User talk:VernoWhitney/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about User:VernoWhitney. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Oxford Magazine (Miami University)

Thanks for the pointer. I don't do much of anything with suspected copyvios unless they're tagged for speedy deletion, so I assumed that this message put the article in CAT:CSD, as if it were a G12 tag. What happens now — will it just stay blanked until someone from OTRS decides that it's been long enough that no email really arrived? Nyttend (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Amy Cahill (character)

Thank you. I frequently have edit conflicts, but seldom do I have edit conflicts where another editor makes the exact same edit as I was attempting. That was refreshing! Toddst1 (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'm glad I'm not the only one who figured out that the article needed to go. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 11:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Tierra de La Bañeza

Thank you for moving the last page I requested. I still have trouble understanding how to move a page properly; I have tried to move Tierras de La Bañeza to Tierra de La Bañeza, but in the end didn't dare. I don't seem to have a "Move" tab at the top of the page. I appreciate your assistance.Xufanc (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't help you with locating the "Move" tab since it really should be there somewhere, but I definitely can (and did) make the move for you. Feel free to stop by anytime if there's anything else I can do. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 11:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!Xufanc (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

all of the Utah State Parks that I entered being removed

Hello, I work for Utah State Parks. I have spent the last week updating Utah State Park listings and posting new listings for parks that have never had a presence on your site. You have deleted everything I did. You cite copyright of utah.gov, however, our website, stateparks.utah.gov, is not copyrighted. Our agency is a government agency and therefore, everything we produce is public domain. As it was explained to me, utah.gov has that copyright because there are a few agencies (state prison for example) that need to have their information copyrighted; and since utah.gov is the portal to all state agencies, they had to include the copyright. Agencies, such as mine, are given the choice to remove the copyright from their own website, which we have done. Please reinstate all of the parks that you removed. I have already been working with moabdave on this issue with several other park listings. Brad Adkins Utah State Parks http://stateparks.utah.gov Bradadkins274 (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As I stated before, works created by state government agencies are not automatically public domain, their published works are copyrighted just like every other organizations unless there is some exemption in constitution or statute. The lack of a copyright notice does not mean the copyright isn't there. Until and unless it is clearly established that works created by Utah State Parks and Recreation are in the public domain the information can not be restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Utah State Parks has given permission to use information

I just forwarded an email from the Utah State Parks Administrative office to permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org. The email explicitly gives permission to use any/all information obtained on the Utah State Parks website (http://stateparks.utah.gov) for any/all Wikipedia uses.

Please reinstate all of the Utah State Parks pages. Thank you. Brad Adkins Bradadkins274 (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Utah State Parks .......

Also forwarded email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org Bradadkins274 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates. I've alerted a more experienced copyright volunteer who is looking into it right now. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

SORRY

Hi! I think you will remember me from The 39 Clues task force. I am apologizing for abandoning the article List of The 39 Clues characters, since I am currently working on another list. I couldn't managed both list at the time. But if you somehow need help on the list, you are free to ask me. -- FDJoshua22 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the lack of recent activity there. I appreciate the heads up, but I haven't seriously worked on the series in months; I've just been trying to keep the obvious vandalism out and focusing on other activities so no worries. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! ---- FDJoshua22 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request

Hi, I was referred to you by Explicit (t c) since you are an OTRS volunteer. I was hoping that you could check for permission grants on images that are from hmdb.org. There was a related PUI here, and I'm hoping to find that we could salvage some of these images. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 23:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We do have OTRS permission for some of them (Ticket:2010033010011844 for my own future reference), but from the wording in the communications I'd say it only extends to the two images uploaded by Cmguy777 (talk · contribs) which already have OTRS tags, and not a general release of all images. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

After further searching, it appears that most of them seem to have been uploaded under the assumption that their license is free enough for us to use, but Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 July 11#File:HardinBigelowGravestone.jpg came to the same conclusion that it wasn't free enough and deleted the image. That's all I'm finding, nothing that would indicate all of those images are usable. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Frederick B. Chary

Re this copyvio notice, I think the article is barely acceptable but it is not a copyvio. I looked it over when it was nominated for CSD and while it is sourced from one place, I think it is sufficiently rewritten that it does not violate copyright. Can you take another look? Frank | talk 16:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe {{close paraphrase}} would be a better tag (and I have no objections if you want to unblank it and tag it like that instead), but I think the parts copied from the "Background" section of the source do need to be rewritten further, because they still strike me as problematic derivative works from the original. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Karim Kawar page

Noticed the ELs warning on Karim Kawar page - but need some clarity. Was it the references I added last night, or are the ELs those posted by others some time ago (the page was pretty dusty when I noted it had old info)? If it's something I contributed, I'd like to know only so I can make it right. Tnx Meandean (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's nothing you did: it's all of the external links in the body of the article. I know quite a few can be turned into wikilinks, but I imagine most of them just need to be removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's exactly the feedback I needed - as I figured I'd take stab at cleaning the article up.

I removed numerous inline links, added some references, about the only thing left to do is for me to use better citation practices (which I'll get to in the next day or three).

With said links removed, what's the next step to have the warning removed? I don't want to remove it until I know the job is done.

Thanks again!

Meandean (talk) 19:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you see a tag on an article and you've addressed the issue (or someone else has), then you can go ahead and remove it—I went ahead and removed it from this article since you cleaned out almost all of them. Removing tags is only an issue when the problems aren't addressed - so an edit summary explaining why you're removing the tag(s) is always a good idea (particularly if, for example, you're removing a tag because you don't see the problem that the article was tagged for). I think you've done a great job of sourcing the article, so thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks back'atcha for the pointers! I believe the Arabic equivalent is something like "shukran jazeelan!" Feedback like yours makes the learning process alot more fun, and encouraging!
Meandean (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, feel free to stop by any time. I'm happy to help! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Phyllonorycter acerifoliella

Glad you approve. I didnt know if it would be enough, I am not a native speaker, making it harder to re-phrase things. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Manchuela and the wine

With Manchuela it is the same as with Montsant before, where the article was just about the wine, the article should be renamed Manchuela DO, then three articles are neded, Manchuela, for the natural region, then Manchuela Albaceteña and Manchuela Conquense for the comarcas, which I shall subsequently do. Obviously somebody more interested in wine than in geography has been active in Wikipedia, so I guess I will find more natural regions in Spain where the same changes will be needed in the future. Thank you for the assistance.Xufanc (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the main article to Manchuela DO, so now you can edit Manchuela and replace the redirect with the actual geography information. Let me know if I messed something up or you need anything else. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Very good! Thank you again.Xufanc (talk) 12:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback (but not really)

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
Message added 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also not talking back, but this may interest you. The whole copyright-violating Ohioan sockmaster sounded familiar, and, voila. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's...outstanding. At least their contributions are easier to deal with than Siddiqui's. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there's that. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my. Looks like we'll need to add User:OSUHEY's contribs to the outstanding CCI. I just picked up a long-term lingering copyvio at Nina Turner. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

And I keep thinking that CCI is almost done... :/ I was just thinking that same thing though and looking through RollingRock2009's contributions as well as some other Ohio politician SPA's and didn't find any other new user's on a spot-check though, so maybe this is the last one we need to add for now. Random thought since we're having this cheery discussion about non-stop mass copyright violators: Do you know if any editor has ever been banned for repeated copyvios? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least as part of a pattern, including here. (Wow! Look at me getting all fierce.:/ That was kind of a stressful time.) Copyvios were part of this one and over a half a dozen others that I know of including (but obviously not limited to :D) User:ParthianShot, User:PoliticianTexas, User:SEGA and User:Verdict. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's rather more than I expected. I'm not quite sure what else to say now. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional photos

Hi, VernoWhitney! I just stopped by to ask if I could add many images into a list. By that I meant if I already used a photo showing the cast or characters of a particular film character list, could I still use a photo of the portraying actor at his/her corresponding section in the list? - FDJoshua22 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're using free photos, then yes; if you're using non-free photos then no. WP:NFLISTS and general consensus whenever it comes up (at least as far as I can recall) is that group photos (e.g., an image of the entire cast or close to it) for use on lists is acceptable, but individual non-free images are not. I hope that answers your question, but if not let me know. I didn't get enough sleep last night so my head is still fuzzy at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the reply! It helped me a lot. However, I was meaning to say that if I already used a non-free photo of a film cast, can I still use another set of free photos of individuals portraying at the film? (Sorry for my bad grammar at the previous post. I'm not a native user of English.)--FDJoshua22 13:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You can always use more free images to portray the actors, the only restrictions are on non-free images. On that note, I should point out that if there are free images of every actor, then you may not be able to include a non-free cast photo (since it may not meet WP:NFCC#1), but that would be up to consensus at the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks! That answer was the only thing I need to continue on working on this list. And for that and for being always a great help to me when I need help every time, I present this to you: -- FDJoshua22 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		I'd like to present this barnstar to you since you have always stood behind my back when I need help in creating or editing such articles or lists in Wikipedia. I hope this is enough to give back the assistance that you've provided me while onto editing lists. User:FDJoshua22 (talk) 12:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! Feel free to stop by any time. ^_^ I'm still impressed that you keep churning out those massive and well-referenced lists. I can do the referencing part pretty well, but I can't really imagine being able to generate the sheer quantity of text you write, so I figure it's the least I can do to help out when you have any questions. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Diamondland's talk page.
Message added 19 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have not seen an answer to the copyright questions you have dropped in my page. I suggest restore the articles about the directives now.--Diamondland (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I read some statements you made but was unaware there was a question. An admin should get around to reviewing Directive 2001/116/EC tomorrow and Directive 2002/24/EC in a couple more days. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		For being the master of OTRS on several images Skibden (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'd say it's rather unnecessary since I'd help out with the OTRS situation even without barnstar motivation, but I must admit that I do like shiny things. This also gives me incentive to make a shadowed version of the helping hand ribbon.

VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

IMHO it is the people like the OTRS-guys who deserves barnstars.. You are one of the good guys on wikipedia who go the extra step to help others, and that I like.. Therefore you get a barnstar.. Skibden (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:File permission problem with File:Juanmarch.jpg

The author did give full permission to use the photo. He gave permission to another person to upload a photo before ( http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Achille39.jpg) Can you give me advice on how to fully prove this? Or should I get D. R. Walker's permission to change the license to the one which is shown on File:Achille39.jpg (GNU Free Documentation License). Again, advice would be appreciated. 1Matt20 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The email indicated that it was not in fact from the author, and permission must be from the actual copyright holder. I have provided more details in the email reply. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the e-mail again, although he says that it was part of a package of "free to use pics", as you basically said in the e-mail there needs to be proof of this. I may look into contacting D. R. Walker about this gallerymagic package of free pictures, but as of now File:Juanmarch.jpg might as well be deleted. Oh well. 1Matt20 (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also the issue that "free to use" is unusably ambiguous. In order for us to be able to use it as free content it must be explicitly released into the public domain or under a free license. If there are restrictions regarding commercial uses or derivative works then it can only be used as non-free content. What this boils down to is that (in general) usable permission for free images has to be obtained directly from the photgrapher (or their employer, etc.). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Image question

I don't remember exactly. I think there was a lot of changes in what types of images Wikipedia would accept both user-created and non user-created around that time and the copyright policy was being tightened. Maybe the Upload file page instructions were changed and I added it to the policy based on that but I really can't be sure. Regards Nv8200p talk 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for getting back to me. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should read all the links before answering. It looks like a proposal for the wording was made on the talk page, discussion ensued and based on the discussion from the talk page, I incorporated the text into the policy. I think this is (or was) a standard procedure for modifying policies. -Nv8200p talk 01:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that's how it was done (and is still done); it just sounded to me like the part about the user-created images having to be free came from somewhere else before you proposed the wording changes which is why I asked. I was really just curious. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: User talk:Moonriddengirl

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Spike Toronto 04:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Boy, I'm glad you did this, SpikeToronto! I missed your question! I'm sorry. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Don’t worry about it! I know how very busy you are. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 19:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

File:CIAL Academy.jpg

When I look at File:CIAL Academy.jpg, I have the feeling that it is the result of photoshopping. Can I have a second opinion? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's rather painfully disorienting. It's also copied from the last page of http://www.ciasl.in/images/Student%20Prospectus.pdf.

VernoWhitney (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I never looked all the way through that PDF :-( Silly old Angus. Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, we all miss things from time to time. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deprod

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Isulk'im, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! VER Tott 13:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Saw that, feel free to comment at the AfD. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Korean Pension Fund

Fair point. Good on you. Wik idea 15:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional Photos for Eric Birley

Hi Verno! I uploaded two more images for the Eric Birley wikiarticle:

I inserted the first one into the article here. I inserted the second one into the article here.

If I may impose on you yet again, would you mind:

Checking my copyright rationale for each of File:Eric Birley 004b.jpg and File:Eric Birley 003b.jpg? And,
Confirm that I am using the images within the limited-use parameters that the licence permits?

It would be greatly appreciated if you could spare me the time to look into this. As I said to you earlier this week, I am new to the world of images on Wikipedia and do not want to run afoul of the necessarily restrictive copyright rules. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 23:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with the images individually. That said, it could be argued, particularly for the photo of just him, that it fails WP:NFCC#3a, which basically requires we use as few non-free images as we can to increase the user's understanding of the article topic, and there's already the painting of him. It's still too early for me to really think about in detail, so that's all I've got for now. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you were to recommend that I remove the image of him smoking a pipe, then I would immediately do so. I defer to your infinitely greater expertise in this area. Thanks! I look forward to your post-coffee opinion. :) — Spike Toronto 19:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the bump, I had forgotten to revisit this. Yech, coffee. <shudder> I do think you should remove either the painting or the one of him smoking a pipe, since a second image doesn't add anything new. Other than that I think it looks fine; that's not to say that the image of him at the excavation won't be challenged by someone else who happens across it sometime, but I personally believe it's acceptable. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Done With this edit. Thanks again for all your help. If there is ever anything with which I can give you any assistance, let me know. — Spike Toronto 21:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Pierre Dorléac. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Chzz ► 01:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Aeronwy.jpg

Hi there VernoWhitney, today, I'd like to turn the tables and ask a favor of you. This is in regards to File:Aeronwy.jpg, which has me baffled. It's tagged with {{permissionOTRS}}, but at the same time, is marked as non-free. If the file was released under a compatible CC license, then the non-free license would be unnecessary; if the permission does not extend to third parties, then the OTRS tag is unnecessary, isn't it? I was wondering if you could look into this. — ξ ^xplicit 23:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the most of the emails are in Italian, so I can't guarantee this is accurate, but it looks like we have permission for it under CC-BY-NC-SA, which I imagine is why it's tagged as having permission to use on Wikipedia and what the OTRS tag is for. The only real difference as far as I know between no permission and permission to use on Wikipedia (or a NC license) is that it automatically meets WP:NFCC#2, so it's not useless, there's just not very much benefit. Other than that it's still a non-free file and does appear to have a non-free license tag, so I'm not seeing a problem with it. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see. Does the permission for use on Wikipedia effect it in any other way? For example, it currently doesn't have a fair use rationale. Would it require one? And its resolution is extremely high for a non-free file, how does the permission effect that? — ξ ^xplicit 00:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Bah. That'll teach me to try and answer while in the middle of dinner, sorry about that. I was correct that it doesn't affect anything besides that one criteria, I bungled the rest of the answer so let me start over.

It has the OTRS tag and {{Non-free with permission}}, which are fine. What it is missing and needs to have is an additional copyright tag (e.g., {{Non-free promotional}} or whatever fits) and a valid FUR. It also needs to be reduced in size like all other non-free images. I think that's everything I missed, but for almost all purposes it's just like any other non-free image. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't let me get in between you and your dinner!

Thanks for clarification. — ξ ^xplicit 01:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The page Alcoceber should be moved to Alcossebre, which is the official name according to the Municipality Town Hall site. Thank you again for the assistance. Xufanc (talk) 08:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Done VernoWhitney (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This was fast, I am grateful for your help. Xufanc (talk) 05:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

CulverLand

Hi there,

I posted a Rights Permissions page here: http://culverland.com/rights.htm Is this enough?

Please advise.

Sportscarkim (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That's just fine, so I've unblanked the article. Thank you for that. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

CulverLand

Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportscarkim (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for updating the licensing so quickly. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

⚠

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

PLEASE NOTE:

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

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Minimac's talk page.
Message added 06:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pssst

Signature. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had to run out to not be late so I didn't get to double-check my typing. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Hottot

Many thanks for that Robert aka Notafly (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome I guess, even though you did the actual work. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Mathematics Genealogy Project (MGP)

Dear Vernon,

You were very helpful before with editor EdStat, who has since moderated his phrasing and been very civil and usually productive imho since. (Apart from recent mutterings about cabals etc.)

Unfortunately, EdStat's editing at the MGP seems to involve repeated and egregious misuse of sources, despite gentle cautions from David Eppstein, etc. (And EdStat's editing there has had similar problems for roughly a year.)

I think that EdStat is a candidate for some kind of restriction for further editing on that page, due to misuse of sources and original research. (I have only checked 3 sources, but all 3 have been grossly misused, and I'm tired.)

