User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 2

Charlotte Marsh
I confirm that the material is from my own website - now at www.myersnorth.co.uk  Bandalore (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is totally unreferenced. I am not convinced that any of it is true.  None of the bios at the referenced website refer to any sources; it does not appear to be a WP:RS.    -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See also The People's Theatre, Newcastle upon Tyne. Same problem.  -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * While the lack of citations to reliable sources is a problem, the author appears to have some decent credentials. Regardless, right now I'm more concerned with getting solid confirmation regarding this and the copyright status of this and other articles which have been copied from the website. I'm afraid you're on your own as far as fixing the lack of references goes. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Red House Report
I can understand that copyrighted material needs to be removed, but there must be a way that details can be added explaining the same story in a different way.

Instead of just deleting everything, maybe you should of just altered it to make it acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And maybe it shouldn't have been copied here in the first place. I'm not very good at rewriting sufficiently to avoid a close paraphrase and so I don't often do it, particularly in areas I know nothing about. If you want to rewrite it, feel free. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I like you.
You're funny. Most people around here aren't. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think I'm funny. In this case I'm fairly confident I'm right though, if that changes your opinion of me. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Permissions
Tried to follow instructions about submitting evidence of copyright entitlement on a deleted article on Julie Hadden to: permissions-enwikimedia.org however the e-mail address was invalid.

What's next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BLFan7 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There should be an "@" between "permissions-en" and "wikimedia.org". Try emailing that address, and once the permission is confirmed the page will be restored by an admin. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tada! Thanks for helping.

 * Thanks! It was your question that prompted my latest burst of activity in the area anyways. I am sadly not very good at the actual content creation, but finding sources and maintenance work I'm good at, so I do what I can to make things nicer in my own way. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Suah2020
Hello VernoWhitney, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Suah2020, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 11:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to note that with a talk page, it's probably sufficient to revert back to the clean content prior to its placement and leave a copyright warning. If it is restored, ANI may be able to help. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CCI clerkship
Hi, Verno. Would you like to consider applying for CCI clerkship? User:GrooveDog seems to be pretty much dormant since December, so User:MER-C is it. Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions contains more information about the job. Although it doesn't say so, I imagine it would be appropriate for you to leave any you request for another clerk or admin to open. Anyway, you should have an idea what the workload would be - not so much. :) A little flurry of activity around the opening of new listings and perhaps occasional archiving. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, sure? I imagine I can handle that since most of the work is in completing the CCIs and not opening them anyways. Do I just mention it on the CCI talk page as the instructions say, or MER-C's talk page as was told to Acather96? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's go for it on the CCI talk page. :) We have "new process board" growing pains, but that seems like the best place. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome aboard, sailor. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hooray! Not that MER-C or any of you lot of copyvio admins seem to be falling behind much in that area, but I appreciate the !votes of confidence. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Alfredo Jahn copyright problem
I see you added a copyright section on the new page I created for my great grandfather, Alfredo_Jahn. All of the information I added was my own. It comes from my tribute site http://www.jahnweb.com/alfredo/papa_jahn/index.html. Please remove this notice from the page.

Thanks, Alfredo Jahn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredojahn (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on Coren's talk page and your talk page, you need to follow the instructions at Donating copyrighted materials in order for us to confirm copyright ownership. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry for the tb, its just I was wondering if you could help me with something Acather96 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Globe
Dear VernoWhitney, you have repeatedly distroyed this artikel. www.isleofpurbeck.com/durlston.html states:

The Globe was constructed from Portland stone in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887, for George Burt. Burt was Mowlems nephew and one-time partner. It is popular belief that the construction was in London/Greenwich because there were not sufficiently skillful craftsmen locally. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is of 15 sections.

I write:

The Globe was constructed from Portland stone in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. It was erected by W.M. Hardy in the park upon a platform cut into the solid rock during the same year. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is made up of 15 sections of stone and joined together with granite dowels. Its position on the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.

The Globe was constructed of Portland stone. It was made in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887. It was brought to Swanage by sea and was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform chopped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.

The Great Globe is made of Portland stone. It was constructed in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich during 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. The Globe was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform choped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, it weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.

Please do not get on my nerves. Thanks --Huligan0 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Traced SVG copyright
Hi! I recently traced a logo from PNG format to SVG using Inkscape. I am trying to upload it, but I am unsure of whom the license belongs to. Does it belong to me, as I traced the bitmap? Or is it again a fair use rationale image like the original PNG? —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If the original is fair use, then your copy if it would also have to be fair use since you've created a copy (or really close derivative work) of their copyrighted logo. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All right...thanks! —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Canvassing"

