This is an archive of past discussions with 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.
I'm torn on this one. This appears to be (or at least contain) the actual written court opinions, which would make the lawofcontract.co.uk site just a summary. Now whether it's an official court syllabus as is generally issued for U.S. Supreme Court rulings or an unofficial one, I couldn't say. I'm not familiar enough with UK law and don't know where to find the official court documents. Sorry I don't have a clear answer for you. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Please excuse me loitering on the pavement, not stalking but nosy (and attempting to raise self-awareness). Following on from the discussion in the previous section, this is an issue that I was reflecting on when I created an article for Prescribed senior official after Srdja Trifkovic was refused entry to Canada a week ago by virtue of the provisions of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (not going to accord him the respect of an internal link as the article is a hagiography at the moment). Within some Western Balkan / human rights circles this was a very significant event (appearing finally to acknowledge Trifkovic's role as a close collaborator with the Bosnian Serb Presidency during the Bosnian war and at the time of the Srebrenica genocide).
I wanted to create an article explaining the relevant notion of a "prescribed senior official". I don't know how to find the Canadian court decisions easily, so took the information I wanted from the reproduction of the most amply discussed Federal Court ruling on the subject in one of two similar blog posts by prominent specialist immigration lawyers. I put an argument for the use of a blog as reference on the Talk page, the issue I'm concerned about is less the source - the source quoted and the confirming one are both by authors with pictures of themselves being kissed by the Queen - than the use of the language. This is a short article but it's full of language I lifted from the appeal judge's wording. Given that it's only the wording of the Act and judges' analysis of the term's meaning in the context of the Act that gives any significance to the expression "Prescribed senior official" I'm not sure how the article could be anything other than "plagiaristic" without risking confusion and error. Opbeith (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
n.b. I've found a source for the wording from the Act so that removes some of the unique source burden from the Younis ruling, but the general question of recycled wording remains. Opbeith (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, can't stop worrying a live rat (the issue, not me). I've just found the following, which I'd quite like to quote verbatim in Prescribed senior official, i.e. another dose of quotation ballast for a gunwhale-laden boat. I'd be happy to paraphrase closely, which could be done without too much risk, but I wouldn't be keen to paraphrase less than closely. Any advice from the vio guru duo?
- at
http://www.international.gc.ca/court-cour/war-crimes-guerres.aspx?lang=eng#geno
"Offences of Breach of Command/Superior Responsibility
Under the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, breach of command/superior responsibility is a criminal offence. This means that military commanders and superiors are obliged to take measures to prevent or repress genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In the event that such a crime is committed by one of their subordinates, military commanders and superiors are responsible for submitting the matter to the competent authorities for investigation." Opbeith (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I've just started my morning influx of caffeine, and I'm probably an hour off from full use of however many of my cylinders will choose to be firing today, so excuse me if I don't make sense. :) That aside, Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works sets out that the text in laws, governmental codes, governmental regulations and judicial opinions are public domain, no matter in which country they originated or at what level of government. The tricky thing with judicial opinons there: it's only the judgment that's PD. Supporting documents, including depositions, that are public records may still be copyrighted. The public has the right to access them, but not necessarily to exploit them commercially or to modify them. I've done some research in that area, and haven't found anything definitive. The courts affirmed in United Transportation Union Local 1745 v. City of Albuquerque, (10th Cir. 2009) that court reporters don't own copyright to their transcripts, but didn't weigh in on the larger issue of who (if anyone) does (it wasn't germaine to the question). Presumably, those who made the statements do. Overall, it still seems to be pretty murky. If there's a strong precedent, I haven't found it.
When you want to copy content from the site of any government that is not automatically public domain (that is, most of them :)), you first have to ask yourself if the material is a legal document or an explication of a legal document. If it's the former, you're good to go. To comply with Wikipedia:Plagiarism, you just need to note that the content is copied, either by formatting it as a quote with direct citation or by adding one of the Category:Attribution templates or other acknowledgement to the references section on the page. If it's explication, you're as limited as you are with any other copyrighted content, to brief excerpts that are clearly marked or to proper paraphrase.
Looking at [1], this is explication. They have a link at the bottom of the introduction to the legal documents, which are public domain (in the US). I am conservative in writing articles with respect to copyright. My personal rule of thumb of a sizeable source is two sentences, although certain circumstances may vary that to more or less. You've got three there, which is not unreasonable for a block quote if the article around it is substantial. Among the fair use factors, the courts consider how important the text you're using is to the old document and the new one and what you're doing with the content; obviously, if you publish a page that consists only of those three sentences, you don't have a very strong defense of fair use. :) I don't see you doing that, though; you just need to make sure that it's part of a larger work and that you are using only as much as is necessary for the use you intend.
In terms of the former situation, the appeal judge's wording is public domain if it was part of his judgment (and not, say, his own blog post written later :)). From a copyright standpoint, it doesn't matter if you take it from the horse's mouth or from somebody who went digging in the horse's mouth before you. Plagiarism concerns are addressed by a "qtd. in" or similar annotation. Making your own way to the horse's mouth permits you to cite it directly. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing I need to point out, now that I'm more awake (I'm afraid my cylinders may not be intending to fully engage today; they are preoccupied with migraine meds :P): this aspects considers only the protection of Wikipedia and, really, users who are in the U.S. Some countries evidently do copyright their laws and judicial opinions. If a user from a country that does should place such content on Wikipedia, he or she may be individually liable even if Wikipedia is not (not that it would be anyway, as a server, but I hope you know what I mean. :) If not, let me know, and I'll try again). About a year ago, a German user was quite panicked when a German publisher came after him for infringement. He found out that German law does not necessarily care if he thought it was okay because NFC does not explicitly forbid it. (For privacy reasons, I can't be more specific than that.) The National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute might have come out very differently if User:Dcoetzee were British...at least as far as Derrick was concerned. --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all that "pre-optimal" info and advice, wish I could function like that pre-optimally. On my migraine days I just close down shop entirely. Seriously, thanks a lot. Interesting/peculiar, as is the way of the law. I can understand depositions containing technical information being copyright (where perhaps you're having to sacrifice patentability) but something like an affidavit is surely meant to be a statement of facts. Hmm. German law is peculiar anyway. (The case of Jeremiah Duggan seems warning enough to keep clear of German jurisdiction.) Your explanation of the explication situation is very clear. I could be really complicatedly awkward and ask what the situation would be if I did my own translation of the French version of the Canadian explication and then checked it against the English parallel text and made corrections but I certainly don't think you deserve that and I would probably deserve a smack - just ignore! The other hypothetical issue I'd raise for another day when you're clear of migraine is whether the US is entitled to free from copyright the decisions of supra-national bodies. I'm not really bothered in practice as my main plunder-mine is the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia and they told me when I asked (being hassled by someone who was more worried about the information than the copyright) they are very happy to have material quoted, they'd just like it attributed to them. The "qtd. in" suggestion is a very neat way of handling secondary primaries. Hope the migraine's on its way out. Opbeith (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Some conversations make me very thankful for talk page stalkers, and this is one of them. Maybe I'd have more luck on a normal day, but my brain keeps going off on tangents every time I try to read through this section and figure out what's going on, so I'll just leave it to you two. Carry on! ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Well, in my case I can certainly see how I could have said it better. I'm never really concise at the best of times. I'm far too parenthetical at my worst. My brain throws a lot of "Oh, yeahs...." at me as I go. I'll answer your awkward question briefly. Translations are derivative works under U.S. law, which means that translation a French source into English creates a copyright problem, no matter what the French source is a translation of. :) That one was actually easy. :D
Your hypothetical issue: we've talked about this one before on Wikipedia. I'm not aware of any court cases establishing a clear position of the US courts on the question, but AIR there was a general consensus that if the supra-national body has authority to enforce laws against people that the text of those laws should be public domain because the same rationale applies. (See Edict of government for more on the rationale.) With a judicial decision, I think the question might be whether the body has the power to enforce its decisions, which would (it seems to me) give the court the same standing as any governmental court. If it lacks that authority, it might not qualify as an "edict of government." If I found an article of this type listed at WP:CP, I would either run it to the copyright talk pages for community consensus or head off to our attorney du jour to ask about it. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that was an expert screening-out of all my red herrings, apologies for all that, VernoWhitney. The derivative works explanation makes the answer to my translation question clear - the rules about paraphrasing apply, whatever the route by which an English version of the text has been obtained.
