User talk:VernoWhitney

uDigits Wiki page

Previously it has been deleted. The user, who did was banned from Wiki administrators, as he did it by personal motivation. We do not want to make complain about you. This is official Wiki info about the official popular game Doodle Digits (uDigits). Thank you.

Kind regards,
uWaver Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Wolt (talk • contribs) 07:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was deemed not to meet the standards for notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UDigits and the article you reposted wasn't improved from its previous incarnation. I don't see that either admin who previously deleted the article was banned for any reason, but even if they were the consensus would still hold.

If you wish to restore the article you should find more reliable sources which contain significant coverage about the game. If you wish to make claims about the actions of other admins ("he did it by personal motivation"), you should provide links to relevant discussions or diffs.

I'm afraid I see no compelling case for the article to be restored at this time. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear VernoWhitney,

Could you tell us, what exactly is wrong with article, please? We would like to fix it. Thank you.

Kind regards,
uWaver Ltd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Wolt (talk • contribs) 17:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I did above: you need to find more reliable sources which provide significant coverage of the game. Currently a single Ovi Daily App review was provided, but that's all. I strongly recommend you read WP:GNG. Given your association with the game, I will also direct you to our conflict of interest guideline, which strongly discourages articles written about your own products. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear VernoWhitney,
We managed to find more references and updated the following section (if you are thinking it is still not enough for the article, please let us know):
"The complete rules are available on the game's official web site and a review by Nokia's Ovi Daily App and other sources includes screenshots and impressions from the game."
Thank you,
uWaver ltd— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip Wolt (talk • contribs) 18:41, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Personal blogs are generally not reliable sources, neither is facebook. Such sources when authored by the creators of the game (or your friends/coworkers/etc.) would be usable to discuss features of the game or other such details, but they do not establish notability. You need to read WP:GNG and find at least one additional source which meets all of the requirements spelled out in that section. If such a source can be located, then the article could be recreated. Now the could still be deleted again, but would need to go through another discussion at WP:AFD rather than being subject to summary and speedy deletion. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

photo of article Sri Prakash Lohia

Hi Verno Whitney - I have uploaded the photograph of Sri Prakash Lohia, in wiki common on Sep 6 with filename "File:Founder of Indorama Corp - Mr.Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg", and latter on Sep 13 on wiki local with filename "Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg". The original photograph was given by Amit Lohia, and do editing for the size. One of my contact will send the email to wiki common, so please do no remove it if possible or if it has to be removed, please keept it one with the name "Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg" in wiki. I'm sure that this image not crop from that site mentioned.Thanks/Thomas Sumartono. Thomas Sumartono (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you are not the copyright holder, the you must stop claiming the work as your own. If the copyright holder is in fact Amit Lohia (or someone else), then they need to finish following the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials so that we can verify that they do in fact agree to the terms required in order to release the image under the chosen free license. If the image is deleted it can be restored and it can always be renamed later; there's no need to reupload it multiple times. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Verno Whitney - Thank you for your detail explanation, I am really sorry for putting the wrong term in the source as "Own Work" in those 2 files mentioned. Would you please consider the email which I sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org related to this photograph and still allow to be used in wiki for the artilcle of Sri Prakash Lohia? Thank you very much for your helping me on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Sumartono (talk • contribs) 08:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Another volunteer should handle the email you sent and mark the image appropriately. Thanks for your understanding. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Verno Whitney - Thanks for your update. My hoping and appreciating if one of the volunteer may get that my email communication which I forwarded to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and mark the image appropriately.Thanks for ur help.Thomas Sumartono (talk) 08:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dear Verno Whitney - I am forwarding email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org today with the detail permission taken by email communcation,I would like to request your help so that the image will be marked appropriately. Please guide me if anything missing in the email communication.BTW:"File:Founder of Indorama Corp - Mr.Sri Prakash Lohia.jpg" has been deleted? I am not able to see it today. Thank you.Thomas Sumartono (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That file was deleted because it too was lacking evidence of permission. Once the volunteers who handle email have processed it and verified that the permission provided is sufficient it will be restored and replaced into the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Liquid Latex Page

I wrote the Liquid Latex wiki page and now I see that you have deleted the article and made the page redirect to latex clothing. This is not what liquid latex is. Can you undo this redirect and replace the page that I wrote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.250.251 (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was redirected because the text was almost entirely copied from elsewhere on the internet, and as such a possible copyright violation. If you are the copyright holder of the text at http://www.futureclassx.com/words/2009/LiquidLatex/IllusionLiquidLatex.htm then the article can be restored as soon as you follow the steps at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have now read the message that indicated the issue. Yes, this is my own webpage that is referenced so I am also the author of the source material. I have followed the instructions on the message and sent an e-mail to permissions-en@wikimedia.org to grant permission for reuse of my article under creative commons. Please let me know if there is any additional info or efforts needed from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgreenawalt (talk • contribs) 03:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I followed the directions, but the original text has still not been replaced. Is there something else that I can do to replace it? I found a cached version of it, I can just repost it. I'm trying to follow the rules though. Any advice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markgreenawalt (talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