 * Canvassing? I was asking DreamFocus if there was a way to get some extra attention from other rescue squad members. Really, that's considered canvassing? It's about as harmless as adding a rescue tag! PÆonU (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the "other rescue squad members" that's the problem. Adding a rescue tag is, at least theoretically, only asking for help in improving references and writing in the article, not asking for more keep !votes in AfDs. However, particularly the way you phrased your request "More jerks are saying to delete it and although I made a great point at the bottom of the page, I'm worried we won't get enough keep votes" made it clear that you weren't just looking for more interested parties, you were looking for more interested parties who would !vote keep. Per Canvassing, this falls into the category of votestacking. I called it a failed attempt at canvassing because Dream Focus had already joined the conversation, and was absolutely correct in telling you that there isn't a way to get more people besides the rescue tag and posting to any possibly interested projects. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Images without a fair use rationale
When you see a logo or other image without a fair use rationale being used in a way that would be permissible if it had a fair use rationale, please consider adding the standard fair use rationale rather than tagging the article for deletion. Similarly, if an image has been incorrectly identified as public domain, please consider replacing the incorrect public domain tag with non-free logo and adding the standard fair use rationale. Doing this will ensure that the affected pages remain in compliance with policy without removing the logo. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I did consider it and decided I had better things to do with my time last night. Thanks though. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing on the CarbonFix wiki page
Hey! I have been finding links to improve the CarbonFix standard wiki page, but you keep taking them down... Could you please explain why? Should I send you copies of the reports/websites which back up what is on the carbonfix standard wiki page? thanks in advance for your reply! Wiki-Mich (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits which are intoducing more links (which appear to be fine) are also reintroducing copyrighted text. There are no issues with you improving the article, but previously published copyrighted text may not be used unless permission from the copyright holder has been verified. If you are attempting to introduce text which is close, but not exactly, like copyrighted text, please remember that close paraphrases are still a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NHCAN (New Haven Citizens Action Network)
I am confused how can I do copyright infringement on our own web site... it is our words we have the copyright? Can I please put it back up? It will take a week or two to get the page in order but allow us to do it before you start clipping it I have till the 20th to get it in order... I have serval others from the group that will swing by and make corrections but wow I can not put words from our own web site.... I give permission to myself to use our words. --Happypixie (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated at the article's talk page, you need to follow the instructions at Donating copyrighted materials. Until permission is verified copyrighted material will be removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan's Mill Copyright Infringement
Could you please reference the source that you say the paragraph is infringing? Also could you add to the articles discussion page the the comparative sections so that other people can take a look at the alleged infringement? Onefinalstep (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is already referenced on the article. I will provide some example comparisons on the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Onefinalstep (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * Thanks! It's nice to see there are other editors out there cleaning up all of the copyvios that crop up. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthostatic vital signs
Hi, I am new to wikipedia, probably this was one of my first article, though the article looks a close paraphrase I request you to keep the article as it until someone challenges to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udgikerian (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to consider this a challenge then. Wikipedia can not accept material which infringes copyright, and such material will be deleted. Feel free to rewrite the page further, preferably from scratch, at the temporary page provided. An admin will review the article and the temporary page in about a week and determine the course of action from there. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Web Gallery of Art
Vernon, just for your info, this site (Raphael paintings etc) is itself a copyvio site, usually lifting it's copy wholesale from art history books. Personally I'd just remove these paras without bothering with the template. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, unless the art history books are public domain then the text is still copyvio from somewhere. But as far as removing the paragraphs, I could (or you could), but I'm just a sucker for classic art, so I'd rather see it rewritten than removed (and I'm not good at rewriting, which is why I'm blanking and listing them for others to clean up if they can). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not very likely to happen frankly. They'll just sit there looking ugly. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, something (either deleting or rewriting) will happen to them about a week after I tag them, since that's how long things are left in queue at WP:CP. Some of my earlier taggings were delayed a bit because there was a glimmer of hope that wga.hu had given permission for a bunch of its text to be copied to Wikipedia, but I assure you that the won't "sit there looking ugly" for too long. Of course, if you're volunteering to rewrite them, feel free and the templates can be removed that much sooner. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok - I've seen that "permission" in the past, but they don't have the copyright to give it away. I'm surprised the publishers have let them get away with it all these years - Hungarian copyright law is standard and enforceable. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you happen to know which books they've copied from, I'd appreciate it, because there are four articles in particular (,, , and ) which we've been leaving alone because we have permission from the website, and I haven't come across the text online anywhere else besides that site and Wikipedia mirrors, but I'm willing to double check them against some hardcopy sources if you know some particulars. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In general no, they just seem to use fairly standard works on each artist, usually not available online. For example all the Durer print entries are word for word from the Dover complete engravings/woodcuts books. But it will be a copyvio from somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you obviously know more about this area than I do, any chance you know what the standard works might be for Caravaggio and Verrocchio, so I can track them down at my local library? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are really too many possibilities. I think they also use works on periods - Baroque art etc. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * AHA! lucky hit. PS, I think Attilios stopped doing these some time ago, so no need to get too heavy with him. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's outstanding, thanks! And from what we saw he hasn't copied any material since he was notified that there might be a problem back in late '05, it's just that nobody went through and cleaned them up yet. Now at least we actually have a process for dealing with extensive copyright problems, so we've just added the artwork to the backlog. Thanks again for that reference. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just when you think you've seen it all.... --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies
For not being very active at WP:SCV. Tests at school, and more to come :( Will be able to help out more at the weekend! Acather96 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries - I've been busy with work too, and weekend is usually when I'm least active so it'll all work out. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
For jumping in at the help desk - the OP was clealry not fully satisfied with my answer (not was I) so I'm happy to see additional comments on the subject.-- SPhilbrick  T  02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, since MRG's taking a short break starting tomorrow, and I work in roughly the same area (although I'm not nearly as eloquent or expert as she) I'm just making an extra effort to stalk her page. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Robinson (writer) bibliography
Thanks for restoring the bibliography that I deleted in panic. Permission has now been received and forwarded. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that the automated message caused a panic. Unless the bibliography is only a selected portion of his works, then it can't actually be copyrighted, so there shouldn't be a problem anyways. Of course the bot doesn't know what content is creative and what isn't, and so tags anything that matches a large amount of text in order to notify people (like me), that a problem may exist. I'll keep an eye on your article for a while, but I don't expect any copyright problems. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, VW. I've decided that the article would be better subtitled as (publisher) but there doesn't seem an immediate way to change this from (writer). Would you be kind enough to tell me how I can amend the heading? Thx Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a "Move" option for the page (although I couldn't tell you where it is in the new interface). I've taken the liberty of moving it to Ian Robinson (publisher). I hope that's what you're looking for. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that was FAST...or did it happen automatically? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, I did it manually. I just happened to be playing around and not busy when your message came in. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just what I wanted. Thx Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BLANKING PAGE
cOPYRIGHT VIOLATION PAGE IS OBSOLETE, ARTICLE HAVING BEEN REWRITTEN ACCEPTABLY. (CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF PAGE GIVES IMPRESSION THAT REVISED ARTICLE IS IN VIOLATION.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylomorphism (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I was in error. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylomorphism (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Green European Institute
Hi! I'm quite new at Wikipedia. When creating an entry for GEF I did not intend to violate copyright, then I changed the entry just giving a brief idea of what was published earlier. Again there are some problems. Can you be so kind as to tell me what I can do know. I have acknowledged all the sources I have used. How can I defend my entry? Thanks in advance for your kind cooperation! Lila Religa (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While you reworded the text so it is not a direct copy of the source and so not in any danger of immediate deletion, it appears that User:GregJackP feels that what you have now is a close paraphrase, at least of http://www.gef.eu/index.php?id=4, which is still a copyright problem as a derivative work. Since he's the one that tagged the article as a continuing copyright problem, I recommend that you ask him for further clarification as to just which parts remain problematic. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

CHS Electronics
The CHS Electronics article is neither objective or factual. The author is obviously biased against the individuals. In the author's comments on your talk page he uses the word "prosecution" which shows malice and negative intent when the case was actually a dismissed class action suit. The company was built over 14 years, but the original writer has only talked about the bankruptcy and alleged fraud. I am making a formal request to remove this article, or I would happy to create a new article for CHS. This article should be the story about the company and not the individuals.

Courtlandw (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Courtlandw
 * I agree with you that the author appears to be particularly biased, but as the article is not entirely negative in tone and does include sources, it does not meet our criteria for speedy deletion as an "attack page". I also agree that the article should be about the company and not the individuals. You are more than welcome to rewrite the article to bring it in line with our policies regarding a neutral point of view. The edits you have already made this morning appear to be a good start in that direction. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

AFD
Thanks for bringing this obscure AFD on Iceland-Mexico to ANI. I'd miss it otherwise. These frivolous deletion sprees are such a shame! East of Borschov (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, you're welcome, I guess. I can't say that I have a real opinion about the AfD myself, but I find canvassing to be reprehensible. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
Coren flagged a copy-vio on one article, where the 'violation' is copied track listings. These aren't copyrighted, are they? Acather96 (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, track listings and the like are fine. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * --Djordjes (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

 * Thanks! I'm sorry I didn't come up with more, but for some odd reason most of the sources appeared to be in Portuguese (which I fail at), so I couldn't tell which ones even might be reliable sources with new information. I do have one news source to add later, but it will probably have to wait until tomorrow. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Acather96 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

re: Comment
I see. Thanks very much for looking into it. It looks like it all comes out in the wash, but I try to be "by the book", so knowing the exact score is never a bad thing! - Vianello (Talk) 22:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminder and Barnstar
I am very sorry that I was gone several days and had forgotten about the article List of The 39 Clues characters. I am continuing on editing the article today, and I'm hoping I could finish the article tomorrow or until Monday. I just want to remind you that I placed the "Currently Editing" Template once more for I will be expanding the article the next days. - FDJoshua22 (talk) 10:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and this is a barnstar that I think is appropriate for your hard works. I honestly think you have leadership quality because you are well-recognized with all Wikipedia guidelines.


 * Thanks a ton! There's no worries with the tag going back on, there's just not much point in it unless it really is being actively worked on. I think your rewrite of the article is outstanding, and there's almost no information remaining in List of teams in The 39 Clues that you haven't already put into List of The 39 Clues characters and sourced remarkably well. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Carlos Skinfill
Verno:

I have erased almost all the info. I just left the basic info and references to avoid deletion. Thanks. Jazzlife (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have reverted to your clean version and tagged the article for further improvement. You may always rewrite the previous content to expand the article, so long as you use your own words and don't copy and paste from another web site to do so. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just curious if there was a reason that the AfD notice was removed from the Carlos Skinfill. Thanks, GregJackP (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I put it back, sorry - the user appeared to be legitimately trying to remove the copyright violation from their page so it didn't get speedily deleted and it took me a little bit to notice the AfD tag. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I figured it was something like that - not that I've ever done anything similar :p GregJackP (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

List of The 39 Clues characters
Hi, again. I am currently editing right now. I was just wondering if I should include storylines about the seven teams. e.g.:
 * Amy and Dan Cahill: Amy and Dan Cahill (from Boston, USA) are the protago....................In the third book, they formed an alliance with The Kabras.

I was just asking if I should do that for I did the same thing on Mission, Fictional Non-Cahill, and Non-Fictional characters. e.g.:
 * Theo Cotter: Theo Vale-Cotter (from Cairo, Egypt) is Hillary Vale's son. He is an archaeologist and Egyptologist who helped Amy and Dan Cahill recover the third Sakhet in the fourth book. However, he tried to steal it from them later with his aunt.

