User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 3

Re: Personal attacks.
Is calling a drunken sailor a "drunken sailor" a personal attack? If so - I apologize. Have a wonderful day. --Suplemental (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have been reported for trolling. Have a nice day.  --Suplemental (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Jim-Dale.JPG, etc.
This isn't quite the case to which F11 applies. The criterion applies to images taken by one individual and uploaded by another: for example, if I contact the Flickr uploader by instant message and obtain permission for the free license, it's not good enough. Since the local uploader is the Flickr uploader, rather than a different person who got permission to use the cc-by-sa-2.5, this isn't applicable. Nyttend (talk) 01:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no verifiable evidence (i.e., OTRS ticket) that the uploader is the Flickr uploader. That's what we have OTRS for. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * F11 doesn't apply to situations of disputed authorship, since the uploader hasn't "named a third party as the source/copyright holder". You're free to make an FFD nomination.  Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will go through FFD. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Claudio Maldonado
please about the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudio_Maldonado, reconsider the disambiguation sonic 14 created., i think its more appropiated., these people (football-musician) are same age. music lovers are as important as football lovers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.140.62.130 (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All I did was add the note at the top of the page that says "For the Argentinean musician, see Claudio Maldonado (musician)." If you feel that the main page needs to be a disambiguation page as Sonics14 was attempting to make, you should try and get consensus for it at Talk:Claudio Maldonado, Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mary and John Gray Library
For the article Mary and John Gray Library I don't understand how my rewording of information constitutes copyright infringement. If the sentences are completely reworded there is no copyright infringement. Please explain or the information will be restored. ThomasHorn7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHorn7 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

For the article Mary and John Gray Library I don't understand how my rewording of information constitutes copyright infringement. If the sentences are completely reworded there is no copyright infringement. Please explain or the information will be restored. ThomasHorn7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasHorn7 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. While I appreciate that you are making an effort to address these copyright concerns, I'm afraid that the sentences have not been completely reworded, but instead constitute an unauthorized derivative work of that source. For an example of close paraphrasing, consider the following:


 * The source says:


 * While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. While there have been superficial alterations made here, not only is the structure largely the same as the original, but much of the language is retained: "in commemoration of the 1901 oil discovery that ushered in the modern petroleum industry era", for instance, is precisely unchanged.


 * So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this content needs to be rewritten. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".


 * Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.


 * Please let me know if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Nomination
I would like to nominate you for administrator. I hear that you would like to be one. Approximately 80% of users with an edit count like yours pass for administrator. Additionally, you meet all of the qualities listed at Guide to requests for adminship. If you don't want to accept this nomination, you can post something here. On the other hand, if you do want to run for administrator, read Guide to requests for adminship and What adminship is not. hidividedby5 (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I'm going to have to decline at this point in time. Regardless of my edit count I've been active for less than six months, and I'd like to have a firmer grasp on certain policies before running for adminship. Thank you though. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if you ever decide you wish to go through the process, I would more than happy to nom / co-nom as you see appropriate. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your support. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberty Studies
Can you help me insert links and citations in the text of the article? I'd appreciate that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.172.39 (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answered at your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Copyvio FYI
Hi, Thanks for the heads-up. I find that with many of the templates which suggest notifying the author these days, a bot has already done the job by the time I get there. It's hard keeping track of which templates have been superseded and which haven't. dramatic (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries; and I must say I'm in the process of working up a bot which will notify authors if the tagger hasn't, which is how I noticed it in the first place. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Form letters
Just as an FYI, because I don't remember if you already know, I have some form letters that I use as the basis for frequent communication. They aren't quite templateable, but come up often enough that I don't want to rewrite them from scratch every time. :) You are welcome to cut and paste any pieces of these that may prove useful to you without attribution: User:Moonriddengirl/form letters. I most frequently wind up recycling User:Moonriddengirl/form letters, which I use at either the article's talk page or the contributor's (and, recently, yours :D). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I apparently already knew about it, since I have the page watchlisted, but I must admit that I haven't yet sat down and read the pieces to see which ones I want to reuse. Thanks for the reminder though, and also thanks for stalking my talk page over the weekend - I was spending most of my time writing code for VWBot and working up a new article for a French painter (can't even remember where I saw the painting that got me interested in writing it now though). VernoWhitney (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Review?
I've thoroughly reviewed International Association of Certified Home Inspectors. I don't see any duplication at. I've run it through the copyright violation detector and, by pieces, the plagiarism checker. I've spot checked the official website. I haven't found anything except a "review" from 6/18 that, when I click on it, tells me it doesn't exist. (, but it comes up repeatedly.)

Do you see anything wrong there, other than a clear COI? Am I missing something? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it once I actually wake up. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and thanks. :D There are plenty others for me to worry about in the meantime. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the "review" in a different yahoo cache. It's reordered some, but most if not all of it is there. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Processed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

 * Many thanks! I'm not quite sure where you would've seen me besides copyright, since in my recent non-copyvio time I've mostly been trying to get VWBot ready for full-scale implementation, but I appreciate the new shiny. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry, I meant to say "text copyright". ^^, Theleftorium (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes more sense now. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sydenham Wells Park
I have left a comment on the talk page. Likelife (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied there. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Magic?
Hi, Verno. Are you able to find anything to help me determine the age of http://www DOT astrologyfree DOT co DOT cc/ (spam filtered)? I suspect that Astrology and computers, but I cannot prove it at this point. Looking for evidence. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Will be back to look after some chores. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and no rush. It's bed time for me. :) (And I forgot some important words there: suspect it is reverse infringement. :/) I'm tired! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's most of it, I'm not finding the last paragraph though. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's really the age I'm trying to figure out. Did we have it first? I'd bet we did, but I can't easily prove it because the content seems pretty stable. :/ I don't know if there's some way to tell how old the website is. It isn't archived via Wayback.--Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gah, completely missed that it was an age question. Silly family distractions. Checking again. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't able to dig up any date for their page, but I noticed that the article added some dates here in December '09 which are included in the other page, so it does look like reverse infringement to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Idenity Card to New Template
13:24, 23 June 2010 VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) moved protection settings from "Moldovan Identity Card" to "Template:New page" ‎ (Moldovan Identity Card moved to Template:New page: wtf)

Dont understand the question or reaction.

Yep. That should do the trick. Sometimes wiki makes more complicated than usual, but I guess rules are rules. Thanx for the info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeex (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Xeex (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2010
 * Replying at your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Contributor copyright investigations/Arab League
If you would pause your work for ~30 minutes, I'll sort them for you into linked lists, subdivided by flags, maps, graphics/logos, and photographs. Yes? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm doing just fine, thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Your overall plan for the work could be helpful, when you get things organized. Conversation is ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 46. That said, I'm back to rewriting a Vermeer. Oi. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Henri-Pierre Picou
Hello! Your submission of Henri-Pierre Picou at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! (I like your image above this posting area by the way) =)-- &#x03C6; OnePt618Talk &#x03C6;  05:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