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the talk page yesterday but I think I need to go through the article history some too before I weigh in with any comments and I just haven't had the free time yet. All I can offer is informal mediation/another opinion; if you're serious about seeking editing restrictions, then the place to bring it up is WP:ANI or another community noticeboard (WP:3RR? Again, I haven't looked at the history so I don't know if there's actual edit warring going on) since that requires some fairly serious community consensus, but hopefully it can be worked out with discussion. I'll see if I can get around to it later today but I'm afraid I won't make any promises about my timeliness. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. After I wrote here, David Eppstein asked for new eyes at the WikiProject Mathematics, which resulted in a number of other editors supporting the judgment of Eppstein and myself, that EdStat was conducting original research (in WP meaning). I seem to be the most outraged about the abuse of sources, with Eppstein stating several times that (some of) EdStat's insertations were not consisent with or supported by the cited article(s).

It's probably prudent to see whether other editors (having checked EdStat's citations in the editing history) share my concerns and belief that some kind of behavioral intervention be desirable. (I would be satisfied if EdStat would admit that some of the edits were done so hastily that they resulted in misleading citations on Wikipedia, and that EdStat would in retrospect agree that there is almost no support for his alleged "original research" and considerable opposition against what we believe as "original research" (sometimes by synthesis, etc.).

As I wrote above, EdStat has improved with avoiding personal attacks. Further EdStat has been not only helpful but pleasant on a number of occassions, and I do wish that EdStat will continue to grow as a WP editor, now as in the past.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, David Eppstein did more than "ask for new eyes" at the WikiProject Mathematics. Here is what he asked:

We have a bit of an edit war going on at Mathematics Genealogy Project. One editor seems to have an axe to grind against the project and is adding original research and misquotes of sources as criticism of it. More eyes welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I responded:

I don't know why a critique of that data base must be censured. If you had invited members of WikiProject Mathematics to look at the discussion page of the MGP w/o your advocacy ("axe to grind") and prejudicial comments "adding original research" and "misquotes", perhaps the "more eyes welcome" could indeed take a neutral look at the issues at hand and improve the article where necessary.Edstat (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

And, indeed, several folks came over and "found" exactly what they were prompted to find.

As for Kiefer.Wolfowitz, I stand by all the quotes I cited. He disagrees, as far as I could tell, not because the quotes are incorrect, but I didn't temper them with comments the same authors made that were positive about the MGP (which was not the purpose of the section on "Accuracy." Now, discussing this in appropriate wikispirit, here is a summary of what I wrote on Kiefer.Wolfowitz's personal attacks against me:

These are the terms you have used in expressing your differing opinion on edits and citations, on this page alone!: "seriously distorting" "egregiously quoting" "repeated cautions" "damaged the quotation" "impossible to tell" "GROSS MISUSE Of SOURCES" "misquoted "refrain from editing" "repeated misuse" "repeated violations" "repeated and very clear warnings" "Yet another misuse" "gross misquotatoin" "misuse of sources" "misuse" "grossly misused" "formal procedure for banning" "Gross misuse" "selective quotation" "distorted" "gross misuse" "sloppy" "Relevance, schmelevance." Perhaps if civilty in cooperative editing were a priority, no saltines would be necessary.Edstat (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand by each of the quotes I cited, and am willing to discuss them if I'm not being attacked. Others may come and decide that an electronic resource isn't acceptable and delete the quote, but other citations from traditional paper can be supplied in its place, which I have done.Edstat (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have (finally) read all of the related communications and definitely agree with you that some less biased invitations for comment should have been used and that more civility in response to your actions is called for, even if they felt you were in the wrong. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, once again, "Bless you and yours for all that you do!Edstat (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Linking IP(s?) to EdStat account

Dear EdStat, thank you for signing the last note with your user account, rather than an anonymous IP.

Since that IP address and some others share your interests in editing articles, would you please place a notice on each associated user page that those accounts are linked: In particular, it would be good to put such a notice on your (EdStat) user page.

If you do not have exclusive use of those IP addresses, perhaps you could note that you seem to be the primary if not exclusive user of those IP addresses (at least in the past, and should be contacted if there are problems with them in the future); I understand that you would not wish to take responsibility of all activities in the future (from the unsecured IP addresses used in the past). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You may read instructions about linking accounts at the page notifying other users of multiple accounts. (This page also notes that some users have good reasons for having multiple accounts, but that in general only one such account should edit any one Wikipedia page; this is why it seems to me that you should consider linking the accounts.) Thanks again, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I not only don't have exclusive us of various IP addresses at the locations where I have access to a computer (two of which are used daily by hundreds of people), I have no idea who else may be using those ip addresses before or after me. That is why I re-signed a recent edit from a public use ip when I realized I hadn't logged in.Edstat (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Histmerge on Mrs. Lennon

Hi

I did the history merge you requested, then realised one article is about a single, the other is about an album - two different topics.

I've undone the history merge now, which I might add wasn't the easiest thing to do :P

Just thought I'd let you know.

[stwalkerster|talk] 20:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And here's the log... [1] [stwalkerster|talk] 20:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I realized that they're about two different topics, but if you look at this version of the article, it's two lines about the single, and practically all of the creative prose is about the album which is why I requested the histmerge. I apologize for my mistake, I should have just added a {{copied}} template to the talk pages and left it at that. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And now that you've got me looking at it more closely it looks like the whole album article is copyvio. Not one of my finer moments. :/ VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ribbon Rewards

Verno--For answering the call and creating great looking ribbons, I award you the following:

		The Original Barnstar
		For creating 2 new ribbons for the Wikipedia Ribbons page. NielsenGW (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For creating 5 new ribbons for the Wikipedia Ribbons page. NielsenGW (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For creating 8 new ribbons for the Wikipedia Ribbons page. NielsenGW (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		For creating 12 new ribbons for the Wikipedia Ribbons page. NielsenGW (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		For going above and beyond the call and creating 18 new ribbons and organizing the Ribbons page! NielsenGW (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'm glad you like the ribbons. As I said, I'm still trying to figure out what to do for some of the other ribbons you requested, so if you have any ideas (or if you have other barnstars you'd specifically like to request ribbons for) please let me know. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Fagivorina arenaria

No problem with the tags, it is not much work to delete them. And sure, I will mention it in the edit summary if I translate an article. Cheers! Ruigeroeland (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Keep up the good work. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Same article two names

Salazar Valley and Zaraitzu are the same article but with different names. What is the best course to take?

On another note, Sankambeng Range should be renamed Sankamphaeng Range, which is a more accurate Thai transcription. Thank you for being so helpful. Xufanc (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

For the same article with two different names, one of the articles should simply be replaced with a redirect to the other one - the actual article should be whichever one is more common and accurate. I've moved the other article as requested. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that as soon as I can.Xufanc (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Lionel Wendt

Dear Friend, May i know it it possible to add some new text and recourse to this article ? --Wipeouting (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course you may add more text, you just need to write it from scratch on your own so that you're not reintroducing copyright problems. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Charlestown-Cover.jpg

One question on the OTRS for this file — does the ticket confirm that the uploader is the actual Guy Manning? If so, I'd like to add the ticket link to his other uploads, similar to what's done with Commons images uploaded by Jerry Avenaim (e.g. File:Phil 1.jpg). Talkback, please. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does, so I see no problem with adding it to their other images. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take care of it. Nyttend (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Official request for input

In wake of the latest plagiarism/copyright uproar on ANI, User:SandyGeorgia has suggested that we do something that can be publicized in the Signpost (like you don't know this). I'm collecting thoughts at User talk:Moonriddengirl/Copyright. Yours would be most welcome! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Kiefer.Wolfowitz: Please use appropriate talk page for communication

I don't regularly check other's talk page, so in the future, if you have communication for me, please use an appropriate venue. I recommend that if you leave a message on my talk page for me, I'll respond to it on my talk page. If I've left a message to you on your talk page, I'll assume you will respond to it there. This way, VernoWhitney's talk page won't have to be archived so often due to matters that should be discussed elsewhere.Edstat (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And my final comment is directed to VernoWhitney: If you go to Kiefer.Wolfowitz's talk page, you will find on October 22 he "notifies" Smartse (an editor who in the past was called upon for "new eyes" to WP:Bully me, but fortunatley this time he didn't take the bait) that the "Mathematics Genealogy Project has had discussion on EdStat again!" I don't appreciate this. Furthermore, there are two entries on K.W's talk page for Oct. 28 from folks who I don't know and have no idea what articles they are referring to, but two different editors ask Kiefer.Wolfowitz to stop with "inappropriate personal attacks", "looking for excuses to go after her", "edit warring", the need to "find an appropriate venue for dealing with your concerns", "stalking another user is not allowed", and trying to "find something/somewhere to complain".