I would appreciate your reply.-- FDJoshua22 (talk)04:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You'll have to take this as just my opinion, since I've never actually written about fiction on a scale like this before. That said, I don't see a problem with including storylines in the character list you're working, although I do think most of the emphasis for storylines should be included in the character section for each individual novel (and it may very well be easier for you to do the work all in one place and then only the relevant tidbits are copied to each book's article). VernoWhitney (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Greg L (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The Sewer Cover Barnstar
Verno, thank you very much for toughing through the Sewer Cover Barnstar challenge. Thanks also for the kind words (I think that your page might very well be the most interesting essay, or whatever you want to call it, that I've come across on Wikipedia) you left on my talk page telling me of your accomplishment. You have rightfully earned your place as a member of a very exclusive club: those who have toughed out the challenge by wading through four entire articles of date-related trivia. This club is populated exclusively by those who can tough through abject boredom and prevail using nothing but shear willpower. Greg L (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OTRS pending tag
Re the OTRS pending tag - I see that the page is still blanked. How long should it take for the OTRS people to resolve this issue given that the required quthorisation has been submitted to them via email? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeslow (talk • contribs) 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about the delay; normally it would have already been unblanked but it just so happens that the three admins who usually handle the copyright permission work are all busy or on vacation at the moment. I'll remind someone else who has access to the email system that there's a backlog and see if they can stop by, but I'm afraid there may still be a delay, as there are still some outstanding permission issues going back to May 7th and your page was made on the 14th. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

about pietroporcinai.net
Hello dear wikipedia administrator,

I'm writing to you about the Pietro_Porcinai page, to be sure you can verify the ownersip of the site-wikipedia page contents. -- > whois pietroporcinai.net Administrative Contact:

Francesco Canessa (makevoid@gmail.com) ...etc... -- that actually it's me, that's the email that I used to register my account on wikipedia, and I already sent an email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org: -- Dear wikipedia support,

we, Francesco Canessa and Paola Porcinai (pporcinai@gmail.com), owners of the site http://pietroporcinai.net wish to donate the page text coming from http://pietroporcinai.net/pages/biography to wikipedia, for the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Porcinai with CC-BY-SA-3 license.

Thank you -- Can you remove that ugly page?

Thank you,

Francesco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.51.69.161 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Blankening sounds quite stupid since there already is an OTRS permission number for that web site OTRS#2007032510012681. The article on it.wiki is already credited. You en.wikipedians blind? Dunno. :P Sailko (talk) 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not blind, I'm merely aware that an OTRS ticket number is not a permission number. The it.wiki article is tagged as having permission, but it was not placed by an OTRS member, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take it at face value and asked an OTRS member to double-check it. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand then... just make sure you will take care of tags later. sorry --Sailko (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. We will remove the tags as soon as we can. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation
Hello! I added information about political issues on Adam Kokesh's wiki page that you recently deleted. I also added the photo of him. I have permission from Adam Kokesh to add any information about him (within Wikipedia guidelines of course). Additionally, he was one who gave me the photo to use. Given this information, my additions are not copyright violations because the owner of the reworded information gave me permission.Libertybrewcity (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we can't simply take you at your word, we need somewhat more rigorous evidence. You should follow the steps at Donating copyrighted materials and send/forward an email in order to verify permission. Until your permission is verified, the material should remain removed as a copyright issue. The email should also include permission for the image, or it may also be removed as a copyright problem. Judging from the notice left by another editor about a copyright issue on Rand Paul, I recommend you follow the steps to document permission for all copyrighted content you may have previously uploaded. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk)
 * Hey VernoWhitney, I received email permission from Adam Kokesh and his campaign. Will I receive an acceptance email response, or am I allowed to continue editing the page. I can forward you the email if you would like. Thank you.Libertybrewcity (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should forward the email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org and they will verify it and get back to you. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bot development
Hi. I was wondering if you're set up for bot development and if I could help in any way. I haven't done any bot work yet, but I write templates and scripts locally on a TurnKey MediaWiki (Software bundles) running in VirtualBox. Flatscan (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I apprciate the offer, but for now at least I think I'm good. I got some basic code running this evening to login and query via the API, so once I add some error resolving code in I should be ready to start trials for tasks #1 and #2 by the end of next week. I haven't run my own wiki server in a couple of years, so if I need one for some more in-depth testing, I'll let you know. Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Flatscan (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Tom Papania
I'm puzzled as to why you flag up the Tom Papania article as a copyright infringement when the website you say it's copied from clearly states, “Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Papania"”. — Hebrides (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently it was too early for me this morning, my mistake. Thank you for catching it. I'll fix it now (and of course, tag it as G4 per Articles for deletion/Tom Papania). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * * Hi. This one caught my eye and intrigued me enough that I had to take a look. :) Even though Verno may have missed the notice, it actually is a copyvio of our contributors, as the article was deleted following AfD. Without the history, we can't host the article. When I run into cases like this following WP:PROD, I simply restore the history, but after an AfD we can't do that without violating community consensus. It either needs to be speedily deleted via WP:CSD or, if the new version addresses the problems that led to deletion, the history needs to be restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A triple thank you!!!
I wanted to acknowledge my appreciation for the way you handled my 2 article move screw-ups. I have moved several articles in the past using the old WP format where the "Move" tab is right there with the "Edit" tab. Because the new format doesn't have a "Move" tab, I improvised with 2 botched cut and paste jobs. Although I do my best to make all of my edits in good faith, many who post on my talk page do not seem to make that assumption. Of all of the people who have given me feedback on my talk page, you have been the most diplomatic and ultimately helpful. I'm comfortably back to using the old WP format with your instructions. I know there are "Barnstar Awards" that users can give to others, but I've never delved that deeply into WP. Whatever award a relatively novice user like me can give to you, I would like to acknowledge for you. IMO, you are an excellent ambassador for Wikipedia!!! Cheers, OccamzRazor (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I may have figured out how to post an award. Hopefully this works. OccamzRazor (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! I'm glad I could help out. If you ever have any questions or anything else I could help with, feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Patricia Brooks
Hi again. I have a question about Patricia Brooks, which you marked as clean at WP:Suspected copyright violations/2010-05-25. This rewrite looks like WP:Close paraphrasing to me, but I'm not sure. Would you take another look? Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. Apparently I just assumed that DGG actually cleaned it, although now that I think of it this isn't the first time I've seen that problem with his rewrites. I'll blank that article and go back and double-check SCV and see if I've done that elsewhere. Thanks for the catch! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Current stubbified version contains no copyvio, and is adequately sourced for notability. Needs expansion, but that does not mean I have to do it personally. My general practice is to make the minimum rewrite to avoid blatant copyvio, and stop at that point. Sometimes I may miscalculate, as I seem to have done here.  DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if it came off like I was denigrating your work. I really do appreciate it when you take the time to clean an article like that, I was just in a rush to get ready for a trip to the relatives this past weekend and wasn't thinking of how others could take my meaning. We all make mistakes with copyright work (especially paraphrasing), which is why it's good that there's more than one person looking at each article. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did some formatting cleanup. Once I get more confident, I'll do more work (blanking or stubbing) on my own. Flatscan (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:LazerBrody.png
-  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply
x3 + Thanks :o)   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing discussion of File:Portal2-testchamber.jpg at WP:NFR
I noticed you closed the discussion of File:Portal2-testchamber.jpg, etc. at WP:NFR (the closing of which, by the way, I agree with). However, I noticed that when you closed the discussion you didn't replace the Non-free review template that are on the image pages with Non-free reviewed, as mentioned in the WP:NFR header. I am curious, is there a reason you did not do this? —RP88 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I got distracted by work and forgot. Fixing that now. Thanks for the reminder. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for fixing the links. I didn't realize that those weren't automatically linked. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, you're the one doing all the hard work. From what I've seen being a Wikipedia Admin would try the patience of a saint. —RP88 (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered, but I suppose I should point at that I'm not an admin. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry about that. I misread the "This user is not a Admin" userbox on your user page, somehow overlooking the not. —RP88 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. It's the first time I've been mistaken for an admin by a regular, so I got a kick out of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He has picked up the stick again and unclosed the discussion. 81.149.171.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. Let's try this one again. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't close discussions you are involved in, and the fact your last response suggests you don't understand what I'm saying doesn't help either.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there was any hint that consensus wasn't formed I wouldn't have. Don't forum shop everywhere when every single other editor involved disagrees with you and you've been repeatedly told why. The answer's not going to change. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You still don't understand, the agreement between the publisher and author does matter as the original source of the image is the publisher. If I pay Warner Bros. $50,000 for exclusive prerelease movie screens to place on my website to attract visitors, the last thing I expect is Wikipedia to copy them onto their website days later. And putting an image through IFD then NFR isn't forum shopping.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't expect that then you don't understand fair use. The original source is the copyright holder, it can not be otherwise in this situation. And putting it through IFD, three editors and NFR all for the same argument is. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * +2 failed attempts to speedy the images. Rehevkor ✉  20:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, forgot those. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The three editors got involved themselves, I didn't go asking them. Tagging images for speedy deletion is not forum shopping, read WP:FORUMSHOP again. If this acceptable under fair use, how about removing "Respect for commercial opportunities." from WP:NFC then?--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue forum shopping with you if don't see it, but I will address your other point. If copying of commercial content was entirely unacceptable then we would have no fair use and we may as well just use commons for all of the images (which I imagine would sit well with User:Hammersoft, but that's beside the point). WP:NFCC (in conjunction with WP:NFCC) is intended to, for example, prevent someone from uploading a photo which is otherwise being sold commercially (as with a press photo, or an artistic photograph) in sufficient quality to reduce the copyright holder's income. See Fair use. If you feel that the policy needs revamping, feel free to head on over to WT:NFC and propose the change and we can file an RfC and really get some community input on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it clearly violated your own policies, I wasn't expecting to get in a fully fledged fair use legality debate.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * NFCC is based on yet stricter than fair use, as it must be per the overarching resolution at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, so the motivations are necessarily based on the (case) law regarding fair use. As I've said previously, everyone else seems to be of the opinion that it clearly does not violate the policies, but if you feel that the policies are ambiguous or otherwise need to be changed, go for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