As far as the decisions of supra-national bodies is concerned, I'm not so certain. The US is not a signatory to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The US does not in theory agree to subject its citizens to enforcement of the Statute. So my interpretation of what Moonriddengirl says is that the US might not regard ICC rulings as "edict of government" and if not wouldn't treat them as being in the public domain. And the location of the Wikipedia servers is determining, so for Wikipedia purposes I would not be entitled to make any public domain claim even though I'm a citizen of a signatory state. It's hard to see this being an issue with ICC which is as keen to ensure diffusion of its decisions as ICTY but perhaps it might be with other organisations. (Incidentally I was told by a lawyer that in the UK court judgments are covered by Crown Copyright but it is only enforced in exceptional circumstances).
The public domain situation about legal rulings is clear, the fair use advice is helpful in relation to the supporting documentation the fair use rule of thumb is helpful, but the need to avoid close paraphrasing if the appropriate quote would be considered excessively lengthy is a potential source of misrepresentation. Anyhow, in the end I've paraphrased the section of explication[2] and just have to hope no-one thinks they can get away with war crimes because of my linguistic ineptitude! Opbeith (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
I am new at creating articles at wikipedia. I am confused and do not know how solve this mistake. If you can make them into one article and help I will be grateful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by QadeemMusalman (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
That page was copied from HERE. There used to be a Semibeings page on Wiki for a long time. Someone came along and deleted it. Whatever site you found copied it from here and I would think you would know that that site probably gets all it's info from here. Cutelit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutelit (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
You are correct that the information was copied from Wikipedia, but recreating it as you have leaves it without attribution for the original authors of the material which is still a copyright violation, albeit one that I have just fix. There is also the consideration that it was deleted for a reason which still stands unless you have improved the article somehow. I recommend that you find sources which would firmly establish the notability of the band if you don't wish to see it deleted again. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I did source that article in the only 2 places where I used it. What I wrote was not a paraphrase of that article at all. Compare the two and you'll see only on his birthplace and some information about the school in Arkansas is even close. I have rewritten it here:Talk:William_F._Moran/Temp--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ01:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the prompt rewrite. It looks good so I have moved it over the original article. For future reference, you should not begin articles with copied material, even if you intend to rewrite them heavily (i.e., your start to Bill Scagel) as they are significantly more likely to both end up as unintentional close paraphrases as well as being viewed as derivative works. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Periodically, I come across an article that's three or four cut-and-pasted sentences. I'm not sure exactly what to do with these; I've been tagging them as copyvios, but I'm not sure if that's correct. I know one or two sentences isn't normally enough to trigger copyright problems (and those are usually speedyable under other criteria anyway), and anything more than a paragraph is definitely a problem unless PD kicks in or there's OTRS permission, but there's that small gray area that I'm not 100% confident about. I've meant to ask this for a while now, and it's about time I do. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Generally even when it's one copied phrase (not even a whole sentence) I try to do something about it unless it's strictly formulaic (e.g., "John Doe was an American farmer." or something similarly banal). Now whether I rewrite it personally or trim it or tag it for someone else <cough>Moonriddengirl<cough> to look at depends entirely on how much time I have, how much is copied, and how sure I am that there actually is creativity involved in the text. But I do try to do something about any copied material I come across, even if it's just asking for a second opinion on it. The general idea is to err on the side of caution when it comes to copyrighted material. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
I have reviewed my article as instructed: Wrote a temporary page where I rectified the infringements.
Please see if you are satisfied with my comments on the talk page.
I understand now what I have done wrong. I was not expecting such a big learning curve for addind content to Wikipedia. But I have learned a lot and I am open to suggestions.
The copyright infringement for this article has been handled.
Here are the issues resolved:
1. http://www.beacongraphics.com/academy/history.html
Solution - This copyright issues has previously been resolved. See the History of Wall decals, 22:48, 8 March 2011 by Porchcrop:" Remove CSD -- no copyright infringements from the given website"
Removed all content from Wikipedia referencing this article.
To address your points in order:
1. I'm afraid that Porchcrop is simply incorrect in this instance. Your rewrite of the article (which is now located at Talk:Wall decals/Temp) states:
In the late 80's some other systems were developed to compete with the Gerber. These systems were based on using a personal computer, software and a pen plotter which was modified to become a vinyl cutter.Although they had their problems they were thousands of dollars cheaper than the Gerber plotter plus the software contained more features and many fonts.
In the late 80's some other systems were developed to compete with the Gerber. They were based on using a personal computer, software and a pen plotter which was converted with a vinyl cutting attachment. ... These systems, marketed by HTD and TechnoArts, were priced thousands of dollars less than Gerber and the software contained more features and many fonts.
This is only slightly different than the source, and must be rewritten entirely in your own words unless you have permission from the copyright holder. Do note that this is only an example, there may be more portions of the article which follow that source.
2. Whether reference to a source was made or not, it appears that content from that source was used. Both your rewrite and that source use the identical phrase:
Economy vinyl for short term applications, Monomeric vinyl (5 year), Polymeric vinyl (7 years) and extremely stable Cast vinyl for Long term exterior & vehicle livery applications.
It strikes me as extremely unlikely that both of you would use the same detailed phrase unless you are copying from them or you both are copying from some other source, but it does appear to be copied from somewhere.
3. The email has been received and replied to. We are still pending confirmation of usable permission, but this is on the way to being resolved.
4. Thank you for removing all of the material from your rewrite. There's clearly no copyright issues with that portion of the text any more.