DpmukBOT and VWBot

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

Bot problem with distinguishing info box fields

The VWBot performed a web search with the contents of Makary, Cameroon, and it suggested that it included material copied directly from: http://hewgill.com/~greg/wikiblame/simple/Asyut.html (Duplication Detector report). What was duplicated appears to be the blank portions of the Template:Infobox settlement, which isn't a copyright problem, but it is a bot problem that could, conceivably, be fixed. --Bejnar (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate it if you used authentic timestamps when leaving messages on my page. Also to the best of my knowledge that bug has already been fixed. If you are aware of a more recent occurrence of that particular bug, please let me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_pulse&action=history

It isn't copied from this Site. Some sentence may match, its a matter of Coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitrabarun (talk • contribs) 05:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It is clearly a direct copy of [1], even to the capital letters in 'THE' in the original. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sidney H. Griffith

Hi.

I'm curious to find out how the case with Sidney H. Griffith will turn out. I find the notification logs difficult to navigate, and am concerned that the case might have been forgotten.

Best regards, benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, an admin may review it any time now. That said, there are still some pages which were tagged for copyright problems back in June which haven't been reviewed yet. It's a sadly understaffed area--which is why I completely forgot to go back and look at your rewrite for it when I removed my bot's tag a couple of weeks ago. I'll try to get to that here in the next few hours. Thanks for your patience. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

And late again, but finally  Done. You did a pretty good job rewriting it without having to trim the information down to a minimum. There were a couple of close sentences which still followed closely from the source, so I looked up an additional source (it happens to be primary, so clearly not the best, but it should be sufficient for this purpose) and used its additional information to reword the sentences a bit more. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the good work. It was instructive. benjamil ^talk/_edits 23:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Pound Puppies (2010 TV series)

Hi! I have been slowly trying to address/fix some of the issues on the Pound Puppies page. I saw your note on the talk page, and I added a reference to the "Plot" section, as well as modified the text and removed some of the excess quotes. Can the "unreferenced section" tag be removed now, or is this section still considered incomplete in regards to references? I would really appreciate your input. Thanks--Wikicontributor12 (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes (reply)

Thanks for the information. Will undo everything immediately. The Ink Daddy! (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Eric Burroughs photo

This is about the third time that people have given me grief about this image, which is some sort of record even for WP photo rights... The long and short of it: it is a publicity photo created by Burroughs himself, he paid for the shot and retained rights. His son and literary executor signed the permission form, per policy. The permission email addie for ENWP did not work and the image is housed at ENWP, not Commons. Sending the form to Commons apparently has accomplished jack. So tell me, please, where should the permission form be emailed for ENWP (not Commons). Thank you. Agitated, Carrite (talk) 21:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It should be sent to the email address which is included twice in the template left on your talk page: permissions-en@wikimedia.org . Before tagging the image I did search the OTRS system for prior emails but was unable to locate any corresponding to this image. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

for the notification re the Lincoln statue. I've taken care of it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh... What?

You removed an image I had on an article in my sandbox (I'm guessing you found it via a bot). For future reference, are you telling me that it's OK to link to an image in an article, but you can't link to the exact same image in the sandbox article it originated from because the first is not a copyright violation, but the other is? I'm curious to see the legal backing for that determination. 5minutes (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Linking to an image is fine, actually displaying that image outside of articles is a violation of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy. It has some to do with the sheer quantity of fair use images being used across the project, but it also has to do with maintaining Wikipedia's mission to be a free content provider. VernoWhitney (talk)

Removing image from a project template

Hi there,

I noticed that you removed an image from Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Eurovision Song Contest which is actually an article template for Project Eurovision which as far as I am aware is allowable within project space. An admin member on the project even stated that it would not be a problem having the image on something that is designed to act as a template for article layout for members of the project that are not familiar. Is there anything that you can suggest to get around this issue? (please TB me so that I know you have replied) Thank you Wesley♦^Mouse 14:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid whichever admin informed you that it would not be a problem was mistaken. Any use of non-free images outside of articles is a violation of point 9 of the non-free content policy. The only exceptions are for areas of the project dedicated to the management of non-free content, such as Category:Wikipedia files with unknown source.