George Poe
Can you make the changes that you are suggesting at the article to the cite format so that it links to the image of the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so sadly I discovered that it's more complicated than just substituting the template. What I ended up doing was just copying the citation that cite news generates and manually re-adding the wikilinks where appropriate. Kind of a pain, but I'm willing to help out and convert more citations like this if you'd like. Since the references shouldn't change very often, the ease of updating the citations doesn't really matter. I'm still fiddling with the template to see if it will let me somehow sneak a [[File:]] link into the url. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha! I found a better way - just ignore the url= parameter and then set title= Smother Small Dog To See it Revived. Successful Demonstration of an Artificial Respiration Machine Cheered in Brooklyn. Women in the Audience, But Most of Those Present Were Physicians. The Dog, Gathered in from the Street, Wagged Its Tail. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And User:RP88 beat me to fixing the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Help
hi you were helpful on my NHCAN page even though it was deleted you were still helpful! So I figure you would be the person to go to for this.I posted the start of an article and it got deleted. So I am trying to get it set up off line so it is more factual. Using an online paper and gov documents ect to show it is history in the making. it meets all the criteria of A Government watch dog group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Government_watchdog_groups_in_the_United_States. It is coming along fine and I have alot of proof ect...which is what I was told was wrong with the article. But as I am trying to be a good wiki adder, I just notice that external links are not good. So the question is, are news articles and government doc's include in that? if so how do I post the referring info? (format?) And also is there a place to create the article before it is up for review so I can make sure that the format I am using is working?? I don't want to put it up only to be bit by a delete brownie point editor. Thank you for your patience and help. --Happypixie (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the first thing to remember (and the reason I noticed the article before), is that you can't use previously published work unless the copyright has been donated by following the steps in Donating copyrighted materials. Now, assuming that's out of the way: the reason it was deleted last time was because there was no indication of notability. In particular, what you should be looking for is Notability (organizations and companies), which lays out the guidelines of what an article should have to show that the organization is notable. I've started a very short draft article in your userspace where you can work on the article and get it established without worrying about it being deleted at User:Happypixie/NHCAN (New Haven Citizens Action Network). Hopefully that works for you. I'll keep an eye on it, but if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!! big hugs! I will transfer what I have, over tomorrow. --Happypixie (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please cease your harrassing of productive editors
Please dont furhter harrass productive editors who have already been attacked by gangs of ill meaning socks and their enablers, as you have just tried to do with editor RAN. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't assume I'm harassing productive editors when I point out a legitimate area of concern that I feel needs exploration away from the drama and partisanship of FfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Trigger-happy much? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would second FeydHuxtable's concerns. On the face of it, it looks like harassment will result, whatever the intentions.  At a minimum the timing is unfortunate. I see the argument that this time it's different, but does every editor now pile on and haul Richard Arthur Norton into a forum of their choosing to try to resolve this once and for all?  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that the timing may be unfortunate, but as I said on his talk page I feel that I was obligated to make a record of it in an appropriate place under our copyright policy. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I posted to WP:CCI so that "cool headed experienced administrators" could decide how to handle it. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that you realize it's unfortunate but you're doing it anyway. That's more or less the definition of "intentional", and harassment is the result.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to word it that way, yes, my attempt to properly enforce the copyright policy is intentional, but I'm sorry if people use it as an excuse for further harassment. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The report itself accomplishes harassment and is of questionable propriety. Content policy basis is not the issue here.  This editor has been subjected to dozens of bad faith deletion nominations in the past several days, including repeated nominations from stalkers and sockpuppets.  When you add yet another report, it doesn't mitigate the vexation to say that you regret the result.  - Wikidemon (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to stop repeating yourself about stalkers and sockpuppets, unless you are intending to insinuate that I am one or the other. As far as vexation goes, I'm not quite sure what to tell you if you find copyright irritating. As far as the report itself being harassment, If you feel that way then I'm afraid that's the way it goes. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? That makes no sense at all.  Could you please address my points instead of making up silly rhetorical accusations?  Your report seems inappropriate and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it, vis-a-vis whether or not it should be speedily closed.  - Wikidemon (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's see:
 * You said "The report itself accomplishes harassment and is of questionable propriety." I said "As far as the report itself being harassment, If you feel that way then I'm afraid that's the way it goes." Looking at harassment, yes, it is an additional "criticism" if you will, but it was not intended to pester or annoy, so depending on your interpretation I can see how you could consider it harassment. I felt obligated to do so, however, in line with policy which is based on legality and which I feel is an issue regardless of whatever other drama has been unfolding.
 * You said "This editor has been subjected to dozens of bad faith deletion nominations in the past several days, including repeated nominations from stalkers and sockpuppets" (after a similar statement here). I said "Feel free to stop repeating yourself about stalkers and sockpuppets, unless you are intending to insinuate that I am one or the other." The repeated mention of them in conversations involving my actions is beginning to seem to me like an attempt to associate me with them, which I do not appreciate. I do note that FeydHuxtable began the conversation that way, so maybe you were merely repeating their sentiments, but it is unwelcome no matter the reason.
 * You said "When you add yet another report, it doesn't mitigate the vexation to say that you regret the result." I said "As far as vexation goes, I'm not quite sure what to tell you if you find copyright irritating." I suppose I was interpreting vexation as simply the emotional response to being irritated at something, and I've already explained why I felt it should be done despite the (apparently inevitable) reactions. If you were instead using vexation as a synonym for the act of harassment then my same response applies as above; while annoying it appears to me to have been necessary.
 * Does that help to clarify my response? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it helps, thank you. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Lord Speaker  ─╢ 17:08, 5 June 2010  (UTC)

Talkback
Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

SCV
Hi, I've just returned from a real life vacation, went over to SCV and found nothing but a red link? What has happened? Acather96 (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * CSBot has been down for a few days now, nothing for us to do in that area until Coren fixes it - he's aware of the problem (unless he's forgotten). I'm just keeping the new redlinks there for whenever CSBot comes back online. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your speedy response :) Acather96 (talk) 15:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Again deletion
Hi again I am the NHCAN article writer you set a draft page up for (again thank you) I am still working on it...more info than I thought involved. With that said as I was setting up I came across a form of gentrification and thought it was a notable and it is up for deletion....can you peek and then look at the discussion board and give me some clues I thought I at the least had the start of a good article and the verifiable proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison_Ivy_%28Ivy_League_Gentrification%29 --Happypixie (talk) 16:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous
I saw you tagged this article as a close paraphrase and had some questions for you. I didn't see any sources listed that you think are being closely paraphrased so I went looking, and I found at least some here, but since you've been working on it recently I thought you might have a better idea as to how extensive it is and whether it should be taken to WP:CP fur further investigation of copyright problems or if you were planning on rewriting it on your own. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Disappointingly, it seems that the vast majority of the descriptions of the studies are in fact culled either from the journal article abstracts or else from secondary sources that mention the articles (and curiously, a few of these latter are listed in Further reading but are not cited as references). This explains why it has the "laundry list" style it does, since it has been an effective copy-and-paste job with some superficial rewording. The bizarrest side of how this has been done in this case is that in some cases material from other AA-related paper abstracts has been culled to discuss another unrelated study.

