User talk:VernoWhitney

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)

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)

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/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.

— SpikeToronto 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! — SpikeToronto 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! VERTott 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. Wikidea 15:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional Photos for Eric Birley

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

• File:Eric Birley 004b.jpg, and
• File:Eric Birley 003b.jpg.

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:

1. Checking my copyright rationale for each of File:Eric Birley 004b.jpg and File:Eric Birley 003b.jpg? And,
2. 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! — SpikeToronto 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. :) — SpikeToronto 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. — SpikeToronto 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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! — SpikeToronto 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! — SpikeToronto 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. — SpikeToronto 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://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/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)