If you were using it as a substituted template, I would say wrapping it within <includeonly> tags should work as then it would only appear on the created articles. Since it appears that it is set up to be copied and pasted into the article, however, I'm afraid nothing quite so straightforward occurs to me just at the moment. If the issue is with remembering the exact file name, then placing it within an html comment (in place of the NonFreeImageRemoved.svg which I left there) or something of that nature ought to make it simple enough to restore when using the template to create a new article. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I might be confused here. The template isn't an article as such, but a guideline for project members on how Eurovision by year article should look. The images used was to show to a member that an annual logo would be placed in that particular section - and we used the generic logo for the purpose of providing an example. The actual generic logo would not be used on other articles. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so if it's primarily being used as an example, then perhaps you could just use a generic free logo (such as File:Boeing wordmark.svg or something else unambiguously plain text) instead? Obviously it won't be a Eurovision logo, but the only issue is that the logo you were using there is non-free. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ohhh that's a good idea. I could use my own logo-type image that is used on my user page File:WesleyMouse Logo.png just to show a logo of sorts would appear in that particular section of the article. Wesley♦^Mouse 16:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

That would certainly work. Your mouse is some nice work too; it makes me smile. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Image on userbox

Hi, I see you removed an image from one of my userboxes [2]. I reverted your edit, since the same image is available on Commons [3] and the Wikipedia copy will probably be deleted soon [4]. Thanks. — Mr White 17:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy

Let me just get this straight because I plan on copy and pasting what I have there onto the actual United Sikkim page. I cant use the logos on the page as it is under User:Arsenalkid700 but I can use them on the actual United Sikkim page. I am more concerned about whether the pictures are okay or not. Cheers for the reply. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the article or your sandbox version of it so I can't say for sure if it's appropriate or not. I would guess, however, that the gallery of alternative logos would still be a problem in the article under the non-free content guideline. While such use isn't explicitly forbidden like the use of non-free images in user-space, there should be significant and reliably sourced commentary on the different logos or else there is the possibility that all of the logos except for the current one will be removed from the actual article. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Morning277

I now see you are dealing with much of the Morning277 mess. I'm sorry to say I overdid AGF a bit and probably contributed. However, I think the Mouawad situation is legitimate. See 2012040410009347--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw your reply I just forgot to say so on your talk page. Short of going through each of the images for that collection/ticket and make sure they were all spelled out by name, I agree--those should be good. I am trying to deal with some of Morning277's fallout, but most of it is just a side effect of working my way through images with really old OTRS pending tags. I actually expect that most if not all of their permission tags are legitimate, they just didn't follow through with all of the details we require from the copyright holders. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Mike O'Brien jpeg

I'm unsure as to why you posted a speedy deletion notice for Mike_O'Brien_Smiling.jpg, as I provided permission from the creator (Mike O'Brien) to wikipedia volunteers months ago, who accordingly approved it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Additionally, though you posted on my talk page, I see no speedy deletion notice on the image itself. I'd be happy to make any modifications needed, but was perplexed by why this is happening. AkaMartin7 (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My internet connection has been flaky this morning, but it does appear that I tagged the image itself in this edit. As to the core of your question, however, I tagged it because no such permission is linked to on the image page itself, and so unless the email was misdirected and never received then it was mishandled by the volunteer(s) handling it. The search capabilities of our email system leave something to be desired, and I have been unable to locate any email referring to this image. If you could provide me with the exact date such an email was sent so I can conduct a more thorough search or forward a copy of it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org again so that I can keep an eye out for it personally it would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Androcles illustration

Dear VernoWhitney, You've been helpful now and, so far as I can remember, have been helpful with advice in the past. In the present instance, the replacement illustration you have found for the Androcles article is ingenious but not of immediately obvious relevance.

I've been in touch with the irascible Silver Tiger who, like me, is a bit at sea when it comes to the mass of rather unhelpful guidelines. I seem to remember, and it may have been you who pointed it out to me, that it is possible to upload a picture to English Commons and license it so it is used for the single article it illustrates, or by permission for others, but certainly not for free commercial use. It was I who suggested this to Silver Tiger in the first place and must take responsibility for not licensing it properly. He now writes that he is ready to resupply the picture for that purpose, if it can be arranged.

Could you advise me, step by step, how that can be managed, if it is still possible? We'd both by grateful. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there simply isn't a way to upload a picture to Wikipedia or to Commons and license it for a single article (or in any other manner restrict the commercial reuse of the images). commons:Commons:Licensing explicitly includes the sentence "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted as well." If I or someone else led you to that conclusion, I sincerely apologize.

