User talk:VernoWhitney

1976 Rhodesian Grand Prix copyright issue

In your comment on 10 Aug, which I've only just seen, you said "in the absence of further evidence". I am willing to provide evidence if I know what you need. If I have come across as frosty, please allow for the fact that I'm really unhappy that my content has been taken in this way and the way the emails to me have been written has not been designed to engage with me in a constructive fashion. So I'm not at my most warm and cuddly at the moment. However, I will take a deep breath and if somebody is willing to have a constructive conversation with me on this, I'll endeavour to be my normal charming and constructive self.

Let me use the Rhodesian GP as an example as that's the one I know best. I suspect that some of the people who have looked at this case assume that the data on my page is pretty much as it appears in some contemporary publication. Anyone used to F1 results would make that assumption and understandably so as F1 results tend to tell you everything. It is quite different when you get to national series, especially those in countries that did not have a specialist motor racing press - such as Canada and South Africa. In those cases, we have to piece things together as best we can from a number of sources. For example, the top three (sometimes top 6) in a race might appear in a results section in a newspaper and we can get those newspapers from Colinwood. The other runners might be mentioned in the report if something interesting happened to them (if they led, if they crashed, if their car burst into flames) but the majority of backmarkers don't get mentioned. So there we have to get a bit creative. We can use information of the entry list - assuming we can find someone with the original program - and add their names as people whose result isn't known. Then we might see that someone significant (Ian Scheckter in this case) wasn't present because we know he was racing in England or had broken his leg or similar. As Scheckter could have won if present, it's worth adding his name as a "did not appear". Sometimes the report might even say he didn't turn up because he couldn't get his car ready or similar reason. But that is a decision we make; there is no such judgement used in the construction of a directory. It's worth mentioning that there may have been other runners in that race; we can't be certain we've picked up everybody.

So that gives finish positions, drivers name, some race times and maybe the winner's speed. Still not enough to be worth publishing. Next we work out what cars they were driving. The newspapers we used were Bulawayo Chronicle mc 1700 11 Jun 1976 p5 and 5 Jul 1976 and the Rhodesian Herald 1 Jul 1976 p16, 2 Jul 1976 p15, 3 Jul 1976 p1 and 5 Jul 1976 p1. They might give us the basics by saying Klomfass drove a Ralt and Nieman was in Alex Blignault's car but they probably won't give the model and definitely won't give the chassis number. We know Klomfass had a RT1 because his name appears in Ralt production records but much of the history we have constructed for this car depends on the fact that it was the only RT1 built with a centre post rear wing. In the case of John Gibb's Chevron, we only know anything about it because of a report in a UK magazine that the Rapid Movements team had sold their car to John Gibb.

Not all cars have a clear identity. In the case of Mike Domingo's Modus M3 we call it 022(A) because there's another car which was also derived from the same original car which we call 022(B). The identities 022(A) and 022(B) are ORC creations; they will not be found in any contemporary source.

I can go on but I see I've already written plenty. Is this the sort of thing that helps? What else do you need to know. Allen Brown (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said all that, I should comment on Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service because that seems to be the basis of believing my page can't be copyrighted. I think the relevant part of the article is the judgement:

It is a long-standing principle of United States copyright law that "information" is not copyrightable, O'Connor notes, but "collections" of information can be. Rural claimed a collection copyright in its directory. The court clarified that the intent of copyright law was not, as claimed by Rural and some lower courts, to reward the efforts of persons collecting information, but rather "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (U.S. Const. 1.8.8), that is, to encourage creative expression.

Since facts are purely copied from the world around us, O'Connor concludes, "the sine qua non of copyright is originality". However, the standard for creativity is extremely low. It need not be novel, rather it only needs to possess a "spark" or "minimal degree" of creativity to be protected by copyright.

I hope we would agree that my page is, _at the very least_ a "collection" of information. The question then is whether it has that "minimal degree" of creativity. I don't have to establish that my page is wholly creative or even mostly creative; I just have to demonstrate a "minimal degree" of creativity. Surely I have done that. This set of race results does not appears anywhere else in this form, with these things included/excluded, the information about car types and models, etc, etc, so its originality cannot really be disputed.

The article goes on say:

In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself.

So my third point is that that NigelPorter copied every aspect of the data, including what was included/excluded and the order. In that respect he has breached Wikipedia's own guidelines on this (which I can't now find or would link to them).

