User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 11

Thank you for correcting usage of non-free content
I noticed that you went through my user page and corrected in where I wrongly used a non-free media. I have nothing but appreciation and gratitude for going through that and correcting my user page. Thank you. --M. Tawsif Salam 01:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

VWBot / draft articles on user pages
greetings sir :)

just a heads up it appears VWBot has picked up some images on a new draft copy I'm busy working on of MyBroadband over on my own user page at User:Meepdeedoo/MyBroadband. the original article remained in tact, with the offending images.

i'm working on draft copies of articles as I was told by various experience users that this is best practice when doing a large article rewrite/improvement, rather than working on the main page directly.

i support the action of removal, as one of my goals was to find non-violating images and replace them... I've done this with the main logo image, just not a screen shot yet. alsoo... just letting you know if this is expected behaviour, is it may seem strange to some, that the action was not taken across both new and existing articles.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meepdeedoo (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * not worthy of a reply even? :( Meepdeedoo (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the lack of responswe, I didn't see a question so writing a reply wasn't on top of my todo list and then it just slipped my mind. It wasn't VWBot that edited your page, it was me. Regardless of doing extensive article rewrites in your sandbox, non-free images are still not allowed to be used there. As I indicated in my edit summary, such use is a violation of our non-free content polcy, WP:NFCC in particular. I certainly understand why such actions are taken, but any changes to non-free logos need to be made (only) on the article itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for clarifying, I follow that procedure in future. :) Meepdeedoo (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop vandalism
Please stop constantly trying to vadndalise my sandbox, I am writing an article and I am using images as reference under fair use. I reported you previously and I was said that the issue will be investigated — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjSeptimus (talk • contribs) 09:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

London Heritage Farm
Hi again. I was wondering if you had seen the new email that the heritage farm coordinator sent through with the full permission text? We're keen to get the page back up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceubren (talk • contribs) 19:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Found it and everything looks good so the page has been unblanked. Thanks for the bump! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceubren (talk • contribs) 17:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

G8-exempt for File talk:Ngatikaura Ngati autopsy rear.jpg?
Hi. I wondered whether would qualify for G8-exempt, as a page which is potentially useful to Wikipedia (in a similar way to pages such as ). What do you think? -- Trevj (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I did read it before I deleted it, but it was short, rather disjointed, and didn't even directly link to which other conversation(s?) it was referencing. All told I felt (and feel) it would just be much clearer to link people to Talk:Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati and #What did the judge rule on? where the discussions are relatively self-contained.


 * I can certainly restore it if you'd like, I just felt it wasn't particularly helpful. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * OK. Sounds like there's no need. I couldn't remember how useful the copyright info there was and if it duplicated that in the other discussions or not. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

About My Userboxes Images
You have removed some image from my userboxes which can on be used in articles only. Then can I use those image after slide modification?--pratyya (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "slide modification". In userboxes you can only use images which are freely licensed or in the public domain (like User:Pratyya Ghosh/Support/Australia cricket) or text (like User:Pratyya Ghosh/Userboxes/Like/BPL). If you have questions about a particular image or you don't know how to tell if an image is free or not, just ask and I'll be happy to help. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Verno!
Hi Verno! It seems, if I am reading correctly, you are checking my submission Epic Proportions Tour. If accepted or not could you please let me know what could be better? I understand I can do that even if it is accepted. It's my first article and I find doing it very interesting so I just want to know how to do a better one in the future. Thanks! Matt Matt Butcher (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Hi Verno!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Epic_Proportions_Tour  Hi Verno! It seems, if I am reading correctly, you are checking my submission Epic Proportions Tour. If accepted or not could you please let me know what could be better? I understand I can do that even if it is accepted. It's my first article and I find doing it very interesting so I just want to know how to do a better one in the future. Thanks! Matt Matt Butcher (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm not familiar with your submission. I don't really work in the Articles for Creation area, so I don't know how things generally work there. From looking at that page history it looks like the last person who sat down and reviewed your submission was . You've since added some sources and it's currently waiting for another review. I've just skimmed it, so I don't have any in-depth feedback, but now that the sources actually have links the reviewers can follow, it certainly looks better. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
BO &#124; Talk 21:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam Grossman of SKREW image/link/page
Greetings, you changed an edit I did to a page concerning an image related to Adam Grossman of SKREW. I have been given the right to do this by the owner of the image (Adam Grossman), and is actually a image edit that I did. I am also a member of the band SKREW, which is directly related to Adam Grossman. I understand that you are an admin, but there is nothing wrong about what I have made an edit to. So please stand down. I'm am here to help you to the best of my ability, and to do so with politeness, and respect. Please undo your edit.

Cheers,

Joseph Merino — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoomBuggi (talk • contribs) 00:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When you uploaded the image you indicated that it was not free, and so being used here on Wikipedia under fair use. Now per Wikipedia policy, if a free image can be created then we are not allowed to use a non-free one--which is why I tagged the image as I did. In this case, it should be fairly straightforward for the copyright holder (it sounds like Adam Grossman from your statement) to follow the steps outlined at Donating copyrighted materials so that we can retain the image. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sandy Island
Hello!

I noticed you removed my picture of Google Maps's version of Sandy Island. (Or removed and removed, you deleted a colon breaking the link.) I noticed you did not pause to discuss this first, only giving a Wiki "law paragraph" in passing in your edit comment.

Since I am not a Wikipedia professional, I find this spectacularly unhelpful. At the very least, could you explain to me what I did wrong or how I should proceed to upload a version you will find acceptable? You might have long since forgotten how it feels to do something for the first time, but what you shot down in probably three seconds took me half an hour to create.

It would also help if you could tell me the difference between the Google Maps picture of Argleton and my effort?

Feel free to tell me you don't have the time, and I'll respect that. But then please leave my edits be so they might come to the attention of another pro wikipedian but one with more time to actually be helpful. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 11:12, 24 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I linked to the Wikipedia policy because it explains why I made the edit I did in more detail than I could fit into an edit summary. I don't see a problem directly with the image you created, the problem was with how (or more specifically, where) it was being used. Wikipedia's policy regarding the use of non-free content is explicitly and intentionally more restrictive than that allowed by fair use, and part of that restriction is that non-free images are not allowed to be displayed anywhere except for within articles. You had placed it on the talk page (which as I just indicated is not allowed), and so I removed it, leaving a link to the image so that others could click on it and see the image for themselves.


 * As far as the difference between Argleton and Sandy Island goes, Argleton appears to be specifically an anomoly withing Google, while Sandy Island is an anomaly in a wide variety of maps over time. Since there are examples of free images including Sandy Island (such as the image currently in the infobox), policy generally precludes the use of a non-free image in its place or in addition to it, but if there is sourced commentary specifically regarding Google's representation of the island, then it could possibly be included in addition to the free image. Each situation has to be evaluated individually, and I haven't looked at that possibility in-depth.


 * I'm sorry you feel slighted by my actions. It was certainly not my intention. The reason for the policy is so that the encyclopedia remains a free encyclopedia—at least as free as possible—and pursuing that goal was my only intention. Please let me know if you have any further questions regarding the policy or my actions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Copy removed from Frigidaire for " (cleanup - mostly removing unsourced puffery introduced by a COI editor User:Nordynehvac in May)"
Hi, I work for a company called NORDYNE who manufactures HVAC products under the Frigidaire name. We own www.nordyne.com and www.frigidaire.net. I added some copy to the Frigidaire page back in May and noticed that you removed it. Can you explain or point me to what I violated? This is all true content.

Thanks, Barb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nordynehvac (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * All material in Wikipedia should be supportable by reliable sources, in other words it must be verifiable. For example, part of the content I removed said "Frigidaire is the first and only DFT-certified manufacturer ..." There should be a third-party source which can be used to verify that claim (i.e., not a source published by Nordyne, Frigidaire, or any other related party).


 * Also, Wikipedia articles should maintain a neutral point of view, and an encyclopedic tone. For example, a different part of the content I removed said "Frigidaire heating and cooling products come with an above average warranty and a Comfort Quality Pledge." Unless the warranty and quality pledge are noteworthy enough that a reliable source has commented on them they should not be included in the article. In no case should external links like that (in the quoted sentence above, or the one I removed from the bottom of the article) be used in an attempt to direct traffic to your website.