Here on Wikipedia we at least can allow for non-free images under fair use, but only in circumstances where someone else would not be able to go and take a similar picture and freely license it. I truly appreciate the effort you went to in trying to secure the image for use here, but any sort of non-commercial restriction would mean we could only use the image if it fell within the narrow confines of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, which it doesn't (for reasons I won't go into now to avoid the risk of swamping you even further with complicated rules).

If I haven't answered all of your questions (about this image or anything else), please don't hesitate to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give add'l seven

Hi, thank you for the notice re image Christian Freeling.jpg. Could you please give me an additional 7 days? (I would really appreciate it; I want to study the Email received from OTRS previous, it confused me when I got it re whether the image belongs on Commons or WP, and if requirements were different for both. Anyway, the OTRS stuff confuses me in general and I'd like to try to digest again so can send a reasonably clear understanding why what's needed to the busy inventor/author. An add'l week would really help me out.) Thanks for consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done And if for some reason it takes more than a week an admin can always restore the image, so it shouldn't be a big issue either way. If you have any questions about the permissions process, feel free to ask and I'll do my best to clear things up if I can. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for giving the extra week. I've been reading re copyright on WP, and use permissions, etc. I see what WP needs from the copyright holder, but, when I contact him to ask him to give it, I'd like to be able also to let him know expectations. (Problem is, to do that, I have to understand them myself. And, I don't! It is very confusing, and seemingly contradictory as well. I have several questions to help me understand things! What is the best/most efficient way to get answers? I think the dialogue could be too extensive for your user Talk. I see there is a Help page for copyright questions, can I go to that Talk instead? Can you reply there? Does that page have support from OTRS volunteers?) Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've opened secs at Media Copyright Questions and OTRS Noticeboard. (Which to use if either? I notice there is a Commons noticeboard as well. I guess the confusion starts with not being sure which board to use for my permission-use questions!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I see that your question at WP:OTRSN is getting some responses, which is good. I'll read through it later today and address some of your unanswered questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:File permission problem with File:Official portrait of Andreas Thorstensson.jpg

Okay, thanks for the notice. I contacted Andreas, so I'm sure you'll get the confirmation that he requested that I upload the file soon enough. DarthBotto _talk•cont 22:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Andreas has now informed me that he has emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org with the necessary confirmation. Are there any other steps necessary to verify this, or is the file now safe? DarthBotto _talk•cont 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The volunteer(s) who handle the email will take care of it from here, including if there are any remaining question about or problems with the permission for the file. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Michele Ragussis - Guy Fieri.jpg

• If this image was deleted, then what exactly is the point of the {{Non-free television screenshot}} template? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The point is to use when something can only be represented by a non-free image of a television screenshot, such as using an image from a particular episode in an article about that episode. In this case it was being used merely to show the appearance of a living person, which violated WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UUI point 1. If there was sourced commentary on her meeting with Fieri, to the point that such use would meet the requirements of WP:NFCC#8 (which seems unlikely from my brief review of the article), then it could possibly have been used to illustrate that situation, but not simply to show her appearance as she is still alive and not a notable recluce or otherwise inaccessible to the general public. VernoWhitney (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ghostwriter Images

I've updated the tags as best I can, if you still think they should be deleted please do an Image for Deletion. If the majority consensus is to delete, they I'd be willing to let them go. –BuickCenturyDriver 02:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The tags were never a problem. The problem is that they are non-free images being used to show the appearance of living people. As such, there is a strong presumption that free images can be obtained, and thus they are in violation of our policy and guideline regarding non-free content, specifically WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFC#UUI point 1. If there is a reason why taking new photographs of them is impossible, that information would be greatly appreciated. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, there in no free image available. The only way to show in image of these characters is to either take a screenshot from the video or scan a bookcover, both non-free. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about the characters, then that is correct. The catch is that they aren't being used to show the appearance of the characters, they're being used to show the appearance of the actors. If there are sufficient reliable sources to establish notability for one or more of the characters, then feel free to create such an article and the image can be used there. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Images in users' sandboxes

HI. Instead of removing images in users' sandboxes, how about commenting them out instead? I often copy-and-paste articles into my sandbox when I want to rewrite them, and tracking down the names of the image files again can be a pain. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 22:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I could, but usually I just stick with whatever seems the easiest way to remove the non-free content at the time. Regardless, I figure if someone's doing what you are then it's only a single 'undo' to get the images back either way. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

-Removed comments by block evader User:ElPilotoDi- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.191.238.104 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Because their use in that article was contrary to our policy concerning the use of non-free media, the specific points of which I linked to in my edit summary. Should you wish to continue this conversation, I would appreciate it if you could at least attempt to use proper spelling. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