For example the article contains under "Project MATCH":
 * "Published in 1998, Project Match began in 1989 and was sponsored by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). High-risk alcohol consumption among university students is well documented. Several types of intervention have proved to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption...."

Now take a look at this study abstract; PMID 17295731 from a paper in Alcohol Clin Exp Res which was not related to Project MATCH, published in 2007 by Ståhlbrandt et al:
 * "High-risk alcohol consumption among university students is well documented. Several types of intervention have proved to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption..."

I had reserved the task of identifying all of the sources until today but, in any case, it is rather irrelevant -- since the "laundry list" format is not encyclopaedic and the article needs to have narrative discussion on the individual criteria of efficacy of the AA program and the findings versus listing out the studies. They will be going bye-bye in the next few days. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the response - you do seem to have it under control, so I won't worry about it then. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

CP graveyard
Hmm. I'd forgotten that one entirely. Wish I'd left a note telling me where and who I asked, because I don't remember. I'm going to have to dig until I figure it out! Stupid vacation throwing my rhythm. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't see any further queries about it on-wiki (or I would've linked them too). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I probably e-mailed an OTRS agent. I'll search my Gmail archives. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha! Here. But I don't find anything my gmail archives, so I evidently did not follow up. My bad. :/ I'll do that now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, before I do that, I'm going to make sure it's still a copyright issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. By the way, that's the same archive I linked to in my question . VernoWhitney (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh. LOL! I'm so observant. :) No matter how I aspire to be Marilyn vos Savant, I inevitably drift towards Goldie Hawn. :/ Anyway, I find this is part of a larger matter. He's placed these same templates at least at two other articles. I've mailed the list. If nothing else, one of the moderators ought to be able to figure out if the second image exists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

welcome template
Hello, I noticed the "welcome" message that you left on User talk:Mmitrovich. I am wondering if that is a standard template that I could use rather than {:welcome} or if it is something that you have built within an editing tool? Active Banana (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's {{subst:welcome2}}. It even comes with its own heading! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for highjacking your thread
Hi, I am sorry I highjacked you thread here. If you would prefer to move my comments to a new section please by all means, feel free to do so. I just responded there because that's were Moonriddengirl posted she was ill. You can do what you feel comfortable with. Just say I said you could, or link to this. Again, sorry, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  19:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just had to unhijack it to ask her to delete the other page. I completely understand medical worries. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.-- Crohnie Gal Talk  21:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
I believe I was writing from a neutral point of view by correcting an error. The page states LDS is a "Christian" organization which is not true. The page itself is pro-Mormon biased. I was trying to correct the page by making it clear that LDS is not a "Christian" religion, but a non-Christian entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juvenis1 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It has traditionally been referred to on Wikipedia as Christian and there are cited reliable sources classifying it as a Christian church. If you disagree, feel free to start a discussion on the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How cool is that!
So if I just add "Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8. Does not significantly increase readers understanding of anything" to any image deletion discussion, I can get any image deleted regardless of the rationale to keep? Very cool! Thanks for the tip! Looking forward to using it asap, and more importantly, finding an admin who believes it! Viriditas (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you seem a little upset, I'll tell you that if there had been more explanation in the article, my opinion would likely have been different. As I said, I felt the fashion file was closer than the other one, but all I saw supporting its inclusion under your logic is the mention twice that it was nominated for those awards and the caption. I'll also point out that WP:FILMNFI states "Critical commentary should be embedded in the body of the film article", all this had was the caption for the picture, now a single sentence in the article, only half of which discusses cinematography. I apparently have different standards for the amount of critical commentary required to justify a non-free picture, I'm sorry if you feel differently.
 * As far as the image of David Bowie and the invention photograph, I'm afraid I just don't see what they were supposed to provide critical commentary of. Yes, he was a charismatic character, and yes it was shot in a parking lot, but, to be blunt, so what? You don't get charisma from an image, and how does an image of a series of light bulbs benefit the reader? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset at all. I'm just really disappointed in you and can't figure out what you are trying to achieve here.  After I finished explaining how and why the image(s) significantly increases the reader's understanding, instead of addressing what I wrote, you replied with "does not significantly increase readers understanding of anything" and more strangely, "I feel it needs more than just a caption of text to make a difference."  That wasn't a caption, that was a 35-word paragraph.  Exactly what am I supposed to think of your vote targeting these files for deletion?  I know how to use wikistalk, and quite simply, your vote has backchannel written all over it.  I guess you could say that I no longer trust your judgment. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as what I'm trying to achieve here, how about a free encyclopedia, emphasis on free, which includes the removal of non-free images which appear to be window-dressing, and not educational, as I felt was the case here. I'm not sure what 35-word paragraph you're referring to that would've been aided by the images, so I can't answer that. I've never used wikistalk, so I don't know what it tells you, but would you mind clarifying exactly what you are accusing me of? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * An image which illustrates the Academy Award nominated work of a notable costume designer and cinematographer, and is accompanied by critical commentary on the subject is "window-dressing, and not educational"? Are you saying that a non-free image cannot be used to illustrate costume design or cinematography?  An image which illustrates the production aesthetic and thematic impetus, and is accompanied by critical commentary on the subject, is "window-dressing, and not educational"?  Are you saying that I can't use a non-free image to illustrate these things?  Take a look at WP:FILMNFI and then look at how images are used to illustrate production, themes, and other aspects of a film in articles contained within Category:FA-Class film articles.  The images you helped delete are used appropriately and inline with the encyclopedic style.  Have you ever perused an academic book about film?  I think it is beyond clear that the images you helped delete were not used as window dressing and were used accurately, appropriately, and according to prevailing policies and guidelines.  You're not sure what 35-word paragraph I'm referring to?  You described that paragraph as a "caption", so I'm referring to your own vote for deletion.  Don't you remember what you wrote? Viriditas (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

''As far as the image of David Bowie and the invention photograph, I'm afraid I just don't see what they were supposed to provide critical commentary of. Yes, he was a charismatic character, and yes it was shot in a parking lot, but, to be blunt, so what? You don't get charisma from an image, and how does an image of a series of light bulbs benefit the reader?''
 * That's strange, because I explained the critical commentary in the article, and I explained it in the deletion discussion, so how could you come here and say "I just don't see what they were supposed to provide" when it was already explained twice? To recap, the images have a lot of critical commentary, but to be very brief: The Tesla image illustrates the "science as magic" theme; the parking lot and light bulbs illustrates the production design and historical recreation of Tesla's experiment; and the fashion image illustrates the costume design and cinematography.  What part of this isn't making sense?  There is not a single difference between the use of these images to illustrate and portray these film elements and the use of similar images in featured film articles, and I would challenge you to show me that there is a difference. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answering everything here even though you can't be bothered to maintain indentation. I'm not saying that a non-free image cannot be used to illustrate costume design or cinematography, I'm saying that the critical commentary that was used to support the inclusion of that image was severely deficient. Let me also remind you that WP:FILMNFI is a guideline whereas WP:NFCC is a policy. The 36 word single sentence caption read "Costume designer Joan Bergin chose attractive, modern Victorian fashions for Scarlett Johansson; Cinematographer Wally Pfister captured the mood with soft earth tones as white and black colors provided background contrasts, bringing actors' faces to the foreground". The costume part of that is not critical commentary, it's a statement. The cinematography part is good critical commentary, but that's all there was and I felt it was insufficient. Yes, I've read an academic book about film, not that it matters.