Okay, thanks! As far as the text from http://crazysexycool.co.za/how-to-stick-a-wall-sticker (and any other material you get permission for in the future) it should not be restored to the article until we actually receive usable permission, so I have removed it for now (it's still in the history of the article so it should be no problem to restore if/when we get that permission). I've reviewed your rewrite and I didn't see any other problems so I replaced it as a live article at Wall decals. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Judging from the snippets which are still available via search engines, it looks like the article is duplicated here. I haven't checked to see when the content entered the article, but it does look fishy to me too. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Having looked at the history, I think I might have to recuse myself from that due to prior interactions with one of the primary editors. :/ Any chance you can take it on? (Not saying the person with whom I've had prior involvement is any party to the problem, but I kind of think I shouldn't be the one looking at it, just in case.) --Moonriddengirl(talk)14:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Setting |belowstyle=background: transparent; padding: 0px; fixes two issues. The first is that without the padding, the bottom navigation bar does not fill the width of the navigation box. The second is that without setting the background to transparent, the color used for for the basestyle shows through around the edges on some browsers. I also noticed that the styling was being applied inconsistently, some having the transparent, some having the padding, and some having nothing, so this should make for a more uniform appearance of these templates. By the way, could we create a category for the "foo navs" templates transcluded on Template:medicine navs? It would make it easier to keep track of all of them. Thank you. 134.253.26.11 (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I just happened to notice the change on one of my watched pages and was curious. I imagine there could be a category set up (if there isn't one already?), but I tend to be pretty busy in other areas around Wikipedia and have no idea how things are currently set up, so I'm not the best one to ask. I imagine a posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine would get some decent feedback and maybe some volunteers to help out. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
You recently and understandably deleted a page (Sredna Kunowski) due to possible copywrite infringment. However the site in question expresses that the content is dontated to the public here:
I can contact the author of the site and have him grant any more specific permissions (or donate the work to wikipedia however that is done) if that is necesarry. If there is anything else or any other reason the page was deleted, please let me know.
Material can be donated following the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. However, if the article is intended to be about an actual person (as appears to be the case), then it would be wholly unacceptable even if it were donated as it is entirely promotional and provides no real biography. Before an article is created there should be multiple independent reliable sources which establish just what the subject of the article is and cover it in detail, so if it is a legitimate myth, then there needs to be a more reliable source than a blog. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that posting here
was the first thing I was supposed to do, but I will get to the other places shortly. This concerns an article Pioneer Woman (statue) or perhaps just Pioneer Woman. I thought that I had designed it the former - with "(statue)" but it seems to have morphed into the latter. No (statue). (Tho I see in Review hat both show up in blue.) The blog that much of it was taken from was my own, written several years ago. When I decided to produce an article about the statue and the competition I realized that I already had much written, though not in a particularly encyclopedic manner, so I made some changes. One of the differences between the two versions is that I added a mess of references to the wikipedia version that were not spelled out in the blog. I actually appreciate the work that you are doing, keeping these sorts of issues legal in line for the rest of us editors, but this is one case where you do not need to worry too much. Now on to the other links that you provided where I will post something very similar to this. a close paraphrase, if you will. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! First, with regards to the copyright situation - since we have no way of verifying your identity on-wiki, the easiest way to release the content you already wrote on your blog would be to edit that entry so that it is released under the CC-By-SA and GFDL licenses, as we require both of those for authors to contribute their own work (just like in the disclaimer below every edit window). Alternatively, you could follow the steps at WP:DCM and use email if you didn't want to edit the blog post.
Second, I moved Pioneer Woman (statue) to Pioneer Woman, since there was no existing Pioneer Woman article so we didn't need to disambiguate the title. The only other closely named subject which I found was a blog which doesn't have its own article, and I still think the statue would take priority per WP:COMMONNAME, but that's certainly debatable.
Now as it turns out the reason I noticed this article in the first place is because I had already started working on this article (offline) late last year and so I had the related articles watchlisted. As such, I have already started recreating the article from my notes and mostly newspaper sources at Talk:Pioneer Woman/Temp. My version is obviously incomplete as I spend almost all of my wikitime on copyright work rather than writing articles. Regardless of the copyright issues, might you be interested in developing the article together? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I too have had this article in my sights for a long time and would (1) like to clear up the copyright issue so will post something on the blog and (2) would be delighted to co-edit with you on this or about any other sculpture related topic. Or probably anything else, but I have a excellent sculpture library at home that I use for referencing art "stuff." Now to see if I can figure out how to edit my own blog. Carptrash (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
That looks just fine, so I've unblanked the article and work can continue there.
My interest is with the Pioneer Woman in particular, as opposed to sculpture in general (although I do love some of James Earle Fraser's work), so I don't know about other articles, but we can definitely provide some nice sources for this article. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)File:A Stirling.jpgthis is by his daughter (I think)
I wrote a stub on sculptor Mario Korbel last night (was it just last night?) to get rid of the red ink on his name and will go for F. Lynn Jenkins next I'd like to use " A. Stirling Calder" for him because that is how he is typically referred to and in particular, that is what he is called in the catalog that went with the traveling exhibition of the little statues. More to come, I'm sure. Carptrash (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I get so little time to brag, but, you mention James Earle Fraser and I believe that I started that article and no one has yet come up with a better image of his Buffalo nickels than the ones I have around here . .......... somewhere. Carptrash (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Deletion of page
I am wondering why the page got deleted...it states that the page exist on wikibin and it is true...however it is a bio/info I am doing. Therefore its the same info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyaj3 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
And Done again. I'm just taking your word on all of the names, since I really have no knowledge of the language or area. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I had a question about adding an image to an article. This flickr image would be good for this article, but it currently does not a Flickr copyright that can be used on Wikipedia. If you read the comments on the photo, however, it seems that the photo owner gave permission to a Wikipedia editor for the photo to be used in an article, agreeing to all the necessary rights and such. I guess the image later ended up being removed, however, although I don't know if that was for copyright reasons. Anyway, I was wondering if the image could still be uploaded since the owner agreed, or if this is not possible, and if so how this would be correctly done. Thanks!--Yaksar(let's chat)06:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Since the image was on commons and not here, the issue should really be addressed there. That said, when using Flickr it's best to ask them to actually change the license on the Flickr page instead of providing a written release in the comments, unless they're going to be crystal clear in the comments and say something like "Yes, I am releasing this photo under CC-By 2.0.". VernoWhitney (talk) 13:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I can tell you that we have a specific statement that the artist is the copyright holder for the entire image and released it under CC-By-SA/GFDL. At some point OTRS still has to take their word for who the copyright holder is. Depending on your level of concern, the image could be cropped to just the painting in the middle, but even then there's the possibility that the copyright for the painting itself was transferred to the band as part of its use on the cover. <shrug>
So, what's the deal with Digia? (SCV; [[Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2011-03-07]) It was copied from this blog which is quoting Wikipedia as of November 25, 2010. But we didn't have an article that I can see as of November 2010. The last article we did have on this meaning ([4]) doesn't seem to have included that text. :/ I'm confused. You got any ideas? --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't find that English text either, but the quote in the blog certainly looks like a translation from the Finnish version of the article from around that time. Part of the current English article also looks to me like it was taken from a press release (i.e. "emphasis on..."). VernoWhitney (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Excuse my ignorance
Thanks for your message regarding the file I uploaded, File:Shaneoverton.jpg. I have previously only uploaded images that I have made myself and been quite happy to place them in public domain. Howver, I must confess to a degree of ignorance of what exactly is allowed; perhaps you can assist. The image was found in a link from a Lincolnshire Police press release (here) which concludes with the words: "A photograph of Shane Overton is available from http://www.netcu.org.uk/downloads/media_photos/shaneoverton.jpg" which links to the image. My understanding is that anything that appears in or with a press release is implicity available for free use; indeed, the photo was used by a large number of online and printed media outlets, without attribution. (It is clearly a police mug shot.) So I see no problem from a copyright point of view with uploading or using the photo, but the niceties and technicalities of the rules of Wikipedia in this regard are complicated, for me at least. Assuming I am right, how do you suggest I attribute the file? Would it be appropriate to adapt the method used in File:David James Copeland (born 1976).jpg which is also a police mug shot? Grateful for any advice you are able to give, but in the meantime, I have edited the file description in line with this. Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's start with the legal aspect of it. While press releases are widely distributed they are not in the public domain. If someone took the information and claimed it as their own and started making derivative works and selling it for a profit, the copyright holder could be a bit upset. Obviously this is less likely in the case of a public agency versus a private corporation creating the press release, but ours is not to make assumptions about the copyright holders prerogative. While widespread releases give you an implicit license for temporary reproduction in order to access the material (e.g., your web browser copying a website into it's cache), this doesn't extend to redistributing it to others. Some government agencies produce/release works either in the public domain (as in the United States federal government) or under a free license (as in the case of the Home Office's main website which uses the {{OGL}} license). In this case NETCU appears to be controlled by the ACPO, neither of whose websites contain the sort of clear release we're looking for.