 * Please let me know if you have any further questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Endukante premanta cd cover deletion
Sir i have re created it with different content. So according to my opinion the deletion of this image is unfair. Previous deletion was nice attempt by you. Because it fails Non-free use policy. So that only i have re created the page with different content. Please think once sir. My humble request is : Please revert the deleted image (or) give me permission to re create this image. Waiting for your reply. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 16:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You may disagree with the precise reason for my second deletion in the log (WP:CSD), but the consensus at the WP:NFCR discussion that I linked to was clear: If the poster was official then two separate images could not be justified. Since it certainly appears that the poster was/is official, your change of the poster to a different one in order to allow a different CD cover doesn't change the fact that a single image could (and so must, according to policy) be used instead of two. If there is some contrary evidence that you are aware of, showing that the poster that was discussed in the NFCR discussion was not used as both a poster for the film and a CD cover, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir you are not understanding what i have told. Previous NFCR discussion was over. I am clear about that. But why did you deleted the current by nominating it to CSD. The current one is with totally different content. There is no repetition nor matches with the deleted content that was discussed in NFCR discussion. Orphaned versions are also deleted by admin "Diannaa".Waiting for your reply. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 16:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * As I said above, the consensus was that if a single image could be used to represent both the poster and the CD cover then it should be used rather than using separate images. The consensus was not regarding a specific CD cover, but rather about using more than one non-free image when a single one could serve both purposes. That situation has not changed. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sir, now i have understood the matter. Sir actullay in that NFCR discussion the problem posted by Mr. "Stefan 2" user was : he saw a image similar to the CD cover image i have uploaded, in "Cinmass" website. So that he added a "Non-free content review template" to that image. Later i have asked him a solution to this problem. Then he said like this : "Place a line at the top of the image i.e., "The cover looks similar to the image elsewhere in the article" and also he gave me a reference to that site". Then i have added to it. The problem is solved. Actually "Endukante Premanta" article contains two non-free images i.e.,

1. Film poster : Endukante premata poster.jpg (in Infobox film)

Another one

2. Album cover : Endukante premata cd cover.jpg (in Infobox album)

So two non-free images with different content.

Film poster (or) Album cover individually won't serve both purposes. There must be one image for each category. So it is impossible to represent both the poster and CD cover with a single image. See so many film articles contains two non-free images. So that they are all to be deleted like you said, after that only one would remain for every film article. That one is highly impossible. Because as i said both film poster and cd cover categories are different. So that only i have closed the discussion in that non-free content review. But you have re opened it without understanding what i have leaved there in the discussion summary. Try to understand sir. Please read twice the above one and finally give me a conclusion to this problem. Thanking you once again for reading and have a good day sir. Hoping you will solve this problem. Raghusri (talk) Raghusri 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * To start with, regarding "every film article" please see Other stuff exists. This is a discussion about this article in particular, not all of them.


 * Back to the case at hand, I understand that you uploaded two different images -- one for the film poster, and one for the cd cover -- and that they were being used in two separate locations. As has been mentioned more than once now, however, it appears that the single image (the one referenced in the discussion and which I uploaded as the film poster as part of my close) was also used in a cropped variant as a soundtrack cover. As such, a single image can in this case be used to indicate the branding of both the movie and its soundtrack. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing
Which sentences in Armenchik and Boxing in Armenia are paraphrased from indicated sources? There are sentences that can possibly not be changed, let's say for example look at the duplication report for Armenchik, which phrase is so "original"? armen gondrachyan was born on august how can I possibly change that? or at the alex theatre in glendale or his first album titled armen nor seround? Any suggestions?

I'll look at Boxing in Armenia later, because it's a little longer.-- Ե րևանցի  ասելիք կա՞  23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost every sentence can be changed. Close paraphrasing which I previously linked to you contains a handful of examples. The real problem however, is not echoing a single sentence but echoing an entire paragraph. Even where a single sentence lacks sufficient creativity to be copyrightable, a combination of multiple such sentences can result in a copyrightable whole. Starting from the beginning of the section I marked, for example, you wrote:


 * Where the source says:


 * I've bolded the words where they are exactly the same word in the same order. While sources are needed to verify the facts in an article, the wording for the articles can not be taken from elsewhere. It must be entirely (re)written from scratch. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright then, but I still don't understand how much of a big deal is close paraphrasing from a pop singer's website. It's not like I'm copying a scientific research or a political report on national security. Anyway, I'll try to put those two sentences in my own words as you request.-- Ե րևանցի  ասելիք կա՞  02:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't judge which copyrighted material is worth respecting, we respect it all equally. Besides the sentences in Armenchik from that source, there's also the entire plot section of Namus (film) which looks like it was translated it word-for-word from the Russian source you cited. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If it does seem to be closely paraphrased then go ahead delete it. If my efforts of taking time and translating it isn't appreciated, then do it, I have nothing else to say.-- Ե րևանցի  ասելիք կա՞  03:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So you're not interested in correcting any copyright problems you may have introduced? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * May sound surprising, but I'm simply not.-- Ե րևանցի  ասելիք կա՞  03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll stop asking you to then. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Armenian American
Please look at  these images. I just added templates that allow them to be on the article. Undo your edit, so I won't be considered a 3RR violator. -- Ե րևանցի  ասելիք կա՞  03:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm afraid I must decline to undo my edit. The template (which I note is incomplete in Melkonian's image) if properly filled out can meet the requirement imposed by WP:NFCC. My edit summary also noted problems with WP:NFCC and WP:NFG, which are not situations which can be remedied by the addition of templates. They go to how an image is actually presented and used within an article...which becomes hard to adjust when the images only use is in an infobox with no critical commentary on the individual photos or people depicted by them. If you wish, you (or I) can start a discussion about the inclusion of such non-free images at Non-free content review or Media copyright questions in order to get feedback from more (and uninvolved) editors familiar with handling non-free content. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand this paranoia around copyright issue. Is that 100 pixel image gonna hurt the feelings or the commercial situation of its owner? Why is that useless bureaucracy needed here? Why can Salvador Dali's drawing be posted in 10 pages? Why make everything so difficult? And no I don't wanna start a discussion and waste my time on that. No is a no, like whatever.-- Ե րևանցի  ասելիք կա՞  04:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * File:The Persistence of Memory.jpg is used in 7 locations, and as you presumably noticed has already been brought to WP:NFCR for discussion about it possibly being overused. I'll probably get around to closing that discussion in the next week or two. You may also be interested in reading WP:NEVERSUE and commons:COM:PRP. It's a 'no' because our mission is to provide a free encyclopedia, not because of copyright paranoia. If you think that it's just useless bureaucracy, then feel free to propose a change to our NFC policy. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Spiders
Okay, I'll "" -- how did you put that image in there? Anyway, ... Thanks for the links re: Fritz Lang's The Spiders. I was able to expand the 'Restoration' section a bit. If you find anything else of interest, let me know. ~Eric F:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That image is at User talk:VernoWhitney/Editnotice . The interview I already linked to is the best one I came across, but I'll be sure to make a note if I stumble across anything else. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

nonfree image
I realized this today, and was going to check on it tonight, to see if this logo was fair use or free use. thanks for catching that. someone used the "STAR WARS" original movie lettering for the Star Wars book. i will check on that and if necessary remove it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. It shows up in a database report I've been checking pretty regularly, that's how I spotted it. The Star Wars title is on Commons and asserted to be too simple to copyright. So long as an image is actually tagged as non-free I'll get around to it outside of mainspace sooner or later. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for removing the non-free images from my userspace! I should've realized it wasn't allowed. —Entropy (T/C) 01:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. It's not something that comes up very often. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I added the necessary usage rights information
For the Maryland logo to which you responded to me, I added the necessary copyright information. It is free use. - Josephabradshaw


 * Replied at your talk. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello and thanks!
Hello VernoWithney!

Thank you for removing the pictures from teh Dropboxes. I haven'n notices that they are none free.

BTW: I have a question, becaues I'm now more than three years on wikipedia and I haven't get it at all. I've already have created new articles, I have edited some old one, but I don't think I have understood Wikipedia at all. How do I come into the community? And is it possible, that someone could check my gramma first on articles I write? Because I'm not a native speaker and my wirting is much worse.

Greetings Captain Miles (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're already part of the community, just by using talk pages like this. There are a number of central gathering spots such as Teahouse and a large number of other noticeboards for more specific questions or concerns. I'd recommend that you ask at the Teahouse and see if someone is willing to check your spelling and grammar. Everyone here is a volunteer, but I bet you can find somebody there willing to help out. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! Thanks for the help! Captain Miles (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Ian McNabb album photos
Hi Verno, You recently removed pictures of album covers from the Ian McNabb Discography page i made. I am sure you know more about Wikipedia than me, but from the pages you linked me to didn't really explain why the images couldn't be on the discography page, only not on my sandbox. If it's any help, the artist knows i am making the pages and using the images. Should i try and find a 'free' alternative ie on his facebook page? Thanks for any advice --Jonie148 (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

just to further clarify, two of the 5 images apply for this "If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.)" as per wp policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain --Jonie148 (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Non-free images on Wikipedia are used as sparingly as possible. First I'll quote the pieces of the guideline I tried to point to, and then I'll get to explaining it. In my edit summary for the actual (non-sandboxed) discography page, the first part of the guideline I linked to was WP:NFC 2, which lists an "album cover as part of a discography" as an example of an unacceptable use of non-free images. I also linked to WP:NFCI which was an error on my part--it took you to the wrong part of the page, I should have just written WP:NFCI 1. That part explains that non-free cover art may be used for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary. The footnote goes on to explain that in articles which are not specifically about the single album, "the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article".


 * So... what all that basically means is that discography articles (or discography sections within articles on an artist, or similar) shouldn't include non-free album covers unless the artwork on the cover is actually discussed (by a reliable source). There is a general allowance to use cover art on the article about an individual album or single, but not elsewhere without additional commentary on the cover. I didn't see any of that in the article, but please let me know if I missed something.