SCV template new paramter
Hello, Pleae could you have a look at this, I think this may be better than the current d parameter. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know - the grey keep arrow is currently used for articles where no further action is required (clean and fixed cut/paste moves as well as OTRS ticket received from CPC). In many cases when articles are tagged for speedy deletion, the tag is removed or the speedy is declined and so follow-up is required (either to confirm that it's clean or to blank it if it's still problematic, or whatever) and so the red one stands out more. Maybe the size could be adjusted or a different icon found for the "d" parameter so it's still noticeable but less distracting? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've combined CPC and SCV into a single CP (because I could ^_^ ), and I just updated it to use a 16px image instead of a 20px image, and I think it could work if less distracting is what you're going for. Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, apologies for the length of time I took to reply. In regards to the merger of templates, I think this a good idea, as it would simplify the process. I also see what you mean about the blue arrow, and there are a substantial amount of occasions where SD tags are removed. I'll have a look for a better one, for now I will use the template simply for ease but I will try and find a more appropriate image ASAP. Lastly, I've never really understood the d parameter. Why do CP concerns still exist if the article has been concerned, and I dom't think the red X is fitting, simply because if the article is deleted, the problem is solved? Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The combined template is good for me at least since I hang out at both CP and SCV when others (like you!) are around. I'm sorry I didn't mention it last time, but I think the text of your idea is right because it's really only used to mark those which have been tagged G12 but not actually deleted yet, it's just the icon that bothered me. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this image, I think that it fills the criteria well. It doesn't give the impression that the problem has been fully dealt with, but does show investigators the problem has been identified, a function that I think the red X didn't give. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would work without being confusing. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll give it a go. And I like the new edit notice to :)Acather96 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thanks. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot
Hi there Verno. Sorry about the slow progress of VWBot's BRfA, I haven't been giving it as much time as I feel it deserves, and think you are doing a great job with this bot. Unfortunately, I will not be able to keep contributing to the BRfA until I return from Sweden, near the end of July. I would be very happy to continue with the BRfA I return, but I would suggest that you'd be better off getting another BAG member to keep this going, as waiting a month is unlikely to help your motivation, which thus far has been great btw :). The tasks we've trialled so far look pretty good, and ready for approval, although task #4 seems to have picked up a few errors (which you also seemed to have done a good job of dealing with), so it may be worth keeping a close eye on that, or possibly running another trial (maybe one outside of the userspace...?) Anyway, obviously since this is all packed into one request, we should wait until we've got everything sorted. In some ways this actually makes it easier, because then the bot isn't doing a load of unrelated edits making it difficult to find the trial edits :). Anyway, basically I'd suggest you ask someone else on the member list to take over from me. Cheers, - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the heads up. I'll ask someone else. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Black Hole
I noticed you tagged the plot section of this article as being copied and pasted from imdb but I'm not seeing it. I'm not even seeing any close paraphrases which could be problematic and all that I get when I search for different phrases from the plot are Wikipedia mirrors. Any chance you could enlighten me as to what made you think it was copied and pasted? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the wrong link, but double checking I see that the site quoted actually copied wiki rather than vice versa, will remove tag. magnius (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for checking into it. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Goa Chitra Museum
Your feedback is appreciated. I have emailed the permission to use the text per Wiki guidelines. Please advise if all is in order or if I missed out on anything. Thanks. (Dommartin (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)).
 * That should be plenty. A volunteer from the email response team should take it from here and either remove the blanking or let you know if there are any problems. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for resolving the copyright issue.(Dommartin (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)).
 * You're welcome. VernoWhitney (talk)

move of !vote
Thanks, I didn't notice I left out the astr. GregJackP   Boomer!  20:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I didn't figure you'd mind me moving it. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Swami Nardanand
Please delete the article so I can create a new one with different content

--Swamisatyadevanand (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:3 Aerial Assault Cards.jpg
I've restored the image. I've removed the db-f3 tag, but to ensure that it doesn't go for ages without any license, I've tagged it with nld. Please remove that tag when you add the license tag granted by OTRS. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it's now been tagged. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Hi, following your comment in Sockpuppet investigations/Loofus5 : "Since both accounts I'm aware of are recent creations I feel checkuser may be warranted to find older accounts. ", I have a slight feeling that Sockpuppet investigations/Storm Rider may answer your question about older accounts. The suspected accounts in that case are also primarily interested in LDS articles, participated in the same AfD, and also participate in discussions in talkpages of religion-related articles, notably "Criticism of the Catholic Church" (see and ) and other primarily religious-based topics. Cheers, Maashatra11 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw you add the cross-reference. Based on the behavioral pattern I think it's more likely Atheisty is another sock of Loofus and not Storm Rider, but since both SPIs are Clerk-endorsed I guess we'll just wait and see what it turns up. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, The reason I write to you now is precisely because evidence points to a connection between Atheisty and Storm Rider. It all began when Atheisty wikistalked me (you can see the whole report in Sockpuppet investigations/Storm Rider, quite long but explains the full case). A clerk endorsed CU so he apparently thought the doubt was reasonable. Do you trust Storm Rider ? He seems to be quite an old-timer here. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point I think I'll just wait for CU rather than further speculating. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so too. But I wonder how CU can make a cross-reference check if the two cases are not merged? Cheers, . You were right. :) Maashatra11 (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hello
 * thank you for message in sahim talk

I am the owner Sahimrobot. I wonder. What I'm closed.sahim (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The full text regarding the block is at User talk:Sahimrobot; but in short any bot on English Wikipedia is required to get permission before it runs, per our bot policy. And in this case, permission is unlikely as the community has been generally unresponsive to the idea of Welcome bots. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ok .i underestand . Thank you for attentionsahim (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry Verno, I realize now that I made a mistake in the Template. I'll try to undo the harm by fiing the template. When I'm wrong, I admit it. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and updating the template will solve it since it's not like people have been uploading photos based on the statement in the template. I just wanted to be clear as to just what the extent of the OTRS ticket was (at least as I understand it). VernoWhitney (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh
This new one is going to be quite a chore. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like fun. I'm trying to enlist some opinions about Arab League at commons, so hopefully that one can be wrapped up sooner rather than later. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sydenham Wells Park new
I have re-written the article here: Sydenham Wells Park/Temp. Likelife (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've made a note at the appropriate location for an admin to move your clean page over the old one when they can. It may take a couple of days given the backlog we have in copyright cleanup, just so you know. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Question re: image size and fair use
I've been told you may be able to provide advice regarding my issue. I'm having a bit of a dispute with a member over File:ACC-Uniform-combination-CLM.PNG. He claims that my image is too large and violates the low resolution provision of the fair use guidelines, while I maintain that the provision does not provide an explicit maximum resolution and that the way he reduces my image, to such a tiny resolution, makes it impossible to see the details in the image, which goes against the licensing, which states the image is used "to illustrate the sports team in question." My contention is that if the image is made too small, as he rather totalitarian-ly keeps reverting it to (and accuses me of vandalism when I try to revert it, even though he has yet to prove me wrong and is doing it unilaterally), then the details aren't legible and thus, the image stops being useful as a means to illustrate the sports team. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Kevin W. 23:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You may 'blame' me for steering this enquiry here for advice :-). I wondered out loud if you might be able to spare some time to advise him, with your experience in this area. There are discussions here: User_talk:Eeekster, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football, and here: User_talk:Begoon. I'm sure anything your experience has to add would be appreciated. Many thanks, and sorry for any imposition. -  Begoon (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that this question is likely moot since there is now equivalent SVG. That said, you are correct that there is no explicit maximum resolution. The licensing you refer to, however, explains why it is allowed to be used on the site in the first place, and does not give any support to requiring a larger resolution. As to the actual size of the image, from what I've seen around here the likely consensus for image size ranges from the low end 300 pixel maximum dimension, which is apparently what Eekster was using, to a maximum of about 0.25 megapixels (which given the ratio of this image comes out to about 939x266). Because it's subjective, each image pretty much has to be evaluated individually based on what information it's conveying, so if the details (such as the paws in this image) get lost, that's a factor, but if the key information conveyed by the image is the overall color-scheme, then losing the insignia wouldn't really matter (context is king). Should something like this happen again where it cannot be resolved by replacing it with an SVG (or should issues arise with regards to the appropriate size to render it in the article), you can always seek review at Non-free content review, where more people who spend lots of time on non-free images can weigh in. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ultimately I want to replace the image and other images like it with SVGs but Begoon can only do so much, so I want to learn how to do it myself and since the people who make programs like Inkscape seem to have forgotten how to make programs easy to learn, it's gonna take time, during which I want my image to stay up. I've gone ahead and put it up for review as you suggested. --Kevin W. 01:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I keep an eye on that page, and if nobody jumps in of their own accord I'll see if I can kick-start the conversation. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look at my latest comment? It should be right up your alley. --Kevin W. 08:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could take a look at my latest comment on the non-free review page I'd appreciate it. --Kevin W. 07:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Henri-Pierre Picou
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

AWARD

 * Thanks! I should get around to fixing the tagging for a bunch of those images later today. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010
The change was not discussed on the talk page. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... --chbarts (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * First, please desist with calling me a vandal. Second, perhaps you should read Copyright violations, or at least compare the blanked text to the identified source before restoring material in violation of copyright. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And apparently it is discussed on the talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Streich copyright issue
I undid your warning as the text is no more copy pasted. Check yourself. Userpd (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I reblanked it and will reply at your talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm watching your page, you can leave your replies here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Userpd (talk • contribs) 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy-paste

«it is probably still better to write the article yourself in your own words, and just cite the source you want to copy from.» That's what I will do with copyrighted sentences (though I already edited the text so it won't resemble text of the source to what I give reference) Userpd (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoot!