I'm becoming very discouraged with contributing to wikipedia due to what I refer to in the above paragraph as "cabal" editing by a group of folks, who instead of calmly discussing different points of view and coming to a consensus, WP:Bully, stalk, and go overboard in their use of drama. "Cabal editing", as I call it, can only happen in an area where there is a group of "new eyes" editors who tolerate/promote it, and the reason why I said "bless you and yours" above is because your presence is an automatic calming influence - once you've had your say the "cabal editing" stops! Why can't there be more of you, and why can't you be everywhere?Edstat (talk) 13:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind other people having discussion on my talk page so long as they're productive, but if neither of you checks it very often then yeah, there are more efficient ways to communicate. I'm flattered, again by your opinion of me. As may be evidenced by my edit notice "poster", I too wish WP:CIVILITY was rather more firmly established, but there are plenty of other calming influences around, they just may be hiding out to avoid the drama. On the off-chance you're being serious with your last question: I can't be everywhere because I spend most of my time working on copyright problems which is perpetually backlogged, and calm discussion seems to be required there on a regular basis. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

EdStat, please notify me if you want me to read a post here (or elsewhere). I tried to write respectfully and colleagually, and I acknowledged the ambiguitities with IP addresses, even when such addresses are share your interests. I suspect that many editors simply regard edits from SE Michigan related to Professor Sawilowsky as yours, regardless of your signing them or not, so it doesn't make much difference imho. I wrote here because you signed an IP above.

For the record, you refer to a discussion about an administrator stating that Swedish general election, 2010 was an "advertisement for Sweden Democrats" & supporting an editor who attacked me especially and 2 others as "neo-nazis", "fascist sympathizers", etc. I have no interest in the comments of any administrator who lets such (to me, deadly) insults pass without warning, and so I deleted the comments of the two administrators, particularly when they approve "completely" & "entirely" belittling attacks by administrator Bishonen (against a disagreeable editor who has enough problems already): I believe you understand the imperative of saying a word to defend people being attacked, even when you strongly disapprove of their behavior (and when you can understand the frustration of other editors and administrators), simply because justice is incompatible with humiliation. We all can use a word of mercy, when we have misbehaved. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Templating

No worries - I know I'm Simon-pure, even if the bot doesn't. ;-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you and Coren please code you bots to not place us gazetteer tag as a vio. This shouldn't be happening and neither should Ser Amantio have to spent double the time just to remove the vio tags. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I updated my code last night so VWBot shouldnt be tagging any more of them, but it didn't occur to me to tell Coren - I've done that now. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Kerala houseboat.jpg

SD is for the file not from wiki-travel...Please explain little more..--Kalarickan | My Interactions 19:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The file is sourced to wikitravel which indicates that the image is licensed under CC-BY-SA-1.0 (which is what it's licensed as here, so that's correct so far). Is the file originally from some other copyrighted source? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Check this link...http://www.bloggersbase.com/images/uploaded/original/f7947f9d10669a2d189a252e5bbd032d13bb52b9.jpeg --Kalarickan | My Interactions 13:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the image is used somewhere else on internet. The catch is know figuring out which came first: the image was uploaded to wikitravel on 17 October 2006, so we're looking for something which predates that. The only indication I see of a date for the bloggerbase image is that the article it's used in is dated 16 months ago, so about June 2009, which means they probably got it from wikitravel and not the other way around. It could still have come from somewhere else first, but without evidence that predates wikitravel's use of the image, we can't prove it's copyvio. You can always send it to PUF or FfD if you believe it's a problem, but speedy deletion isn't the way to go when there's reasonable doubt. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

PUF can...instead of SD of ND--Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

or is it a wikitravel washing, same like flicker wash..??--Kalarickan | My Interactions 05:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It could be wikitravel washing, but in order to prove that you'd have to find that the image was on the web more than 4 years ago. If you suspect it, PUF is the way to go. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

copyvio template, userspace links

Hi- can you instruct VWBot to not put a userspace link in the mainspace when it leaves {{csb-pageincludes}}? tedder (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I can, yeah. Do we need to tweak the templates so that CorenSearchBot doesn't link itself either? What problem is it causing? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, tweaking the template would be nice. I haven't seen CorenSearchBot on the userspace link list much, maybe I did a couple weeks ago (I don't remember). tedder (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, apparently CorenSearchBot shoudn't ever show up on that list because it's only linked directly in the transcluded template, so I should be able to just adjust the template so that VWBot's linked the same way and wouldn't clutter up your list. After reading the VPP discussion linked to, I'm not seeing that the link itself is an actual problem though. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the discussion was about another type of link. I'm not aware of any reason userspace links are allowed or encouraged- just of many that they are discouraged (such as CSD R2, WP:SIG, etc.) tedder (talk) 17:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm looking at something different, because this discussion specifically mentioned copyvio templates and the only comment regarding that use was from Ohms law who said "This is the one use where I think that these are not only valuable, but should be more generally encouraged." I can see why in general they are discouraged but since CSBot has been placing them for over three years I'm a little hesitant to remove them without some broader discussion. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't re-read the VPP discussion in a while, and you are right- that opinion definitely supports the copyviobots having a link. I'll stop removing them, and I'll have my reporting bot ignore them too. tedder (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked my code and the templates so VWBot shouldn't show up on your list anymore, just like CorenSearchBot shouldn't (I didn't see it on any of the last dozen or so revisions of your report) because the bots will only be directly linked from the templates, which are only transcluded and never substituted. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd Copyright Question

Hi Verno! Us Hugglers are having a problem today with the program. I want to upload a screencap of the issue to attach to the discussion, but am not sure how to deal with the copyright, etc. Any ideas? Thanks! — Spike Toronto 19:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

From a quick look around it looks it could just be uploaded and licensed the same as File:Huggle.png, just don't include any Operating System icons/taskbars/etc. so you don't have to worry about that copyright complication. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks Verno! I uploaded the file here. And used it in at WP:HG/F here with this edit. Let me know if I have erred in anyway. Thanks! — Spike Toronto 20:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I double checked the licensing and it's correct, so everything looks good. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the licencing link! I didn’t know where to look. Also, thanks for everything else. You are always so helpful. — Spike Toronto 23:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

His Eminency Dr. Hazrat Sheikh Shah Sufi Mohammed Nurul Alam

Article restore as request. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

332nd FG

Hi Vern, there is a problem with moving the article as you suggested or templated? The original move was exactly that, a "cut and paste" from 332nd Fighter Group to the erroneously named 332d Fighter Group. I have asked for the change to take place as the original mover and editor has not only less information but errors in content. He/she has also moved a number of articles to a "d" rather than the correct "nd" classification for the title of the unit, as given by the USAF. Once admins have been alerted, my hope is that the 332d Fighter Group simply be deleted in total. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC).

And if you had bothered to look at the edit history of the original article, you wouldn't have left a snarky edit comment- you want to be an admin? There's more to that than snap judgments. Bzuk (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you created 332nd FG as a cut and paste move and so the history for the article was left at 332d Fighter Group. As the template I left you described, that edit history is required for appropriate attribution (barring some of the clunkier methods of attributing the original authors of the material described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). Moving the article would have been no problem, and I don't have any personal knowledge or particular interest in where the article should actually be located, but the history should be consolidated into one place, wherever that place is. Without appropriate attribution we're violating the CC-BY-SA license and so spreading copyright violations.

My edit comment was left precisely because I had looked at the edit history - User:Anthony Appleyard had performed a histmerge on 332d Fighter Group only two days ago, and a need for another histmerge so soon thereafter struck me as odd, so I commented on it. I'm sorry if you found my comment to be snarky; I didn't intend it that way. And finally, in response to the comment left on your talk page, I must admit that I'm rather partial to templating the regulars when it appears that notification is required. If that doesn't clear up my actions, please feel free to let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, don't, I am a bit touchy on that subject and templating regulars is a sure way to get a negative vote on your admin nomination. Sorry for my own snarkiness, but a simple comment would have sufficed. I found that the edit history extends far beyond the last move. The article was originally titled properly but because the editor that had made the move had cut-and-pasted the text, there was not much option other than creating an alternate version ready for a final disposition. I had already contacted an admin and he had found that the move was much more complex than a simple re-naming. My other option is to move the whole article into my sandbox but I had started to work on it in the anticipation that the other article can simply be eliminated. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I hit a sore point, I'll try to avoid templates more in the future.