 * To address your second post: The album cover copyright may belong to McNabb, or the label, or the artist. I'm not immediately familiar with how those arrangements usually work, and the specifics depend on the individual contract(s) anyways. In any case, under UK law, the art will be copyrighted for a long time to come: it won't enter the public domain 70 years after the death of the copyright holder. As above, I may be missing something, but copyright is generally automatic and long-lasting. Now if the copyright holder (whoever it may be) is willing to release the cover art under a free license, then we have a process laid out at Donating copyrighted materials to ensure that they understand what that entails and we can confirm their release. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. i can see your reasoning is sound. Just a bit annoying as some of the images are hard to find, and i know fans were interested to see the images (on previous pages before merge to Discography page). Thanks for the help! --Jonie148 (talk) 13:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Just thought actually, could i make an article to document the cover art? would that solve the problem? --Jonie148 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If there is sourced commentary about the cover art, then that should work, yes (WP:NFLISTS covers that sort of article). Of course if there are such sources then they could even just be added to the discography article and probably wouldn't need to have a separate article. If there aren't any sources then such an article likely wouldn't survive a trip to AfD. The images can always be restored later if/when some commentary can be added if nothing is immediately available. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you restored the images and felt I should clarify: the images can be used A) on individual articles (which obviously isn't an option for those singles which just went through AfD), or B) where there is "critical commentary", not just for identification. Saying "the cover had a picture of ... on it" or the like isn't critical commentary. Was it well received by the public, was it done by a famous artist, was it an homage to some other album cover, did the artist talk about it at all? That's the sort of thing that constitutes critical commentary (obviously those are just examples, and not an exhaustive list). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Reierson image
See File:Raymond Reierson.jpg – Connormah (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look there. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Ribbons
Hello again! I've seen you did some of the Ribbons and I asked myself if you have a template to create them? I would like to create some to, but I don't now exactly how. Hope you can help me. Greetings Captain Miles (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi! For the earlier ones I made I just took existing ribbons and edited them. That's the same way I did all of the textured ribbons I created. For the shadowed ribbons—my preferred style—I came across File:Ribbon.xcf which isn't perfect depending on the look you're going for, but it's certainly a good start and has all the layers needed to create a few dozen of the pre-existing ones. I'm also open to requests if you'd rather just tell somebody else what to make. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this Ribbon Template was exactly what I was looking for. But I'll do it on my own. Just want to fill a few of the empty spaces on the Ribbons page. Greetings Captain Miles (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Walther firearms
Can I ask why you removed the image from the template I am creating? The image has already been accepted as available to use on Wikipedia and has been in use for over 4 years. --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course. As I indicated in my edit summary, its use in a template is a violation of WP:NFCC. That is to say, we have a very strict policy regarding non-free content, part of which is that non-free images (such as File:Walther arms.svg) may not be placed anywhere except for actual articles. There are a number of additional restrictions regarding their use, but that one in particular is why I removed it from the template you are working on. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I just read WP:NFCC. I should probably learn to do that first huh... -_- Sorry if I came across wrong, I was just quite confused. Thank you for the explanation and clarification. --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Btw, while it looks like I un-did your edit what I actually did was replace it with an image that (I believe) is usable in this template. I just forgot to replace the summary so it looks like i just knee-jerk undid your edit. --Zackmann08 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's not a policy that comes up very often so I can certainly understand your reaction. And yes, your replacement image looks fine, and I've certainly done the same thing when it comes to edit summaries. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thanks! I've always been a sucker for cookies and a big glass of milk. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Spam
Hey man. You were super helpful to me the other day so I wanted to see if I could get your help again. One of the pages I "watch" was spammed a few minutes ago (List of wikis). I have already undone the edit but how do I go about reporting the spam violation? --Zackmann08 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well I see that in this case the user has already been blocked by another admin who happened to notice their edits. The general way of handling spammers like that or other vandals is by reverting their actions, warning them, and eventually making a report at WP:AIV once they've been given enough warnings in order to request that an admin block them. Vandalism has some more details and information about how and why to warn them, as well as links to other pages with a wide range of different warning templates to use for particular misbehaviours. Does that answer your question or did I get too vague? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope that helps!! Thanks for the tips. :-) --Zackmann08 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask a favour?
Hi

We spoke a couple of times, way back, about something or other, and I see you are listed as a reviewer at Commons. If it's not too much trouble, would you be able to do the honours for the 4 images referred to at User_talk:Begoon? The Flickr bot doesn't seem able to do them because they are cropped from the originals, and I'd like to sort it out reasonably soon because the author has been very kind and altered her licence on request to allow us to use these images. All the related discussions are linked from my talk page. Thanks in advance if you can help, and no problem at all if you are too busy. Begoon &thinsp; talk 04:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I took a look at those and they all looked fine, so I went ahead and confirmed the Flickr licenses. I then promptly fell asleep, thus my belated reply here. Just let me know if I can help with anything else. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the quick response. That 'sleep' thing you speak of sounds like a good idea too - I may give it a try soon... Ciao. Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI
In re this edit: at the time the image link was typed, it was a redlink, having already been deleted, so it was just a typo. Also, since there are no firm rules, there can't be violations, really. --Lexein (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but if I didn't get rid of it it would just keep cluttering up the database report I use to track all of the other !violations. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hualien County Flag image
You removed a Hualien County Flag image from my user page with the explanation that it is a non-free image. Yet the image remains on the Hualien County page. Is there some sort of licensing that allows the image to be used on some pages but not on others? How do I determine when this is the case? Thanks. Readin (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To begin with, it turns out this image was mis-categorized and shout have been in the public domain as the work of the ROC government. Given that, please accept my apologies for not confirming the copyright status of the flag before removing it from your userpage.


 * Now, to answer your actual question, it's not a licensing issue per se that allows the image to be used on some pages but not others, but rather Wikipedia's image use policies, in particular our policy regarding non-free content. An image in the public domain or which has been released under a free license can be used anywhere on Wikipedia. A non-free image (such as I believed this one to be) has somewhat severe restrictions on its use, part of which is a complete prohibition on its display anywhere outside of mainspace (i.e., it can only be used in articles).


 * Again, I apologize for not double-checking the license for the image first, and please let me know if you have any other questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. I had thought that Wikipedia's rule was to only use images that are completely free which was why I had thought I could use it. Readin (talk) 16:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Commons has that restriction: everything hosted there (assuming it's not a copyright violation or otherwise placed there inappropriately) is completely free to use. Here on Wikipedia we host and use both free and non-free files, so it depends entirely on the particular image. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-free Content
Don't presume of assume anything about posters here. My favorite team would be Stanford, but I pay attention to college football on a larger scale. I don't buy your argument that the logo for a bowl game violates any Wikipedia policy. Since EVERY bowl game this year uses a "non-free" logo, your stance seems to be in contradiction to the general consensus. I know this because my favorite team Stanford will be in the 2013 Rose Bowl...in which a non-free logo is used. Same goes for the 2013 BSC National Championship logo, the 2013 Fiesta Bowl logo, and so on...all bowl's represented by non-free logos.--68.98.115.70 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That a significant number of other articles are also improperly using non-free files, does not make it correct. Please note that continuing to knowingly violate policy can be considered disruptive behaviour, and may result in a block. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

On new users
A couple days ago, you sent a message (perhaps a custom template?) to User:Checa985, here. This fella is a new user. I know you are an administrator, but do you think it would be possible to be a little more positive and helpful when you are writing to a "noob"? I fail to see what good threatening a guy with a block does when he doesn't even understand what he did wrong. You have to remember how baffling copyright policies were to you when you started out here. They were pretty baffling to me, and I have several years experience as a professional photographer behind me. Everything you do here is appreciated and needed, but just try not to throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater, ok? Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did leave a message for them which is basically a custom template. I am and was aware that they are a new user. I generally leave that message or a variation on it after I have removed non-free images from the same user's sandbox on more than one occasion. When that happens it means the user is either not reading the edit summaries I am using or has chosen to ignore them. In either case, I am informing them of the policy and that it is necessary to follow it. It is no more of a threat to block than other policy-related warnings such as uw-copyright and uw-ew. When I leave the message I do watchlist the user's talk page in case they reply with questions or other concerns.