 * You are an inspiration.


 * When you close a CCI, please let me know if there have been significant contributions to cleanup from others. I like to say thank you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'd have to check the other ones, but Theleftorium ‎did by far most of the work on Jrcla2. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok further list of credits due:
 * User:MER-C cleared about half of 20100216, the difficult half of course :)
 * User:Nancy did most of Robkam
 * You cleaned about half of Aquaplex
 * User:Minimac, User:ChemNerd, and User:Elen of the Roads all did work on Yid.
 * I think that's all of the significant contributors (for certain definitions of significant). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will pass around appreciation. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, wouldn't want to keep all of the "carrots" to myself... Oh, and thanks for stepping in at Daniel Streich. I tend to stop at 2 reverts unless the violation is still blatant so I don't get in trouble for edit-warring. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. Any time you run up on a problem like that, you're welcome to come by my page. There seems to be a bit of a language barrier here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for finishing that CCI. I was really getting bored of it. :-) Theleftorium (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I'm just worried about what I'll do once I've picked off all of the weak and sickly ones... ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Will never happen. :) All CCIs trail into miniscule edits and just cleaning up the tails should keep you busy for eternity. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, and then of course there are all of the new ones that keep cropping up in the never-ending game of whack-a-copyvio. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: plot stuff
So in other words, I should stop feeling so guilty? :) I'm derelict of duty! I am for the first time ever refusing to help a contributor because it's gotten to be so much. :/ (I'm trying very hard to teach him how to get help from others, because I suspect that it will just keep going on.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course you shouldn't feel guilty! You do plenty of copyvio work (at least a plurality if not a majority of it), you can leave other people to deal with the drama. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Lately I've been spinning wheels in an awful lot of discussions. :) I haven't been able to write an article on a painting in days. When I finish, I plan to move my last batch of Barnstars to my userpage. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I trouble you for some stalking?
I am probably only going to have a few minutes to edit tomorrow (family obligations), and there may be some more action necessary here. If you get a chance, can you take a look to see if you can get a feel for the parameter of the problem? I've tagged a couple of sources and dropped some pretty extensive examples at the article's talk page. At this point, all evidence would suggest that this is a matter of unfamiliarity with close paraphrasing concerns. I've addressed the contributor, but not looked at all at other articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I should have time to look at it later tonight and/or tomorrow. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. :) And off with me after one more talk page note. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Picked this edit at random and found quite a few very close paraphrases via amazon book search of the "Service" reference. Haven't found anything in other mainspace work so far, but I'm calling it a night, so that's all for now. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, skimmed through a bunch more edits this morning and didn't find much. There are some splits which may be missing attribution, and some articles with Norwegian sources which I can't read, but of the new content from English sources I don't see any further issues. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files/2010 June 24
Hi VernoWhitney. Hope all is well. Just wanted to ask - what was the outcome of this discussion? I read through the whole thing but wasn't exactly clear on what was going on.  Regards,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 19:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The list in the Attempted Organization of Puerto Rico NRHP photos section should sum it up. The ones above the line should all have 's after them and one of the two OTRS tags attached as they are probably free. The ones below the line starting with the two with 's after them are all probably non-free. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll close the discussion accordingly. Thanks,  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with page that's been marked AfD
Excuse me for being a newbie... but I'm not sure who to turn to at this point. You helped verify the copyright use of an article we started on Friday No Limit Kids  It's now been marked as an Article for Deletion. Not sure why the nominator decided to focus on our new film... but he has. I've responded (I think correctly) in the discussion page suggesting to Keep the page, but I'm not sure. He's not advanced the discussion at this point and at least from where we stand, his claims of non-notable when you consider the folks involved in the film, etc is not warranted. He's also marked our Elevating Entertainment page as well with similar claims of non-notable when the principals of this company are major award winners and established professionals in the music entertainment industry. Simply linking to them is not a COI? As our response on both AfD pages suggest, we don't agree with his claims and he's stopped discussing it - while it leaves our pages in limbo with the terrible header saying it's marked for deletion. And as I understand it, that can stay there for a while until it's resolved.

My question is how or to whom can I request a "speedy keep"... if it's possible. Or what other choices do I have to try to resolve this issue soon. After so much effort to develop a couple of articles, it's frustrating especially when the process is a little foreign to us. Sorry to bother you, and I appreciate your help if you can? Thanks! Lrcee (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, to start with you can't request a "speedy keep"; if you convince the nominator that it's notable (as well as anyone else who weighs in on the discussion), it could be closed early as a "keep", but that decision is left to someone else. And yes, the header saying that it's marked for deletion has to stay there until the discussion is concluded (usually in a week), so that anyone who passes by the article in the meantime can chime in at the discussion if they wish. Now that that's out of the way, the reason the articles were nominated appears to be due to a lack of reliable sources establishing notability for the film or the company. The arguments you made at the AfDs don't really address that issue, because while the movie/company are associated with notable folks, that doesn't necessarily make them notable, because in general notability is not inherited. As far as the COI and related comments, that can be fixed with editing, to make them read more like encyclopedia entries, and less like just a list of awards/reviews. Other kinds of facts would be good.
 * I haven't looked at the sources so I'm not going to join the discussions, but to address the particular issues with the articles, No Limit Kids may pass the threshold for notability if The Dove Foundation and KIDS FIRST! Film Festival are "nationally known critics", so if they are, point that out. If they aren't nationally known, then see if it meets any of the other criteria at Notability (films). I doubt the ratings at IMDB matter. As far as Elevating Entertainment, the sources in the article appear to be discussing the movies, not the company, so you need to find sources which actually talk about the company itself, specifically sources that would indicate that it passes the bar set at Notability (organizations and companies). I hope that clears things up some, if you have more questions, feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Goa Chitra Museum Images
Hi Verno: You were extremely helpful in resolving the copyright issue relating to the text in the article. Now I have run into copyright issue of the images I attempted to upload. The copyright holder gave his consent in the following language: "Here are some pics of Goa Chitra.. You are free to use these pictures as, where and when you want...". When uploading, I did not select any tag from the "License" window, but instead stated that "Permission to use the image was granted by Victor Hugo Gomes [copyright holder] on July 09, 2010. What copyright tag should I select? All confused! (Dommartin (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)).
 * Well, they need to be explicitly released under a free license by the copyright holder. It would be good if you could have him provide us with a clear statement via email (either directly or you could forward it to us) that he is releasing this content for redistribution under an allowable license. The email template at CONSENT can be used to avoid ambiguity. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the tip. I have asked the copyright holder to submit his consent directly to wikipedia with a cc to me.  Upon receipt of same, I am sure, I will ask for your kind assistance on how to proceed from there.  (Dommartin (talk) 16:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)).
 * The copyright holder of the pictures has granted authorization for use of the pictures via email sent directly to wikipedia @ permissions. A copy of the authorization was cc'd to me and can be reviewed on my talk page.  Please advise if I need to do anything further, and once again, thank you for your assistance with this. (Dommartin (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)).

Wikipedia topic : Poswon
i dont believe it is fair that the page "poswon" be deleted simply because I am the artist known as poswon. The information i have provided is completely my own and honest. Please allow me to keep the page, no infringmant has taken place. the information is mine and is valid. No infringment has taken place. The information is valib and honest. Thankyou. Viadonnie (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your article was not deleted as a copyright infringement, as I did notice that you had asserted permission, it was deleted because it did not indicate how or why you were notable. If you want to recreate the article you should read the notability guidelines at WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO and ensure that you use third-party reliable sources which indicate notability. If you wish to use the text which you have previously published again, you should also follow the steps at Donating copyrighted materials so that we can confirm you are the copyright-holder to the original material. I hope this explains the situation for you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your help with my caricature pic! Qfl247 (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'm glad it got cleared up. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Claude Pollard
Thank you for your attention to the above-referenced article. I have re-written it so it is no longer a copyvio. Can you please look and confirm? If you agree, I would ask that you remove the copyvio notice.