Fourthly and, you'll be relived to know, lastly, there is the issue of jurisdiction. The pages that were copied were published in the UK, not in the US, so Wikipedia's own guidelines say that national law should be taken into account (again, I've lost the exact reference). The "sweat of the brow" doctrine is specific to US law and both UK law and European law take the opposite view (see Threshold of originality).

Happy to discuss this - in detail if necessary. Allen Brown (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That helps me understand, thanks. I must admit that I'm not really familiar with racing, so my approach is simply from the copyright side of things. Your information is clearly a collection of information, so we do agree on that. After reading through your explanation and looking at the articles, I also agree that listing who did not appear is a creative and thus copyrightable element, since you're deciding who was significant enough to mention. The designations of ambiguous car identity (your 022(A) vs. 022(B)) may also be creative, but I don't see that listed in the article. The rest of it, however, still looks like a compilation of facts. Certainly difficult to compile as multiple sources have to be listed and all the mentions compiled into the table, but still just a listing of the facts. That brings us to whether choosing those particular facts are creative elements. Position, Number and Driver certainly seem like standard information to me. The other columns may require someone with more knowledge in the area of racing, or at least looking at what information is presented for other racing series (such as F1 articles maybe, I haven't looked into that aspect yet). So what it's looking like to me is that some of the material (that which includes at least that minimal degree of creativity) needs to be removed from the articles.

Is that the right solution? The case said that the creativity protects the collection. It doesn't say that you can try to surgically remove the creativity in order to produce something that isn't copyrighted. As to whether choosing those particular facts are creative elements, I agree that Position, Number and Driver are standard - I have specifically chosen to order it that way to be consistent with the way other races (e.g. F1) are ordered. That choice was to make the information more usable. However, what I was referring to was the decision on which drivers to include/exclude: just the first three given in newspaper report; just those plus ones mentioned in reports; all those mentioned on the entry list; or all that are relevant even if they weren't entered. There's nothing "standard" about that. Allen Brown (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If the creativity is removed then there's nothing which can be copyrighted. For a terrible analogy off the top of my head: if someone made a phone book which was arranged by the color of the person's house, that would probably be creative and copyrightable, but if that phone book was reordered alphabetically then it couldn't be copyrighted, since there's no remaining creativity. As to which drivers are included, as I said above, I agree that listing the ones which weren't entered but could have been significant is a creative element since it's subjective, but after skimming through some F1 articles, the rest of the information appears to be pretty standard. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as the jurisdiction issue, our Wikipedia:Copyrights policy states "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law." The Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights guideline expands on this saying that "While Wikipedia prefers content which is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content which is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries". Given that, we're just concerned with US copyright law (which is what my analysis above is based on). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

OK but that's not quite the same thing. The court case only referred to information published in the US (i.e. the telephone directory which was published in the US not in a foreign country). The decision meant any information of that type published in the US was now fair game but it didn't alter the position of the French telephone directory which is published only (one assumes) in France and remains protected under French law. Nobody is suggesting that the French telephone directory is now copyright-free in the US. If it had been published in the US then it would be; but it wasn't. The sentence you have mentioned refers to things which were published in the US and also overseas - for example a book published before 1923 in the US would be out of copyright even if it may still be under copyright in another country because it's not yet 70 years since the author died. However, let's leave this because it's getting into lawyer territory. Allen Brown (talk) 15:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Options

Mr. Brown, the reference to international copyright to which you refer is in our copyright policy (specifically, it says, "The Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States and accordingly governed by United States copyright law. Regardless, according to Jimbo Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, Wikipedia contributors should respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States.[1]"), but as Verno notes that policy and Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights both specify that US law is sovereign. For a recent situation with similar implications, consider the National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts. Under U.S. copyright law, straightforward images of public domain paintings do not receive new copyright protection, while in the U.K. they may. Though the National Portrait Gallery contends that the copyright considerations of the large number of their images copied on Commons should be tried in the U.K., they have not yet successfully launched such a suit, and the attorney for the defendant maintains staunchly that the Wikimedia Foundation is in the U.S. jurisdiction (as is, here, the uploader). Those images still remain on Wikimedia Commons, in spite of communications from the NPG to the Foundation. (Whether they would remain if the NPG elected to request take down under DMCA, I don't know. However, that could be an expensive proposition for the NPG, so I understand their reluctance to exercise that option. If they are then challenged and lose, it would effectively mean an open market on NPG imagery in the U.S.) At this point, at least, WMF's position on jurisdiction is clear.