 * All that said, if you have some suggestions for how I could soften the wording of my message while still getting across the point that the use of images is inappropriate and needs to stop, feel free to let me know and I'm certainly willing to tweak it. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Just a small amount of explanation on the process and importance of copyright, along with some links to read more (which you have given). Possibly think about adding a direction to either Teahouse or the help desk.  Offer to them an invite to contact you for further explanation.  Just please talk about the problem and why it is a problem rather than emphasizing the consequences. My thinking is that if they have potential to be a good addition to our corps of editors, why's and how's about the problem will get more results than threats of punishment.  If they are not gonna be a good addition, the banhammer will come down on them soon enough.  But if they have the potential to be good, positive reinforcement has a better chance of keeping them here than threats of punishment.  Just MHO, and thanks for listening!  Happy editing. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tsui Wah Restaurant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yuanyang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Copyright
I did not know translating Turkish into English would be still considered copyright infringement. I will not do it again. Above all, I am satisfied with the wikipedia articles. Is there a way you can please remove the investigation. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the material I've found was not translated, but merely copied. Besides that, the reason I requested an investigation is to check your other additions in an orderly fashion and see how extensive any copying (no matter how inadvertent) may be and to get it cleared up as soon as possible. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

REM image
Thanks for the reminder, and thank you for substituting an image, not just removing it. Cheers. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Barnstars don't really work without some sort of image. I hope the replacement isn't too bad--I wasn't sure if you wanted to stick with the REM theme or the end-of-the-world theme, so I just picked the first image I saw and went with it. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI case
Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the bump, I don't often check my email very often. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Bowl game logos
Why do you sound so obsessed over this? Look; it's either that logo or nothing for these articles (no individual logos), and I added fair use rationales; besides, what you cited a guideline, not a policy. Other bowl games have these images (with fair use rationales) with no problem. I think we need to start up a full-fledged discussion about this. Tom Danson (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think I sound obsessed, it's probably because you chose to ignore my previous message and continued to misuse non-free content in the same fashion. I cited the guideline because it is explicit and clearly includes the articles at hand. If you want the supporting points of policy, look at WP:NFCC (each individual bowl game links to the overall series which already includes the logo) and WP:NFCC. You are correct that other similar articles also use non-free logos, but that is a reason to fix the rest, not to ignore them all. The presence or lack thereof of fair use rationales are not the issue at hand. If you wish to start a full-fledged discussion, please feel free to bring it up at WT:NFC, WP:MCQ, or some other appropriate venue (those were just the first two places that came to mind). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Tom Danson is correct, and your policies unfortunately do not make the case you want them to make. As he mentioned, WP:NFCCEG is guideline, not policy, and bowl games could easily be considered a "noted exception". As for WP:NFCC, I interpret this as saying that multiple files of the same logo would merit deletion. You're saying that means as few articles as possible should use the file, which is a different principle. As for WP:NFCC, that's an arbitrary distinction you've made that they don't contribute to readers' understanding. If the logos don't contribute to our understanding of the event, why wouldn't you delete every bowl logo entirely? Rather than telling him to post elsewhere, this is obviously something you should have brought up in discussion first; if you've done that already, I'd love to see the consensus you received on getting rid of all annual bowl logos. I'm not saying we're definitely in the right, but obviously a consensus was reached previously on their usage long ago and now you've made some dubious deletions. Runfellow (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * When it comes to NFC, most of the guideline is explicitly there to provide examples for how the policy should be applied. As above, I linked to the guideline because it clearly includes usage such as annual events (i.e., bowl games) an example of unacceptable usage. That it has not been broadly enforced before does not make it any less valid. As far as I am aware, any consensus regarding their usage which was reached long ago, was not policy or guideline (nor policy- or guideline-based). Regardless, consensus can change.


 * Now so long as that part of the guideline is there, I will continue to enforce the non-free content policy in light of its accompanying guideline. If consensus changes and the line is drawn elsewhere when it comes to bowl/season articles, then I won't quibble about such use. If you want to get it changed, then my talk place is not the place to do it--thus my direction of Tom Danson and now you elsewhere.


 * If you wish to discuss how I am going about NFC enforcement, feel free to continue the discussion here. If you take issue with the NFC rules themselves then here is not the place. Likewise if you are taking issue with the fact that they are actually being enforced. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me, but you didn't address what I wrote, which wasn't really about enforcement. Yes, I'm aware consensus can change, but that does not mean that it must; the passage of time does not mean that you're innately right. Arguments have gone both ways over bowl and team logos over the years, but I could easily use that argument if consensus existed the other way, and it would get us nowhere. Again, your rationale from the actual NFC policy, WP:NFCC doesn't include what you say it does and WP:NFCC may or may not apply, and you didn't address that. If it's #3a, I simply don't get how it applies as written. I'm fully willing to accept the fact that I'm just not reading it right, but any sort of explanation would be helpful. If NFCC#8 is your reason, and you're sure about it, then the bowl logos don't need to be uploaded at all. It's not like I'm saying I'm definitely in the right here or that the rules should be changed; I'm just asking for a consistent reason from policy. That's why a discussion on this issue would have been a good idea before doing this, because this is more about your interpretation of the policy rather than the policy itself. Runfellow (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did address what you wrote, although perhaps not in the manner you wished. So, let me now address the situation without reference to guideline, since that's what you seem to dislike. WP:NFCC is "minimal usage". Minimal usage does not mean that redundant files should be deleted -- that should be the case for articles, images, really everything whether free or not for ease of use if nothing else. It means that, for example, rather than show an image on 20 pages (or 20 different images on 20 pages) we should use one image on one page so long as it "convey[s] equivalent significant information".


 * That leads us to WP:NFCC which has two requirements. First, the non-free content should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Second, "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Now in a standalone article, it is widely accepted that identification of the subject of said article is important enough to meet those twin requirements. There are of course other factors to be considered in different situations such as WP:NFCC which generally prevents us from using non-free images of living people, but that's not an issue when dealing with logos without a free alternative.


 * Now, back to the articles and images at hand in light of the policy points I listed above: First, note that the logo does not identify a specific game, but rather the series of bowl games as a whole. In situations such as this where the subject identified by the non-free content is one step removed from the subject of the article in question its inclusion is generally only justified in the presence of critical commentary about the image in the context of article's subject--otherwise the reader is expected to be able to follow a wikilink to the article where the image can be found and its use is more appropriate. I know that's rather general and possibly obtuse, but without referencing the guideline which has developed over time as examples of what generally meets the different points of the policy and what generally doesn't, it's somewhat hard to get more specific.


 * Now if this was only my personal interpretation of policy as you seem to be insinuating, then it wouldn't be included as an unacceptable example in the guideline. My apologies if I am misreading your attitude, but however much you may wish to ignore it because it is only a guideline it is nonetheless there. The policy explains what to do and why, while the guideline covers how to do it.


 * Does that help to address your concerns? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I still disagree with your interpretation of the policy in general here (not the policy or guideline itself), I'll obviously have to deal with that elsewhere when I have more time. At the same time, please note that the second part of the policy you are quoting here states that "If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable." Thus, removing unique logos, such as the one for the 2013 Rose Bowl and a number of others, does not fit with that rationale. – Runfellow (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have certainly intended to leave the logos in place where they are specific to the single bowl game in question (e.g. 2012 Armed Forces Bowl and 2013 BCS National Championship Game). In this case the image was uploaded in 2010, and was also being used in the articles on the 2011 and 2012 games, and so not specific to the 2013 game. If I missed something and you can point me to a case (for the Rose Bowl or any other game) where there was a unique logo being used and I inadvertently removed it, please let me know and I am entirely willing to revert my actions. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. As a final note here, I do want to apologize for anything inappropriate or impolite I might have said here. We all sometimes get a little defensive about the articles we work on, and I probably got a little too defensive here, which isn't really conducive to progress. – Runfellow (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Blockage of a state IP adress
The User Delta Quad has inadvertently blocked an IP address owned by the state of Ohio government. 198.234.164.126 is a state senate IP and is sensitive to blockage. Please do what is necessary to remove this block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.231.6.237 (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell the block was very deliberate. If you are personally affected by the block (and are not the editor who has been banned for disruptive editing and thus the ultimate cause of it) then feel free to request an unblock from that IP address. If that is not the case and you are merely concerned about collateral damage, then you should bring this to DeltaQuad's attention directly. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

COGEN Europe
I re-wrote information from their website -citing it - and following Wikipedia guidelines - please do not delete. --Wendydi (talk) 02:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've replied at the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know much, I'm only a frozen cave man lawyer
Thanks for catching that mistake! Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It's "unfrozen caveman lawyer". See, they thawed him out from being frozen, and now our world "frightens and confuses" him. But he still made it through law school. Doc   talk  09:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That is a reference I had to look up. Apparently I need to catch up on my 90's SNL. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