As I understand it, the whole situation's kinda messy: you contacted MilborneOne who tagged it for the histmerge which Anthony Appleyard took care of, but you weren't informed that it had been resolved and at that point could have been moved, so then you made another cut/paste move to continue work. I must say I'm not entirely sure where the article should be ending up, but once everything is histmerged into 332nd FG there shouldn't be any problems with a regular move of the article (unless it's already at the right place in which case nothing further need be done). VernoWhitney (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Vern, sorry about my curt comments, they were not meant to belittle the work you were doing. You have actually started to clear up some of the mystery that was occurring, as I was just working on making one of the articles more of a complete account. I started the alternate "332nd FG" as it was the only one that could incorporate the amended details, but on reflection, maybe it should have remained in a "sandbox version," but I presumed if that happened, no one would know it existed. As well, if I had tried to work on the original article, I thought I would be eventually be duplicating the work. FWiW, years ago, a "templating war"had broken out between me and an editor from Spain over an insignificant issue and eventually the fracas attracted a host of meat and sock puppets that wanted in on the action. The wikistalking continued for months before I finally shook them. Bzuk (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. With that history I can definitely understand a strong dislike of templates. Sorry about pushing your button. :/ Well, this situation should be resolved probably tomorrow whenever an admin gets around to tidying up. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The move was successfully made this morning; thank you for your assistance. Perhaps, another reason for my testiness was that I was recently injured while campaigning for my wife in her School Trustee election. While she fell from a second floor landing, I got caught up in a dog leash. Not knowing that my foot was entangled, the leash retracted, pitching me into the air (all 180 lbs) into a wide arc to smash into the sidewalk. Picture a Bugs bunny cartoon with the proverbial Bowler hat descending in slow motion into the melee below. After six hours in the Emergency ward of the local hospital, we both were released, she with a "walking brace" and myself with stacks of pain-killers. The doctors confided: "Too bad they weren't clean breaks," while the nurses shared our X-rays to their general amusement and frivolity. Limping back onto the hustings, we found that my wife had won, albeit in a "dirty campaign" where the local Conservative (right wing extremist) pulled out all the stops, tearing up our signs and had a truck painted up as a campaign sign that he parked nearby our house... In recuperation, I sat down to my computer, where I use the Wikiwonderland as a "writing exercise" for my writing and filmmaking work. (Shh, don't tell anyone, but I write Wiki articles to try the topic out on an unsuspecting public, before going to print.) That's when I saw your "#$%^& template" and uncharacteristically, I exploded! Now that you know all the sordid details, you might understand my being vexed at the situation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

I already understood after the templating war and puppetful wikistalking history, but that explains it even better. I'm glad the article move got worked out in the end, and I hope you and your wife are feeling better. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

copyright contributer investation is dragging on forever

Do you have time to get back to the old investigations like mine here- Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Дунгане because i think this long delay is going to keep piling up for years at this rate. No one seems to be trying to deal with the old investigations like mine, which is just sitting around. Дунгане (talk) 04:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

At this point I'm afraid we just don't have enough people willing to work on copyrights to work through the backlog quickly. So many new copyright issues show up on a daily basis that the regulars (me and a few others) spend most of our time just trying to catch new issues before they've been sitting around and are harder to find and cause more damage when they're removed.

Sadly, for our investigations yours is both fairly recent at just under 3 months since it's been opened (our oldest has been opened for more than 15 and doesn't look to be closed anytime soon) and fairly small with only a couple hundred articles and no more than a couple dozen edits on each one (at least one has tens of thousands of total articles and a different one regularly has over 60 major edits to their articles). We don't work on the CCIs in any particular order, so I couldn't even guess when you'll see much activity there, it could be next week or next year. Sorry I can't be of more help. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing images from the article Sarojini Sahoo, for which copy rights have been procured.

I have procured copy right permission for the images used in article entitled Sarojini Sahoo from the author . This can be varified through permission [Ticket#2010102410000149]. Now I found you have removed these images. I searched 'discussion page' of the article as well as talk pages and did not find your any clarification regarding removal. Please clarify or undo the post to make images visible again. Thanks Kanu786 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I replied on the 25th of October to the email under that ticket number with the clear explanation that it was unusable permission and what needed to be done to rectify the situation, and there has been no reply. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Peace Support Training Centre

Hi Verno, I see you removed a section from the PSTC article because it looked like plagiarism. The original was on the PSTC official govt website. The material there is not copyrighted and is actually intended to be shared. Do you think it would be alright to have it word-for-word in the article if it is cited? Or is there a bigger issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marccote (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that the information actually is copyrighted, I'm afraid. While non-commercial reuse is allowed, it's not freely licensed for us to be able to create derivative works from it or for others to reuse it commercially, so even though it's posted for public distribution, we have to treat it the same as any other copyrighted text, which means only brief, clearly marked quotations if we need to use their words for a particular reason, but for the most part it just needs to be rewritten from scratch. If that doesn't explain things, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I took a good look at the refs you linked. The wiki policy seems clear and fair enough (although heavily oriented towards media), and I think it would be within its spirit to use the material from the PSTC site. So I think I will go ahead with brief quotes because it wouldn't be fair to the organization to attempt to paraphrase something they worded so particularly. This will also satisfy the DND criteria. Shall I proceed? Thanks. Marccote (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Please specify copyright violation

Hi. History for page http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Jimmy_Stewart_(Ohio_politician)&action=history shows edit for copyright violation. Can you please specify violations in this user talk. Thank you.

17:12, 11 October 2010 VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) (2,373 bytes) (removing copyright violation - PLEASE DO NOT RESTORE - see talk) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thundercleese (talk • contribs)

As the talk page of the article says, the material that I removed was copied in violation of copyright from http://www.ohiosenate.gov/jimmy-stewart/fullbio.html. The facts contained in those sections can be restored, but the material needs to be rewritten from scratch if you wish to do this. Please let me know if you have any further questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Who am I supposed to contact?

Who (if anyone) on Wikipedia am I supposed to contact regarding someone who copied and pasted an entire article from Wikipedia?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Give_me_Liberty,_or_give_me_Death!

http://bagera3005.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d29s7j5

The person in question - from what I have uncovered - tends to do this sort of thing a lot, both with information and artwork.

99.149.119.149 (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't anyone on Wikipedia who handles that because we're not the ones in violation copyright/licensing there, the deviantart user is. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process provides some suggested series of steps that can be followed to encourage them to comply with the appropriate licensing when reusing our content. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sallie Bingham's quote from Gloria Steinem

Dear Verno Whitney,

Being a new Wiki editor, I am most grateful for the help I've received from experienced users like yourself.

Thank you for cleaning up the pointer to the deleted image.

As for the violation of WP:NFC, I've read this over and am not sure I fully understand it or that it in fact applies. The quote I used was a book jacket blurb, edited down from the original. It's the sort of thing that would be (and is) quoted again and again in book reviews and such. As a career NYC book editor (20+ years), I work with book and author blurbs all the time, and have never had an issue with their length, reuse, or editing. FYI, I used poet Michael McClure's page as a model to style the INFOBOX and footnote for this quote.

I'd very much appreciate understanding how I may properly reinstate this quote. I work with Sallie Bingham, and she has entrusted me to help create a well-rounded profile of her life and work.

Many thanks, Eye Tooth Eye Tooth 23:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye Tooth (talk • contribs)

As you say, the issue isn't with fair use because it is quoted in all sorts of other places without problem, the issue is that WP:NFC is explicitly stricter than fair use. The "Text" section of our non-free content guideline states "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." In this case it was just a free-standing quote. It did not illustrate a point in the text, nor did the text refer to it (attributing a point of view), nor did it help to explain something which may have been unclear without it (establish context). If it was integrated into the prose then it would be more acceptable, because it would then either support or be supported by the rest of the text.

To use your example of Michael McClure, the extended quote in that article illustrates the point(s) made in the immediately preceding paragraph. Now whether or not the quote is "brief" or not as also required under NFC is fuzzier, but in general the longer the article the more quoted material is allowable. All said though, there shouldn't be any problems with reinstating part or all of the quote if it can be tied into the prose. Please let me know if that doesn't explain it or there's anything else I can help with. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding M.N.Alam

Hi,

You left me a message saying I must site reliable sources about living persons with conspiracies. But the only information I have is the direct website of M.N. Alam. Is that ok? In his website he mentioned the conspiracy. Also, the references the whole entire page is directly from M.N. Alam website which I got approval to use the information in his website for the wiki page. I put his website in his external link. Am I supposed to also put his website in the 'references' part of the page? Niraleah1 (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Material written about living persons on Wikipedia must be verifiable through reliable sources. A personal website is not a reliable source. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for details, but basically it would be books (not self-published), newspaper articles, scholarly journals; publications with editorial oversight.