So, now that the legal part is out of the way, onto Wikipedia-specific issues. Since it's not free, we have to consider it non-free and so guided by our non-free content policy and guideline. The biggest issue I see with using this as a non-free image is WP:NFCC#1: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Judging from the article he's not in prison and largely unavailable for visitors taking pictures (as is apparently the case with David Copeland) or the like, so there's no reason someone couldn't take a picture of him walking down the street and release it under a free license. If that's the case and I'm not missing some reason that such an act would be impossible, then we simply can't use a non-free image in the article about him.
Sincere thanks - you have explained the position and made it much clearer. While I am in no way going to approach this individual in the street and take his picture (!) I take your point about my comparison with Copeland. However, I still question whether in fact the image is OK to use, given that the police have made it available intending that it be used to illustrate Overton and and it was so used by a number of media outlets, with no mention of coyright or attribution. (Indeed, many of them cropped the picture which, if under strict coptright, I would have though was against the rules!) This is not, as you say making "assumptions about the copyright holders prerogative" but a very clear assumption about their intentions. Emeraude (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Apparently I forgot to include some of what I meant to say in my first reply, sorry. It could be the case that the police really have released the image into the public domain, but I don't see where that's made clear so we would either need to find that or someone would have to go through the process described at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to verify via email with them that it's free content as defined by our policies. Now reuse by the media outlets (and probably also in our article) could certainly be fair use, particularly in light of the police intentions, but our policies are intentionally stricter than required by fair use (sometimes, as with living people, very much so), since our mission is to be a free encyclopedia. There are some Wikipedias (I'm aware of the German one of the top of my head) which don't allow non-free media at all. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, your addition does make it clearer still. So, if I understand correctly, if I can get the Lincs Police to e-mail confirmation that the pic is OK to use, we could use it. But do I then have to attach my e-mail (thus losing my anonymity)? You can no doubt understand my relucatnce to do this..... Emeraude (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
They would have to send a clear statement that the image is in the public domain or under one of our free licenses (like the Open Government License I mentioned above), just "usable on Wikipedia" or similar isn't enough. Their email could be sent to you and you could forward it to permissions-enwikimedia.org or they could send it straight to us. The OTRS volunteers (I'm one of them) don't reveal private information any more than checkusers do, all we would do then is add a ticket number to the image file so that the release could be verified (by an OTRS volunteer) in the future if there was a question about the copyright situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a regular part of NFCR closing, it's just part of the speedy-deletion tagging which they need to know about to be able to fix it. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Metapedia Copyvio Issues
Hi,
I noticed you deleted a couple of articles that User:BenthamBrackets created as copyright violations of Metapedia. I don't know if you're already working your way through the rest of the articles they've started but every one that I've looked at so far seems to suffer from the same copy-paste problem. I've tagged a few of them and I was going to present the lot at the copyright violations page but maybe they'd qualify for speedy too? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going through them all - I think they're all speediable. Even ignoring any POV issues from Metapedia, GFDL has not been a compatible license for importing text since 1 November 2008, so anything copied is unusable copyvio. You can read Wikipedia:Licensing update for all of the gory details. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Your reason - "should not redirect from articlespace to projectspace" - for reverting the change I made to the Wikimedia Toolserver redirect, is of course legitimate. The problem is the current redirect points the reader to an article that does not cover the topic or even mention the tool server. So I would make the case that, in balance. it is in the reader's interest to cross WP:NS in this case in so that someone trying to track down information on the toolserver ends up at the best existing article I could find on the subject. In other words, this is a good case for following the fifth pillar, Wikipedia does not have firm rules. I'd like to revert your reversion. Thanks. 67.100.125.157 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I'm terribly comfortable with the redirect, since I think it would be very confusing to an average reader, but I can see it being useful for an intermediate editor who doesn't know where to look for info about it and there's probably not enough coverage to provide a proper notable article on it (or probably even real coverage in any other article), so if you want to replace the cross-namespace redirect I won't stop you. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
You recently speedy-deleted WikiProject Yoruba, citing CSD#R2 in your edit summary. I had to revert that decision because the wording of R2 explicitly excludes redirects to the Wikipedia space. There are many legitimate cross-namespace redirects that are not even regular-deletable, much less speedy-deletable, and we're trying to clean up the cites to that clause so that it's not so widely misunderstood by new users. If you still believe the redirect is harmful, please nominate it at RfD (though most similar "Wikiproject" redirects are generally kept). Thanks for your understanding. Rossami(talk)11:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Clearly I misread the speedy deletion criteria when I skimmed through it last night (never deleted a redirect before). Sorry about the trouble. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The image is not mentioned in that ticket, which is just an assertion of ownership with no source for a different image, but apparently you already talked to the OTRS volunteer who handled it on commons. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Ah, didn't notice it was actually the same ticket. So I guess it's safe to ignore it then. Thanks for the info. Fut.Perf.☼11:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Not really, not imo. :) I've tagged it for {{npd}} and explained to the uploader (who put the OTRS tag there in the first place) that he needs to identify the sources of these images, at least one of which was published on the internet two years ago. Probably others are as well. --Moonriddengirl(talk)11:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, and now I actually went ahead and deleted on the basis of the previous "no source" tagging from before the false OTRS was added. If there's anything to salvage about the copyright status, I think it would be better to clarify it on Commons, where other versions of the same images are now discussed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tantra.jpg. Fut.Perf.☼12:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
AFD bundling
Hi... I've done as suggested, could you check to see if I've done it correctly?
About the other editor, that discussion was from 7 days ago, and I was updating the request to reflect what's current. VernoWhitney, my original request was to submit this copyright question for a legal opinion from the Foundation. I was told that the Foundation would not hear the case without going through Non-free content review first. Talking about it among ourselves is a waste of time, as you can see. Do you have any suggestions? USchick (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
If you feel that way then I'm afraid I have no suggestion for you, as ANI would also fall into the category of "talking about it among ourselves" and I cannot in good conscience recommend that this issue be escalated to the interim legal counsel for the Foundation. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand that I am in the minority, and I can let it go. However, my position remains, the herd mentality is in direct violation of policy. I'd like to go on record with that. USchick (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Since I was mentioned... I think we did get around to talking extensively about the issues I initially suggested were better covered at the talk page. For example, the entire NFCC8 and Offensive Material threads are exactly on that topic and we covered it a lot. Just because it didn't turn out the way you thought it should doesn't mean it wasn't addressed. I just want to second what Moonriddengirl and VernoWhitney said; nothing is preventing you personally from contacting the Foundation, even if their personal opinions is that it would not be warranted. Ocaasi c19:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to be the only one addressing the thought process and not just blindly screaming something. Based on your comments, I'm beginning to understand that my line of thinking is coming from the opposite direction as I read the policy. (This is the first opportunity for me to outline my position all in one place. Do you mind if I do that? And you can tell me how it's wrong, and whatever you say will be the final word, and I will not argue. I promise!)