Given that, if you wish to challenge the inclusion of the content as copyright owner, you will need to follow the procedures at Wikipedia:CP#Copyright owners. As an OTRS agent, I can see that you've already requested immediate removal and been denied; hence, contacting our designated agent and requesting removal under OCILLA would be your next step. Once it's in the attorney's hands, we volunteers have nothing further to do with it.

Alternatively, where cases are unclear, copyright evaluation works (like everything else on Wikipedia) by community consensus. Determining creativity in lists can be more challenging than some other copyright concerns, and I have more than once launched community discussions about such matters accordingly. In terms of the degree of creativity involved, your arguments above and at the talk page of the article are very well formulated and show a good understanding of copyright application to lists, but, being very little familiar with racecars, I'm not entirely sure myself the degree of creativity involved in your assemblage of information. It's an important distinction to make, unless we are simply to to rearrange the material and retain it. You've already basically launched such a discussion at Talk:1976 Lady Wigram Trophy. This can be publicized at WT:C and WT:CP, if you like, and we can watch it a week to see if consensus develops. Please note that if your position does not receive support, your only option then would be to pursue the issue as a copyright owner, as two administrators have already declined to remove the material via OTRS. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I do not have the option of employing lawyers as it would bankrupt me if I lost and my responsibilities to my family outweigh my desire to protect my copyright. I am glad that Jimbo Wales has said that other countries' copyright law should be respected. Surely that ends this debate. Just because there is an argument with NPL over Old Masters doesn't mean there should be an argument with me as well. Everything I have copyrighted is my own creation; not the work of others hundreds of years ago.

The administrators who refused to take this down did not take the time to familiarise themselves with the process through with the information was collated. I am glad that you and VernoWhitney have done that. I would suggest that their decisions are put aside and it reviewed afresh by someone who has asked the necessary questions. Allen Brown (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been heavily working copyright on Wikipedia for well over two years. Wikipedia does not respect the sweat of the brow doctrine, and I have communicated with our attorney myself on this matter. I've explained your options above for removal of the content--though it seems you might believe you need an attorney to request that the material be taken down of our designated agent; you do not. As copyright holder, you can write to our attorney yourself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not claiming sweat of brow. I never have claimed it and I don't see it as relevant. My case remains that (1) the information contains at least the grain of creativity required to be protected; (2) that it has been copied in its entirety which breaches Wikipedia's own guidelines and that (3) your own founder says you should respect foreign copyright. I have gone to significant lengths to explain point (1) and I believe I have established a solid case. For that reason alone, the pages should be removed. Allen Brown (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You have two options: (1) you can either ask our attorney to take it down, or (2) you can launch a community consensus discussion to persuade others that we should take it down. I explained the process for doing that above. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I've tried (2) and as I said, I feel I have presented a strong case. I don't see how to take this further. By (1) do you mean contacting [[2]]? Allen Brown (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, our designated agent is our attorney (well, at least one of them). I explained above how (2) works, but will repeat:

Alternatively, where cases are unclear, copyright evaluation works (like everything else on Wikipedia) by community consensus. Determining creativity in lists can be more challenging than some other copyright concerns, and I have more than once launched community discussions about such matters accordingly. In terms of the degree of creativity involved, your arguments above and at the talk page of the article are very well formulated and show a good understanding of copyright application to lists, but, being very little familiar with racecars, I'm not entirely sure myself the degree of creativity involved in your assemblage of information. It's an important distinction to make, unless we are simply to to rearrange the material and retain it. You've already basically launched such a discussion at Talk:1976 Lady Wigram Trophy. This can be publicized at WT:C and WT:CP, if you like, and we can watch it a week to see if consensus develops. Please note that if your position does not receive support, your only option then would be to pursue the issue as a copyright owner, as two administrators have already declined to remove the material via OTRS.