Best regards, Argos '  Dad  12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Verno. Given your vacation, I went ahead and addressed this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SCV
Hey, two things, I have intergrated the t paramteter from your CPC template into the SCV one, and if this is OK, will also add w. This is so other users can see all the options they have to use directly on the SCV template. Also, I am going to be bold and removed the SCV d parameter, I cannot see its purpose with the new speedy parameter and the fact there is no need to template listings of articles that have already been deleted. Also, SCV is now up to date, apart from one article, Jonathan Isaby, which I'm not sure what to do with. I would be grateful if you could provide your help with this. Thanks (and have a nice holiday),Acather96 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't create CPC - all I did in that area was make CP as a giant conglomeration of everything (feel free to use it if you'd like) - and I don't see how there would be any problems with adding more parameters to SCV, just remember to update the documentation. Your new 's' parameter serves the same purpose at SCV as the 'd' parameter, so that should be fine, but I'd recommend making 'd' be another alternate parameter for 's' instead of removing it entirely, otherwise someone who's used to the old keys may start leaving malformed messages unintentionally. As far as Jonathan Isaby goes, I didn't see any copyvio on that page, but I haven't looked elsewhere yet and I did tag it as a repost of an article deleted via AfD, so it may be moot. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, found the copyvio on Isaby (and tagged for speedy deletion), it was just scattered bits from the source CSBot identified, but almost the whole article is copied. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Kart Kvaran
Hi!

You removed this text from the Karl Kvaran article.

My text:

Kvaran studied at the Iceland Academy of the Arts (Listaháskóli Íslands) in Reykjavík under Þorvaldur Skúlason[2] in 1943-45, at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts (Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademi), Copenhagen, and at the private school of Peter Rostrup Bøyesen (1882-1952).[3]

Source text:

Karl Kvaran was born in Borðeyri in western Iceland. He studied at the Icelandic School of Art and Crafts in Reykjavík in 1943-45, at the Kunstakademi, Copenhagen, and at the private school of Peter Rostrup Bøyesen (1882-1952). The influence during 1942-52 of French art can be seen in the strongly composed, post-Cubist paintings, in which regular and abrupt brushstrokes create a sculptural, hammered surface texture. Around 1951 Kvaran turned from figurative art to geometrical abstraction, and he remained committed to two-dimensional geometric art employing pure and uniform colour forms without reference to depth.

I can't see how this text violates any copyright. It is phrased differently than the source, names have been updated and I've added information from other sources.

Ebben (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a straight copy/paste, but it is a close paraphrase. Comparing just the sentences at issue with the common words bolded, we have the removed text:


 * and the source:


 * While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".


 * I hope that clears up the situation for you. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Charles-Amable Lenoir
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 18:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Copyright problem: Evergreen Cooperatives (Message left on my talk page)
I understand your concern about copyright infringement, but I didn't have time to correct the problem within 7 days. Is there any way I can retrieve the text of the article you deleted? I would like to rewrite it, but I can't find it anywhere--it even seems to have disappeared from my list of contributions, and I didn't save it on my computer. I put in quite a bit of work on it. In fact, I thought the text was already rewritten enough so as not to be a copyright infringement. Can you tell me what exactly needs to be met in order for it not to be deleted again? Can you tell me which parts seemed like a violation to you? Did you really think there was nothing at all in the article that wasn't a violation or that was worth saving? Maybe that's true, but since I have no way to look at the text now, I don't know how to fix it.

Please at least send me or let me access my original article. If it's possible, I would also like to recover the text I wrote on the discussion page, just for me to see at least. Thank you, GreatBigCircles (talk) 04:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replied at your talk page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
And congratulations on the DYK. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate you keeping an eye on things while I was away. Now I'm just working my way through my watchlist to see what's happened since I left :) VernoWhitney (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay! Now I don't have to worry about an SCV backlog anymore. ;D Theleftorium (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

speedy deletion of Economy of the Soviet Union/deleted revisions
Hi, could you userfy this for me, when it gets deleted? There is still some text in that section which is copy vio but which could be rewritten and included into the regular article, that I haven't had time/access to sources to get to. If you're not the right person to ask this, do you know whom I should ask? Thanks!radek (talk) 03:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I didn't notice it was still being edited and have removed the speedy tag. Any admin (I'm not one) should be able to userfy it for you, and probably should so that it isn't left hanging around in article-space. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks.radek (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Shopping in Karachi
Thanks for your stern message of copyright violations. I did not know about Copying within Wikipedia. I will try by best to avoid any infractions in the future. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your cooperation. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your guidance re: 2020 Olympic thread. It was my first attempt at editing a Wiki page and I've learnt a lot in the process. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoperson9900 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Mau Piailug.gif
I would like to clean this up (from the original on the website) and upload it as a jpeg. Should I just e-mail it to you when I'm finished so you can take care of deleting the old file? Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see we don't have an original file to work from, so converting the gif to jpeg will only make it worse. I'll just work with the image we have.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know there are other files out there which are really similar (such as this one), but I just uploaded the one provided with permission via OTRS. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to a broken Wiki page
I'm trying to access your page you gave me earlier to understand how to establish a copyright: Donating copyrighted materials I can't seem to access it properly. I inputted the information into the search panel and it won't accept. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berek Halfhand (talk • contribs) 04:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you type the whole thing into the search box, it should come up, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Alternately, you can click the blue link you created above, or go straight to the URL of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials. Does that help or am I completely misunderstanding your question? VernoWhitney (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If that doesn't work, try typing WP:DCM into the searchbar :) Acather96 (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

ticket 201007271002867
Hello VernoWhitney,

This refers to : "ticket 2010072710028675". I am writing to you as "the user who added this template to the page". I originally uploaded the image in question. I have now emailed the author of the work, inviting her to complete the "Declaration of consent for all enquiries", and send it directly to permissions@enwikimedia.org, if she chooses to do so.

I noted a concern that "the email address that the permission came from is not associated with the location where the content was originally published", and I wished to comment on that before the declaration arrives at Wikipedia (if ever).

The person has changed the host for her blog, since uploading the picture. Please see: http://punkprincezz16.blogspot.com/

This contains the photo under discussion, and also the statement: "please check out my new blog www.missoliviaaa.blogspot.com"

From here, click on "contact me" and one arrives at: "My E-mail:

bye

Oojamaflip2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oojamaflip2 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll follow-up via OTRS. Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios
Hi,

I can see how Information and belief might rise to the level of copyvio, but I don't agree that the paraphrase in praeter legem constitutes a copyvio. I'm hoping you'll reconsider that one. Thanks. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've created this substitute text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Praeter_legem/Temp
 * I don't want you to think I'm ignoring you, I just didn't think you'd suffer a meltdown if I didn't respond immediately. I'll revisit these sometime today. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I appreciate the update message.  If my new drafts of both articles (Talk:Information_and_belief/Temp and Talk:Praeter_legem/Temp) are still problematic, just let me know on my talkpage and I'll put more effort into cleanup.  Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, both of the rewrites look good. I'll ask an admin to move them over the main articles now. Thanks for your efforts! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sally Fitzgibbons
Hi, I've put the article submission on hold. I saw that there are quite a number of external links. External links should not exist in the article itself. You can convert them to citations or internal links(if they have a wikipedia article). You can also have a external links section but please make sure they comply to the guidelines here. Under the sources section I noticed that there are links under 'Surfing Organistions/Controlling Bodies', 'Newspapers', 'Online Surfing Publications', and 'Sponsors'. What are they for? Also, citations to Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. It'll be great if you can change them. Bejinhan  talks   05:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in case you didn't notice, all I did was add the OTRS tag. Since I've never used AFC I wasn't sure if anyone else would take a look at it again so I told you. I have no other real interest in nor knowledge of the article, Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I've notified the creator. Bejinhan   talks   13:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Connectivity issues continue
Hi. I had a good run of internet connectivity today, which just fritzed out on me, but let me back on swiftly. It's been so frustrating. :P I've been having trouble managing to keep on top of my work e-mails (the ones I get paid for), much less Wikipedia. I am getting a new modem on Tuesday, which my internet company seems to think will clear up my problem. But I'm wondering if in the meantime you can kind of keep an eye out for copyright questions at my talk page? I've got the notice on top, but I know a lot of people won't notice that. I worry that if I'm a long time coming on, people will despair. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I always stalk your page. :) I haven't been editing during the day as much due to an increased workload, but I still check my watchlist and I'll keep an eye out for any that don't get answered. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :D I figured you might, but under the circumstances didn't want to presume. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright
Hi Verno, would you mind having a quick look at a thread on my talk page regarding image copyright. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 06:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:File:Cowan Creek Amenity Center.jpg
- F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 03:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

user:Agradman RE Contributor_copyright_investigations
Hi VernoWhitney,

I just wanted to write here directly to let you know that I really am sorry that I was casual with copyright in my recent articles. A longer explanation is at Contributor_copyright_investigations.