You said, Florida personality rights and how it affect our non-free image use –– it prohibits the use of such images for "purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose" which we don't, making the remainder of the section moot for our purposes.
Does this mean that any non-free image can be used for educational purpose? I read: Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court. Material that satisfies the policy should also satisfy legal requirements as well.
Let's forget all the moral issues subject to interpretation ans stay with the legal issues.
Please bear with me as I outline what I'm reading.
This is what I see when I read the policy: (In order, and leaving out parts that don't apply. Policy is in italics.)
1. Wikipedia:Image use policy 11.2 Legal issues: There are a variety of non-copyright laws which may affect the uploader and/or the Wikimedia Foundation, including personality rights.
2. Personality rights (or Right of Publicity) is a a property right (owned by the family, who released it to be published on Facebook.)
3. The only way for a Non-free image (from Facebook) to meet Wikipedia:Image use policy is under Fair use images, and not every image that qualifies as fair-use may be appropriate.
4. Non-free material is used only if, in addition to other restrictions, we firmly believe that the use would be deemed fair use if we were taken to court. Material that satisfies the policy should also satisfy legal requirements as well.
5. Legal position: If material does have a copyright, it may only be copied or distributed under a license (permission) from the copyright holder, or under the doctrine of fair use.
6. This brings us to Florida statute [6]. When a photo is under copyright, and the copyright holder has personality rights, (all true) the statute does not apply when #3: The likeness of any person (is featured) in any newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation. (Which it has not. Other photos have been featured of people holding posters, but not this one.)
7. And finally, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria Enforcement: To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria. Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof.
Okay, I'm going to address this in a slightly different order than you have listed, but I'll try to follow it as closely as I can.
Everything starts at the Image use policy, which requires that we deal with privacy rights, personality rights, and copyright. It's mostly just an overview, so now we have to look at those from a legal perspective and then we'll move back into policy.
Privacy rights are a legitimate concern since the body was not photographed in public, but in the U.S. generally only apply to living people (I'm afraid I don't recall the statute at the moment), and although there have been some post-mortem images created by medical institutions which weren't allowed to be published under HIPAA, the fact that the family took and released the image means there's no problem as far as I'm aware here. I don't believe this aspect was specifically brought up in the NFCR discussion. When the discussion mentioned privacy rights, it actually focused on personality rights (coming up next).
Personality rights would be the Florida statute you've previously linked to and are controlled by his heirs. This prevents the use of an image/name/etc. "for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose" and then specifically exempts any "presentation having a current and legitimate public interest". For any reasonably encyclopedic use, we're not using it for a commercial purpose (especially as Wikimedia is a non-commerical organization) and the article is the presentation, not whatever other sources carried it, so this is generally a non-starter for our purposes unless the image use is grossly inappropriate (e.g., take a smiling person's photo and caption it "Bob loves IBM.").
Copyright. This is where it gets messy. It either needs to be freely licensed (which this is not) or usable under fair use and (finally getting back into Wikipedia rules) our non-free content policy and guideline.
Our non-free content policy is intended to be intentionally more strict than required by fair use law, and since we are using it for non-profit educational purposes and the image is being widely and freely distributed by the apparent copyright holder, this should also be okay. This is where it gets into fuzzy ground, since as I mentioned at WP:RSN this can only be definitively determined if the Wikimedia Foundation is sued by the copyright holder and goes to court and a judge decides one way or another. If we get a complaint from the copyright holder where it's a borderline case we generally take the image down just to be on the safe side, and if it turns out that the family is not the copyright holder (as Masem pointed out in the NFCR discussion) this gets much messier, but the consensus based on the reliable sources we have at this time is that the family is the copyright holder and so this shouldn't be an issue assuming we satisfy the non-free content policy/guideline.
Now WP:NFCC, this is really what the NFCR discussion came down to and the consensus among the participants, as there are definitely subjective elements (especially with #1 and #8). The phrase at the end, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created", means that there needs to be consensus to include non-free content, "no consensus" defaults to non-inclusion. It links to WP:BOP which starts of by saying "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (emphasis removed). That's really as far as that part of the Verifiability policy is applicable, since there's no way a reliable source can be provided to show that any image satisfies NFCC as it is Wikipedia-specific criteria. Until recently NFCC just linked to burden of proof, and not the policy, and that part perhaps should be reworded and linked to WP:CONSENSUS somehow. I think that wikilink was the source of some confusion and maybe why you took up the discussion at WP:RSN yesterday?
I'm afraid I have to run out now for a while so I don't have time to double-check what I wrote above. If I skipped past something, I apologize. Just let me know and I'll revisit this later today when I have time. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that wasn't quite the reaction I expected. Does what I said above make sense to you? Did I address all of your questions and concerns about the situation? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
VernoWhitney, I understand where you're coming from, which is the extreme opposite of what I'm reading. But at least now I understand that you're not all sitting in one room smoking the same thing. :) Seriously, I really don't care that much about the photo itself, like others were suggesting. I'm more concerned about how non-free content is being used in general, on a whim. And you're right, if you really want to read it the way you're reading, I guess if you stand on your head and read it upside down, it's possible to come to that conclusion. I'm not mad and I'm not making fun of your interpretation, but if that's how policy is being applied, I bet the Foundation gets a ton of requests from copyright holders to pull things out of articles. Thank you for your explanation and for your patience. Peace! USchick (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Nope, that's really all you have to do (although I did add the source to the tag, so we don't have to look that up again later). Once it's tagged a bot will list it for an admin to review it in about a week (assuming nobody untags it before the bot notices) to give time for other editors to rewrite it if they want or explain why it's not a copyvio on the talk page. If you tag it someone who handles copyvio investigations regularly can take it from there. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I'll probably see if I can work on fixing the article up then. And please do tell me if my copyright questions ever get annoying; I don't want to be a bother. --Yaksar(let's chat)19:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Great! We can use all the help cleaning up copyvio we can get. I'll let you know if you ever bother me, but I really doubt it will be an issue. Working on copyright is the vast majority of what I've been doing on Wikipedia for the last year now. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Radu Marian was list for copyright concerns at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 8; I blanked and informed the contributor. At this point, though, I think this is a backwardsvio, although Wayback has disappointed me in my hopes that it would confirm this. The website predates us, I know, because it was cited, but the content seems to have begun to enter here and been expanded here. I think they copied us after that date. I'm here in the hopes that you can either confirm definitively or subjectively my impressions. :)
BTW, notwithstanding my ability to forget stuff, I haven't forgotten the ship page. I started working on it last night and hope to get more done later today. I wanted to try to catch up CP, and I did have that mini CCI to run, which had already slipped my mind. :/ --Moonriddengirl(talk)18:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
On 26 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pioneer Woman, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that more than 120,000 votes were placed across the United States to choose the final design for the Pioneer Woman statue (pictured) in Ponca City, Oklahoma? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
That person then has a conflict of interest. In addition, when editing, it says you irrecovocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL, meaning the copyrighted material is prohibited in any case.Jasper Deng(talk)20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
