User talk:VernoWhitney

Replaceable fair use File:Photo of Brian R. Bishop.png

I don't know where you got the idea that this photo was "replaceable". Do you have another photo of Brian? Or a crystal ball showing you where one is? Regarding the deletion note you left on my page, I have attempted to add additional information, but frankly these templates are completely confusing. Please can you look and enter into an actual dialogue with me to help me. Posting these deletion-unless templates is very confusing and unfriendly to Wikipedians. Thank you. 16:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Evertype (talk · contribs). The templates aim to include the relevant information regarding the tagging for a broad scope of editors. I'm sorry you feel that using them is confusing and unfriendly.

Now as to the reason why I tagged this image in particular: That no free image currently exists is not a sufficient reason for us to use a non-free one. In this case there appears to be no reason why a free image could not be created, particularly if you know him personally. If there is some reason that a new and free image could not be created, then please say so and the image can likely be retained. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I went to the page and tried to figure out how to make some sort of statement using the template there. I have no idea if it is what you expect. Did I do it correctly? -- Evertype·✆

I don't live anywhere near Brian and have never met him in person. I can't photograph him myself. He's not the most technically savvy fellow and I daresay has no scanner or smartphone. The image we have has no commercial value to whoever took that photo, whenever it was. It's clear from the quality that the original photo was half-toned in some amateur publication, and that was scanned in by somebody at a low resolution, probably back in the days of Geocities. We don't even know what that publication was. I can undertake to attempt to get some sort of photograph, but cannot guarantee success, and I think that this particular kind of "Oh we'll delete this serviceable photo and make others try to create a new one" is fairly high-handed -- unless you yourself are willing to contact Brian and sort this out, you're just summarily making work for others, who may have other things to do. Are you? -- Evertype·✆ 16:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the template you added to the file page looks just fine. As to my actions being high-handed: The mission of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia, not just any encyclopedia. The policy is in keeping with a mandate from the Wikimedia Foundation that we "may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals". VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had an image removed by Verno Whitney from the Rupert Hine (record producer) article. I also don't know Rupert Hine to take a picture personally and after a quick search have found no free replaceable media. I'm quite happy to comply and leave the image off the article though it does show the knee-jerk reaction that occurs in any user-driven site. I prefer the Google approach of "it all goes up and when we receive a legal notice demanding removal it all comes dowm". I've always felt that Wikipedia sometimes over-cooks its policies and in many cases over-works its editors. lol. Sluffs (talk) 14:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where the Wikimedia Foundation said we can't use those images, rather than it being a side-effect of this being a user-driven site? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia has policies and guidelines but I'm from the UK where we don't even have a constitution. lol. Seriously I understand your remit and the fact that you are admin means you have no choice but to remove images that don't fulfill the correct criteria. I don't mind if you remove stuff. Just being playful and light-hearted. I'm in for the long-run so lets see where the land lies in a few years or decades and I'll keep the images until then. Hopefully I'll get a chance to re-upload or who knows I might find a free alternative. As for the Wikimedia Foundation saying we can't use those images - I pay as much attention to that as I do to the US government telling us (or not telling us as Wikileaks proved) that 60,000 casualties post-Saddam is the price to pay for removing a murderous dictator - its a subjective call based on an illusive and dubious legality. lol. Sluffs (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my earlier reply, I had missed the humor in your previous statement. If policy changes regarding non-free content, then certainly it can be restored/re-uploaded. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Without face to face contact a vast amount of sensory information is missing when people communicate. I would like to take the opportunity (and will not exploit that opportunity any further after this statement on your very lively talk page) to point out that in the UK we walk the middle-road. In copyright issues not a single individual has ever been prosecuted for file-sharing on the torrent scene. Note that UK artists may wish to negate the effects on their earnings that occur through file-sharing but it would hardly be cricket and would result in adverse publicity - they moan but don't prosecute. The only time action has been taken (as far as I know) is for site owners who have made thousands of pounds from ignoring copyright. Its not that there is no copyright laws that could be applied its more a case of an unspoken utilitarianism which is at the core of UK culture. The reason communism never took root in the UK was that there has been always a strong socialist and communal force that runs deep in the UK. We are an island (small in the sense I can drive from London to Edinburgh in a day) and this means that UK citizens are rather more closely connected (you could say we're trapped together on a small island) then say Americans where the vast distances between the states allows for wider cultural and legal differences. The law on fair-use and copyright is in existence in this country but a judge in this country would be a bit puzzled (IMO) why a trivial issue such as using a low quality image from a defunct music magazine in an encyclopedia such as this would lead to a court case. I imagine if the owner of the images of Rupert Hine or Peter Wilson prosecuted me or this site the judge would no doubt award in their favour (one penny I imagine) while pointing out this has been a complete waste of the court's time. I'm from the UK, the articles about UK producers, the images are from a defunct UK magazine. If you'd left the images up I doubt there would have been a prosecution from this side of the Atlantic so Wikipedia's policies are obviously an Americanism. I doubt there's any American parties that would pursue this through the courts; so your action though understandable from a Wikipedia policy view have been unnecessary from a UK editors point of view. Enforcing legality is only relevant when there is a legal issue to answer which is not the case here based on the UK cultural principles I stated earlier. If you ever get to meet President Clinton - ask him why he chose to send his daughter here for her university education - it certainly wasn't because she'd get a better education!. lol

