to the other location as requested by Doug.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Substitution reconsidered
The discussion regarding, above has been moved to WT:CP where it has been suggested that substitution of this template would be the best solution to the problem. Because the template specifically says not to substitute it I am reposting here for more input in this regard. Please review both discussions and comment at WT:CP.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Special:Shortpages is just a transitory thing. The copyright violations should be mostly cleaned up before there would be too many on Shortpages; if someone is looking through Shortpages to help clean up Wikipedia, they should help by cleaning up copyright violations. Also, it may be that people are too zealous about adding the long comment to pages on Special:Shortpages. I remember in the past it was being added willy-nilly to any short page whatever without doing any improvement to the page, which contradicts the purpose of Shortpages. We do not need to cater to that. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please join the discussion at WT:CP, User:TexasAndroid explains the problem there - it is an issue.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Question
Is it necessary to blank the page to put the template on it? I think it's better to just add it to the top of the page so others can see the information of the article. I'm saying this because I've noticed the last 10 pages, with this temlate added to it, have been blanked by the person who added the template. I just want to know if you are supposed to blank the page to use the template. Undeath (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A page ought to be blanked when using this template. If a page is a copyright violation, its text does not belong prominently displayed. —Centrx→talk &bull; 17:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But how can you decide if the text is actually a copyvio if there is no text to see? I know that you can look at the edits, but wouldn't it be more convienent to just add the template to the top of the page? Undeath (talk) 19:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * All the people who check the articles to see if it is a copyvio or not know how to look at the history. As said before, a copyright violation does not belong prominently displayed to a random reader. Garion96 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Major revision coming
A discussion has been ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. This will result in a major change to how this template functions (converting to a version of the template that requires substitution). The change is pretty much ready to implement, but I am made nervous by a lack of commontary in the last couple of weeks on the subject. If you have comments on the issue, please, please come contribute to the discussion. I'm inclined to proceed with the change, but the last thing I want is to get a bunch of criticism after the fact that could have been addressed before-hand. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Things are now in place.  The core copyvio code template has been moved to this new name, and a subst-able wrapper has taken up home at the old name.  Shifting the names like this means that users do not need to learn a new template name, they just need to start subst-ing the wrapper.  And if they do not subst it, they'll get a nice large red warning message instead of the template that they expected.
 * The wrapper was based off of a canibalized version of the prod template. One thing that the PROD template did that I preserved was to set up a series of parameters that include the date and time of the addition of the template.  PROD uses this to categorize the pages automatically into appropriate date categories, amoung other things.  These parameters are not currently in use by this core code template, but they are now being set, and in the future if someone wants to add code to this one to somehow make use of them, they will be there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit: Wikilink
The wikilink at the beginning of the template's first line ("If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement...") shouldn't be an external link. I have no idea how to make it appear as a wikilink, but I bet it's possible. --zenohockey (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving "maintenance" tag to top
Following this conversation, I have moved the nothanks notice to the top and requested that taggers use it on the pages of article creators. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to "temporary version" text
A change to this template concerning the creation of a temporary reversion has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. It addresses specifically the concern that versions written from scratch may incorporate non-infringing text from the original in such a way as to violate GFDL. Please contribute there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

New version of the template
See Template talk:Copyviocore/Temp; discussion is/was here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

auto-hiding of text
I have noticed that the method by which this template auto-hides the text of possibly copyright-infringing articles does not prevent the text from actually being downloaded to endusers' computers. I thought the reason that infringing content has to be blanked is that the downloading of the content is itself an infringement? If the user of the copyvio template manually blanks the allegedly-infringing content, at least it will not be downloaded each time the page in question is loaded, but this template merely hides the infringing content without preventing it from being copied to the hard drive of anybody who visits the page in question. Bwrs (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is the reason for blanking the text. When the template was changed some years ago, (by me, I'll note), following conversation here, none of us were evidently aware of this possibility. :/ I've heard mention of this issue before, but not quite so clearly (e.g. translated well for non-techies). If this is the case, we probably ought to restore the prior practice and update the directions. I don't think we should remove the "hide" function, because it's going to take people a while to catch up with the change. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It hadn't even occured to me that while the text isn't displayed it's still in the html source which is transmitted. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I have often ignored the direction to blank the page when the copyvio. was not blatant, or when it was not obvious to me which was the original (i.e., sometimes I flag something as copyvio. only to find out that the other source is the copyvio. and the Wiki is the original). Anyway, I was wondering if there is maybe a way to implement the auto-blanking in the software, instead of by adding html or css code to hide the text?  (This would be technically challenging because there would have to be a way to designate only a section or paragraph instead of a whole article for auto-blanking.) Bwrs (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're talking code, you're talking over my head. :) But there's some suggestions at Copyright problems/Advice for admins for how to tell which came first under "evaluating the issue". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know going deeper than html/css would require a change to the actual MediaWiki code, which means the next stop would be either Village pump (technical) or BugZilla, but since just removing the text works I doubt there would be much motivation to muck around with it. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Feature request
The instructions that appear at the top of this template: "If you have just labeled this page as a possible copyright infringement, please add the following to the bottom of..." and so on, can be a bit confusing to some readers and/or the creator of the article, and because it's at the very top of the message box it is the first thing they read, and, especially for newbies, could possibly lead them into areas of the project that would utterly confuse and frustrate them as to what they should be doing or if this process even relates to them.

It would be beneficial if a parameter, such as  for example, can be implemented to allow the original tagger to hide that top portion once the instructions within it have been carried out (eg. already added to bottom of WP:Copyright problems and notified on the talk page of the contributor) thereby leaving just the information that's relevant to the actual copyright infringement. This parameter can and should be manually added immediately after the main copyvio template is substituted. Thoughts? -- &oelig; &trade; 00:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering. Is the above not viable? or just kinda hard, or pain-in-the-ass to do? -- &oelig; &trade; 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Question
Would it be possible to have this template transclude some sort of maintenance category (e.g. or something like that), so that it doesn't cause the affected pages to appear unnecessarily on the Uncategorized Articles list? (Note that this category would need to be visible; the list generation bot doesn't look for hidden categories.) Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It already uses Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems, so it should be sufficient to simply un-hide that category. I don't see that making it visible would be a big deal since the tag itself is about as blatant as it gets, but we can wait a bit and see if anyone disagrees. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Should template text include nobots template?
After a user advised me I edited a page tagged with this template using AWB, which I did not notice at the time, should/could this template include nobots in the text description to prevent bot/AWB semi-automated edits from occurring on pages tagged with the template? Rjwilmsi 17:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems with it, although the "Do not edit this page" line is (as far as I'm aware) really just intended to prevent people from replacing possible copyvio until it's been resolved somehow. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to {{subst:copyvio}} once I realized that nobots doesn't actually do anything, it's just something for bots to look for before editing the page. So now newly blanked pages will transclude both copyviocore and nobots. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A section-only version?
The subst'd template blanks the entire page. Is there not a place for instead? It'd be a shame to throw out the baby with the bathwater.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You can end the blanking with  . I don't remember where it tells you that though. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx LeadSongDog come howl!  17:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)