I am aware that you have permission to use the text from the official website, and no, you don't need to add it to the references part of the page, but in order for the article to be retained the content also needs to be sourced to independent reliable sources (as above). If you have other sources which you can add to the article which will support its facts, then Wikipedia:Citing sources has instructions you can follow for how to add the citations. Please let me know if you have any further questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

All the information such as the conspiracies were in his books. In his books are detailed information about the conspiracies. He did not self publish his books. So since he did not self publish his own books could I use those as reliable sources? Niraleah1 (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you can't, because they are self-published. All four of his books are published by Millennium Trade Link, of which he happens to be the President/CEO. Every part of the article, but especially any part regarding another person, needs to be supported by a third-party reliable source with no connection whatsoever to him. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I see exactly what you are saying. Thank you so much. I will try to get that information as soon as possible. If not then my page will be deleted? Niraleah1 (talk) 04:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's possible. I couldn't really predict, but if it is nominated for deletion it wouldn't be immediately, so you do have time to track down more sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I was just told that his books were published by MilleniumTLink, but printed by the company Lightening Source. The nineth edition of his books is all printed by Lady In The Shoe Productions, CEO Kalima Lewis. If I put that information on to the wikipedia page, will that be ok so that it will not be deleted? Lady in the Shoe Productions also has a website that I would be able to list. Is that good enough to keep the website? Niraleah1 (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid the actual printer doesn't matter, the books still aren't going to be reliable sources which can be used to talk about other people. You can put that his books were printed by Lady In The Shoe Productions, but as I said before you need to find reliable sources which aren't associated with him. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what 'associated' with him means? Because anybody that would print his books has to be associated with him in some sort of way. By the way, thank you very much for your patience. Niraleah1 (talk) 01:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, they just deleted most of my information I had on the wikipedia page except the publications. I understand that I need reliable sources for the information about the predictions but when it comes to information I put about his childhood and background why would they delete that information? The information about his background and childhood could be found on his website. It is about himself which is definitely a reliable source about himself. Please help me. Thank you. Niraleah1 (talk) 01:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

His website and books can be used for basic information about him, such as name, birthplace, general ordinary facts. WP:ABOUTSELF has some guidelines regarding what his books could and could not be used for.

The general rule is that the more outrageous or contentious the claim, the more reliable the source needs to be to support it. For example, I could write about myself claiming to be the richest person in the world, but in order for that to be publishable on Wikipedia, it has to be verifiable; you wouldn't just take my word for it - you'd like for references to me in Forbes, or The New York Times, or the like. For an equally absurd example, if I were to write that Elizabeth II was an alien from outer space, that would require some significant publications by reputable scientific journals before Wikipedia could say anything more than "VernoWhitney claims that ...".

If you can find reliable sources then more of the removed material may be restored. For something like an honorary doctorate, a press release from the granting university should be acceptable, although a mainstream newspaper or journal would be preferred because the university would be associated with him, i.e. it would have a vested interest in talking about him and the university itself. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it is making so much more sense now. Thank you very much. I put as much resources in before reading what you have wrote. So, if some stuff has been deleted then I will make sure tomorrow that I find more reliable resources. Thank you so very much. If I have any more questions I will talk with you again. :-) Niraleah1 (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Chong Siew Fai

No problem Vernon. I'll have a look at the Chong Siew Fai and see how i can help out. ќמшמφטтгמ^torque 02:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! We can use all the help we can get saving articles which are found to be copyvios. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Sherith Israel entry

Verno Whitney,

We just discovered that Congregation SHerith Israel's Wikipedia article had been removed for a copyright violation. On reviewing the material that had been removed, we realized, that the article had originally been written by Sherith Israel for the Magnes Museum (and therefore was probably not a copyright violation) and, second, that the information was not what we want in the entry on Sherith Israel.

So, the question is how do we remove the entry entirely so that someone who is looking for Sherith Israel does not find something that makes it look as if we are copyright violators. We will be creating a new entry over the next several weeks, but in the meantime we would like the current entry to be deleted entirely. How do we do that?

Thank you.

Ellen Newman, co-chair Sherith Israel Communication Committee <email redacted>

67.180.181.165 (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me first mention that if you want to include any previously published material in a Wikipedia entry, it has to be explicitly released under a free license by following the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. This was not done for the previous article which is why it was deleted as a copyright violation.

As far as removing it entirely, if an editor goes to Congregation Sherith Israel (San Francisco, California) I'm afraid there is simply no way of disguising the fact that the article was previously deleted for copyright issues short of actually creating a new article to replace it. The links to it from other Wikipedia articles could be removed in the meantime, but the links from Google and other search engines would remain until the next occasion they update their listings, which we have no control over.

You are of course welcome to create a new entry about yourselves, but please keep in mind the guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and remember that every article must be neutral and reliably sourced. If you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Cory Howerton

There is no longer any copywrited materials on the page titled "Cory Howerton"

If you look at his linkedin page, the "copywrited" material is no longer there.

If you have any other issues with this page, please email me at: <email redacted>, and I will be happy to make corrections.

Regards,

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mloefler527 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter that the text has been removed, it was published (evidence is still available in Google's cache) and so it is copyrighted. You should not remove the blanking. You need to finish following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and an email response volunteer will unblank the article once we have verified permission to use the text. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

changes have been made and there is a temp page apparently.

I have contacted Mr. Howerton directly tonight and he said if you wish to do so, you may contact him @ <email redacted> He informed me that he actually cut and pasted the wikipedia article into his linkedin page, so he stole from my post, I didn't steal from his.

He has taken down his linkedin post (I know, it doesn't matter), but I have made changes to the article, which needed updating anyway, I emailed it to him, and he is fine with it.

Please let me know if there is going to be anything after this that will disrupt this article. Mr. Howerton has done so much for the world of sports, and has utilized his position within the sports world to drive the autism message to thousands of people. Last month alone, he organized an event in Milwaukee that raised over $90,000 for autism. He is much more deserving of this type of attention than other sports marketers that are featured in wikipedia.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mloefler527 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, I'll look into it further today. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The page has been restored but put back to a very early rendition. Is there anyway to retrieve at least the links that were associated with the post, so I don't have to go through that process again? I am happy to re-write the story, but the one that is currently up is very old. If you could point me in the direction of the most current post, I am happy to make edits to it, but links are lost, research (although not much) as far as awards he won is lost, etc.

Thank you for any help.

mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.56.183 (talk) 02:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll ask an admin to get the links that were in the article, and they can list them somewhere for you to use. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The links from the deleted versions of the article are now listed at Talk:Cory Howerton, so you can look at them there and add there info back into the article so long as you use your own words. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Frederick James Gould

Quite a difficult one to rewrite, as the few sources that there are present a very factual biography which in many ways follows WP:BIO style. But I accept I should have done more to avoid copyvio. I have now done a redraft at User:Ghmyrtle/gould. Let me know if you think this addresses the issues, or whether there are further changes needed. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a look at it as soon as I can. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The same draft is at Talk:Frederick James Gould/Temp. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I asked an admin who also works copyvio for a second opinion on your rewrite and we both feel it still follows the primary source too closely. You've changed the words around, but the overall structure isn't that different. They came up with a good example, comparing your rewrite (look at the content, sentence by sentence):

In 1879, he married Mahalah Elizabeth Lash, and moved to London where he began working as an assistant master in publicly funded board schools in the East End. He was transferred from Bethnal Green to Limehouse in 1887 after his notes in the Agnostic Journal were seen by the school board, and he was exempted from teaching the Bible. In 1891, he asked to be allowed to resume Bible teaching on a reforming ethical-agnostic basis, but this was refused.[1]

to the source:

He moved to London in 1979, where he married Mahalah Elizabeth Lash (1879) and worked for 16 years as an assistant master in London board schools. [...] His fully-signed notes in the 'Agnostic Journal' in 1887 were seen by the School Board, and he was transferred from Bethnal Green to Limehouse and exempted from Bible-teaching duties. In 1891 he asked the Board to let him resume Bible-teaching on an ethical-agnostic basis, but was denied.

I know it's a pain to rewrite things, especially when they're already well-written, but I think it needs some more working over before it can be used to unblank the article. There look to be some more sources you could use to help flesh out a rewrite here and here. The second one's PD, so you can even copy it verbatim so long as you attribute appropriately with {{PD-old-text}}. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do, though I can't see anything relevant in the second source. The problem here is that many of the terms used are either dates, names, or technical terms, which cannot be easily rewritten in other terms or without contributing WP:OR to interpret them - "1879", "Mahalah Elizabeth Lash", "assistant master", "board school", "Bethnal Green", "Limehouse", "1887", "Agnostic Journal", "school board", "Bible teaching", "ethical-agnostic". Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, some words can't be changed, but the structure as a whole can be, and needs to be. If that means leaving some details out in order to make it not follow the source, then I'm afraid that's what needs to be done. Finding more sources is generally the best way to get a good rewrite of something. Working from only one detailed source and trying to include all of that content in an article seems to be a recipe for close paraphrase problems. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked further - comments welcome. Are you able to advise on images? I'd like to upload and use this one if I can. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look at the article once I've woken up some. As to the image... it was taken in 1921, but we need to know when/where it was published and/or some details about the photographer in order to determine what its copyright status is. Assuming it was published in the UK, then commons:COM:LICENSING#United Kingdom has the details but in general it's copyrighted for 70 years after the death of the photographer, and 1921 is too recent to simply assume that that time period has passed. Without evidence that can be used to show it's PD, then we have to assume it's copyrighted and in that case there may be an issue with using that particular image, specifically WP:NFCC#1. The second source I came across has an image of him that we know is PD in the United States since it was published before 1923 (it still may not be PD in the UK and so shouldn't be uploaded to commons without further evidence, though), and seems to be of acceptable quality. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I've had problems with images in the past so the one I uploaded can be deleted if it doesn't meet the criteria. Hopefully you can OK the article - I'll put it up for WP:DYK if you do and if I can think of a vaguely interesting hook for it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha! George Charles Beresford was the photographer, died 1938. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay so that means the image is almost surely PD assuming the photo was actually published before just recently. I'll get over to your article soon. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the rewrite looks good now and have asked an admin to move it over the article. I also confirmed that the image was PD (published in the 1923 book he wrote), and tweaked the license at Commons accordingly, since it wasn't published before 1923. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for putting in the extra effort to rewrite the article. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Adminship