BTW if Rupert Hine, Peter Wilson or the image owners has emailed Wikipedia and asked for the images to be removed then Wikipedia has a duty to inform the editor who originally uploaded the images. That would at least make sense of the senseless.

To quote Pink Floyd: "Hanging on in quiet desperation it is the English way". Which pretty much sums up how I'm feeling about being a Wikipedia editor at this moment. lol

Sluffs (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Anna Fegi Signing.jpg

You deleted this per WP:CSD#F11. Google Images suggests that File:Anna Fegi Autographs.jpg is the same image. Could you check if there is still some problem with the image? --Stefan2 (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In Ticket:2012101110001276 it was claimed to be the work of someone else. There certainly appears to be a strong possibility we could get legitimate permission, but as with all of the other pictures of Fegi I deleted yesterday there was no response to the request for clarification on the license. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so taken to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 24#File:Anna Fegi Autographs.jpg. Without sufficient permission, it can't be kept. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Aspnes.jpg

Does it matter that I work with the guy; that I have his personal permission to user a photo of him? Out of Phase User (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need his permission, you need the permission from the copyright holder (i.e. photographer) of the actual image being used. If you work with him, perhaps you could take a picture yourself and upload it here or to Wikimedia Commons? VernoWhitney (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that's what I'm going to have to do. Out of Phase User (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

New File

How about File:William Spooner - The 18th (Royal Irish) Regiment of Foot.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs) 01:12, 26 January 2013‎ (UTC)

 Done VernoWhitney (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't suppose I could beg http://dl.lib.brown.edu/repository2/repoman.php?verb=render&id=1302200074363500 as well? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem -- maybe not until tomorrow, though. Since I just hacked together some other scripts I already had I still need to babysit them and do a little bit of work by hand. I'll let you know once it's up. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done It's at File:Ketterinus - "Ammunition!" And remember - bonds buy bullets!.jpg. While looking for some more information about the image I also found it at the LOC, so their massive version is at File:"Ammunition!" And remember - bonds buy bullets!.tif (massive filesize, that is; fewer pixels). Figured you wouldn't mind having two different versions to compare. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll get to work on them =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 08:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Mr Hall of England block

Hello, could you just point me to the discussion where you warned this editor that he may be blocked? Or where he "repeatedly" violated the fair use policy? Just a couple of questions because I couldn't easily see the discussion that I'm sure you had before blocking him. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't much of a discussion as he never replied, but User talk:Mr Hall of England#WP:NFCC#9 is the one that comes to mind. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Mid-December last year?!! So is this block actually just punitive or is Mr Hall of England actively disrupting WIkipedia? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