Since not publicizing it means relying on whomever happens to see your conversation at that talk page, I would strongly recommend seeking further input. I'd be happy to seek it on your behalf as a courtesy. As I said, I've launched such conversations before. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As this is still nominally my talk page, I'll point out that I'm at least convinced that the "did not appear" rows of the tables are creative elements and should be removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful. :) You want to add that to the discussion at the talk page? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, briefly at least. It didn't occur to me to do so before since there wasn't any back and forth discussion there yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Although you haven't said so, I have courtesy listed the discussion. I will note, though, that your continued appeals to Jimbo are only likely to introduce a distraction into the discussion. Content that is found to be not creative is not going to be deleted through the copyright problems board unless you manage to overhaul policy...which you can't do via that forum. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Do I need to copy the material in the section above over to the talk page that you've linked to? Allen Brown (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No. The longer it is, the less likely it is that others will read it. :) Your best bet would be to summarize any salient points that you think haven't been repeated there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks MRG. But I've lost track of what's salient. What's salient to me doesn't seem to be what's salient to others. Allen Brown (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What matters there is establishing what elements are creative in your content. And, though you may have seen it, I have responded to your note on my talk page as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bhurshut

Sir, in the Bhurshut article I copied just two lines from an website which is in free domain with no copyright whatsoever and if any copyright has been violated then that can be applicable for those two lines but half of the article have been kept under this pretext by editor Ragib for personal reasons and I request you to check into the matter and do the needful! 117.254.79.137 (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into it in detail right now, but copyright is automatic upon publication, so even if there is no copyright claim on the website it still cannot be copied into Wikipedia. There must be an explicit release under a free license or into the public domain (the procedure can be seen at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials). I (or someone else who handles copyright issues) can take a look at it later today, but for now the article should remain blanked until an actual investigation is done to confirm whether or not there is a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, This IP (and a host of others from 117.254.x.x range) is that of banned user surajcap, who has repeatedly mass-spammed various articles with nonRS and copyvio content. --Ragib (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use Image links

Previously you help explain some "Fair use image" use in a list rules to myself and other. Therefore, I know you understand the rules better then I do. So I wanted to ask you a question.

I am working on a different list, and the lack of images in this one section is extreamly noticeable. So I was thinking of placing an internal link to the image, instead of the image itself.

This is an example of what I mean, using a PD image instead.

	Name	Date	No.	Notes
Image	Milo Andrus	January 1, 1848	11	Andrus was one of the members of Zion's Camp

Is something like this allowed under Fair use rules?--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's allowed. It seems odd to me since clicking through to the name will show the image, but that's just me. The only thing not allowed is actually displaying non-free images on compilation articles such as the one I commented on. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks--ARTEST4ECHO ^talk 19:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Amelia Elizabeth Walden Award Page

Hello, I created the Amelia Elizabeth Walden Award page. It is not a copyright violation as I had permission and am on the committee. I see that the last three-four edits have been to remove sections that aren't cited or possible copyright infringement. I have permission to make the page and had permission to copy information from the press releases. It is a brand new award, so there aren't many places I can cite some of the information, as some of it is directly from my emails. I am not sure how to approach this. Should I undo the edits? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by L8ralig8rs (talk • contribs) 23:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Before the material is restored we need to verify that you do have permission to release the copyrighted material. In order to do this you should follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Once a volunteer verifies the email they should restore the material I removed. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note re clerks

Thanks for the note, I'll expand my section. I used Wikipedia:Clerks as a source, perhaps you would consider adding to that page?--SPhilbrickT 02:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I hadn't looked at that page before. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Our new unique CCI

Do the instructions seem clear at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Banglapedia (source)? I'm going to go ahead and take care of the files now so that we won't have to worry about them. Once I do that, I'd like to plead for assistance from the Wikiproject. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems mostly clear enough. It's ambiguous as to whether people should be marking under every article or every instance of the article though, and I'm not sure which would make more sense. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm kind of thinking about eliminating the multiple listings and putting all the links from duplicate articles in one place. Do you have a magic wand for that, or would I need to do it manually? :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I had that idea this morning, but I have no magic wand handy. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it manually, then. We want to make it as uncomplicated as possible if we hope to have help. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi VernoWhitney, I think in the image case, you are supposed to use Y if the file is ok, but I noticed you marked your responses with N. --Ragib (talk) 03:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, since there are so few images I don't think it really matters, so long as they're all checked one way or another. However, the traditional method at CCI (and the one described in the instructions is to use Y "to indicate you found copyright problems" or N "to indicate you did not". VernoWhitney (talk) 03:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh ok, now I get it. Thanks for the explanation and your patient work in checking the photos. --Ragib (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. And we appreciate any help we can get when it comes to copyvio work, especially with CCIs where there are hundreds or thousands of issues. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