Ordinarily, I would say: tag any article with Copyviocore, and I will immediately remedy it. However, I'm on an enforced wikibreak, and I won't be checking my talk page or watchlist. So, if any any articles get deleted via this process, please identify them on my talk page; and in a few weeks or months, I'll have an administrator show me the history, and I'll try to re-assemble a non-infringing text.

Thanks for your understanding, and I'm sorry to have troubled you (and burdened Wikipedia). user:Agradman editing as 167.10.240.1 (talk) 18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your explanation and I did already read your longer one. I will make sure to let you know the results of the investigation. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Per my latest response, please see my assessment at user:Agradman/sandbox.
 * Best,
 * -user:Agradman editing as 167.10.240.1 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.179.241 (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye?
Hi. :) Given my nasty internet issues (today has been miraculous! knock wood!), can you keep an eye out for a few days at Joe Coulombe? I believe it is an unusably close paraphrase and have explained to the contributor why, but he may be confused, since he seems to believe there is some "30% change rule", beyond which close paraphrasing is no longer an issue. I've asked User:MLauba to keep an eye, but I know MLauba is not always available. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I've watchlisted it now. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Keep your fingers crossed for my repairman tomorrow. I hope he has strong magic. :) (Actually, he's replacing my modem, so I hope he doesn't need strong magic.... Maybe it will just, you know, work.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, technology is always the best when it Just Works. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! Amen. :D It's amazing how post-apocalyptic it all feels when the internet isn't working. :/ Every time I get disconnected, I have to unplug my modem and router and replug it in and wait for it to reboot...and hope. I've been known to occasionally grouse about how hard it is to get away from the internet, but suddenly being unable to get into it is like losing one of my five regular senses. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

www.standrews.tv
Talk to me at and tell me whyyou put in a link of st andrews business whilst I am a non profit site for St Andrews TELL ME!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.217.75 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could slow down and tell me what you're talking about? VernoWhitney (talk) 00:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bülent Şenver
Hi,

As Bülent Şenver is my college instructor, he just gave me the material to update the page. So, there is no copyright problem. If you have any suggestions about it, please let me know.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murattasci (talk • contribs) 15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We appreciate your contribution, but in order to verify that you have permission to use the material we need you to follow the steps listed at Donating copyrighted materials. The article should remained blank until someone from the email response team confirms permission. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Berkhof-Berkhoff
Hello VernoWhitney,

Thank you for your message at the discussion page. I was not aware of violating copyright rules because it was such a small part with general knowledge (and also because it is my own work). I will study the license policy. Thank you for the weblinks.

One question. The German text is made yesterday and not published on my own website. Is a literally translation also a violation?

Kind regards,

Berkh (talk) 16:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wrote the text at http://www.berkhofberkhoff.info/surname.html then you can follow the procedure at Donating copyrighted materials so we can verify that and then we can simply reinstate the material I deleted.


 * If you didn't write the source webpage, then the information can still be reinserted, but it will need to be rewritten, preferably from scratch to avoid copyright issues.


 * Finally, translations are restricted by the copyright of the original, as well as the translator. So if you took someone's copyrighted text and translated it, you couldn't place it on Wikipedia without their permission (which would need to be verified as above). I hope that answers your questions. If not, let me know and I'll try again. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello VernoWhitney, Thanks for your helful answer. I first try to set things right for the version in my native language Dutch. Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 05:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OTRS for BIPAC
Hi Verno. :) If you're not too busy, could you check OTRS for a permission email about the text in BIPAC? Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Checked, confirmed, tagged, unblanked, and marked as resolved on the CP page. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're faster than The Flash! :-) Thanks! Theleftorium (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

E-mail for verification of the copyright from Bulent Senver
You may find the verification of the copyright from Bulent Senver. He kindly requests the article to be published.

Best,

Murat

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Murattasci (talk • contribs) 13:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Their email should be sent directly to so that it is verifiable. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Email - Bulent Senver
Mr. Senver sent a mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org about the copyright verification, for your information.

Best,

Murat

--Murattasci (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The permission for the text has been confirmed and I have restored the article. I should note that we also require permission for the image, and that this permission needs to be from the copyright holder which is usually the photographer, and not the subject of the photo. I also mentioned this in my email reply. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

1976 Rhodesian Grand Prix copyright issue
In your comment on 10 Aug, which I've only just seen, you said "in the absence of further evidence". I am willing to provide evidence if I know what you need. If I have come across as frosty, please allow for the fact that I'm really unhappy that my content has been taken in this way and the way the emails to me have been written has not been designed to engage with me in a constructive fashion. So I'm not at my most warm and cuddly at the moment. However, I will take a deep breath and if somebody is willing to have a constructive conversation with me on this, I'll endeavour to be my normal charming and constructive self.

Let me use the Rhodesian GP as an example as that's the one I know best. I suspect that some of the people who have looked at this case assume that the data on my page is pretty much as it appears in some contemporary publication. Anyone used to F1 results would make that assumption and understandably so as F1 results tend to tell you everything. It is quite different when you get to national series, especially those in countries that did not have a specialist motor racing press - such as Canada and South Africa. In those cases, we have to piece things together as best we can from a number of sources. For example, the top three (sometimes top 6) in a race might appear in a results section in a newspaper and we can get those newspapers from Colinwood. The other runners might be mentioned in the report if something interesting happened to them (if they led, if they crashed, if their car burst into flames) but the majority of backmarkers don't get mentioned. So there we have to get a bit creative. We can use information of the entry list - assuming we can find someone with the original program - and add their names as people whose result isn't known. Then we might see that someone significant (Ian Scheckter in this case) wasn't present because we know he was racing in England or had broken his leg or similar. As Scheckter could have won if present, it's worth adding his name as a "did not appear". Sometimes the report might even say he didn't turn up because he couldn't get his car ready or similar reason. But that is a decision we make; there is no such judgement used in the construction of a directory. It's worth mentioning that there may have been other runners in that race; we can't be certain we've picked up everybody.

So that gives finish positions, drivers name, some race times and maybe the winner's speed. Still not enough to be worth publishing. Next we work out what cars they were driving. The newspapers we used were Bulawayo Chronicle mc 1700 11 Jun 1976 p5 and 5 Jul 1976 and the Rhodesian Herald 1 Jul 1976 p16, 2 Jul 1976 p15, 3 Jul 1976 p1 and 5 Jul 1976 p1. They might give us the basics by saying Klomfass drove a Ralt and Nieman was in Alex Blignault's car but they probably won't give the model and definitely won't give the chassis number. We know Klomfass had a RT1 because his name appears in Ralt production records but much of the history we have constructed for this car depends on the fact that it was the only RT1 built with a centre post rear wing. In the case of John Gibb's Chevron, we only know anything about it because of a report in a UK magazine that the Rapid Movements team had sold their car to John Gibb.

Not all cars have a clear identity. In the case of Mike Domingo's Modus M3 we call it 022(A) because there's another car which was also derived from the same original car which we call 022(B). The identities 022(A) and 022(B) are ORC creations; they will not be found in any contemporary source.

I can go on but I see I've already written plenty. Is this the sort of thing that helps? What else do you need to know. Allen Brown (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said all that, I should comment on Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service because that seems to be the basis of believing my page can't be copyrighted. I think the relevant part of the article is the judgement:


 * It is a long-standing principle of United States copyright law that "information" is not copyrightable, O'Connor notes, but "collections" of information can be. Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information, but rather "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8), that is, to encourage creative expression.