He is continuing to violate policy which he should be well aware of by now, given that a bot even reminded him about it back in 2011 (I haven't looked to see if any of his archives are actually talk page archives or not -- that's just the other case that jumps out to me on his current talk page). His actions have continued with no attempt to communicate regarding either the policy itself or any difficulty regarding determining the copyright status of files or anything else as far as I can tell. That certainly seems to meet the definition of disruptive behaviour to me. It is an attempt to be preventative, in that I am optimistic he will learn that non-free content can not be displayed in his userspace/usertalkspace. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We don't block people "preventatively". That's not what blocking people is about at all. Please, unblock him, explain what you've done and why, and let's move on. This block does not help ANYONE. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought the policy was in fact that "Blocks should be preventative". I did explain what I did and why I did it with the block template. At this point I respectfully decline to unblock him, unless you can point out something to me that I've missed. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you show me where you gave him a warning before blocking him? And I mean one that's more recent than the vague one in mid-December last year? And show me the discussion you had where you clarified what he was doing wrong? And where you said if he continued to do this you'd block him? Because it's your duty as an admin to ensure we encourage our editors while keeping them on the straight and narrow, not just punitively blocking them.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I can't point you to a more recent discussion. Blocking was specifically mentioned, so it should not be a complete surprise. I'm sorry if you feel that I was not encouraging enough with my postings, I felt they were perfectly clear about what was inappropriate and without any reply from him, I had no way of knowing whether it was or wasn't clear to him. Bolding words doesn't make them any more true. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the block is punitive. You gave him no warning whatsoever of an impending block, nor did you attempt to explain why you'd blocked him in plain language. Genuinely poor admin behaviour on your behalf. Your "feelings" on what was and wasn't clear are misplaced, you've made a mistake here, please undo it. Mind you, since Mr Hall edits not so frequently, your punitive and inexplicable block will expire and be entirely useless in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, and you're supposed to be an admin. See you around. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple images tag for deletion on Webcam Social Shopper and Zugara wikipedia pages

Hi,

I'm a bit confused at to what exactly you would need from me to allow the use of the images in question on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webcam_Social_Shopper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugara

I am CEO of Zugara and uploaded these images. I also noted on the images that as the CEO and representative of Zugara, I was allowing for their use on Wikipedia. I apologize if I am not doing this correctly (it is a bit confusing) but is there an easy way I can have these approved and not removed? Please feel free to email me at Matt@zugara.com if you need further verification or approval.

Take care, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by MHSzymczyk (talk • contribs) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edward Hopper image

Hello. I greatly admire the work of Edward Hopper, and even had an opportunity to visit his studio in New York City. I observed that you deleted the image of Edward Hopper's Nighthawks that I placed in a userbox. I have no intention of violating a copyright rule. But I did think that my use of the image of the Nighthawks represented fair use. It was located in the Creative Commons area, and I believe that the image was deliberately degraded such that it could not be exploited.

I have two requests. First, could you briefly explain why my using that particular image violated the fair use doctrine. Of course I don't want to violate the fair use doctrine.

Second, if using the Night Hawks image is a fair use violation could you recommend an alternate image of a Hopper painting that I could insert in the userbox. You inserted a self-portrait. Are there any other images available that are within the fair use bounds?

Thanks for your help.Iss246 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! In this case, it's not a question of fair use directly, but of Wikipedia's policy regarding non-free content which is intentionally and explicitly stricter than the law requires. Part of that policy (which I cited in my edit summary) is WP:NFCC#9 which prohibits the display of non-free content outside of actual articles. So given that I went looking for a free image (since they can be used anywhere on Wikipedia) and found commons:Category:Edward Hopper, which has a handful of images by him which were done sufficiently long ago to enter the public domain. Does that answer your questions? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me. I started figuring it out. Let me say this. Diligent editors like you make Wikipedia a good place.Iss246 (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. If you have any other questions or concerns, feel free to ask. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jami Floyd

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jami Floyd. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images

Sorry I keep doing that. I swear I'm not ignoring you, just keep forgetting. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 21:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. With the number of non-free images and sandbox-ish work you do I'm not surprised it happens from time to time. If I thought you were ignoring me I'd leave you messages on your talk page. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Robertsch55

Hi VernoWhitney! I just thought I'd let you know that the above CCI is closed. I noticed you did a lot of the checks, so thanks for all your help. :) It is always nice to see one closed. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-free images (One more time)

Well,

First of all hello and apologize for my bad spelling. (I'm using google translator but I do not trust a lot)

You have deleted images on pages that I edited and want to know more clearly why. These pictures are on the wikipedia commons and not copyrighted.