 * If you think you explained the critical commentary clearly then or now, then there's an impasse somewhere. "Science as magic" is mentioned as a supporting theme, no comment in the article that the images was somehow related let alone critical commentary. The parking lot could show production design, but it doesn't tell you any more about it being shot in a parking lot than you get from text, and the historical aspect was not explored beyond the caption and is, again, not critical commentary, just a statement. If there's no difference between the use here and in other film articles, then there's a lot of other non-free images that need more critical commentary or deleted, feel free to nominate them and if I happen by FfD I'll take a look. VernoWhitney (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:FILMNFI does not conflict with WP:NFCC in any way, nor have you been able to challenge the use of the images or show how they were used any differently from other non-free images in featured film articles. You keep avoiding every question I've posed, even though you claim to be "answering everything here", which I find very strange.  You say that the critical commentary was "deficient" yet you haven't demonstrated any deficiency.  You say that the caption, "Costume designer Joan Bergin chose attractive, modern Victorian fashions for Scarlett Johansson" is a "statement" not critical commentary, doesn't mean anything.   This is critical commentary about the costume design, with an image illustrating the commentary.  It doesn't get any simpler than that, and almost every featured film article has a similar non-free image and commentary. You still haven't said what's wrong it.  Your comment, "it's a statement", but that doesn't mean anything, so I really don't know what you are trying to say at all here.  The critical commentary about the parking lot and Tesla's experiment has been the subject of several critical pieces, including Karen Wada's, which is linked in the article, and covered in the production section.  The fact that Jonathan Nolan visited Colorado Springs to research Nikola Tesla and based the electric bulb scene on actual experiments conducted by Tesla is part of the critical commentary from Wada, who talks about how Crowley (the production designer) used CGI to to show how 266 electric bulbs would appear in the ground for Tesla's invention, and how it was shot in the parking lot.  This is critical commentary on the production design, and it is properly illustrated by the appropriate non-free image.  Virtually every featured film article has the same critical commentary and image, and you deleted these images for no good reason and with no valid rationale whatsoever, other than what amounts to "I don't like it."  Let me be very clear: There is no impasse.  You haven't been able to justify your deletion vote, nor have you shown good judgment on this matter.  I can point to non-free image after non-free image that has the same type of critical commentary in many different featured and good articles, none of which anyone is considering deleting.  So, unless you can defend your deletion vote by pointing out what is wrong with the critical commentary and image I provided in direct relation to the critical commentary and images used by other film articles, I'm going to consider uploading the image(s) again. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, heard of the preview button? Second, since either one or both of us isn't understanding the other, we're done here. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Museum of the Cinema (Odessa, Ukraine)
Hello VernoWhitney. I've noted your addition on the talk page of this article. It's been a long time since I contributed via OTRS and I completely forgot the process. The article was copy-pasted by a new user, see our interaction at my talk page. I'd like to help, as this looks as a honest attempt to add information. You seem to be an expert on copyright problems, could you advise me how to resolve this case? Thank you in advance.--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did note the conversation at your talk page (which is why I reverted myself after tagging it for speedy deletion, oops) and added a link to it at the listing at Copyright problems/2010 June 4. That's about all that can be done at the moment; an admin/OTRS volunteer will take a look at it when it comes up for review on Saturday and should then a) remove the blanking and place a valid OTRS ticket number confirming permission on the talk page or b) leave the blanking and reply via email to the contributor if there are any problems with the permission. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. Kind regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

 * And, of course, you deserve ongoing thanks for all the work you do there. I know we have a horrid backlog, but I like to savor our victories. :) Finished the oldest on the list! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You deserve more than a little credit for finishing that one up, but since I just gave you a barnstar a couple of weeks ago maybe I'll wait a little while before ponying up another one. I've been working on the low-hanging fruit (as I always do) at Contributor copyright investigations/Paknur, so maybe we can finish that one in under a year too! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The New Confessions
Hello, I am trying to find out the reason for this article's deletion? It confirms to all Wiki criteria. The plot is rather extended but this is because the novel itself is 480 pages long and it is almost impossible to condense it beyond what it is currently.Ivankinsman (talk) 18:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I was only completing the nomination for 24.4.101.72 (talk), so you would have to ask them if you desire clarification of their rationale. I have not researched the subject at all to know whether it should be deleted on notability grounds. I will however point out that the plot does need to be shortened at least for copyright issues as I indicated at User talk:Moonriddengirl. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Grab some glory, and a barnstar
Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. m o n o  00:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Happy Days
As SCV is back :) Acather96 (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, isn't it great? Oh, and regarding the backlog tag - I've started a bot (in trial right now) which among other things places the backlog tag at SCV when there's 4 or more days still there. I was just letting the empty days back up so that the bot would think there was a backlog. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert
I closed the thread per your offer: I don't see it going anywhere, and there are so many threads on this page that go that way. If you feel I was in error, please do revert my change - just don't use Rollback to do it (snicker ;>). Cheers, VernoWhitney :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. - I just noticed this and replied on my talk page. If you want to play this game because of this: good luck to you... ;P Doc9871 (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey... thanks. Nothing personal in all this; we're here for the same reason.  Please understand this, and I hope you're not "bitter" with our recent "row": I can be a really condescending bastard sometimes.  Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

PD licensing of US Govt.
Can I take it that everything at nist.gov is PD? OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 22:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost. Their disclaimer states: "With the exception of material marked as copyrighted, information presented on these pages is considered public information and may be distributed or copied", so just look for a copyright notice on the individual page or photo you want to use, otherwise it's PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good to know. OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 11:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cookie


FeydHuxtable has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Please have a tasty cookie as an apology for how I reacted to the copy right investigation request a few days back. On reflection Ive no doubt you only had the best interests of the project in mind. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your apology is appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza Flotilla Raid Images
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm still learning here.

But can you please explain to me why you deleted a Huriyet image showing passengers attacking a soldier, but left another image in the article from the exact same source which shows passengers helping a soldier?

Diff:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=368042442&oldid=368040371

Other photo:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_clash#Activists.27_and_flotilla_organizers.27_account

If one is wrong, then isn't the other also wrong, and shouldn't both be deleted?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look at the [[:File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg


 * actual page]] for the image I removed from the article, it shows the source to be the Associated Press not Hürriyet as is asserted for the other image. I don't know enough about Hürriyet to know whether it's a press agency or not, but I do know that using an AP photo is a no-no unless the commentary is on the photo itself, not merely the contents of the photo. This is in the guideline I put in my edit summary at WP:NFC #6. Does that help clear it up? VernoWhitney (talk) 21:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Does that help clear it up?" Yes and no.
 * Below is the original source for the image. I guess that AP took, or bought, the image from them. And it's the same source that's being used for the other images.


 * http://www.internethaber.com/israili-sevindiren-fotograflar-foto-galerisi-7818-p16.htm


 * Would it then be okay to use this image, or a different image from the set, with this as the source? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * First, if AP bought the image and holds the copyright then it's off-limits no matter where it originally came from. Since they're hosting it (via google), I think it's a pretty safe bet that they hold the copyright, but I'll ask others who deal with images more regularly to double-check. Second, do you know if Hürriyet is a press agency too? If it is, then all of the other photos sourced to them should be removed. If it's not a press agency (i.e., it doesn't sell its photos to other news sources), then anything that it still holds the copyright to should be usable under fair use and the rest of WP:NFC. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing this conversation at WP:NFCR, if you're interested. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Buying the right to use the image is not the same as becoming the copyright holder. Two distinct rights, in legal parlance.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, and the conversation continues at WP:NFCR as I mentioned above. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

missed it?
At Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid you deleted a photo asserting that there was no FUR. But there is a FUR for the article -- did you miss it?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I had an old version of the photo open from earlier this morning, so yes I missed it at first. I have since removed the FUR as being invalid per lack of consensus for inclusion at Talk:Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid, as the image itself was not discussed, only the actions depicted. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you appear to insist on reinstating the rationale removed by both Marokwitz and myself, let me point out that per WP:NFCC "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale", so please get consensus at the talk page first before replacing the image. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've provided a rationale that comports with Non-free content. Please point me to the portion of the FUR guideline that you feel it violates.  If there is one (which I fail to see), then let's fix it.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NFCC. The section of the article is about violence, but not about the image itself. How does an image of someone being beaten "significantly increase readers' understanding" of "Legal arguments supporting use of force"? What is conveyed within the topic of the article that isn't already explained by words? Gaza flotilla raid at least speaks about the release of the videos beyond just the caption. If you still disagree, please continue this at the article's talk page so that others may add their opinions. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, in that the entire focus on that section is the proportionality of self-defense violence to triggering violence, and the photo portrays graphically the triggering violence. The portrayal of the triggering violence could scarcely be more pertinent to the discussion of self-defense as a proportional measure to triggering violence.  I note, as well, that you are switching your rationale from your aforementioned rationale.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I disagree on both points. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I note that first you asserted that there was no FUR. When in fact there was one. Second, when that was pointed out to you, you asserted that a rationale that was not supported by the guidance. Third, when that was also pointed out to you, you now assert yet another rationale instead. Which, fourth, is scarcely reality-based. This is starting to feel like an effort to delete the photo from the article, or IDONTLIKEIT, rather than an effort to have it comply with wiki guidelines.  When an editor keeps on throwing up arguments that are at odds with the facts or with the wiki guidances, that troubles me.--
 * As I noted above, there was no appropriate FUR in the image this morning when I opened it and still had open when I navigated to this article. I feel that my points that the image is not discussed have remained consistent. If you are going to accuse me of IDONTLIKEIT and using arguments not based in reality then this conversation is over. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A Pre-Editing Question for You
Regarding your 15 June 2010 reversion of edit in the LDS Church article:
 * 21:28, 15 June 2010 VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) (98,829 bytes) (Undid revision 368252184 by 72.2.17.176 (talk) rv - looks POV to me)