vw bot false positive

 * [[Image:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px]] No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. -- DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC) ]] was copied from a UIS PD site, on .mil  and should not have been tagged. Can you program your bot to recognize .mil ?   DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px]] No copyright concern. Material PD or appropriately licensed for use. -- DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC) ]] was copied from a UIS PD site, on .mil  and should not have been tagged. Can you program your bot to recognize .mil ?   DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me which article and edit you are talking about? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been unable to identify it. I'll keep track if it happens again & pacethe proper link. Sorry.  DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've happened upon it at Copyright problems/2012 October 18. I was just coming by to make sure there was no confusion. DGG, the bot didn't tag that article. What it did was note on that date that somebody else - a human editor - had placed the tag. It was added here. The bot lists these to ensure that they are properly investigated as was done here. :) However, we really should make sure that copy-pasted articles meet Plagiarism, where we can. I've done so. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks--that explains a few other listings also. I now know to look behind that bot to the actual reviewer. My apologies for not fixing it initially, but I intended to rewrite the article to remove duplication & reference it then.  I am gradually coming to accept what should have been obvious years ago, that I will not rewrite everything I intend to, and therefore ought not leave them in limbo.  DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for figuring that out Moonriddengirl. For the completely automated listings at SCV the bots (CorenSearchBot/VWBot/MadmanBot) do ignore .mil sites, even though there are a small handful of legitimately copyrighted pages under that TLD (e.g. some of the pages linked from http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-24/contents.htm ). Anyways, please do let me know if you have any other questions or concerns about what my bot is up to. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Help required
at User:Sgarcia113/Metcalfe's Food Company. It's claimed on my talk page that this has now been licensed, but so far every previous person I've explained about licensing to has gone away muttering and not been seen since, and I don't know how to check this. (In addition, I'm feeling rather rough...) Thanks if you can help. Peridon (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my belated reply: I was traveling for a bit. I did find usable permission in OTRS, so I added a tag to the talk page of the userfied article. Just let me know if you have any other questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. As to the style. I've suggested he contact MelanieN or Tokyogirl, who do rescues and referencing rather well. Peridon (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hehe, thanks! Sometimes it's fun to play race the bots. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Images at Governors of NSW
Hi. I have yet to wrap my mind around the arcane rules of copyright. All I can say is that the images you removed here were all taken from their respective articles. Either they're acceptable in both places, or unacceptable in both places. Right now, we have a foot in both camps. Over to you. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz  [Talk]  18:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand that they were all taken from their respective articles, but part of the policies regarding non-free content on Wikipedia says that it's not necessarily acceptable in both places. Each and every use of non-free content needs to be examined to ensure that it meets all 10 points of WP:NFCC. I linked to the particular point of the policy in my edit summary, as well as a portion of the guideline (WP:NFG) which has evolved as a collection of examples of what generally does and does not meet all required parts of the non-free content policy.


 * If you've read the NFC policy and guideline and have specific questions (either about the article or the policy/guideline itself), please feel free to ask and I'll do my best to clarify. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. No, I haven't read the rules, and if you tell me that each and every use has to satisfy no less than 10 (!) criteria, then I won't be reading them any time soon.  For me, life is just too short to bother with that level of complexity for things that aren't that important compared with sacred words.  If that means an article I write or edit does without a photo it might actually be quite OK to use, so be it.  If an article contains a photo that it shouldn't, I rely on good folks like yourself to come along and take it away.  I fully understand we have to comply with the law, and the law can be a very tricky thing when it comes to IP matters; but honestly, expecting the millions of Wikipedia users, many of whom struggle to string 2 words together without making 5 grammatical or spelling errors (and that's just the university graduates who are native English speakers), to have any real grasp of a policy that contains 10 (!) criteria for each use of a picture, is a lost cause.  I know it's lost me.  Cheers.  --  Jack of Oz  [Talk]  19:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The gist is that because our goal is to be a free encyclopedia (not just any encyclopedia) we use non-free content as sparingly as possibly and only when it would significantly aid the reader. For an article like this one the reader still has access to the chronological list (which is the really important part) and can go to the individual politician's page if they need to see an image of them. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Public Domain flag crest for Friuli-Venezia Giulia?
Hello VernoWhitney. I might have located a public domain flag crest of Friuli-Venezia Giulia. WP:Copyright_on_emblems discusses the case of Germany's Bundesdienstflagge being non-copyrightable and within the public domain because the coat of arms is illustrated in a public law (and moreover the stripes over which the coat of arms is displayed in a Bundesdienstflagge is a work of simple geometry).

Likewise, Friuli-Venezia Giulia's flag crest is illustrated within a public law. If the flag that I uploaded is replaceable with a free version, I will make such a replacement. Is the crest's dissemination within an Italian public law enough support for asserting that it is public domain material?

The file that I uploaded is not an exact duplicate of the legislation, though it is very close, so I would have to do some work to make a replacement. Italick (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If the eagle(?) is actually part of a statute or otherwise somehow in the public domain, then yes, a free version could be made. It would at least be free in the U.S. as an edict of government. At that point it could be restored to all of its uses in templates/lists/etc. Now it might not be PD in Italy (I don't recall at the moment), but that doesn't matter for local use, only on Commons.


 * Now that I'm looking into it, it seems that someone already put together what appears to be a free version at File:Flag of Friuli-Venezia Giulia.jpg. I'm not going to go putting that flag into use just yet, though, since I have some reservations about whether the coat of arms which was used for the eagle is the uploader's own work as claimed... VernoWhitney (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much VernoWhitney. I saw that recently added image in Commons too, and I am in fact the anonymous poster to the talk page of whoever posted it.  In Italian, I was informing him or her that the colors should be improved, and I hosted links to the "edict".  That file is essentially a reproduction of the flag based on the statutory crest, and the colors would have to be tweaked to convert it into the flag.


 * Here is the statute:


 * http://lexview-int.regione.fvg.it/FontiNormative/Regolamenti/D_P_REG_0199-2006.pdf


 * The file above is the beginning of the statute. The statute makes reference to an "Allegato B" meaning "Attachment B".  If you follow the link to "Allegato B" near the bottom, you get this next document:


 * http://lexview-int.regione.fvg.it/FontiNormative/Regolamenti/D_P_REG_0199-2006_All_B_01.pdf


 * It is the first several pages of a usage manual for the symbols, having the authorship of the region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia. It expressly refers back to the public law to which the manual serves as an attachment.  The usage manual is split into a series of different pdf files connected by hyperlinks.


 * It looks as if Malarz pl took the crest from the image being used as the coat of arms image within the sidebar for the English Wikipedia article about Friuli-Venezia Giulia.


 * I was thinking about taking that user's file, converting the color to match the coat of arms in the manual, and calling it "free" because it is apparently a reproduction from the statute. If I cannot do that, I can alternatively begin with the crest in the manual and work from there. Italick (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for that explanation. I don't speak Italian so that clears it up better. I just nominated a couple of coat of arms for deletion on Commons, since they were claimed as uploader's own work when it apparently wasn't.


 * Because of that I'd say that using the crest from the manual seems the safest way to go. It's not great quality, but it does seem to be the most verifiably free image we have to work with at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Flag is finished. I uploaded it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Friuli-Venezeia_Giulia.png and I pointed Friuli-Venezia Giulia to it. The next thing to do is replace the non-free coat of arms with the free one that I found.  But I want to await feedback on the flag first. Italick (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I want to clarify what I said about the law, just because I know that you don't read Italian. "Expressly" is a strong adverb which I am taking back.  Still, the law refers to an Attachment (or Exhibit) B which does state (translated) "Exhibit B referred to in article 6" on its front page.  Paragraph 8 of this article 6 (translated) says "The provisions regarding dimensions, graphics, use, institutional color, and variants of the logo, of the scroll, and of the frieze, as well as every further manner of realizing the applications of the corporate image are contained in the usage Manual from attachment B." If a law says that some exhibit contains "provisions", I understand this as meaning that more law is contained in the exhibit. Italick (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

CCI update
At long last, arguably the most tiresome copyright case I've worked on is done! A much better feeling when those big ones get taken down, I must say. -- Wizardman 00:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of non-free image
Hi. You removed the school logo from my sandbox User:LenF54/sandbox and I am wondering why? It is the logo used in the live article Plaistow County Grammar School, found by experienced fellow Wikipedian User:Kudpung and added to that article on 23 December 2011. If you feel the logo should not be used then would you please discuss it with User:Kudpung so that agreement is reached over whether it should be in the live article or not. If instead what you are saying is that the logo should only be used in Main namespace and not in my sandbox then I apologise and would have removed the image myself had you informed me. Thanks. LenF54 (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct, it is only an issue that non-free images aren't allowed to be used outside of mainspace--there's no problem with its use in the live article. I apologize for not simply notifying you of the issue and leaving it to you, but there are often dozens of such issues which show up each day, so I generally don't leave more message than my edit summary unless someone has questions about my actions or restores the non-free image without communication. I hope that explains my actions. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's fine. Thanks.  If, when I am copying and pasting from my Word drafts, I should restore the image I assure you it is an accident or an act of negligence, nothing more.  I have added an appropriate note to my file to help prevent this. Thanks again. LenF54 (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries, it's not a policy that comes up very often and we all forget things from time to time. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Movie Posters in Palm Springs
You may as well take a look at List of films and TV series set in Palm Springs, California too. If I face the same non-free use problem, I'll pull the posters off. (Frankly, I know a little less than nothing about copyright, so your guidance is appreciated!) Same thing for Palm Springs in popular culture with the book jackets. I'll look here for your response.--S. Rich (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Wikipedia's non-free content policy and guideline (which isn't the same thing as copyright, just to make things more confusing) can pretty severely restrict the usage of that sort of image--especially when it comes to list articles which don't offer critical commentary on the specific artwork. Free images aren't a problem which is why I had left File:Salome, 1918 - Poster.jpg alone. If there's sourced critical commentary on the artwork of the film poster/book cover/etc. then it could also be used, although it may require some additional work. That's a pretty broad overview of the situation, but does that give you a better idea of how non-free content can be used on that kind of article? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As I understand, the posters should be removed as well from the films set in PS. But please look at the Popular culture listing and give me a brief response -- remove or not. My poor brain can't handle the confusion! --S. Rich (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Never mind. I've taken out all of them. Alas. The pages looked so nice with the pretty pictures! Cheers.--S. Rich (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was just typing to say that it looked like all of the images would need to go. Sorry. It's one of those tradeoffs we get for our mission of being a free encyclopedia as opposed to just any encyclopedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ! --S. Rich (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

non-free images in userspace
Thanks for the heads-up on WP:NFCC re: my userpage. Sorry about that! Would a gallery of small thumbnails be okay, or is that verboten as well? If okay, what would the the maximum pixel resolution of said thumbnails? Cheers! Wingman4l7 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's not a policy point that comes up terribly often. As to your question, I'm sorry, but a gallery of small thumbnails (no matter how small) is against policy too. Displaying non-free images anywhere except for in their actual articles isn't allowed. Displaying the linked list like you have there is the only real option that comes to mind just now. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright / live
Hi, thanks for your help with the non-free logos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Murklemark), I didn't realise I couldn't preview them in sandbox. Would you be able to point me in the direction of making the document live? I'm unable to find the correct instructions.