 * Since facts are purely copied from the world around us, O'Connor concludes, "the sine qua non of copyright is originality". However, the standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright.

I hope we would agree that my page is, _at the very least_ a "collection" of information. The question then is whether it has that "minimal degree" of creativity. I don't have to establish that my page is wholly creative or even mostly creative; I just have to demonstrate a "minimal degree" of creativity. Surely I have done that. This set of race results does not appears anywhere else in this form, with these things included/excluded, the information about car types and models, etc, etc, so its originality cannot really be disputed.

The article goes on say:


 * In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself.

So my third point is that that NigelPorter copied every aspect of the data, including what was included/excluded and the order. In that respect he has breached Wikipedia's own guidelines on this (which I can't now find or would link to them).

Fourthly and, you'll be relived to know, lastly, there is the issue of jurisdiction. The pages that were copied were published in the UK, not in the US, so Wikipedia's own guidelines say that national law should be taken into account (again, I've lost the exact reference). The "sweat of the brow" doctrine is specific to US law and both UK law and European law take the opposite view (see Threshold of originality).

Happy to discuss this - in detail if necessary. Allen Brown (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That helps me understand, thanks. I must admit that I'm not really familiar with racing, so my approach is simply from the copyright side of things. Your information is clearly a collection of information, so we do agree on that. After reading through your explanation and looking at the articles, I also agree that listing who did not appear is a creative and thus copyrightable element, since you're deciding who was significant enough to mention. The designations of ambiguous car identity (your 022(A) vs. 022(B)) may also be creative, but I don't see that listed in the article. The rest of it, however, still looks like a compilation of facts. Certainly difficult to compile as multiple sources have to be listed and all the mentions compiled into the table, but still just a listing of the facts. That brings us to whether choosing those particular facts are creative elements. Position, Number and Driver certainly seem like standard information to me. The other columns may require someone with more knowledge in the area of racing, or at least looking at what information is presented for other racing series (such as F1 articles maybe, I haven't looked into that aspect yet). So what it's looking like to me is that some of the material (that which includes at least that minimal degree of creativity) needs to be removed from the articles.


 * Is that the right solution? The case said that the creativity protects the collection.  It doesn't say that you can try to surgically remove the creativity in order to produce something that isn't copyrighted.  As to whether choosing those particular facts are creative elements, I agree that Position, Number and Driver are standard - I have specifically chosen to order it that way to be consistent with the way other races (e.g. F1) are ordered.  That choice was to make the information more usable.  However, what I was referring to was the decision on which drivers to include/exclude: just the first three given in newspaper report; just those plus ones mentioned in reports; all those mentioned on the entry list; or all that are relevant even if they weren't entered.  There's nothing "standard" about that.  Allen Brown (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If the creativity is removed then there's nothing which can be copyrighted. For a terrible analogy off the top of my head: if someone made a phone book which was arranged by the color of the person's house, that would probably be creative and copyrightable, but if that phone book was reordered alphabetically then it couldn't be copyrighted, since there's no remaining creativity. As to which drivers are included, as I said above, I agree that listing the ones which weren't entered but could have been significant is a creative element since it's subjective, but after skimming through some F1 articles, the rest of the information appears to be pretty standard. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the jurisdiction issue, our Copyrights policy states "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." The Non-U.S. copyrights guideline expands on this saying that "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries". Given that, we're just concerned with US copyright law (which is what my analysis above is based on). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK but that's not quite the same thing. The court case only referred to information published in the US (i.e. the telephone directory which was published in the US not in a foreign country).  The decision meant any information of that type published in the US was now fair game but it didn't alter the position of the French telephone directory which is published only (one assumes) in France and remains protected under French law.  Nobody is suggesting that the French telephone directory is now copyright-free in the US.  If it had been published in the US then it would be; but it wasn't.  The sentence you have mentioned refers to things which were published in the US and also overseas - for example a book published before 1923 in the US would be out of copyright even if it may still be under copyright in another country because it's not yet 70 years since the author died.  However, let's leave this because it's getting into lawyer territory. Allen Brown (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Options
Mr. Brown, the reference to international copyright to which you refer is in our copyright policy (specifically, it says, "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States."), but as Verno notes that policy and Non-U.S. copyrights both specify that US law is sovereign. For a recent situation with similar implications, consider the National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. Under U.S. copyright law, straightforward images of public domain paintings do not receive new copyright protection, while in the U.K. they may. Though the National Portrait Gallery contends that the copyright considerations of the large number of their images copied on Commons should be tried in the U.K., they have not yet successfully launched such a suit, and the attorney for the defendant maintains staunchly that the Wikimedia Foundation is in the U.S. jurisdiction (as is, here, the uploader). Those images still remain on Wikimedia Commons, in spite of communications from the NPG to the Foundation. (Whether they would remain if the NPG elected to request take down under DMCA, I don't know. However, that could be an expensive proposition for the NPG, so I understand their reluctance to exercise that option. If they are then challenged and lose, it would effectively mean an open market on NPG imagery in the U.S.) At this point, at least, WMF's position on jurisdiction is clear.

Given that, if you wish to challenge the inclusion of the content as copyright owner, you will need to follow the procedures at CP. As an OTRS agent, I can see that you've already requested immediate removal and been denied; hence, contacting our designated agent and requesting removal under OCILLA would be your next step. Once it's in the attorney's hands, we volunteers have nothing further to do with it.

Alternatively, where cases are unclear, copyright evaluation works (like everything else on Wikipedia) by community consensus. Determining creativity in lists can be more challenging than some other copyright concerns, and I have more than once launched community discussions about such matters accordingly. In terms of the degree of creativity involved, your arguments above and at the talk page of the article are very well formulated and show a good understanding of copyright application to lists, but, being very little familiar with racecars, I'm not entirely sure myself the degree of creativity involved in your assemblage of information. It's an important distinction to make, unless we are simply to to rearrange the material and retain it. You've already basically launched such a discussion at Talk:1976 Lady Wigram Trophy. This can be publicized at WT:C and WT:CP, if you like, and we can watch it a week to see if consensus develops. Please note that if your position does not receive support, your only option then would be to pursue the issue as a copyright owner, as two administrators have already declined to remove the material via OTRS. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. I do not have the option of employing lawyers as it would bankrupt me if I lost and my responsibilities to my family outweigh my desire to protect my copyright.  I am glad that Jimbo Wales has said that other countries' copyright law should be respected.  Surely that ends this debate.  Just because there is an argument with NPL over Old Masters doesn't mean there should be an argument with me as well.  Everything I have copyrighted is my own creation; not the work of others hundreds of years ago.


 * The administrators who refused to take this down did not take the time to familiarise themselves with the process through with the information was collated. I am glad that you and VernoWhitney have done that.  I would suggest that their decisions are put aside and it reviewed afresh by someone who has asked the necessary questions. Allen Brown (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been heavily working copyright on Wikipedia for well over two years. Wikipedia does not respect the sweat of the brow doctrine, and I have communicated with our attorney myself on this matter. I've explained your options above for removal of the content--though it seems you might believe you need an attorney to request that the material be taken down of our designated agent; you do not. As copyright holder, you can write to our attorney yourself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not claiming sweat of brow. I never have claimed it and I don't see it as relevant.  My case remains that (1) the information contains at least the grain of creativity required to be protected; (2) that it has been copied in its entirety which breaches Wikipedia's own guidelines and that (3) your own founder says you should respect foreign copyright.  I have gone to significant lengths to explain point (1) and I believe I have established a solid case.  For that reason alone, the pages should be removed.  Allen Brown (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have two options: (1) you can either ask our attorney to take it down, or (2) you can launch a community consensus discussion to persuade others that we should take it down. I explained the process for doing that above. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I've tried (2) and as I said, I feel I have presented a strong case. I don't see how to take this further.  By (1) do you mean contacting []? Allen Brown (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, our designated agent is our attorney (well, at least one of them). I explained above how (2) works, but will repeat:

"Alternatively, where cases are unclear, copyright evaluation works (like everything else on Wikipedia) by community consensus. Determining creativity in lists can be more challenging than some other copyright concerns, and I have more than once launched community discussions about such matters accordingly. In terms of the degree of creativity involved, your arguments above and at the talk page of the article are very well formulated and show a good understanding of copyright application to lists, but, being very little familiar with racecars, I'm not entirely sure myself the degree of creativity involved in your assemblage of information. It's an important distinction to make, unless we are simply to to rearrange the material and retain it. You've already basically launched such a discussion at Talk:1976 Lady Wigram Trophy. This can be publicized at WT:C and WT:CP, if you like, and we can watch it a week to see if consensus develops. Please note that if your position does not receive support, your only option then would be to pursue the issue as a copyright owner, as two administrators have already declined to remove the material via OTRS."
 * Since not publicizing it means relying on whomever happens to see your conversation at that talk page, I would strongly recommend seeking further input. I'd be happy to seek it on your behalf as a courtesy. As I said, I've launched such conversations before. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As this is still nominally my talk page, I'll point out that I'm at least convinced that the "did not appear" rows of the tables are creative elements and should be removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's helpful. :) You want to add that to the discussion at the talk page? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, briefly at least. It didn't occur to me to do so before since there wasn't any back and forth discussion there yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Although you haven't said so, I have courtesy listed the discussion. I will note, though, that your continued appeals to Jimbo are only likely to introduce a distraction into the discussion. Content that is found to be not creative is not going to be deleted through the copyright problems board unless you manage to overhaul policy...which you can't do via that forum. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Do I need to copy the material in the section above over to the talk page that you've linked to? Allen Brown (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The longer it is, the less likely it is that others will read it. :) Your best bet would be to summarize any salient points that you think haven't been repeated there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks MRG. But I've lost track of what's salient.  What's salient to me doesn't seem to be what's salient to others.  Allen Brown (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What matters there is establishing what elements are creative in your content. And, though you may have seen it, I have responded to your note on my talk page as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bhurshut
Sir, in the Bhurshut article I copied just two lines from an website which is in free domain with no copyright whatsoever and if any copyright has been violated then that can be applicable for those two lines but half of the article have been kept under this pretext by editor Ragib for personal reasons and I request you to check into the matter and do the needful! 117.254.79.137 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to look into it in detail right now, but copyright is automatic upon publication, so even if there is no copyright claim on the website it still cannot be copied into Wikipedia. There must be an explicit release under a free license or into the public domain (the procedure can be seen at Donating copyrighted materials). I (or someone else who handles copyright issues) can take a look at it later today, but for now the article should remain blanked until an actual investigation is done to confirm whether or not there is a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, This IP (and a host of others from 117.254.x.x range) is that of banned user surajcap, who has repeatedly mass-spammed various articles with nonRS and copyvio content. --Ragib (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use Image links
Previously you help explain some "Fair use image" use in a list rules to myself and other. Therefore, I know you understand the rules better then I do. So I wanted to ask you a question.

I am working on a different list, and the lack of images in this one section is extreamly noticeable. So I was thinking of placing an internal link to the image, instead of the image itself.

This is an example of what I mean, using a PD image instead.

Is something like this allowed under Fair use rules?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's allowed. It seems odd to me since clicking through to the name will show the image, but that's just me. The only thing not allowed is actually displaying non-free images on compilation articles such as the one I commented on. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to help. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Amelia Elizabeth Walden Award Page
Hello, I created the Amelia Elizabeth Walden Award page. It is not a copyright violation as I had permission and am on the committee. I see that the last three-four edits have been to remove sections that aren't cited or possible copyright infringement. I have permission to make the page and had permission to copy information from the press releases. It is a brand new award, so there aren't many places I can cite some of the information, as some of it is directly from my emails. I am not sure how to approach this. Should I undo the edits? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by L8ralig8rs (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Before the material is restored we need to verify that you do have permission to release the copyrighted material. In order to do this you should follow the steps listed at Donating copyrighted materials. Once a volunteer verifies the email they should restore the material I removed. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note re clerks
Thanks for the note, I'll expand my section. I used Clerks as a source, perhaps you would consider adding to that page?--  SPhilbrick  T  02:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't looked at that page before. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

CSBot notices
Hi. After conversation with Aymatth2 at my talk page, I've made some changes to the Bot notices: Template:Csb-pageincludes, Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes and Template:Csb-notice-pageincluded. I'd really appreciate feedback on that, since I don't have the option of talking to Coren about it (he hasn't answered my recent e-mail; hope all is well with him!). The conversation is at User_talk:Moonriddengirl. The changes were implemented to try to help soften the blow of false positives, because all of us who read Coren's talk page know how very irritating they can be to people. The Bot is important, but we don't want it biting any more than necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice that you've eliminated the difference between the two notices: includes used to say "appears to include a substantial copy" and included used to say "appears to be a substantial copy" (emphases added). I'm not sure if you intentionally left them out of your changes, but I figured I should point it out in case it wasn't. There's also one more notice, Csb-notice-wikipage, and two more article tags, Csb-pageincluded and Csb-wikipage, in the same series which should probably be updated (if needed, I haven't looked at the wording in detail) for consistency. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, no, I didn't notice. Goodness gracious. There are more of those puppies than I realized! I'll take a look, thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They weren't in the Category:Copyright maintenance templates. I've added them and made some more changes. When you have time, your input at my talk page would be helpful. There's talk of bots.:) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance
Hi Verno. Can you help me oversee any new edits made by ? I've unblocked him after a discussion at his talk page. Feel free to comment there if you see any problems. Thanks, Theleftorium (talk) 20:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Real life has kept me busier than usual recently, but I'll at least spot check new contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You don't have to do when you're too busy, though. Theleftorium (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Annalies Corbin
I notice this article has been tagged "Possible copyright infringement", but has not been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Cheers Androstachys (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It actually is listed, albeit in a roundabout manner. It's listed on Suspected copyright violations/2010-08-13 which is in turn transcluded onto Copyright problems/2010 August 13. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot
Okay, I've marked the request as approved, sorry yet again for taking so long :D. Thanks for never losing interest, and for your great coding. Make sure you wait until the bot is flagged before running it (won't take long), and be careful while moving task 3 out of the user space :). That's all! Hope to see you around - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Illinois River Trail (Oregon)
I wrote both the footnoted and the Wikipedia version the Illinois River Trail (Oregon). I do not see a copyright infringement on my previous writing. Where do we go from here?Lhammer610 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are the copyright holder of http://www.visitoregonsouthcoast.com/Illinois%20River%20Trail, then you can follow the steps listed at Donating copyrighted materials and that will sort out the copyright issues. If you are not the copyright holder or do not wish to donate the text from the source, then the article needs to be rewritten, preferably from scratch, in the temporary page provided. While I appreciate that you reworded the text, what you created was a derivative work of the original and so still not free from copyright.


 * While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The less creative the expression, the looser copyright applies, but even so close paraphrasing becomes a great concern when there are long passages that include fragments of the original and the structure of the original is retained. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". VernoWhitney (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Our new unique CCI
Do the instructions seem clear at Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source)? I'm going to go ahead and take care of the files now so that we won't have to worry about them. Once I do that, I'd like to plead for assistance from the Wikiproject. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems mostly clear enough. It's ambiguous as to whether people should be marking under every article or every instance of the article though, and I'm not sure which would make more sense. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of thinking about eliminating the multiple listings and putting all the links from duplicate articles in one place. Do you have a magic wand for that, or would I need to do it manually? :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I had that idea this morning, but I have no magic wand handy. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do it manually, then. We want to make it as uncomplicated as possible if we hope to have help. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi VernoWhitney, I think in the image case, you are supposed to use if the file is ok, but I noticed you marked your responses with. --Ragib (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, since there are so few images I don't think it really matters, so long as they're all checked one way or another. However, the traditional method at CCI (and the one described in the instructions is to use "to indicate you found copyright problems" or  "to indicate you did not". VernoWhitney (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ok, now I get it. Thanks for the explanation and your patient work in checking the photos. --Ragib (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem. And we appreciate any help we can get when it comes to copyvio work, especially with CCIs where there are hundreds or thousands of issues. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