What Jasper Deng said isn't entirely true. There is a conflict of interest, and we strongly discourage articles written by people with any strong association with the subject, since it can be hard to overcome even any unconscious bias. That aside, the copyright holder can in fact follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials in order for us to verify that the really are freely licensing the material. In this case, however, the copied material was also wholly promotional and so would be unsuitable even if permission was verified. You should really read Wikipedia:Your first article thoroughly before attempting to recreate the article again. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi VernoWhitney, you had asked for the link to some of the disputed material re this vessel. The link is: "No. 16502". The London Gazette. 6 July 1811.. the story starts near the bottom of the second column on the first page and continues through to the third page. All the info is there about the names of the vessels, the number of troops, the battery with four guns and a mortar, the tower with one gun, the vessels catching on fire and setting fire to the battery, etc. Regards, Acad Ronin (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to leave a message on your talk page. Thanks for the pointer to the source. It still seemed like a bit of a problem to me, so I asked Moonriddengirl to take a look at it and she's working on rewriting the article a little bit more. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe you may have misinterpreted the self-reference guidelines. The reference is to this article (acceptable), not to Wikipedia (unacceptable). The proposed content about terminology is important. The phrase "Golden Plates" does not derive from the Book of Mormon and an explanation of that fact seems perfectly proper and the location of its placement in the article seems acceptable. Feel free to contact me at stephen@ehat.org to discuss. 166.70.221.123 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you should re-read the guideline. The specific examples it says to avoid includes "This Wikipedia article discusses ..." It may be important to mention what the "official" name is, but that can and should be done without referencing Wikipedia or the article itself at all. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
wikigit
Hi Verno! I'd going around helping bot owners to publish the source code of their bots on wikigit, a github organization created for this purpose. Publishing your source code ensures that others can take over maintainence of tools if the original author becomes unavailable and allows others to create bots based on yours. Very little effort is required - in the simplest case all you have to do is e-mail a ZIP of the source code to an owner. Please take a look at the options and let me know what you want to do. I'd also appreciate any feedback on the project since it's new. Thanks! Dcoetzee17:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hrmm... part of the reason I haven't published my source code yet is that it's not terribly robust and contains some very poor programming practices. I like the idea though, so I suppose this is a good time for me to clean up my code and figure out how I want to license it. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Understandably, but I assure you I'd much rather have terrible, terrible quality code published for all the active bots than nothing. :-) At the very least it can be run by others and minor bugs can be fixed, in the event of your disappearance. Dcoetzee18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll get it cleaned up at least enough so that I'm not ashamed of it and then post it sometime this week (maybe even this weekend). VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Please do NOT block me from viewing the past revisions. I had written lots of new text and brought a lot of new content in myself and now I cannot access any of it. If you have identified the copywritten content please specify and I'll exclude it. Please start with giving me a copy of the older version... -- Tom Jenkins(reply)04:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
You sent a big warning about copywritten material, but is stuff on sourceforge copywritten? Its just a text website with no copyright footer. Are you assuming its copywritten or am I assuming its open? its on sourceforge, doesn't that make it "open unless specified"? -- Tom Jenkins(reply)23:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Anything which is published is automatically copyrighted. While sourceforge is a host for open source software, it does not mandate that the corresponding text/FAQs/graphics/etc. also be open source, and even if it did there are only a select few licenses which we can accept for text (Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? gives a quick rundown). In the absence of explicit evidence that the material is in the public domain or freely licensed we can't use it except for in brief quotes as restricted by WP:NFC. Basically this means that if it can be rewritten, it must be rewritten. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Sheldon A. Cohen, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
Um...all I did was add the OTRS tag and tag it for review again, since the most recent reason it was declined was the copyright situation. I didn't write it. Maybe you meant to leave this for SheldonCohen (talk·contribs) ? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL, sorry! I use a script to review AFCs and it automatically notifies the author. Not quite sure why, on this occasion, it chose to send it to you, obviously a glitch somewhere. Pol430talk to me17:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean determining if they are spam links or not. They are not reliable and function on a ppv basis. That's why they are on the blacklist. Specific articles can be white listed if they are judged reliable. If one was removed and you think it belongs on the whitelist, it's easy enough to get it there. Many of these were in BLP's (where they definately don't belong unless whitelisted), provide the same info as other links that are already there or are deadlinks and meaningless. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess I meant determining whether the specific articles are reliable sources or not before removing them - clearly I wasn't paying attention this morning and just assumed that they were blacklisted for being spammed, not for being largely unreliable. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Some articles get whitelisted when they are shown to be reliable etc., but one of the biggest issues Examiner.com has is the complete lack of editorial oversight, an important factor in WP:RS.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course that could be an argument for blacklisting most of the Internet... <shrug> I just thought it was odd to see you going through and mass-removing the sources which have been in the articles for a while. No real complaint, sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. VernoWhitney (talk)
I went through manually, left a few, found a few that were misrepreseted etc. May do it again some day or may be totally bored with it. Who knows.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
James T. Blair, Jr.
You dirty no-good %$#@#&^%!@* (JUST KIDDING!! Saw your "be nice" note & couldn't resist). Seriously, just wondering why you applied the citation needed tag to a portion of the James T. Blair, Jr. Wiki? Was the website cited not one in good standing or something? Not mad, just curious as to why for my general fund of Wiki knowledge. Much thanks, Sector001 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
The website is a Wikipedia mirror, so all it has is an old version of the article here (and some obnoxious ads), and we can't very well say "this is true because we said this is true 'x' years ago and now other people are echoing us." Wikipedia:Wikipedia clones sums it up pretty well. I didn't go through and look at any of the other sources used in the article, so it may be discussed there, but for the moment it's not clear that there's an actually reliable source which supports that portion of the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I've added the appropriate tag and replied to the email, so that should be all taken care of. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you view source?
Hi. :) I hesitate to even ask, but there's a listing at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 March 29 proving problematic for me; Google books is stubbornly refusing to show me the source, insisting that I've seen quite enough of that book (though I swear I've never looked at it before!). I know that their results vary through some mysterious algorhythm. If anything, I suspect there's reverse infringement, but I can't begin to process it without access to the source. :/ It's identified there by its ? and reference to you. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not letting me see the page either, but from a general Google Books search I get a snippet which matches the first sentence in the article. In this case our wording dates to 2006 and theirs to 2008, and I'm not finding any matches for other snippets from the article, nor can I find the definition in a search of the book it's now sourced to, so I'm thinking backwards copyvio here. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Can you tell me why you have deleted the endangered species part of the article and moved it down near the bottom? Elephants are infact an endangered species and that is in large part why it is a controversy.
It seems the way it was rewritten is very much sanitized as to not be controversial which is not accurate. Also, written in a way that highlights PETA which is not the point at all.
Do you have any affiliation with GoDaddy?
Who gives you the authority to change it and judge that it is not accurate.
I undid your revision because as far as I could tell it consisted of your own point of view. At the very least it was not supported by the cited reliable sources, which is what we must use, especially when discussing living people. Please read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, and if you still have questions feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply and I understand what you are saying about sources. I will try to do better at that.
I still don't understand why you took out the part about elephants being an endangered species though.
Isn't that editorializing on your part? Your personal opinion perhaps?
Elephants are in fact an endangered species. That is not my point of view. That is at the heart of why this is a controversy. If Go Daddy's CEO killed a dear during hunting season then it would not be controversial even though animal rights people may not like it. ( I am not an animal rights activist by the way ) Your change in that regard has taken out the main reason that it is controversial.
If you need a source for Elephants being an endangered species there are many. The World Wildlife Fund is one of many.