-Removed comments by block evader User:ElPilotoDi- 189.191.238.104 (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the policy I linked to? VernoWhitney (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

-Removed comments by block evader User:ElPilotoDi-

Kiva Logo

Hi Verno. I'd like to say thank you for helping police Wikipedia. I had used the Kiva logo (a non-free, copyrighted contribution) in an userbox and, while it seems Kiva has given explicit permission for use of their logo to promote Kiva, I understand why Wikipedia's policy is more strict. And, by the way: Cool name. :) --Vernhart (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's refreshing to get a message about my activities which isn't questioning my activities or the policy, so thank you very much for your nice message. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Permission questions

Hello again. Thanks again for extending the time I have to get proper permission from the copyright holder. I do not want to waste the copyright holder's time. I want to give him clear instructions. I want to keep it simple. I want to have an understanding what I'm suggesting he enter into, when he agrees to release under CC-BY-SA 3.0. The documetation on WP is confusing and seeminly contradictory on some matters. I went to the OTRS noticeboard with my 5 Qs (and potential 6th Q). I was assured it is the correct place to get answers. The volunteer has quit trying to help me, and I do not understand why. My questions are simple. (Please see the 5 Qs at the noticeboard; I tried to be very specific.) I am a little frustrated at this point, because I've presented reasonable questions, then now I feel like I'm being treated like a troublemaker. And I'm running out of time now thanks to the experience at the noticeboard. (Yuk.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on a response for the noticeboard right now. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe don't bother. (I'm feeling "done" there.) May I Email you instead about things? Thank you. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see that you already replied there, but should you have any questions in the future you can certainly email me or just ask on my talk page if you'd feel more comfortable with that. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I have no more Qs now. (Except that, by agreeing to CC-BY-SA 3.0, does it automatically signon to GNU? If so how does that happen? And if so what does it mean/imply? Maybe the answer is already in the thread, I'll go read it again ...) Thanks again for all your help. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

No, agreeing to CC-BY-SA does not automatically license it under GFDL as well. We just recommend them both because that's how our text is licensed for various historical reasons, but CC alone is fine. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that explain.

Another point I gave up trying to understand, but you might be able to help me understand a little bit ... Why is this statement, found at Wikipedia:Contact us/Photo submission, not self-contradictory?:

By submitting a photo to us under one of these licenses, you are allowing anyone to copy and modify this photo for any purpose. This includes using it commercially, but you still retain personality rights that may limit commercial exploitation of your likeness.

At Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission it says:

The main legal thing that is important to explain to potential contributors: they would be agreeing that their picture (or text) can be used freely by Wikipedia AND its downstream users, and that such use might include commercial use, for which the contributor is not entitled to royalties or compensation.

But then the WP:Personality rights stuff says essentially "Uh-uh, can't do that, not without consent from the copyright holder." (This seems contadictory, and thus inherently confusing. Except to an attorney?!?) Thank you again, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

They seem contradictory because copyright and personality rights are two separate things, often held by two separate parties: the photographer and the subject(s) of the photograph respectively. Both parts that you quoted are correct, but the first is more thorough. Submitted pictures can be used commercially, but there can be restrictions regarding how such an image can be used commercially(such as falsely implying endorsement of a product). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so when the copyright holder is the same person as depicted in the image, am I understanding?, because to me the copyright part seems a little confusing or unnecessary or misleading, since any use of the image also depicts the person. Here is a source of my confusion too ... there was a dialogue on Jimbo's Talk that suggested to me that Personality rights isn't conditioned by how an image is used commercially, but whether it can be used at all commercially without consent of the person depicted. The dialogue is here, specifically:

Jimbo's image is already licensed for use on a t-shirt or anything else you might want to produce. -- FormerIP

Actually, no, that isn't right. Copyright permissions don't cover personality rights. You can't use my image to sell products without my permission. -- Jimbo Wales

Thanks for any add'l words to help me understand. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

When the copyright holder is the same person as depicted in the image, then yes, the image is protected by the same person's copyright and personality rights. As to the extent of personality rights, using a person's image for advertising or merchandising (such as the mentioned t-shirt) are generally prohibited activities, but selling an encyclopedia which contains the image in an article (e.g. selling a copy of Wikipedia) would be acceptable.

I'm not nearly well versed in personality rights as I am with copyright, in part because it is not a United States federal statute, but dependent upon each state's laws. As such, I would recommend our article on the subject (and its external links) as a starting point for the topic, and beyond that I would suggest consulting with a lawyer with experience in the area regarding any specific questions, since it can get very complicated. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. (I never had read any distinction, Tee-shirt-type product versus "in a book", etc. And I didn't read anything about copyright protecting the person if image is of the copyright holder -- just Personality rights giving protection.) Anyway, I won't be giving my $ to any attorney to learn it!