Acather96 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Acather96 to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VernoWhitney. If you accept the nomination, you must state and sign your acceptance. You may also choose to make a statement and/or answer the optional questions to supplement the information your nominator has given. Once you are satisfied with the page, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the offer, and it's tempting, but I actually have a nom lined up for starting that pretty soon here. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Good news! --Mkativerata (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! That's timing. Sorry to scoop you, Acather96, but I was all ready to go! Once it's transcluded, I do hope you will consider adding your support. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, funny how things work out :) I'll probably write a co-nom as well later on, though if you would rather I didn't, you'll still be getting my Strongest possible support :) Acather96 (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free. I don't mind. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

procedure for recreating articles

When you clean up the article and delete the edits in the history, if there are new edits fixing the old copyvio, can the fixed article be copy and pasted after you guys delete the revisions from the history, into the article again? Because there would be a problem with numerous editors having contributed already.Дунгане (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the fixed article can be copy/pasted in; you may need an admin's help to fix it up depending on how the history was deleted, though. If the old versions of the article were just revision deleted, and there's still a list of editors available in history, then that is sufficient attribution for those editors. If the whole article was deleted or something else occurred so that the list of other editors is not available in history, then you would need to contact an admin so that they could provide the list of editors and they could add it somewhere to provide the necessary attribution. If that doesn't make sense or you want me to take a look at a particular article, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You were duly warned

...and I can prove it: right here. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VernoWhitney is no longer a redlink. Please hold off on responding, however. It is now in the hands of OlEnglish, who you may recall offered in August. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All set! -- œ ^™ 12:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Anybody that willfully accepts a nomination can't possibly be of sound mind. I'm aghast! --Hammersoft (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just some advice

I would be very wary of making responses at your RfA. Nominee responses have a strong tendency to torpedo nominations rather than help in any way. If an opposer has an opinion, it is highly unlikely you or anyone else is going to change their opinion. Yes, your responses could have the effect of convincing other would-be opposers to not vote oppose, but that too is unlikely. Unless you have unequivocal evidence that an opposer is wrong, it's best to leave it alone. Rest on your laurels, as you are well deserving. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

CSB question

Hi, Verno. :) There's a question about CSB at my talk page, here. Do you know the answer to this one? Or should I ask Coren? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright cleanup

Hello VernoWhitney, I was recently told about a massive copyright violation through translation. Since there are revisions worth saving, I've declined the G12 nomination for now. The thing I am not sure about is whether I should allow the user to clean up the article as it is or revert to an earlier, clean revision and revdelete the offending revisions. Any clarification would be appreciated. Thanks, and good luck in your RFA! Airplaneman ✈ 04:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

See [2]. MER-C 05:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, what MER-C said. If you blank the problem section(s) of the article then they have a week+ to rewrite it on the temp page and it lets non-admins salvage creative non-infringing material, but on high-traffic articles I'd generally say just revert/remove the copyvio, revdelete and let the section be recreated live. That way there's no intimidating copyvio notice for hundreds or thousands of readers. I don't know how often I personally take my own advice though, for whatever that's worth. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Ww2censor's talk page.
Message added 13:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Further request

Thanks for setting up my RFC on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan article.

Could you do me the added favor of categorizing it as also a question of wildlife biology, that is, something to do with science? If so, thanks. Calamitybrook (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Done They're pretty broad categories so it can't be really specific, but it's now tagged as "science" too. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should you have any free time, your input is requested here. Thanks and congrats on your very promising RfA! Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Arnold and Bob A.JPG

Hi, can you add source and author of this image to the description? Hekerui (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done with what information there is. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Too long title

The title of the following article: Monasterio de Santa María de la Trapa de Santa Susana is excessively long, especially since locals call it merely Trapa de Santa Susana or even simply "La Trapa". I hope it is not too much tropuble for you to do the necesary change to the second name.Xufanc (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I moved it to Trapa de Santa Susana and made La Trapa a redirect to there as well. I could go ahead and move the article to "La Trapa" if that would be better, just let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, "La Trapa" would be perhaps too unspecific. Thank you again.Xufanc (talk) 11:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Rosemarie Koczy images

Hi there VernoWhitney, I was wondering if you could take a look at this discussion and the follow-up. It seems the user has not received any response from OTRS regarding five files that were deleted at WP:PUF for over two weeks. Could you link into this? — ξ ^xplicit 22:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We have received it, it just hasn't been processed yet. I'll look into it. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

...and asking for input about it since it's not entirely straightforward. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That was kind of where I was assuming this would go, but I figured it would be better for a solid answer, even if the permission doesn't seem to be enough. — ξ ^xplicit 00:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've replied to the email with where we need to go from here. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Golden plates

Erm, excuse me, but the article is an article witha crazy claim, and does not give teh viewpoint of critics. I have referred to theorists that are respected to support my statement, and your interventions are thought policing Nazism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.157.4 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

25.^ Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1987). Mormonism - Shadow or Reality?. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. pp. 91. ISBN 9993074438. 26.^ a b c Brody, Fawn (1971). No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (2d ed.). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 27.^ a b c Krakauer, Jon (2003). Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith. New York: Doubleday. 28.^ a b Abanes, Richard (2003). One Nation Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. Thunder's Mouth Press. pp. 73. ISBN 1568582838. 29.^ a b Beckwith, Francis (2002). The New Mormon Challenge. Zondervan. pp. 367–396. ISBN 0310231949. 30.^ a b Cowan, Marvin (1997). Mormon Claims Answered.

As referred to on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Book_of_Mormon

I thought that evidence contained within your pages would be evidence. I didn't want to repeat the same things over and over. It is obvious to anyone that such claims will have critics, and the far fetched nature of the claim on the page i edited will have critics. Res Ispa Loquitur.

Can you put my balancing statement back then please, with these references? Otherwise i can only presume that the organization pays you to peddle unedited propaganda, which is more a threat to the wikipedia community that me trying to balance an biased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.157.4 (talk) 16:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, since i found critics of the Golden Plates in about 4 seconds using google, that referred to a Wikipedia page, i think i rightly presumed that the answer to Who? was in the grasp of anyone using a computer and willing to learn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.157.4 (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And you've read those sources and those pages specifically mention the golden plates and Russell's teapot? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion here and i believe the contributor has a valid point, you are keeping the article biased. The introduction does not mention that the Golden Plates are disputed. Russel's Teapot is a valid comparison, and if a link is kept in, the reader will surely understand that Russel's Teapot is relevant here, as it discusses religious claims where the evidence is beyond scientific observation, much like the claim of the golden plates being given to an angel.

The contributor may be new to Wikipedia, but if this interruption to the freedom to impart information is carried on, i suggest s/he reports this to wikipedia, as this is illegal and jeapordizes Wikipedia by making it seem that religious organizations are beyond a balanced argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.156.235 (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyone is free to edit the article at any time, but one of our core content policies is Wikipedia:Verifiability which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." It doesn't matter if Russel's teapot is an obvious analogy unless it is discussed by a reliable source. I have no interest in censoring the article, I have in interest in removing unsupported allegations, and I'm afraid that the first editor's original inclusion of the claim "exploiting the guillable" [sic] didn't leave me terribly inclined to take their word on the rest without those reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

VernoWhitney

Greetings! Please excuse this intrusion on your talk page, and allow me to invite you to participate on the newly-formed Wikipedia Contribution Team, or WP:CONTRIB for short! The goal of the team is to attract more and better contributions specifically to the English Wikipedia, as well as to help support the fundraising team in our financial and editing contribution goals. We have lots of stuff to work on, from minor and major page building, to wikiproject outreach, article improvement, donor contacting, and more -- in fact, part of our mission is to empower team members to make their own projects to support our mission. Some of our projects only take a few minutes to work on, while others can be large, multi-person tasks -- whatever your interest level, we're glad to have you. If this sounds of interest to you, please visit WP:CONTRIB and sign onto the team. Even if there does not appear to be anything that really speaks out as being work you'd like to do, I'd encourage you to join and follow the project anyway, as the type of work we'll be doing will certainly evolve and change over time. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me, or ask on the Contribution talk page. Regards, ⇒DanRosenthal ^{Wikipedia Contribution Team} 19:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Successful RfA

A consensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle = (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No longer will you need cry "Clean up on aisle 8!" Now you can scrub it yourself!