In the German Wikipedia, the national football cup also used pictures of the clubs contesting the final, and apparently nothing happens. I guess the rules for German and English wikipedia will be the same...

More examples: In the Greek basketball league pictures are used again to identify the teams. This happens this happens in your own English wikipedia and appears to be allowed.

So, what exactly is the criteria? Algarfo (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To take your points in order: I have serious doubts about whether or not that image is legitimately free or not, and have thus nominated it for deletion on Commons. If it is in the public domain and the image is retained on commons, then there would be no problem restoring it to the articles I've removed it from.

German Wikipedia and English Wikipedia have different rules regarding non-free content. Just because they use images in that article doesn't automatically mean we can use them here.

Thank you for pointing out the article on Greek basketball. I'll make sure to remove the non-free images from that article later today.

Now to the exact criteria. There are a number of different criteria which must be satisfied, all of which you can read at WP:NFC. The particular one which is lacking from the use on the tournament articles you are working on is WP:NFCC#8 in that the reader's understanding of the subject (i.e. the tournament) is not significantly increased by the use of non-free images for the teams in the final, nor would their understanding of the tournament be reduced when the images are omitted. While the images are pretty and nice to have, they are nowhere near necessary in order to present a complete encyclopedia article. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

I'm working on my sandbox page. It's copied there for translation from huwiki, I'll clean up the audio file links. It's a sandbox for a reason. :) 小龙 (Timish) # ^{xiǎolóng de xìnxiāng} 21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but even sandboxes are not exempt from our non-free content policies. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Greek Basket League 2012-13 logo

You removed that logo from the article on that page Greek Basket League 2012-13 and cited rule #14, which says, "A logo of a perennial event (or of its sponsoring company), used to illustrate an article about a specific instance of that event. If each instance has its own logo, such specific logos remain acceptable." Can you explain this to me so i understand it for future editing purposes? I don't really understand this wording, since it says such logos are "acceptable". An explanation would be welcomed. Thanks.Bluesangrel (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That's part of the section entitled 'Unacceptable use'. The gist of that rule is that if there is a logo for a sports team/tournament/game series but not for a specific year/season/event, then it should only be used on the main article (i.e., Greek Basket League) and not on any of the articles for the specific years/seasons/events. If each event had its own specific logo (like 2013 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament, for example) then the use would be acceptable.

The underlying portions of the actual policy would be WP:NFCC#3 and #8, since the generic logo identifies the league as a whole rather than only the current season of it, and it should be a single click away from any season article, so there's little need to repeat it for every season. Does that answer your questions? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

CCI update

--Wizardman 04:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Mr. Whitney, please allow my publishing

Hi, Mr. Whitney, please allow my publishing of Romanian writer Ion Creanga, since I have the copyright for these texts translated by me and I do not have any financial claims for my translation text into English . I don't know, do you need proofs for this, any papers? As you can see my Wikipedia ID is "Khesapeake" also, as well as my e-mail address is known by you now and you can send me e-mail. I communicate with difficulty by this manner, here. Please accept this publication because my translations are published only in a few copies and the public doesn't have the access to them, as well as those my translations of Mihai Eminescu; these translations of mine are from writers dead of at least 70 years ago, therefore with no copyright from Romanian and maybe international laws.

As a suplimentary proof to you that I am the translator, please see the scribd links, where I publish some texts: http://www.scribd.com/doc/125111627/The-Tale-of-Johnny-the-Stupid-Translated-by-M-M-Khesapeake-Revised http://www.scribd.com/doc/120949322/Cogito-ergo-sum-by-M-M-Khesapeake http://www.scribd.com/doc/120144012/The-Vesper-Mihai-Eminescu-Khesapeake-Original Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khesapeake (talk • contribs) 15:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)