User talk:VernoWhitney

Oxford Magazine (Miami University)

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

Amy Cahill (character)

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

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

Tierra de La Bañeza

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

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

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

all of the Utah State Parks that I entered being removed

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

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

Utah State Parks has given permission to use information

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

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

Utah State Parks .......

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

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

SORRY

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

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

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

OTRS request

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

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

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

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)

Frederick B. Chary

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

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

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)

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)