Congratulations, Verno. :D I trust it goes without saying that I’m here to offer any assistance I can to you as you learn your way around the tools. (And get thee to Wikipedia:New admin school.) I’d tell you to get to work, but I know you’ve never stopped. :D It’s an honor to work with you and a pleasure to nom you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations for getting the keys to the broom closet. What nobody told you is that due to budgetary constraints, we no longer have a mop + firethrower, but only a broom + pepperspray (and that one is empty). But just like MRG, if I can help in anyway, just ask. I know where the bucket is stowed :) MLauba ^(Talk) 16:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations! I’ve always found you very helpful when I’ve had copyright questions. I didn’t know you were RfAing or I would have added my support !vote … but it seems you didn’t need it. — Spike Toronto 16:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both. I suppose an empty can of pepper spray is better than nothing. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! Good work on my favorite articles. Are you in the 39 Clues task force? Perseus!Talk to me 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! And yes I am a member, although I haven't read the books so I mostly just try to keep vandalism and rumour out of the articles. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite the aforementioned budgetary constraints, I managed to convince the guys who work at procurement to make an exception :) Acather96 (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Aw, it's just what I've always wanted. <swoon> VernoWhitney (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, my friend. Do let me know if you need anything. Otherwise, get to work. ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will, and I have already. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations VernoWhitney! Don't delete the Main Page :P and here are your shackle warmers, enjoy your imprison- err adminship. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 10:26am • 23:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

'Grats :). Oh, and here's your crappy t-shirt. Happy mopping, Airplaneman ✈ 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats! I knew you had nothing to worry about.

Now get to work before they cut your pay of zero dollars! — ξ ^xplicit 23:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not the most elegant t-shirt in my collection, but it goes nicely with the mop'n'bucket.

VernoWhitney (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Beat the crat

Congratulations on your successful RfA! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ner! He just beat me to it :) :) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL! I had my note composed and was hovering, waiting for the crat to finish. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gratz! - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. 150+ supports is an overwhelming seal of approval and I have no doubt you'll do a good job as admin. Reyk _YO! 22:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I voted neutral, but I'm glad you made it. Looking at it again, I should've switched to support. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

And thank you both. I'll try to live up to your expectations. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Lisa F. Jackson

Hello - I believe that my entry for Lisa F. Jackson was deleted because there was similar info on her own websites, jacskonfilms.com and thegreatestsilence.org. Lisa is an associate of mine and has approved my creating a wiki page for her - she owns all info and content on both those sites - please let me know if you need direct confirmation on this from her, no problem. Thanks so much, Jenniferbeatrice Jenniferbeatrice (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

We appreciate your contribution, but in order to verify that you have permission to use the material we need her to follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Once permission is confirmed the article will be restored. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

International Growth Centre

Hi Verno - I wrote detailed material on this project which has been frozen by you because of copywrite concerns. But all the material is legal to use according to the IGC website.

"All use of web material is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, except published papers which are copyright of the IGC". http://www.theigc.org/about

I am worried my efforts will be deleted!

Thanks

Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.236.1 (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. As the work has now been licensed appropriately I have unblanked the article. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I edited the url link because I thought it was unnecessarily long, I obviously made a mistake by not checking if there was any difference. I thought it was an issue of the site adding stuff along the way (like YT does).. Sorry about that - CET TALK 23:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I figured that was why you did it, and yeah it's obnoxiously long. I know it can be truncated to just display the page, but I'm not sure if there's a way to trim it and keep the highlighting which makes it easier to pick out (and I didn't have time to fuss around with it earlier). No worries. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Suspected copyright violations

Hello! So I'm starting to contribute to suspected copyright violations. I was wondering, what do I put if the article was deleted? It looks like you don't do anything to it, but I'm not completely sure. Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to put anything at all if it's deleted, only if the article's still there and you've checked it and either A) fixed the problem (or note that someone else did) or B) figured out that it wasn't a real problem in the first place (since the bot can hit quite a few false positives on its bad days). If you have any questions, feel free to ask - it's always nice to have more help at SCV. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thank you! :D Endofskull (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Copy-pasting

Sorry for copy-pasting Bernd Fischer to Bernd Fischer (mathematician). As soon as I did it, I realised I made mistake. Thanks for correction of my mistake.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it's all sorted now. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ruth Kuczynski

Hi! You have just written: "From what I could tell the portions of the article cited to other sources looked fine (...)". However, I cannot watch this, because of lack of text. So, I will not write again. -- Cheers! dr Mibelz 06:00, 17 Nov 2010 (UTC)

I blanked the whole article because I wanted a second opinion about the rest of the text, but you should know that all of the article text is still visible in the article's history if you need to see it. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Susanne

Hi. I've moved Susanne to the name of the master account for future ease. Should have done that forever ago with Paknur, but, alas, handsight doesn't need glasses. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I did a similar thing and set up a redirect from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/OSUHEY to Jansport87, but it could be moved if you think that would make things easier. Now I've got some questions for you.

First the short term ones. Do CCI redirects need to be noindexed? Also, I've added all of the substantial contribs now to this CCI and it's 187kb - shall I go ahead and split it in half for ease of access?

Second for longer term (and this is more musings than questions I suppose), maybe we can take some lessons from SPI as far as setting up active investigations and archives so that reopening or adding to socky CCIs isn't such a pain? And maybe we can ask SPI about including a link to CCIs for the sockmaster or suspected sockpuppet or something - since if new socks turn up any CCIs will need to be reexamined? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think; let's split it for access. If you can figure out how to improve our system, go for it. :) And I think that a cross-link to an SPI is a great idea! As far as "Noindex" from the redirect, it's a courtesy. If a contributor is indef-blocked and they aren't using a real name, I don't see that it's really a big deal. If they're using a real name, I would do it anyway both because John Smith might not have intended to violate copyright and because John Smith the baker from Georgia might be embarrassed by the copyright violations of John Smith the high school student from Wisconsin. :)

The reason I put it under the master account rather than just creating a redirect was simply for ease of future. Next time there's a sock for this account, we won't have to remember which of the socks we used for opening it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question

I'd also like to help out with copyright investigations. Do I have to be a clerk to participate? If I don't, how do I participate without being a clerk? Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't have to be a clerk - that's just for opening and closing investigations to make sure that things don't get missed or lost in the shuffle. There are detailed instructions are at the top of each CCI, but if they're not clear please do ask for clarification.

I don't know how much you know about copyvio cleanup, so feel free to ignore me if I'm telling you things you already know. First, you pick a CCI (we have plenty to choose from, and the main topics for each CCI are listed next to the names on the right-hand side of WP:CCI). Some are particularly hairy, but most are pretty straightforward so you can just look at the diff(s) and try to figure out if they are or aren't copyvio. Sometimes it's clear (i.e., directly copy/pasted from a source they cited in the edit, or simply adding an infobox with no creative material) and othertimes research is involved to see if the material is clean or not. Once you do whatever needs doing to an article (if anything) you mark it at the CCI page so others will know who checked it and what action was taken. And then of course you just move on to the next one. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me out on that. I have a question about it, though. How do I format what I've found? And, what do I do if it's not a copyright violation? I have some assumptions on what I should do, but I'm not completely sure. Endofskull (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know what you mean by formatting what you've found, so you'll have to ask that question a different way.

If you finish checking an article and it doesn't have copyright violations then you can replace all of the diffs for that article on the CCI listing with {{n}} ~~~~ to signify that no problem was found. You could also add a comment after the {{n}} mentioning whatever the edit actually was (revert, infobox, etc.), but that's usually not necessary unless it's something that would be easily confused with copyvio and/or easy to overlook if the CCI is revisited, like copying a large chunk from a public domain source. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright. What I meant by "formatting" was how do you set up the report? For example:

"This article had ______________ problems because _________________"

But all I'm really looking for is what kind of order you do that in. I know it's not a "template like" thing (as I put in the example about). Thanks! Endofskull (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as what to put on the CCI page its just something short like "

action taken". You can look at a completed CCI to see how my work usually looks, but so long as it's readable by others the details don't matter. Any report of what the problem was for the particular article should usually be left at the article itself in an edit summary and/or its talk page or possibly WP:CP; since there are usually hundreds of articles in any given CCI readability is important barring exceptional circumstances. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. So if it's copied word for word/a copyright violation, I take it to WP:CP? Endofskull (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if there's a copyright violation then you can blank it with {{subst:copyvio}} and follow the instructions it generates to list it at WP:CP and an admin or more experienced editor will handle it from there. Note that it doesn't have to be copied word-for-word to be a copyright violation, close paraphrasing can be a problem too.

If you really get into it there are more subtleties and different ways to handle copyright violations, but the basic rule of blanking it and listing it at CP will always work. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)