Before editing this wording myself, I would like to discuss with you the narrow issue of the word "some" in the following sentence: "Due to differences in doctrines, some Christian churches consider the LDS Church to be distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of Christianity." Perhaps the full edit that you reversed could be interpreted as POV, however, the existing sentence above does seem to be inaccurate and misleading to me. Other than LDS and closely related groups, are there any Christian churches that do consider the LDS to be part of the historic apostolic tradition of Christianity? If not, or if they are very rare, would it not seem that the sentence above is about as accurate as the following? "Some people have two legs." It is true but gives an misleading impression. Would you object to the following edit? (leaving notes 111 and 112 intact but adding 113) "Due to differences in doctrines, the LDS Church is generally considered to be distinct from the historic apostolic tradition of Christianity by Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches.113" Scoopczar (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your proposed edit sounds fine to me. I think it was the "traditional Christian churches" and lower-case 'o' "orthodox" which bugged me about that edit. Your edit also neatly sidesteps the issue of "some" (which has wavered between few - some - many - most) by listing the main branches. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Red-Headed League (1985 TV Episode) merging into The Red-Headed League (1985 TV Episode)
First time merger for me and I've messed up. Didn't know about the edit history merger stuff. Would it be easier for me to blank the page as creator and speedy delete it? I'll wait a bit for a reply before trying that. Thanks. (Watchlisting your page.) Jusdafax  02:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Never mind, it was deleted. Sorry, and thanks.Jusdafax  02:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries. Everything should work out, I've already tagged The Red-Headed League (1985 TV Episode) for an admin to move the history over from The Red-Headed League (TV movie). It's just one of those things that doesn't usually come up. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I compounded the confusion with the wrong title to this post. Thanks, and now I've learned the right way. I hate feeling like a noob, but I'm happy I got it straight. I finally moved it to The Red-Headed League (1985 Sherlock Holmes TV Episode), which is what it was originally before someone changed it. Thanks again! Jusdafax  02:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Arrgh. Thanks yet again. You know why, there was a third page, thx for the redirect. Jusdafax  02:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply
My bad, sorry  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No big deal - if they send the email it can always be undeleted, just thought you should know. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
FDJoshua22 (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Translation
Name one source that Joseph Smith used to create his revision of the KJV of the Bible, he used a copy he bought at a book store and nothing else, no other translation in the history of the Bible was made that way, it is the most well sourced and documented book in existance and it is worth noting that he used none of it to make his revision. It is also important for non-mormons to know how significant the changes, the vastly change the meaning in many of the passages he changed, and it's not a point of view, that they are different, or that the Book of Revelation specifically says not to do what Joseph Smith has done, if you Mormons are proud of these changes and truly believe that they are correcting some historical wrong that has duped people almost 2000 years, then admit it and be proud of it, I wrote my edits in criticism, and in that column it is appropriate to cite the opinions of every Christian I've ever spoken to who was aware that it was changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan355 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to look up sources, because I'm not at all familiar with the history of the JST and so I don't personally know either way. That's not the point. The point is that your edits are making statements which are not supported by the existing reliable sources or the KJV which you cite. The only one which is in part supported by the KJV is that passages were added, but your addition was incomplete as they were not just appended, they were added interspersed with the existing passages as far as I can see. It is never appropriate to "cite the opinions of every Christian [you]'ve ever spoken to" because they are not a reliable source. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I am familiar with the history, Joseph Smith created the translation using nothing but his own personal copy of the KJV. Even though most modern and ancient translators have worked diligently with ancient scrolls and Codices to obtain accurate translations of the meaning and passages, Joseph Smith did no such thing and it needs to be said plainly, and not in a misleading way that makes it seem better than what it was. Furthermore the additions, by the admission by the LDS, were for the purpose of revealing hidden truths, which means changing the meaning to say something else. I have not commented on my or any one elses opinions as to the nature of the changes or the possible negative reasons for making said changes. However, that does not change the fact that the additions and subtractions were made to change/add/subtract meaning and should be recorded as such. As I said before if the position of the LDS is that the original KJV was ruined by the "great apostasy" then there should be no reason to hide or mislead about the changes made to the Bible, regardless the passages were changed. Most modern translators, including the translators of the NIV, etc. worked diligently to maintain the original integrity of the book, the original Christian councils held in the 2nd and 3rd centuries also fought and debated the integrity of translated and copied scripture, because of many reasons, not the least of which was the Book of Revelation 22:18,19 which forbade additions or subtractions. It is intellectually irresponsible to not be honest about the changes when the reason for the changes was to correct alleged mistakes and admissions from the ancient scribes. Since that is the position of the LDS then it should be documented as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.196.226 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine - but you still need to cite a reliable source for your changes to keep within the policy of verifiability so that people (like me) who are not familiar with the history can still check and see if the article is accurate. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted, that the LDS itself proclaims to be teaching a message that was taken out of original Christianity i.e. Gen 32 (JST) God removes info from second tablets to be revealed later. Thus, in comparison to the views of the LDS and its books, Mormonism is to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism, and many non-mormon biblical experts would not consider LDS to be a part of the historic apostolic tradition and only very loosely Christian as the term has been historically recognized at best, i.e. Christianity recognizes and worships the one and only God as described in the original scriptures, there are many in Mormonism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan355 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good for it. I really don't care. Just cite reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

transogram Company
Hello, i didn't take the mentionned site but this one : http://www.scripophily.net/trcoinpe19.html that mentionned History from Wikipedia and OldCompanyResearch.com.. But if you decided to deletd the article, that not a problem for me --GdGourou - °o°  -  Talk to me  20:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not delete it, I blanked it as a possible copyright problem. If you can find where the text is or was on Wikipedia then we can attribute it to the original authors and that would work. As it is, I have been unable to find that text on Wikipedia or any other freely licensed site, and so it is a copyright violation. If you would like to rewrite the text, you may do so at the temporary page provided. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Florence Ita Giwa
This is probably not a really weird false positive. The web article is cut off because you need a subscription to see all of it. I can't read it, but my guess from the title is that it is about powerful women in Nigerian politics in 2000, and includes a short bio of Florence Ita Giwa that presumably roughly matches the facts and flow in this bio: birth ... education ... husband ... career events. A false positive I noticed when I reported the error, and really like, is Krisztián versus Krisztián. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, odd names and short or non-existant webpages I've seen before though. They must just be feeding yahoo the full article to get a hit past the paywall. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This one is bugging me a bit. I can't find the article anywhere else. I tried looking at the page source, but it is truncated there too. But sometimes Google gives me a hit on a truncated article like this, even though I can't see what Google found. Maybe the bot has a similar trick to bypass the paywall. Not important. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Georgia Rural Telephone Museum
Please review the article as changes have been made. Thanks --Rrbean (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Vietnam War
Hi, when I reverted the ip's change at the Vietnam War page, I did not know that you had accepted it. The reason why I reverted it was because the countries listed were all Communist countries at that time so it'll make more sense to have it as "Communist forces". They were not Pro-Communist, they were communists. Just thought I'll clarify this. Bejinhan Talk   12:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problems with this, I just looked to see if it was vandalism (which it wasn't) and accepted. It may be wrong, but I don't think it's the kind of thing to use PC on. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
El Johnson (talk) 05:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