 * It's okay, it's not something that comes up very often. Anyways, like I said before the images can always be restored once the article goes live.


 * There are instructions at Help:How to move a page, or I can move it for you if you tell me what title it should be at. That said, I strongly recommend it not be moved at this time because it has only a single reliable source which talks about the building rather than the company. The rest of the information is sourced to Vygon, which is a primary source. If it is moved before more reliable sources are added to ensure that the article meets our standards of inclusion then it is likely to be deleted.


 * If you have any questions about this you can feel free to ask me, although I spend most of my time here working on copyright and non-free content issues. You can also ask questions at Teahouse where there are a number of volunteers who specialize in helping out new editors. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OTRS
Could you take a look at

I responded, but mainly to defuse.

I'm unclear whether you offered to step in because the other agent is unavailable, or for some other reason; let me know if I should try to contact him.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  18:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I offered because I was the one that originally tagged the image for deletion and after they accepted the first email, I spoke to the other agent to say I didn't think it should've been accepted. I just know when I handle a ticket I usually find it awkward to go back and say sorry, I shouldn't have done that, rather than have somebody else point out that I was in error. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I added a note to the ticket as well. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sphilbrick (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Liceo Italiano article. Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm a little confused. Are you telling me that you know that article is a copyright violation (if so, from where?), that you think it may be a copyright violation, or something else entirely? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed I have no idea what is considered a copyvio. I am asking you, because I saw you in other articles marking copyvio issues; seems like all the article text has been taken from the said school's webpage, just as it is. Here. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. Thank you for the pointer. I'll look into it. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the entire section was closely translated or paraphrased from the school's site. It took me a while to track down the source and confirm that their page predated ours, but it would all need to be rewritten from scratch. Thanks for finding that! VernoWhitney (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

User Page
Next time you want to edit my user page, leave me a message on my talk page after you do something (Bes2224 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC))
 * I'll try to remember that should I have cause to edit your user page in the future. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Frankie Miller.jpg
It's three years ago since I added this, please delete if inappropriate and upload suitable image and fair use details.--Tunebroker (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

inre waaaay old news
Thirty-five months ago you commented on a poorly sourced article on Jami Floyd at AFD. While I am in full agreement that the deleted version contained only one deadlink as a source and her awards were not explained, expanded, nor themselves sourced... I felt back then that issues were addressable under WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. Sorry to say, but still feeling the issues were addressable, it took me until now to actually get to improving it (with help). I'd much appreciate your looking atUser:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd to see if your concerns from 3 years ago have finally been addressed to the point where we have something to serve the project and its readers. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Athlone Group of Companies
Thank you for your comments re minor changes, which are noted.

However may I draw your attention to my notes on the talk page for nominated deletion; The reason for including this group on wiki is because of the enormity of financial support they offer suffering nations of the world, which is in turn supported by a large number of government ministers, and prime ministers as documented in the article, and on the deletion talk page.

I would offer the following example;

Athlone Group runs a program called UBUDO - a program set up to take children off the streets in Kenya, by giving them shelter, and then running fitness classes to help them stay healthy and fit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giW2RgpuYoE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8Ox0k-ELgg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWCMjf0sllA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpqqHvyaRYM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTHlbhBvbGY

Please check these videos and I'm sure you will see the good work that is being achieved here.

Kind regards

MarcelBrandon (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that the group of companies does charity work and is supported by members of government, but neither of those are part of Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Good deeds are not a reason to have an article, and as I indicated in my deletion nomination, notability is not inherited. Have any reliable sources written in detail about Athlone directly, or even about their charity work (i.e., significantly more than just a mention of how much they donated to what)? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Photo of Brian R. Bishop.png
I don't know where you got the idea that this photo was "replaceable". Do you have another photo of Brian? Or a crystal ball showing you where one is? Regarding the deletion note you left on my page, I have attempted to add additional information, but frankly these templates are completely confusing. Please can you look and enter into an actual dialogue with me to help me. Posting these deletion-unless templates is very confusing and unfriendly to Wikipedians. Thank you. 16:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, . The templates aim to include the relevant information regarding the tagging for a broad scope of editors. I'm sorry you feel that using them is confusing and unfriendly.
 * Now as to the reason why I tagged this image in particular: That no free image currently exists is not a sufficient reason for us to use a non-free one. In this case there appears to be no reason why a free image could not be created, particularly if you know him personally. If there is some reason that a new and free image could not be created, then please say so and the image can likely be retained. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I went to the page and tried to figure out how to make some sort of statement using the template there. I have no idea if it is what you expect. Did I do it correctly? -- Evertype·✆


 * I don't live anywhere near Brian and have never met him in person. I can't photograph him myself. He's not the most technically savvy fellow and I daresay has no scanner or smartphone. The image we have has no commercial value to whoever took that photo, whenever it was. It's clear from the quality that the original photo was half-toned in some amateur publication, and that was scanned in by somebody at a low resolution, probably back in the days of Geocities. We don't even know what that publication was. I can undertake to attempt to get some sort of photograph, but cannot guarantee success, and I think that this particular kind of "Oh we'll delete this serviceable photo and make others try to create a new one" is fairly high-handed -- unless you yourself are willing to contact Brian and sort this out, you're just summarily making work for others, who may have other things to do. Are you? -- Evertype·✆ 16:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the template you added to the file page looks just fine. As to my actions being high-handed: The mission of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia, not just any encyclopedia. The policy is in keeping with a mandate from the Wikimedia Foundation that we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had an image removed by Verno Whitney from the Rupert Hine (record producer) article. I also don't know Rupert Hine to take a picture personally and after a quick search have found no free replaceable media. I'm quite happy to comply and leave the image off the article though it does show the knee-jerk reaction that occurs in any user-driven site. I prefer the Google approach of "it all goes up and when we receive a legal notice demanding removal it all comes dowm". I've always felt that Wikipedia sometimes over-cooks its policies and in many cases over-works its editors. lol. Sluffs (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Did you miss the part where the Wikimedia Foundation said we can't use those images, rather than it being a side-effect of this being a user-driven site? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikimedia has policies and guidelines but I'm from the UK where we don't even have a constitution. lol. Seriously I understand your remit and the fact that you are admin means you have no choice but to remove images that don't fulfill the correct criteria. I don't mind if you remove stuff. Just being playful and light-hearted. I'm in for the long-run so lets see where the land lies in a few years or decades and I'll keep the images until then. Hopefully I'll get a chance to re-upload or who knows I might find a free alternative. As for the Wikimedia Foundation saying we can't use those images - I pay as much attention to that as I do to the US government telling us (or not telling us as Wikileaks proved) that 60,000 casualties post-Saddam is the price to pay for removing a murderous dictator - its a subjective call based on an illusive and dubious legality. lol. Sluffs (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my earlier reply, I had missed the humor in your previous statement. If policy changes regarding non-free content, then certainly it can be restored/re-uploaded. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Without face to face contact a vast amount of sensory information is missing when people communicate. I would like to take the opportunity (and will not exploit that opportunity any further after this statement on your very lively talk page) to point out that in the UK we walk the middle-road. In copyright issues not a single individual has ever been prosecuted for file-sharing on the torrent scene. Note that UK artists may wish to negate the effects on their earnings that occur through file-sharing but it would hardly be cricket and would result in adverse publicity - they moan but don't prosecute. The only time action has been taken (as far as I know) is for site owners who have made thousands of pounds from ignoring copyright. Its not that there is no copyright laws that could be applied its more a case of an unspoken utilitarianism which is at the core of UK culture. The reason communism never took root in the UK was that there has been always a strong socialist and communal force that runs deep in the UK. We are an island (small in the sense I can drive from London to Edinburgh in a day) and this means that UK citizens are rather more closely connected (you could say we're trapped together on a small island) then say Americans where the vast distances between the states allows for wider cultural and legal differences. The law on fair-use and copyright is in existence in this country but a judge in this country would be a bit puzzled (IMO) why a trivial issue such as using a low quality image from a defunct music magazine in an encyclopedia such as this would lead to a court case. I imagine if the owner of the images of Rupert Hine or Peter Wilson prosecuted me or this site the judge would no doubt award in their favour (one penny I imagine) while pointing out this has been a complete waste of the court's time. I'm from the UK, the articles about UK producers, the images are from a defunct UK magazine. If you'd left the images up I doubt there would have been a prosecution from this side of the Atlantic so Wikipedia's policies are obviously an Americanism. I doubt there's any American parties that would pursue this through the courts; so your action though understandable from a Wikipedia policy view have been unnecessary from a UK editors point of view. Enforcing legality is only relevant when there is a legal issue to answer which is not the case here based on the UK cultural principles I stated earlier. If you ever get to meet President Clinton - ask him why he chose to send his daughter here for her university education - it certainly wasn't because she'd get a better education!. lol


 * BTW if Rupert Hine, Peter Wilson or the image owners has emailed Wikipedia and asked for the images to be removed then Wikipedia has a duty to inform the editor who originally uploaded the images. That would at least make sense of the senseless.