THE 39 CLUES HELP
Hello there! As you can see, I was on a long vacation and had forgotten about editing. Since the last book is near to be released, I need your help to gather information about minor characters and their importance in the books. I don't have any book right now, and I will appreciate what you can help. Thanks! (e.g. Lester Dixon: sacrificed his life) --FDJoshua22 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDJoshua22 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm afraid I don't actually own the books, and I've only read a portion of the first one. If you have particular questions or need page citations I can try to pick a book up from the library, but at this point I don't really have the time to read through the books and try and pick out the relevant information on my own. Sorry :/ VernoWhitney (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note
to apologise for my inactivity at SCV recently, I've been busy in real life and with an AFD. I'm really sorry, and will start helping again ASAP. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, no worries. Between Theleftorium and I, we kept up with the work; and CorenSearchBot is down again and Coren MIA, so there's no work to be done there at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I know you're busy saving the world (hooray for you and your amazing bot abilities!), but I wanted to ask your feedback about Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties in the United States. Am I missing something really obvious? Does (2010081210007017) that sound like the name of a legal representative? I'm tempted to bounce this to legal, but in case I'm missing a flashing "HELLO, MOONRIDDENGIRL, LOOK HERE FOR COPYVIO!" I wanted to get your opinion. Between "real" work and Wikipedia lately, I've been pretty frazzled. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the only comment I have about the legal representative is that it's not a professional email address, but it's not a professional website either. As far as the copyvio goes, this edit appears to be a problem, I haven't checked the rest. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I applaud you! And thank you enthusiastically. Off to see what else I can determine about that article, given its point of origin. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Penelope Jean
- F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sally Fitzgibbons
Hi, VernoWhitney. In writing with reference to this: can you shed any light on the OTRS confirmation for Ticket 2010073010043697? I presume the contents are confidential and I'm not asking you to reveal them: the issue is simply that User:Sallyfitzgibbons has been granted OTRS permission to use material from http://etnies.com/team/girl/sally-fitzgibbons even though she(?) states she is not Sally Fitzgibbons. If (s)he is not Sally Fitzgibbons but, say, is affiliated with http://etnies.com, the AFC request should probably have been turned down for the COI and the article is probably be deletable WP:CSD. On the other hand, if the editor has no connection with Etnies or Fitzgibbons and Etnies has simply granted her permission to use the text from the site then there likely isn't any problem. Are you in a position to confirm which it is? Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right that there are confidentiality issues, so I'm afraid I won't even address that aspect of it beyond confirming that there is permission for the text. I don't know about AFC, so I don't know what the standards are there, but if you can't tell from the article whether or not it's just advertising, then G11 shouldn't even enter the picture. Most COI should be able to be dealt with by ensuring that everything is appropriately referenced, which certainly seems to be the case with this article. While great care is certainly advised in editing articles when there's a COI, straightforward edits which are clearly within policy, such as adding a single link to an official website (unless I'm missing something), should be allowed regardless of source. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks.
Thanks but no thanks, I am most specifically asking about policy rather than specific users.

If you wish to help me phrase it better so that is more clear and help me navigate the system of positing it on the correct page, I would appreciate it.--Triton Rocker (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. So is it really just about quietly reverting my edit to the page again? I am sorry but that seem fair. No one is obliged to move item, there is no guarantee items will be moved --- therefore "may" is surely more accurate. Isn't it? --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I see the Civility policy and the Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline. As I understand your post, "snooping and snitching" would be WP:POINTy behavior. What I believe you're asking is why are people allowed to get away with uncivil behaviour, and as far as I can tell admins are simply unwilling to block established editors who otherwise contribute to the encyclopedia except in particularly egregious cases. As to why admins are unwilling to block, you'd have to ask them individually or en masse. Does that explain things at all? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending at CCI?
Hi, Verno. I just wanted to drop by and ask you if there's a specific reason you aren't taking action on the pending at CCI. Of course, you're not the only clerk, but I thought I'd ask in case there's something more than just "I've been busy". If you don't think they're actionable, we need to perhaps refine our process for declining. (As for me, I don't feel I should evaluate the oldest request there, since I am tangentially involved. I haven't look at the most recent, but I seem to be in the process of finding us a brand new one, unless edits are limited. :/) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly it's just I've been busy and spending my time on SCV, OTRS and VWBot. I'll take a look at the CCIs tonight. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Public Leadership Education Network
Hello VernoWhitney! Thank you for notifying me about the copyright problem. The original source from which I copied it was actually written by me as well, but after more research about the license policy I understand that I would need to donate my copyright material in order to use it on Wikipedia. I'm wondering if you can offer me any advice on how many more secondary sources it would require for the organization to meet notability guidelines. I have added external links to several official university websites with information about our programs, as well as entries and articles on the organization mentioned on NCWO's website (an umbrella organization for women's non-profits) and the EPA's website. These all seem to be reliable secondary sources, is there something further I need to do to have the entry deemed "notable?" Thank you so much for your help! SydneyHolt (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I ran through them fairly quickly, but what I see in the external links look like just blurbs close to the official description of the organization and events put on by the organization. Better sources would be things completely unrelated to the PLEN which actually talk about the organization. The EPA meets the first requirement but doesn't appear to meet the second. Newspaper articles are usually good reliable sources, such as this article, which contains a short paragraph mentioning the PLEN. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

26 August 2010    * (Move log); 06:28 . . VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) moved Unos Pocos con Valor (2010 film) to Unos Pocos con Valor (no more precision needed per WP:TITLE)
Hi Verno i just wanted to tell you that the movie Unos Pocos con Valor can be with this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unos_Pocos_con_Valor_(2010_film) instead with the old one, i try to redirect first but then it was a mess. i deleted and put it with the new one. And then i found out that i can move the page but it was too late already. Maybe you can help me on this.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhn504 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're asking to do, since there's no reason to have the "(2010 film)" part in the title unless there's another article already called Unos Pocos con Valor, which there's not, which is why I moved it in the first place. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding, the article with the title is already on the one i tell you here. with the (2010 film) In case that you didn't check if exist.
 * Unos Pocos con Valor

If is posible you can moved to the original that is with the (2010 film) please.

Jhn504 (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why does it need to have "(2010 film)" as part of the title? VernoWhitney (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is for profesional look, but if there's no way to change this by this reason/s just leave it like that. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhn504 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that a "professional look" without supporting consensus from other editors isn't reason enough to override the policy given at WP:PRECISION. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

SCV Transclusion
FYI - you probably could use



to transclude the day pages automatically rather than having VW Bot do it, if you want. ~ Qwerp Qwertus  Talk  ツ   02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, WP:Copyright problems/NewListings does it that way, but the problem is that it then displays a set number of days which means they could be done and just cluttering up the space or the backlog could grow so that some undone days get bumped off the list. If I'm missing some way to dynamically change the list size, that would be great, but I don't know of one. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I hadn't thought of that - WP:FEED (where I got the idea from) just transcludes the current and last four days. It's too bad  can't describe a specified page, other than the current one - that could've worked. Oh well. :) ~ Qwerp Qwertus   Talk  ツ   03:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I appreciate the suggestion anyways. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Halting massive ongoing violations
Please review Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles. It appears that while this case is awaiting review the contributor, having been repeatedly notified and yet declining to assist in identifying or cleaning up his problematic contributions as requested, has actually accelerated generation of additional material without regard to its potential violative nature: He has, in the last several days, made hundreds of edits similar to those of which the complaint speaks. They appear to be potentially violative either because they 1. are article moves made in violation of WP procedures, thereby recklessly damaging or destroying article and discussion page histories, 2. populate articles with substantial portions of text that appear to be copyvios, and/or 3. uploaded photos that appear non-compliant with standards for use in WP. Please consider taking immediate steps to assess, prevent and reverse these ongoing abuses. FactStraight (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you provide examples to an admin (of those you contacted this morning, that would be Anthony Appleyard and Moonriddengirl), they could block them for creating copyright problems. As far as the rest of us going through and fixing the problems that've already been created... we will, and you can of course help, but as of my last estimate we have something like 50,000 articles/images between all of our CCIs which need reviewed, so it may be a while before the rest of us make significant progress on this particular one. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)