CSBot notices

Hi. After conversation with Aymatth2 at my talk page, I've made some changes to the Bot notices: Template:Csb-pageincludes, Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes and Template:Csb-notice-pageincluded. I'd really appreciate feedback on that, since I don't have the option of talking to Coren about it (he hasn't answered my recent e-mail; hope all is well with him!). The conversation is at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Request for Comment. The changes were implemented to try to help soften the blow of false positives, because all of us who read Coren's talk page know how very irritating they can be to people. The Bot is important, but we don't want it biting any more than necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I notice that you've eliminated the difference between the two notices: includes used to say "appears to include a substantial copy" and included used to say "appears to be a substantial copy" (emphases added). I'm not sure if you intentionally left them out of your changes, but I figured I should point it out in case it wasn't. There's also one more notice, {{Csb-notice-wikipage}}, and two more article tags, {{Csb-pageincluded}} and {{Csb-wikipage}}, in the same series which should probably be updated (if needed, I haven't looked at the wording in detail) for consistency. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, no, I didn't notice. Goodness gracious. There are more of those puppies than I realized! I'll take a look, thanks. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

They weren't in the Category:Copyright maintenance templates. I've added them and made some more changes. When you have time, your input at my talk page would be helpful. There's talk of bots.:) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance

Hi Verno. Can you help me oversee any new edits made by Ardfern (talk · contribs)? I've unblocked him after a discussion at his talk page. Feel free to comment there if you see any problems. Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Real life has kept me busier than usual recently, but I'll at least spot check new contributions. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You don't have to do when you're too busy, though. Theleftorium ^(talk) 20:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Annalies Corbin

I notice this article has been tagged "Possible copyright infringement", but has not been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Cheers Androstachys (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It actually is listed, albeit in a roundabout manner. It's listed on Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2010-08-13 which is in turn transcluded onto Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 August 13. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoot!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Congratulations on the successful completion of User:VWBot. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I cannot tell you on how many levels we got lucky when you decided to pitch in with copyright cleanup on Wikipedia. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Second the barnstar :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks both! Now I just need to sit on my urge to continue tweaking the code every day or two. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I second what Moonriddengirl said. Now there's only one thing left: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/VernoWhitney. :) Theleftorium ^(talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. While adminship would be nice, I think I'll still hold off on the whole RFA hoopla for a while yet and stick with what I've been doing (and of course thinking of devious things my brand new assistant could do). VernoWhitney (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VWBot

Okay, I've marked the request as approved, sorry yet again for taking so long :D. Thanks for never losing interest, and for your great coding. Make sure you wait until the bot is flagged before running it (won't take long), and be careful while moving task 3 out of the user space :). That's all! Hope to see you around - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Illinois River Trail (Oregon)

I wrote both the footnoted and the Wikipedia version the Illinois River Trail (Oregon). I do not see a copyright infringement on my previous writing. Where do we go from here?Lhammer610 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are the copyright holder of http://www.visitoregonsouthcoast.com/Illinois%20River%20Trail, then you can follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and that will sort out the copyright issues. If you are not the copyright holder or do not wish to donate the text from the source, then the article needs to be rewritten, preferably from scratch, in the temporary page provided. While I appreciate that you reworded the text, what you created was a derivative work of the original and so still not free from copyright.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. The less creative the expression, the looser copyright applies, but even so close paraphrasing becomes a great concern when there are long passages that include fragments of the original and the structure of the original is retained. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism". VernoWhitney (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.
Message added 18:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

THE 39 CLUES HELP

Hello there! As you can see, I was on a long vacation and had forgotten about editing. Since the last book is near to be released, I need your help to gather information about minor characters and their importance in the books. I don't have any book right now, and I will appreciate what you can help. Thanks! (e.g. Lester Dixon: sacrificed his life) --FDJoshua22 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FDJoshua22 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid I don't actually own the books, and I've only read a portion of the first one. If you have particular questions or need page citations I can try to pick a book up from the library, but at this point I don't really have the time to read through the books and try and pick out the relevant information on my own. Sorry :/ VernoWhitney (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note

to apologise for my inactivity at SCV recently, I've been busy in real life and with an AFD. I'm really sorry, and will start helping again ASAP. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. Between Theleftorium and I, we kept up with the work; and CorenSearchBot is down again and Coren MIA, so there's no work to be done there at the moment. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi. I know you're busy saving the world (hooray for you and your amazing bot abilities!), but I wanted to ask your feedback about Jehovah's Witnesses and civil liberties in the United States. Am I missing something really obvious? Does (Ticket:2010081210007017) that sound like the name of a legal representative? I'm tempted to bounce this to legal, but in case I'm missing a flashing "HELLO, MOONRIDDENGIRL, LOOK HERE FOR COPYVIO!" I wanted to get your opinion. Between "real" work and Wikipedia lately, I've been pretty frazzled. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the only comment I have about the legal representative is that it's not a professional email address, but it's not a professional website either. As far as the copyvio goes, this edit appears to be a problem, I haven't checked the rest. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I applaud you! And thank you enthusiastically. Off to see what else I can determine about that article, given its point of origin. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Re:Penelope Jean