Thanks for your time. If you don't mind, please tell me what the proper procedure would be for me to put the endangered species part back in as it is the whole reason this is a controversy in the first place.
Just saying that the WWF considers Elephants to be endangered is one thing (and as you say, easily sourceable); saying that PETA (or whoever else) is upset because they are endangered is something else. Following from that, if there's no source that says the fact that they are endangered is the reason people were upset, then there's probably no reason to mention that they are endangered at all. This is getting into the trickier bits of using sources, and that's the matter of due and undue weight - that is to say, when reporting on Go Daddy (or Bob Parsons, depending on the article), how much focus do reliable sources give to the fact that elephants are endangered?
Hi! Sorry to bother you, but since you're an administrator I was wondering if you could help me move Roy A. Cooper to Roy Cooper, since he's pretty clearly the primary topic (the only other person previously listed at the disambiguation page was Roy Percy Cooper. He goes by Roy Cooper and almost all coverage seems to not use his middle initial, so per WP:COMMONNAME it seems like it's the correct move. Thanks!--Yaksar(let's chat)20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
They filed a DMCA notice? Wow. I hope when the "official" poster is released, they aren't that restrictive. I won't be uploading it though. Lol —MikeAllen00:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Regarding verifiability of changes I made about Nokia N-Gage DRM
I am not citing forums.I am giving link to the service called Remote Device Access.On that site applications can be tested on available Nokia handsets.Devices are not emulated.Real or actual device are controlled by you via web browser and java.Since anybody can verify this DRM related problem on this service,I think the claim that DRM malfunctions on Nokia E52 is thoroughly Verifiable.
Click to see the changes I had made.Abhisek243 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for jumping to the conclusion that it was a forum based on the url. That said, unless a third-party reliable source indicates that this happens, it still shouldn't be listed in the article. If it's an expirement you have done yourself, then it's WP:OR or, as in the case of the youtube/uploaded video, a self-published source. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in a pilot study
I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only ‘’’5 minutes’’’ cooldenny (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I asked the Senate Photographer, David Oakes, about your question. He informed me that the portraits on the Senate Web site are considered public domain.
Thanks for checking,
Michelle Fischbach
State Senator, District 14
Who do I need to forward this email to get these tagged as PD? Notice how if you click on the picture, it provides instructions about how to download the picture, but yet there is no re-use policy information. It sounds like we can work it out so we can have all the portraits on that website uploaded here. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
It should be forwarded to permissions-enwikimedia.org so there will be a verifiable record of it and an OTRS volunteer (me or someone else) will take it from there. The lack of a copyright statement doesn't mean anything, but there is in fact there's a nice statement here about copyright which establishes that some content on the site could very well be copyrighted, so we do need the explicit statement. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I understand, which is why I contacted her. I have forwarded her response to the email address you provided. Thank you. Frietjes (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and did this, which I hope was okay (if not let me know please). Does this mean I am now able to upload photos for the other MN senators from that website using the same {{PermissionOTRS|id=2011041310026732}}? It appears this may be the case since three existing ones were retagged with this ticket number. It would be fantastic if we could now have high quality pictures for all the members of the MN congress. Thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
In general you shouldn't add OTRS tags unless you're an OTRS member, and in this case the OTRS member who accepted the ticket appears to have been a little sloppy and didn't actually add the license or the OTRS tag to all of the images, so I'm going to go fix that right now. Please do hold off on uploading any more until we double check that the release does really apply to all of the images (a follow-up to the initial reply was sent out earlier today). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I was pretty sure there was such a rule, which is why I notified you. Please do let me know if/when there is permission to upload the rest. I think it would make for a great addition to WP to have these available. Thank you again. Frietjes (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Just an update: the photographer himself has contacted us about File:14Fischbach.jpg. He confirms that it is PD, as he took it in the course of his duties. I have asked him if all the portraits were taken by official photographers. --Moonriddengirl(talk)16:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
A suggestion: When the Bot is checking new pages and finds a similarity to an existing one, can it check the existing page for a {{tl:split}} template (and not tag the new page of one exists). More than once I've been splitting pages and the bot has tagged a page in the few minutes between my saving the new page and converting the old one to a disambig. In some cases up to four new articles need to be created to complete the splitting process (see Mount Franklin (New Zealand) for example (although it was Tiraumea River (Tasman) where the bot just jumped in. dramatic (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
That task for VWBot is just running forked code from CorenSearchBot (talk·contribs) so that there's a backup. Eventually I'd like to rewrite it in a language I'm more comfortable with but for now I'm afraid I don't have the time to tinker with the code and not break things. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you please undelete this file? It's copyright status is unsure, making it ineligible under WP:CSD#F8. My request lies in the fact that the image would qualify as fair use if unfree. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I was the one that questioned it's copyright status on commons, and had withdrawn the DR before deleting the lower-resolution copy here; I just hadn't removed the tag yet. Sorry for the confusion. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I am currently getting permission from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation as to the copyright of their logo. I would ask you not to delete it after one week, because it will probably take a lot longer than a week to get permission, please.
In that case I'm going to mark it as a non-free logo for now. It will be reduced in size and should only be used on the one single article, but then once we get verified permission from the copyright holder it can be used without restrictions. Thanks for letting me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Because a) I do not know the ins and outs of copyright and also I have got permission from a copyrighted logo and know I know that you do not need permission for a simple logo. Can you please unblock the logo and can you please tell me which extensions I need to put in, thanks.
If you have permission from the owners of the logo, then you should have forwarded the email as I indicated and as you claimed you did before; no such mail has been received. Whether or not such permission exists, I have unprotected the image and you may make whatever changes to it that you wish. In the future, please endeavor to talk to other editors and explain why you are making the changes you are instead of simply making them again if they're reverted. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Not for text, it pretty much has to be public domain or CC-By-SA. We can also use CC-By and {{OGL}}, but we're pretty much stuck with things that are explicitly compatible with the CC-By-SA which rules out all of the software licenses I've seen. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that was going to be my next question. With what I have been reading up on, that makes sense. I ran into the GPL problem at OpenLuna which was deleted, CSD'd again after recreation and declined because the editor stated the source had a Creative Commons license which doesn't appear to be true. The main web page states GPL.--NortyNort(Holla)11:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, images are much more lenient, but not text, although if it's the copyright holder(s) posting the material and they're comfortable releasing it undre GPL, they're probably also comfortable releasing it under CC-By-SA if they're pointed in the right direction. Now for a random segue while I'm thinking of it: Usually articles which are listed at SCV and then blanked (e.g., Mary Leigh), they don't have to be listed at CP seperately - in this case, though, that SCV day is so far behind that the article would just have to be relisted anyways. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was unclear - you still blank the article and mark it at SCV just like you did, but each day of SCV is transcluded into the same day at CP - it's just collapsed at the top of the day. When an admin goes through the CP day they double-check all of the SCV listings at the same time. Is that what you were asking? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Could I ask you to revalidate your assessment of File:Portal2-testchamber.jpg on its use on Portal 2? I've replaced that image, which you had previously validated sometime last year, with a newer one that shows the same type of elements but with the addition of another part of the article, and while I doubt it worsens its use, I just want to make sure the t's are crossed and i's dotted for it. Thanks. --MASEM (t) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't see any problems with it -- the only real complaint that took it to NFCR in the first place was an editor's insistence that there was a problem since the image was copied from an exclusive pre-release. Note that I haven't looked at the overall non-free content use of the article, but in terms of that image alone I think your update is a good one. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It was removed earlier by a computer program because it was originally marked as a non-free poster, and Wikipedia has very strict policies about where those images can be used. Since it has since been released under a free license I've gone ahead and restored it to your draft. Please let me know if there's anything else I can help you with. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad I could help, but I'm afraid there are some loose ends which still need to be tied up. Regarding File:Program Hosts.jpg, File:Performing Artists.jpg, and File:America Special Guests.jpg: you shouldn't be adding the {{PermissionOTRS}} tags to images yourself. In this case, the release was somewhat ambiguous as to whether it only applied to the two images initially uploaded or to all images regarding America: A Call to Greatness, and while I have asked for clarification I have not received a reply yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Update: I have now received clarification that the permission applies to all of the images you have been uploading. If you continue to upload more of them in the future, I would appreciate it if you could let me know so that I can ensure they are tagged correctly. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi VernoWhitney,
Thanks for the feedback on the photos. I had asked that Mr. Hilyard provide broad release for a rather sizable number of images that is production company sent me. I'm not going to use all of them of course, but some of their images would be very useful in other articles. I have no-doubt made my request to him too broad.