I heard from Christian that he sent in his license release permission already. (Can I be in the loop somehow re status when it is processed?) Thx for all your help. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC) "This is the Nostromo, siging off."

I was just trying to mention that copyright protection doesn't change based on whether they are the subject of the photo or not. <shrug> Anyways, when the email's processed the file page will be edited by the volunteer, so you can just keep an eye on it. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Right but in this context (releasing under CC-BY-SA license) copyright doesn't afford any protection (right?). (Because all the WP doc says can be used commercially without consent [only attribution] and without providing compensation or royalties, etc. So in the context of releasing the license I'm not understading any protection at all [outside of attribution] extended by copyright, only Personality rights. Am I messed up?) Thx, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is getting back into the realm of intersecting legalities -- in this case copyright and licensing. The actual copyright of the image is in no way voided or diminished by its release under CC-BY-SA. The CC license allows its use so long as the work is attributed (BY) and also shared under a similar free license (SA). Neither of those requirements are required by copyright itself, just the CC license. Now should either of those requirements (technically, any of the more precise terms within the legal code) be ignored/violated then the use could be copyright infringement just the same as reusing any other photograph which hadn't been licensed under CC-BY-SA. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

That almost helped! ... (I never considered violation possibility previously). So!, if CC-BY-SA terms are violated, it sounds like copyright then acts as fall-back protection *for use of the photo* (but not for the person depicted? -- this is what I don't understand ... if copyright protects use of the photo then, and the copyright holder is the image in the photo, then copyright is protecting use of the person's image, so why then are Personality rights needed to do that?). I'm understanding that Personality rights is protection for the image of the person, against certain commercial exploitations (like Tee-shirts not compendium books), regardless what the status is with CC-BY-SA adherence (whether it's been violated or is being complied with). How am I doing?! (Sheesh!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes it easier if you think of the copyright holder and the subject of the photograph as two separate entities -- like if you took a photograph of me, for example, and did not transfer the copyright to me via contract or some other means. You would hold the copyright to the photograph, but still wouldn't be able to sell t-shirts with my face on them thanks to personality rights. I couldn't take it and sell t-shirts with my face on them thanks to copyright (I'm completely ignoring any consideration of fair use, since that's an even fuzzier subject).

When the copyright holder and the subject of the photograph are the same, it really becomes two different types of protection, only one of which is being granted some exceptions to its normal via the CC license. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

If I'm getting this ... it seems copyright can be "stronger" than even Personality rights ... if a CC-BY-SA is being violated due to lack of attribution, let's say in case of a compendium book product that features the photo (attribution is required in that case, right?), then copyright fall-back would offer protection against use of the photo in the book, whereas Personality rights doesn't cover that type of commercial exploitation of person's image. (Is that right?) When the copyright holder and the person imaged are the same, it's confusing because any protection of the (physical) snapshot also at same time protects any use of the image of the person (conceptual). (When copyright holder and person imaged are not the same, as you point out it's clear, but when they are the same, there really isn't any meaningful distinction, it seems. [The law doesn't try and maintain a meaningful distinction in that case, does it? Because if it does try to do that when there isn't any, that is inherently confusing/crazy-making!]) p.s. Who gets the barnstar when we're done here? (You for explaining? Or me for understanding?) ;) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for clarity, this is/was the language in the form which caused me concern:

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product or otherwise

(Not being an attorney, how would I be assured this langauge cannot or would not be interpretable somehow as an override or waiver to the copyright holder's Personality rights, when the photo released images the copyright holder? [Just being assured "we use it all the time successfully" seems not to be adequate confidence given to that specific question; e.g., if it ever came up as issue, would anyone in position to answer my permission Qs on WP know about it?] Anyway that is my can-of-worms Q6 that I never got around to asking at the noticeboard. I had other reasons as well for not liking forms.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I haven't forgotten you; my connection was flaky earlier and now my brain is scattered so I'm going to avoid giving any answers beyond rote replies. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

When my brain is scattered I kick the synapses w/ strong cup of Seattle's Best. I got cc'd today on OTRS efficient processing of Christian's permission submission (say that 10 times fast!). Do you know when/if the image will be put from WP to Commons? (I would like to add Personality rights template, and I notice that template exists on Commons but not on WP. [Is there a reason for that, or just oversight?]) Once again thank you for all your help. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, here goes. I don't know that I'd say copyright is stronger, because it always allows for the possibility of fair use. They're just different. Off the top of my head I don't know of any cases which involved both copyright and personality rights, so I don't know what sort of distinction would be made beyond a normal case with multiple issues: you just have to walk through each point of contention independently.