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

-FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sally Fitzgibbons

Hi, VernoWhitney. In writing with reference to this: can you shed any light on the OTRS confirmation for Ticket 2010073010043697? I presume the contents are confidential and I'm not asking you to reveal them: the issue is simply that User:Sallyfitzgibbons has been granted OTRS permission to use material from http://etnies.com/team/girl/sally-fitzgibbons even though she(?) states she is not Sally Fitzgibbons. If (s)he is not Sally Fitzgibbons but, say, is affiliated with http://etnies.com, the AFC request should probably have been turned down for the COI and the article is probably be deletable WP:CSD#G11. On the other hand, if the editor has no connection with Etnies or Fitzgibbons and Etnies has simply granted her permission to use the text from the site then there likely isn't any problem. Are you in a position to confirm which it is? Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right that there are confidentiality issues, so I'm afraid I won't even address that aspect of it beyond confirming that there is permission for the text. I don't know about AFC, so I don't know what the standards are there, but if you can't tell from the article whether or not it's just advertising, then G11 shouldn't even enter the picture. Most COI should be able to be dealt with by ensuring that everything is appropriately referenced, which certainly seems to be the case with this article. While great care is certainly advised in editing articles when there's a COI, straightforward edits which are clearly within policy, such as adding a single link to an official website (unless I'm missing something), should be allowed regardless of source. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks.

Thanks but no thanks, I am most specifically asking about policy rather than specific users.

If you wish to help me phrase it better so that is more clear and help me navigate the system of positing it on the correct page, I would appreciate it.--Triton Rocker (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So is it really just about quietly reverting my edit to the page again? I am sorry but that seem fair. No one is obliged to move item, there is no guarantee items will be moved --- therefore "may" is surely more accurate. Isn't it? --Triton Rocker (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the Wikipedia:Civility policy and the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point guideline. As I understand your post, "snooping and snitching" would be WP:POINTy behavior. What I believe you're asking is why are people allowed to get away with uncivil behaviour, and as far as I can tell admins are simply unwilling to block established editors who otherwise contribute to the encyclopedia except in particularly egregious cases. As to why admins are unwilling to block, you'd have to ask them individually or en masse. Does that explain things at all? VernoWhitney (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Pending at CCI?

Hi, Verno. I just wanted to drop by and ask you if there's a specific reason you aren't taking action on the pending at CCI. Of course, you're not the only clerk, but I thought I'd ask in case there's something more than just "I've been busy". If you don't think they're actionable, we need to perhaps refine our process for declining. (As for me, I don't feel I should evaluate the oldest request there, since I am tangentially involved. I haven't look at the most recent, but I seem to be in the process of finding us a brand new one, unless edits are limited. :/) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sadly it's just I've been busy and spending my time on SCV, OTRS and VWBot. I'll take a look at the CCIs tonight. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Public Leadership Education Network

Hello VernoWhitney! Thank you for notifying me about the copyright problem. The original source from which I copied it was actually written by me as well, but after more research about the license policy I understand that I would need to donate my copyright material in order to use it on Wikipedia. I'm wondering if you can offer me any advice on how many more secondary sources it would require for the organization to meet notability guidelines. I have added external links to several official university websites with information about our programs, as well as entries and articles on the organization mentioned on NCWO's website (an umbrella organization for women's non-profits) and the EPA's website. These all seem to be reliable secondary sources, is there something further I need to do to have the entry deemed "notable?" Thank you so much for your help! SydneyHolt (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

26 August 2010 * (Move log); 06:28 . . VernoWhitney (talk | contribs) moved Unos Pocos con Valor (2010 film) to Unos Pocos con Valor (no more precision needed per WP:TITLE)

Hi Verno i just wanted to tell you that the movie Unos Pocos con Valor can be with this url: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unos_Pocos_con_Valor_(2010_film) instead with the old one, i try to redirect first but then it was a mess. i deleted and put it with the new one. And then i found out that i can move the page but it was too late already. Maybe you can help me on this.

Thanks.