I'm almost finished with the "America" article but found that its led me to several other potential articles regarding some of actors and guests appearing in the production. Sigh!!!!!
Thanks for your help. It's helped me improve the "America" article tremendously.
I just posted this above, but in case you missed it: we have now received clarification that the permission applies to all of the images you have been uploading. If you continue to upload more of them in the future, I would appreciate it if you could let me know so that I can ensure they are tagged correctly. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 17:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi VernoWhitney,
Thanks for your help again. I will notify you when I use the other images.
Thanks for letting me know. I believe I have all of the tags straightened out on those images so there shouldn't be any problems. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Good Morning VernoWhitney,
Thanks for the assist. You've been very-very helpful.
By pure chance when looking through my limited contribs, I happened upon an old edit to "Girl Friday", that I noticed you completely removed the definition. The term is in fairly widespread use, which a google search will show with ease, including several, if not all standard dictionaries. In particular, the Merriam Webster online dictionary here defines it as follows:
"A female assistant (as in an office) entrusted with a wide variety of tasks. It goes further to say: Origin of GIRL FRIDAY: girl + Friday (as in man Friday) First Known Use: 1940
There were further embellishments to the definition, which came from some linguistic common knowledge, that can be left out. Because I am trying to learn proper Wikipedia etiquette and protocol, I wanted to address it here to get your experienced input. Thanks, DijcksHotTubPool14:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
It seems that when looking up definitions (and overall use), that the term "Girl Friday" has evolved from co-idiom status, while the term "Man Friday" has remained as such. In short, Girl Friday has come to be defined by the idiom, "man friday", but continues persistently into its current mainstream use beyond DAB, hence defined as its own term on the DAB page. IMHO. It's no big deal, as I prefer to work/edit in other areas anyways. It's really more for me to learn how/why admins do what they do, and I'm not sure at what level I can disagree or call for clarity without being in contempt! lol DijcksHotTubPool17:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
There's no problem disagreeing with admins about things - reverting may be a problem in some cases, but this is just a content thing, not an admin issue at all. As I understand it, DAB pages shouldn't really be a holding cell for any substantial content - if there's a full-fledged dictionary definition then it should be at wiktionary (or as currently, wrapped into the article on Friday). If there's more than that and there are sources about it's use and evolution then there shouldn't be any problems reinstating the idiom page and having a full stand-alone article on the term. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay then. It might take a little work to find some support for it, and it isn't critical either way! It was more, as I said, about the why, how and whens of things. thank you :) DijcksHotTubPool19:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
America: A Call to Greatness
Hi VernoWhitney,
One more question, please? In the "External links" section, I have two links that work improperly if I follow the template for links. Its the bottom two:
(/Opening Scenes for America: A Call to Greatness) It works fine if I leave a "space" after the URL, but if I leave a forward slash (/) it opens improperly and very slowly.
The same for the last one (/Production Listing for America: A Call to Greatness).
IT WORKS FINE IF I leave a space after the URL but then I have the forward slash appearing on the link as: /Opening or /Production.
I thought it might be a problem at the other sites...but received no response from them at all.
I'm afraid I'm unsure as to exactly what the problem is. If you're still having trouble maybe you could just tell me what you want the end result to look like? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
PD-MNGov
Thank you for the pointers to the links; I didn't know about these discussions, so I wasn't aware that Minnesota government works could be copyrighted — as a result, I've deleted the two portraits. The diagram is a totally different situation. While it's sourced to the state webpage, you'll notice (1) that it doesn't appear on that page anymore, and (2) the file description says that the author is the USDE, which in this context is obviously the United States Department of Education. That's why I said that the authorship was unclear, and that's why I don't believe an undiscussed deletion to be warranted with it. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
My apologies for not noticing the "please reply at your talk page" message at the top of this page. I won't complain if you want to move my comments to my talk page. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Before “moving” the article (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Sinclairindex/America:_A_Call_to_Greatness) I thought about it overnight and went through it one more time making slight changes. I decided to insert five final photos that would better help the reader grasp the scope of the Paige-Brace film. The images are located at the article sight:
1. Charlton Heston
2. Actor, Blue Deckert as George Washington
3. Lee Greenwood
4. Ray Baker stars as Abraham Lincoln
5. Sandi Patty singing - The Star Spangled Banner
Everything seemed to go okay (a shock to me) but mostly due to your prior assistance, I know.
If they appear okay to you, I’m gonna move the article.
Just wondering why the page Life Force magazine was deleted for 'unambiguous copyright' reasons. Can you tell me what they were? I'm new to all of this so would appreciate your help.
Thanks, Mingusbingus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingusbingus (talk • contribs) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I did as you suggested and removed anything copied and just put a straight entry, no copying. But, it was removed immediately stating that we were a 'blog' or 'website'. Life Force magazine is not a blog. It is an online magazine (in the same way as the Huffington Post is purely an online newspaper) which has been acclaimed by many people as a magazine including the British Actor Stephen Fry and the BBC. It has contributors from all over the world. Why is the Huffington Post taken seriously as a newspaper and yet we are not being allowed to submit an entry as a bonefide online magazine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingusbingus (talk • contribs) 07:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
An online magazine is a website; The Huffington Post is also website. I'm afraid that short blurbs of acclaim don't establish notability, which is required for an article on Wikipedia. What The Huffington Post article has that yours did not was reliable sources. If you can find independent, third-party sources which provide detailed coverage of Life Force magazine, then there should be no issue with recreating the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Done You get quick service when I'm busy avoiding real work. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
OTRS is not magic pixie dust, sorry. 
VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
wikimedia.org or they could send it straight to us. The OTRS volunteers (I'm one of them) don't reveal private information any more than checkusers do, all we would do then is add a ticket number to the image file so that the release could be verified (by an OTRS volunteer) in the future if there was a question about the copyright situation. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Pioneer Woman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Aridd (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
The website is a Wikipedia mirror, so all it has is an old version of the article here (and some obnoxious ads), and we can't very well say "this is true because we said this is true 'x' years ago and now other people are echoing us." Wikipedia:Wikipedia clones sums it up pretty well. I didn't go through and look at any of the other sources used in the article, so it may be discussed there, but for the moment it's not clear that there's an actually reliable source which supports that portion of the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