CCI
Hi. I've opened a new request; decided to let you or MER-C act on it just to make sure everything's on the up and up. It's pretty straightforward, I think. :) But the reason I stopped by is to let you know that I have neither forgotten nor am I ignoring the request you opened. There were concerns of piling on at the time it was requested. I think allowing a little time for things to settle down may help us assess what further steps are necessary. There was a time I would have felt much more urgently about review, but, alas, we've got plenty of known problems to attend to in the meantime. :/ (Ran a page out of Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 yesterday. I absolutely hate that one; contentious article subjects with passionate contributors, intricate interweaving of copyrighted content with clean. :P :P Literally, each article there takes me hours.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look at it later today. Right now I'm trying to check up on some artwork to try and close that one by the end of the week. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio frenzy
OK that I copied (in good faith, since at the time the website people gave me authorization; and now it seems that I've to rewrite all the articles you're adding that boring markup) stuff from www.wga.hu, but your copyvio marking of Giorgio Lamberti had no explication, since I seem it's translated from the Italian Wikipeda article. I reverted it. Ciao and good work. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry... i've just checked and it seems it was really copied!! (shame on me). Ciaooooo! --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and I'm sorry that so much of your work has to be rewritten. In the course of our work it has also come to light that the website itself is likely full of copyright violations, so they probably couldn't have given you valid permission anyways. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Which website, wga.hu? --&#39;&#39;&#39;Attilios&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry I wasn't clear before. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nu Sigma Beta
In this case the other page is a copy from Wikipedia, they actually acknowledge it. Their copyright notice is invalid in saying GFDL. You can retag with A7, as I stuck on notability, but I would like a different admin to look at notability deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * GFDL is a copyright violation if imported after November 1, 2008. See Licensing update. They don't have to license it under the importable CC-BY-SA. It either needs its history restored, or it is a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The other web site is a copyright violation, not wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC) (reason for this is that the attribution has now been lost due to deletion)
 * So User:Eljohnson15 wrote the entire article originally which was then deleted under A7 but copied to the other website? Or am I still missing something? VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The website is a copy of Wikipeida as of 2007, and the earlier version was migrated in the license update and was available till earlier this year, do you want me to restore the versions that have been deleted so that you can verify that? The very earliest editions were deleted as a copyvio back in 2006, nothing like the current version. I suggest that you just retag with A7. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, that clears it up, thanks. I've tagged it a7, but will have someone restore the history if it is kept. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Could the original article be restored??? I was the one that asked for it to be deleted. The Organization is notable and that has been proven per, wikiproject fraternities and sororities and wikiproject Puerto Rico. I want to get citation for it. please let me knowEl Johnson (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, so I can't restore it, but you can ask User:Nyttend who was the admin who actually deleted it. Note that it was deleted because there was no indication of significance or notability and you should be aware that the wikiprojects don't determine notability; you should ensure that the article meets the standards as set out in Notability and Notability (organizations and companies). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

it does as does other fraternities of that level souch as Phi Sigma AlphaEl Johnson (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see it in the article, but regardless, I can't restore the article - you would need to contact an admin. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that the article should stay and should be worked on with the addition of references and such. I have been asked to restore the article, but before I do I would like to know if there are any objections. I left a message in this regard to User:Nyttend, whom I believe is the deleting administrator. I will at least wait 24 hours before taking any action if so required. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to give it some time to show that it's notable, but if it's restored then the prior history needs to be restored also, in order to maintain the appropriate attribution for the content. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, Verno. Sorry I wasn't around to give you a quick answer. The multiple deletions made this a bit convoluted, but as you've already discovered, this Frat.eu website copied the Wikipedia article -- the article history shows that it occurred around May 9 2007. I'm not certain of the notability issue -- this may need an AFD discussion -- but if the article is restored: note that the original April 2006 article was a definite copyvio of http://web.archive.org/web/20070303073109/www.nusigmabeta.org/Scripts/default.asp . And it was deleted as such. So those three edits shouldn't be restored. I would recreate the history back to October 23 2006 where the original language for the most current recreation originated. Always lots of complications, eh? Cheers. —  Cactus Writer  (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No worries, and that sounds right for history restoration, I just wasn't being clear. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So whats going to happen?El Johnson (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression the Nyttend would undelete the article and the extra attribution history. You could always ask him about it. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

ok thanksEl Johnson (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to, but I completely forgot about it; I've apologised to El Johnson and restored it. Nyttend (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could also restore the rest of the copyvio-free history (as explained by CactusWriter above)? Otherwise there's still an attribution problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have merged the history for you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios and Mirrors
Hello. I hope you don't mind, but I had few questions after I saw you make note about a Wikipedia mirror on the Copyright problems/2010 June 22 page. I was wondering if you had any tips on determining whether something is a mirror (other than the fine print which will say so!). I have come across the bio of Helene Muddiman, which has similar text (but not exact) to her Facebook page here. In the past, I believe I have seen Facebook as a mirror. Is this correct? But if the text is not exactly the same, it's not a mirror, and thus a copyvio? Will a mirror always include the whole Wiki page, or can only certain sections be mirrored?

The particular editor in question (and what appears to be a colleague with editor: Kebrandt) works for a PR firm and has had several copyright issues in the past, some of which were just cleaned up/deleted originally. I believe the editor writes many of these bios (or plot descriptions, as with Dorothy of Oz). Any help/suggestions? Thanks, and sorry to bother you. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct that there are pages on Facebook which are Wikipedia mirrors, see http://www.facebook.com/pages/Elephants/114005765282637 for example. Profiles, such as this one, are not Wikipedia mirrors (although they could have text copied from Wikipedia in reverse copyright infringement, but that's a whole different issue). The text being exactly the same or not doesn't really make a difference, since mirrors can grab only parts of a page and can sometimes be out of date by hours, days, or even years. If you are unsure, you can always blank it as a possible copyvio like you did with Trevor Wayne, and other people can figure it out. Particularly if there is a history of copyright violations it's generally safe to assume it's a copyvio if you find duplicated information until there's evidence otherwise. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch, you answered a lot of questions for me. I'm still new to this, but I feel obligated to point out copyvios if I see them. I will list the page on the copyvio problems page. Much appreciated! --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. We can always use more help with copyright problems. If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you after this article?(Please don't delete)
He is an influential politician of Sheohar Lok Sabha Constituency (Bihar) in India. This article provides almost all the facts about this politician from Bihar. I have done a proper research on him and many other politicians from India —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.161.120.57 (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Mugshot
--Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

CSB
Hi VW. Is it just me or is CSB giving us much more erroneous results than it used to? Theleftorium (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There have been some really odd ones recently, but I don't know that it's more than a statistical oddity. It could be a sign that the Yahoo search engine is degrading. Of course, I'm not looking at everything that comes through SCV anymore since Acather96 is helping out, so I may be missing some doozies too. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I guess it could be a coincidence. But it's starting to anger people (just look at the "Mohammed Aruwa" and "Your bot" threads at Coren's talk page). :/ Theleftorium (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, 2 hits each on 2 regular editors inside of a week. If it happens to another person I'll be worried, but looking through the archives of his talk page, I think that's about normal - usually it just doesn't hit the same editor twice. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

KSSB Copyright
I noticed you removed some text that I or one of my employees copied from our school's public website (Kansas State School for the Blind) citing it as a copyright violation. Aside from the fact that government published material is often excluded from copyright, I am authorized to release such material and assign redistribution rights. While the amount of information removed was rather trivial, what would be necessary to have it restored without penalty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdhook (talk • contribs) 05:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to have the material restored, you should follow the steps at Donating copyrighted materials and send an email explicitly donating the material. A volunteer will process your email and then the copyrighted material can be re-added to the article. Now in the case for your particular article, the material I removed was most of the first paragraph, copied from http://www.kssb.net/node/23 ("Copyright © 2000-2008 Kansas State School for the Blind") and the academics section, which was copied and slightly adapted from http://www.usd259.com/news/schoolloc/high/Heights/Default.htm "© 2010 Wichita Public Schools", so I imagine you'll only be able to give permission for part of the text that I removed. If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)