Re Q6: Without formal opinion from a lawyer, you can't really be assured of any legal standing (and even then you'll get differences of opinion -- thus judges and appeals and more appeals...). That said, that line acknowledges the right to commercial reuse (which is already covered by the actual text of the CC-BY-SA license) but does not touch on how the image may be reused, which is the part covered by personality rights. It's my personal opinion that the sentence does not constitute any waiver of personality rights and that such a waiver would involve a statement more like you'd find in the official rules of a sweepstakes, e.g. "grants permission to use subject's name, likeness, image, and statements for purposes of advertising, promotion and publicity".

It could be moved to commons at any time; there's no real schedule and there are thousands of images which can be moved, they each just get handled one-by-one to double-check their status. The personality rights template is basically an FYI for reusers, which is arguably more important on Commons since their entire raison d'être is hosting content for others to reuse. I could certainly make a local copy of it if you'd like, or even just put a custom message on this image. I don't know that it's an oversight so much as Wikipedia is more concerned with text than images, and theirs a limited amount of volunteer editor time to handle tags and the like--and not many that enjoy dealing with media files en masse. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of non-free image

Why did you remobe the non-free image from my Freck Langsam submission? I have permission from the owner to use it, and am awaiting article approval.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducksfan0807 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 1 October 2012‎ (UTC)

Any use of non-free images outside of an actual article (not just a submission) is a violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. If/when the submission is approved the image can be restored. Alternatively, if the copyright holder is willing to release the image under a free license it could be restored to your submission promptly as well as used anywhere else on Wikipedia. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

RE: WP:NFCC#9 Violation

Hey VernoWhitney,

You deleted the VBS logo on my talk page...BUT! You forgot one more thing: You didn't delete the VBS logo on my USER page.

--Thewikicontributor (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Could you leave a message on my talk page before you revert stuff? Although I'm on the Wikipedia mailing list, I would really like to have someone who's reverting stuff to remind me because I'm a newbie.

Thanks for the heads up -- there are a few hundred such policy violations on Wikipedia, so I've been working on them in a somewhat haphazard fashion. I'll let you know if/when I remove things from your userspace, but I primarily work in non-free content and copyright policy enforcement, which are generally not subject to debate or consensus, so I usually don't leave messages unless something is actually going to be deleted rather than simply removed from a page. Anyways, please consider this notice: I'll be removing the logo from your userpage shortly. 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Why delete image in my sandbox>?

Why would you deleted 2 images from my sandbox? I am working on a page and I am using sandbox before placing the changes in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjSeptimus (talk • contribs) 16:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The images were not deleted, they were removed. Now as I indicated in my edit summary, their use in your sandbox was a violation of point number 9 of our policy concerning the use of non-free images. Any use of non-free images outside of an actual article (not just a submission) is not allowed in keeping with our free content mission. If/when you put the content into the article you can use the images, but not in your userspace. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please note that continuing to edit in blatant violation of policy can be viewed as disruptive behaviour and you may be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? It IS in the article. Plus how am I supposed to work on articles if I don't have an exact reference as to how the articl will look once I save it? Please stop abusing you admin powers and find someone who actually posses threat to Wikiepdia. I am merely trying to contribute and am currently doing research to write for the article. Plus I am using the image under fair use so I see no reason why you should bother me — Preceding unsigned comment added by DjSeptimus (talk • contribs) 17:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You can always use the 'Preview' function. It is not an issue of fair use, it is an issue of the non-free content policy and guidelines which are explicitly stricter than required by fair use. The namespace restriction is not an optional or subjective issue, or subject to exceptions for sandboxes. If you have a problem with the policy, you can direct questions or proposals to its talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that.

I am sorry about the non-free image on a wiki page. I did not mean to on this instance as I had to quickly copy and paste my edits (I was editing directly on the ONGC page) and move it to my sandbox and I just forgot. I know about this policy and I will try to abide to it from now on. Again I am sorry about that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

No worries; it's not something that comes up very often. Thanks for remembering the policy. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

—== Deletion of files due to incorrect permissions ==

Hi Verno,

Thank you for explaining specifically what the problem was re my files up for deletion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Interior_of_a_Sinixt_pithouse_in_the_Slocan_Valley.jpg

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mount_Royal_University_from_across_the_pond.jpg

I believe I have now corrected the problem by changing the licenses on my flickr pages. I have therefore removed the deletion notices.

There are still 'ticket' notices on each page. Would you mind removing them if you agree with me that the problem is solved?