 * To quote Pink Floyd: "Hanging on in quiet desperation it is the English way". Which pretty much sums up how I'm feeling about being a Wikipedia editor at this moment. lol

Sluffs (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Anna Fegi Signing.jpg
You deleted this per WP:CSD. Google Images suggests that File:Anna Fegi Autographs.jpg is the same image. Could you check if there is still some problem with the image? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * In 2012101110001276 it was claimed to be the work of someone else. There certainly appears to be a strong possibility we could get legitimate permission, but as with all of the other pictures of Fegi I deleted yesterday there was no response to the request for clarification on the license. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, so taken to Possibly unfree files/2013 January 24. Without sufficient permission, it can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Aspnes.jpg
Does it matter that I work with the guy; that I have his personal permission to user a photo of him? Out of Phase User (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't need his permission, you need the permission from the copyright holder (i.e. photographer) of the actual image being used. If you work with him, perhaps you could take a picture yourself and upload it here or to Wikimedia Commons? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose that's what I'm going to have to do. Out of Phase User (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New File
How about File:William Spooner - The 18th (Royal Irish) Regiment of Foot.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 January 2013‎ (UTC)
 * ✅ VernoWhitney (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose I could beg http://dl.lib.brown.edu/repository2/repoman.php?verb=render&id=1302200074363500 as well? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a problem -- maybe not until tomorrow, though. Since I just hacked together some other scripts I already had I still need to babysit them and do a little bit of work by hand. I'll let you know once it's up. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's at File:Ketterinus - "Ammunition!" And remember - bonds buy bullets!.jpg. While looking for some more information about the image I also found it at the LOC, so their massive version is at File:"Ammunition!" And remember - bonds buy bullets!.tif (massive filesize, that is; fewer pixels). Figured you wouldn't mind having two different versions to compare. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I'll get to work on them =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Mr Hall of England block
Hello, could you just point me to the discussion where you warned this editor that he may be blocked? Or where he "repeatedly" violated the fair use policy? Just a couple of questions because I couldn't easily see the discussion that I'm sure you had before blocking him. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It wasn't much of a discussion as he never replied, but User talk:Mr Hall of England is the one that comes to mind. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mid-December last year?!! So is this block actually just punitive or is Mr Hall of England actively disrupting WIkipedia?  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * He is continuing to violate policy which he should be well aware of by now, given that a bot even reminded him about it back in 2011 (I haven't looked to see if any of his archives are actually talk page archives or not -- that's just the other case that jumps out to me on his current talk page). His actions have continued with no attempt to communicate regarding either the policy itself or any difficulty regarding determining the copyright status of files or anything else as far as I can tell. That certainly seems to meet the definition of disruptive behaviour to me. It is an attempt to be preventative, in that I am optimistic he will learn that non-free content can not be displayed in his userspace/usertalkspace. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't block people "preventatively". That's not what blocking people is about at all.  Please, unblock him, explain what you've done and why, and let's move on.  This block does not help ANYONE.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I thought the policy was in fact that "Blocks should be preventative". I did explain what I did and why I did it with the block template. At this point I respectfully decline to unblock him, unless you can point out something to me that I've missed. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you show me where you gave him a warning before blocking him? And I mean one that's more recent than the vague one in mid-December last year?  And show me the discussion you had where you clarified what he was doing wrong?  And where you said if he continued to do this you'd block him?  Because it's your duty as an admin to ensure we encourage our editors while keeping them on the straight and narrow, not just punitively blocking them.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I can't point you to a more recent discussion. Blocking was specifically mentioned, so it should not be a complete surprise. I'm sorry if you feel that I was not encouraging enough with my postings, I felt they were perfectly clear about what was inappropriate and without any reply from him, I had no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't clear to him. Bolding words doesn't make them any more true. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so the block is punitive. You gave him no warning whatsoever of an impending block, nor did you attempt to explain why you'd blocked him in plain language.  Genuinely poor admin behaviour on your behalf.  Your "feelings" on what was and wasn't clear are misplaced, you've made a mistake here, please undo it.  Mind you, since Mr Hall edits not so frequently, your punitive and inexplicable block will expire and be entirely useless in due course.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and you're supposed to be an admin. See you around.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

cine suntenteti dumneavostra, de va tineti numai sa-mi stergeti ????????????????
--Brontologique (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC) cine suntenteti dumneavostra, de va tineti numai sa-mi stergeti link-urile externe catre traduceri??????? sa stiti ca daca nu va potoliti, am sa ma interesez despre aceasta probleme la institutiile statului.
 * I'm afraid I don't understand Romanian, so I'm going to ask you to please use English here on the English Wikipedia. I removed the links because there appears to be no indication that M. M. Khesapeake's translations are notable or authoritative, and since a number of such links have recently been added to articles here at the same time a number of translations have been added to Wikisource, it appears to be a campaign of self-promotion. Can you explain why the links to their translation is important? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

--78.97.86.11 (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Excuse me, but I realize that you delete only my "adds" and any reference to "Khesapeake" whatsoever, which is my name. This is outrageous, if now, in XXI century, Wikipedia (which wished initially to be a free Enciclopedia) is controled by people who make Mediaeval censorship. I have the Copyright rights and you still erase everything is is connected in any way to "Khesapeake". Why? You said to me that this is not an authoritative? Under what authority? In the same time you allow to exist pseudo-informations in the articles and pseudo-translations, bad translation of the Romanian texts. My work of years, of improving the translations from Romanian texts, of the great classical Romanian writers is just earsed in one second, whilst in the same time you allow to exist all kind of wrong, bad and stupid translations. What authority do you need? You need to know who am I? Or, what?

I can see that you have erased again the external link to my translation "The Tale of Johnny the Stupid". Excuse me, please answer to me. Have you something special against me? Because I can prove that everything which is connected to me you and the Romanian "Andrei "Stroe simply delete. Why? I don't understand your reasons... I can prove you that all the other texts are bad translations. Therefore, do - in the sake of Wikipedia, officially - do not tolerate the quality and the work of years of translations of all sort of Romanian classics. Please, answer to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brontologique (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:COI. If you are Khesapeake then you should not be adding references to yourself to Wikipedia. If you feel strongly that your writings/opinions would be legitimately encyclopedic additions to the articles, then you should propose them on the talk pages of the respective articles. If there are reliable sources which talk about you and your writings or that your translations are better than prior works, then they could be used, but I'm afraid we can't just take your word for it, as that would be original research.


 * As far as providing an example translation of the poem At Bucovina, it is more appropriate at Wikisource where you have already placed it, although you should be aware that there is concern over the disclaimer you added to the texts which has been brought up for discussion at wikisource:Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple images tag for deletion on Webcam Social Shopper and Zugara wikipedia pages
Hi,

I'm a bit confused at to what exactly you would need from me to allow the use of the images in question on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcam_Social_Shopper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugara

I am CEO of Zugara and uploaded these images. I also noted on the images that as the CEO and representative of Zugara, I was allowing for their use on Wikipedia. I apologize if I am not doing this correctly (it is a bit confusing) but is there an easy way I can have these approved and not removed? Please feel free to email me at Matt@zugara.com if you need further verification or approval.

Take care, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHSzymczyk (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edward Hopper image
Hello. I greatly admire the work of Edward Hopper, and even had an opportunity to visit his studio in New York City. I observed that you deleted the image of Edward Hopper's Nighthawks that I placed in a userbox. I have no intention of violating a copyright rule. But I did think that my use of the image of the Nighthawks represented fair use. It was located in the Creative Commons area, and I believe that the image was deliberately degraded such that it could not be exploited.

I have two requests. First, could you briefly explain why my using that particular image violated the fair use doctrine. Of course I don't want to violate the fair use doctrine.

Second, if using the Night Hawks image is a fair use violation could you recommend an alternate image of a Hopper painting that I could insert in the userbox. You inserted a self-portrait. Are there any other images available that are within the fair use bounds?