Thanks very much

Kootenayvolcano (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Coats of Arms

Hi. You just left a couple of messages on my talk page about the copyright/licensing of several pictures I had uploaded. Most of the pictures are that of coat of arms of several towns/cities here in Puerto Rico. I understand that such images can be uploaded. If they indeed are, what is the appropriate licensing tag for them? Thanks in advance. Thief12 (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you have it in the wrong order: first we need to know what the license(s) is/are and then we can determine how they can be used on Wikipedia. The appropriate licensing tag depends on who created them and when. If they are a work of the federal government then they're in the public domain; if they are the work of municipal governments/associations or individual artists then they are copyrighted by default, and so it would depend upon how old the coat of arms is. If it turns out that they are copyrighted (which must be our default assumption if we can't find evidence to the contrary), they should be usable on the individual town/city article, but that would probably be it under our non-free content guidelines.

Now I tried looking up some of the sources you linked to from the images to see if they provided any more information, but the websites were down. If you have more information about who created the coat of arms and when, we can use that to figure out the appropriate licensing tags.

I'd strongly recommend starting up a conversation at WP:MCQ about these coats of arms rather than just leaving it here on my page though, since that gets many more pairs of eyes who handle image copyrights. I'd rather make sure we don't overlook something while we get the licenses sorted out. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks! Thief12 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also updated the source website from where I got the images. The site went down about a year or two ago, but they moved everything to another site. Here's one example. Thief12 (talk) 12:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The updated source links are much appreciated. I was hoping for someone else to reply to your post at MCQ with a better idea. As is, I think your change relicensing them as non-free is the safest thing to do without additional information regarding the history or origination of them, which I didn't see on the Link to PR site. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes to my userspace

Hi! I think it would courteous to leave a message on someone's talk page when you alter that person's user space... Don't you agree? Eric Cable  |  Talk  14:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I think it would a good idea to read the policy linked to in an edit summary before reverting the edit... Don't you agree? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Snark aside now that I'm more awake, I generally don't leave a message after the first removal/edit of non-free content simply because there are so many violations already, and doing so without using a script of some sort would approximately double my workload. After the second reversion I generally do leave a message when I have reason to believe that the editor is new and/or unaware of our policy regarding non-free content. Judging from your gallery page, you clearly are aware of the policy, so I'm afraid I am at a loss as to why you replaced the image into the gallery. Assuming it to be merely an oversight on your part, I did not leave a message assuming (again) that once you looked at the edit summaries you would realize the reasons for my edits and would not need a further refresher. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

For that particular image, there is some question/argument as to copyright status. Simply put, it's a snapshot of a mural in a US Post Office... so it's the work of the Federal Government... but some others argue it's under copyright of the artist. Whatever, it's all fine. Have a good day. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy reference resources

Greetings,

I would like to include the logos for the various philosophy reference resources templates. For instance, Template:Philosophy_reference_resources, and obviously Template:SEP. How would I go about satisfying the conditions for that? I am sure that SEP, InPho, and PhilPapers would be willing to grant permission formally, if that is necessary, as I have been in communication with them. Currently the SEP includes these logos in their links, and they look very good. Also, I am curious why the image appears with a double red box around it, and how I can disable that as well. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

In order for images to be used in any sort of template it needs to be either in the public domain or be available under a free license. The copyright holder of each logo would need to follow the steps listed at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. There's a lot there, but the short of it is that we need an explicit release, more than just a "Sure, you can use it on Wikipedia" sort of remark. If you have any questions about this part, feel free to ask.

As far as the red box goes...I really couldn't say. That's not something I can recall ever seeing (and I don't see it now). VernoWhitney (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. The red box thing is curious. Greg Bard (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I did figure out what the red border on images is. When an image is tagged, it appears in Monobook this way. I am in the process of getting all the permissions, and currently have informal approval from the relevant parties, and am waiting for them to send an email to permissions at wikimedia. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.Greg Bard (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I use monobook and it's not showing that. Probably some other fiddly setting somewhere. Anyways, once a volunteer receives and processes a usable permission statement they'll change the OTRS and license tags on the image files, so that should be all set unless something goes awry. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

marketstar

Why did you delete the marketstar page? there where no obvious copyright violations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.167.9 (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what page you are thinking of, since MarketStar was copied nearly verbatim from a pair of webpages about the company. There had been no indication of permission or attempt made at rewriting the article without the copied material and so it was deleted. There were other issues with the article, but nothing else which rose to that same level, and so the article can certainly be recreated so long as the copyright issue is resolved. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Verno Whitney

I am David McCallion

founder owner and curator of the War Years Museum here in Northern Ireland There is no breach of copy right as it is my own domain name and content

can you please add the war years remembered to your sight

many thanks

David