Thanks for your help.Iss246 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! In this case, it's not a question of fair use directly, but of Wikipedia's policy regarding non-free content which is intentionally and explicitly stricter than the law requires. Part of that policy (which I cited in my edit summary) is WP:NFCC which prohibits the display of non-free content outside of actual articles. So given that I went looking for a free image (since they can be used anywhere on Wikipedia) and found commons:Category:Edward Hopper, which has a handful of images by him which were done sufficiently long ago to enter the public domain. Does that answer your questions? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I started figuring it out. Let me say this. Diligent editors like you make Wikipedia a good place.Iss246 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm glad I could help. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to ask. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jami Floyd
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jami Floyd. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images
Sorry I keep doing that. I swear I'm not ignoring you, just keep forgetting. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries. With the number of non-free images and sandbox-ish work you do I'm not surprised it happens from time to time. If I thought you were ignoring me I'd leave you messages on your talk page. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigations/Robertsch55
Hi VernoWhitney! I just thought I'd let you know that the above CCI is closed. I noticed you did a lot of the checks, so thanks for all your help. :) It is always nice to see one closed. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images (One more time)
Well,

First of all hello and apologize for my bad spelling. (I'm using google translator but I do not trust a lot)

You have deleted images on pages that I edited and want to know more clearly why. These are on the wikipedia commons and not copyrighted.

In the German Wikipedia, the national football cup also used pictures of the clubs contesting the final, and apparently nothing happens. I guess the rules for German and English wikipedia will be the same...

More examples: In the Greek basketball league pictures are used again to identify the teams. This happens this happens in your own English wikipedia and appears to be allowed.

So, what exactly is the criteria? Algarfo (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * To take your points in order: I have serious doubts about whether or not that image is legitimately free or not, and have thus nominated it for deletion on Commons. If it is in the public domain and the image is retained on commons, then there would be no problem restoring it to the articles I've removed it from.


 * German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different rules regarding non-free content. Just because they use images in that article doesn't automatically mean we can use them here.


 * Thank you for pointing out the article on Greek basketball. I'll make sure to remove the non-free images from that article later today.


 * Now to the exact criteria. There are a number of different criteria which must be satisfied, all of which you can read at WP:NFC. The particular one which is lacking from the use on the tournament articles you are working on is WP:NFCC in that the reader's understanding of the subject (i.e. the tournament) is not significantly increased by the use of non-free images for the teams in the final, nor would their understanding of the tournament be reduced when the images are omitted. While the images are pretty and nice to have, they are nowhere near necessary in order to present a complete encyclopedia article. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox
I'm working on my sandbox page. It's copied there for translation from huwiki, I'll clean up the audio file links. It's a sandbox for a reason. :) 小龙 (Timish) # xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng  21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but even sandboxes are not exempt from our non-free content policies. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Greek Basket League 2012-13 logo
You removed that logo from the article on that page Greek Basket League 2012-13 and cited rule #14, which says, "A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable." Can you explain this to me so i understand it for future editing purposes? I don't really understand this wording, since it says such logos are "acceptable". An explanation would be welcomed. Thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's part of the section entitled 'Unacceptable use'. The gist of that rule is that if there is a logo for a sports team/tournament/game series but not for a specific year/season/event, then it should only be used on the main article (i.e., Greek Basket League) and not on any of the articles for the specific years/seasons/events. If each event had its own specific logo (like 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, for example) then the use would be acceptable.


 * The underlying portions of the actual policy would be WP:NFCC and #8, since the generic logo identifies the league as a whole rather than only the current season of it, and it should be a single click away from any season article, so there's little need to repeat it for every season. Does that answer your questions? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI update
-- Wizardman 04:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

File:IslamicRageBoy.jpg
I went to some trouble to explicitly get written permission from the copyright owner of this image to use it for a Wikipedia article. The written permission was included in the file's entry. People like you are NOT a benefit to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kayputk (talk • contribs) 20:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Images with permission to be used only on Wikipedia are non-free and subject to the same restrictions as those without any sort of permission (see WP:COPYOTHERS and WP:NFC).


 * Now, as the speedy deletion tag (the one which you removed back in September) said, the appropriate response was to explain why it could not be replaced "without removing [the] tag", rather than remove the speedy deletion tag without even starting a discussion with the editor who tagged the image. Doubly so, since the same image was deleted two days earlier under a different filename and you didn't attempt a discussion with either the tagging editor or deleting admin in that case either.


 * It was not a matter of helping you with the tags; the use of the image was simply inappropriate (again, see WP:NFC). VernoWhitney (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Whitney, please allow my publishing
Hi, Mr. Whitney, please allow my publishing of Romanian writer Ion Creanga, since I have the copyright for these texts translated by me and I do not have any financial claims for my translation text into English. I don't know, do you need proofs for this, any papers? As you can see my Wikipedia ID is "Khesapeake" also, as well as my e-mail address is known by you now and you can send me e-mail. I communicate with difficulty by this manner, here. Please accept this publication because my translations are published only in a few copies and the public doesn't have the access to them, as well as those my translations of Mihai Eminescu; these translations of mine are from writers dead of at least 70 years ago, therefore with no copyright from Romanian and maybe international laws.

As a suplimentary proof to you that I am the translator, please see the scribd links, where I publish some texts: http://www.scribd.com/doc/125111627/The-Tale-of-Johnny-the-Stupid-Translated-by-M-M-Khesapeake-Revised http://www.scribd.com/doc/120949322/Cogito-ergo-sum-by-M-M-Khesapeake http://www.scribd.com/doc/120144012/The-Vesper-Mihai-Eminescu-Khesapeake-Original Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khesapeake (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That translations have been published on Scribd does not prove that you are the copyright holder. We have no way of verifying your identity on-wiki. We have a process outlined at Donating copyrighted materials which you can follow in order for us to verify your identity and confirm that you are willing and able to release the texts under a free license. Do also please note that any restriction for Romanian publications above and beyond English publications wouldn't be allowed.


 * Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns about this. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

CSBot
Hey there! I'm working on the new Labs infrastructure for tools and bots which (amongst other things) will allow shared custody of specific tools. CSBot seems like a very nice test case, given that three of us have traditionally operated it at different times. How do you feel about being one of the test cases? :-) &mdash; MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure! For the next few weeks I expect I'll only be around in fits and starts, but just let me know what you need and I'm all for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Greetings
Hello VernoWhitney, if you are around in the coming day or so, would you look at comments I have made regarding a non-free file, comment there whether or not I have misunderstood fair use, and if not, perhaps a brief comment from you as to why the rationale does not justify inclusion, nor is it ever likely to. Template:Did you know nominations/Apikoğlu Brothers Thank you.&mdash;My 76 Strat *talk*email  00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please disregard. It seems that an amicable solution has been found. Cheers.&mdash;My 76 Strat *talk*email  01:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment from IP
Hey, you removed my edit to Rachel Ray's page. Please put it back until you can otherwise prove that she didn't gain 50 pounds in 3 months in the fall of 2008, because she totally did. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.189.227 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

File:ICOC Service at AT&T Center.jpg

 * VernoWhitney I posted this on my user page and haven't had a response so I am posting on your userpage. "have sent through the permission email to the address mentioned above. Please let me know when the file (File:ICOC Service at AT&T Center.jpg) is again available for use?" JamieBrown2011 (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for my lack of response there -- I haven't been very active in the last couple of weeks and missed that on my watchlist. I'm afraid there's often a backlog for permissions emails, as there are a limited number of volunteers who handle them. Once someone gets to the email you sent they should reply to you and either proceed from via email if we need more information, or if it's sufficient as is then the image should be restored right away. Please let me know if you have any other questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested
In a dispute regarding an alleged case of closed paraphrasing here. Please not the most recent version of the article, which is in the table at the very bottom of that discussion. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've just finished reading through the whole section but I have to run off now, so I'll have to weigh in later (today, hopefully, although I can't guarantee it). VernoWhitney (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Carpenters Image
Verno, who do you think you are removing the image I put on the Carpenters wikipedia page. The photo I used is a commonly used public domain photo which is not being sold by any publishers for profit. There was no good reason for you to delete. It. I think you need to leave well enough alone. rickhenry Rickhenry (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'm an editor and an administrator. Since your message was unambiguous, it took me a little while to figure out what you were referring to since I haven't edited The Carpenters. Assuming you are referring to File:Karen Carpenter and Richard Carpenter 1971.jpg which I deleted, as you can see in the deletion log it was deleted following the listing of the image at Files for deletion/2013 February 18. The nominator put it pretty well, but I'll try to put it in my own words here in case that helps.


 * Simply put, publicly available images are not automatically in the public domain, and Wikipedia has very strict rules regarding the use of any non-free content--even that which is widely distributed for free. Since there are free images available which serve the same encyclopedic purpose, we can't use a non-free image. Please let me know if you still have questions or concerns about this which have not been addressed. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Scouting images
Hi, I don't mind that you stripped the images from my working draft, but there is a small problem with removing the images from Scouting in California. There are more than fifty pages that use the same formatting of state and council articles, check out Scouting in the United States. Over the last seven years there has been an on-going discussion about which council articles are notable. The end result was that many of them were merged into the state articles, and the images were kept. If you look at the redirects, you will see that most of those redirects were once articles themselves. I can understand that you cited WP:NFCC#8, but I don't believe that it applies. For comparison, if you look at the Scouting in Vermont article, you'll see that there is only one council – and that image has more of an impact than say, California … which is a much larger state … The images do add to the article as each council is an entity into itself. Do me a favor please, before stripping out any more images, please discuss it with me first. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The notability or lack thereof of the council articles has little to do with the acceptability of non-free images in the combination/state overview articles. That said, I will be sure to begin a discussion about the images rather than removing them again. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --evrik (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)