Jump to content

User talk:VernoWhitney

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dholka (talk | contribs) at 16:50, 30 April 2010 (→‎April 30: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Speedy deletion declined: Shair siddiqui

Hello VernoWhitney, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Shair siddiqui, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I linked to in the speedy nomination, the previous discussion was at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shair_Siddiqui. Different capitalization != different article. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my mistake. I'll go delete it now. In the future, you should try and include a link to the AFD when it was under a different title. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did - in the CSD tag where it says "See the previous discussion" it linked to it; I will include it in the edit summary too next time if it's different. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Angus_MacNeil, you will be blocked from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.115.218 (talk)

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 March 20.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 — [Unsigned comment added by Moonriddengirl (talk • contribs) 13:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC).][reply]

Bartley Gorman

It's worse than you think. It's not just copyvio, it's a user submitted memorial site with no fact checking. So the tribute basically defines unreliable source, and we've stolen half the content from it. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I think that means it'll be that much longer before I work on it then - I'm afraid that of the articles that are tagged as close paraphrases I'm still trying to work on those with lots of solid references and/or small amounts of close paraphrase so that it doesn't take much time to rewrite. Sadly I don't usually have large blocks of free time, just lots of small blocks, which makes it harder to muster up the attention to rewrite entire articles. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

User:IBen/TB mono 23:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boucherot cell copyvio

I see you declined the copyvio claim at Boucherot cell. You might want to take a look here and reconsider. SpinningSpark 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I had looked at that reference before but didn't sit down and compare line-by-line. The solid block of text at the source and the additional material in the article threw me off. Thank you for calling my attention to this. I will go through and rewrite the copyvio portions of the article later today. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

User:IBen/TB mono 01:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

User:IBen/TB More of these (let me know if you don't want them). mono 01:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Hello VernoWhitney, Mono has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--mono 02:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Permission

Thanks for your message. Well, I DID send an email to that address, but nothing happened for a week ;) As nothing happend, I removed the comments (I think). The whole process is still a bit untransparent for me. Doing some kind of regulation is necessary, but users should be kept in a good mood to furthermore posting content to Wikipedia. I'll add the notes now or soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusselmann (talk • contribs) 21:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the email response team is perpetually backlogged along with the entire copyright area, which could explain why you didn't get a response, but thank you for sending the email. As soon as they receive the email and confirm that it's sufficient they should stop by whatever articles are covered by the email, unblank them, and leave a note of permission on the article talk page (I am not a member, so I just know by watching them work). As far as the regulation goes, all of the articles that I blanked today are listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 April 4, for further examination by an admin if everything hasn't been cleared up within the week. If they receive an email and it's insufficient, it should just be relisted for another week and kept blank to allow time for another email. If you have any questions regarding the process feel free to ask me at any time. Thank you for being understanding about the need for copyright regulation. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently the page blanking of Augustinerkirche (Munich) was taken as a request to delete the article, and it was tagged for speedy deletion. I rewrote it so that it was not a simply copy of the source site, although it looks to em as if the source site was itself a translation of the article on the German-language wikipedia. The article is no longer blanked, and should not be in danger of speedy deletion as a copyvio. When you get the confirming email from OTRS (probably in a couple of weeks), any text where my changes are unhelpful can be reverted. I also added some references and an image (the same as is used on the article in de). I hope all this is helpful. DES (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it appears that instead of waiting for OTRS permission the page creator lost interest in contributing the articles to Wikipedia and removed all content from all of the pages in question, thus the speedy delete (they also tried to remove them from the WP:CP list <shrug>). Thanks for rewriting the page. I hadn't checked any of them against de.wiki, so that may be something for me to check into this week. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is now an inter-language interwiki link, so others from the de project may come by. There are not loads of sources that I could find on Google -- I suspect there are betre ones in print if one knew where to look. DES (talk) 01:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCI - smartK1987

I've left a note on the talk page for the CCI for Smartk1987. As another editor who has been reviewing, your opinion would be valuable. Cheers! -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This calls for something extraordinary

The Guillaume Bastille award
For your part in the incredibly speedy completion of this CCI, I hereby bestow on you the Guillaume Bastille award, newly created for the occasion because he's a fast guy with a compatibly licensed image. Thank you for your part in helping to take this across the finish line in record-breaking time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created just for the occasion. :D Here's hoping that Guillaume Bastille would be honored...and that the image I'm using really is free, because it would be just like the universe to jeer at me in that way. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madryga

I'm not sure which parts of the article are copyvios as I don't have a copy of the book handy. But the article gave me a strong impression of déjà vu. Apokrif (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article The 39 Clues has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. See diff. When you revert things other than vandalism (like copyvios), please state that in your edit summary in addition to the automatic revert message. Thank you! mono 19:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated addition of copyrighted material after being warned is vandalism. See WP:VANDAL#Types of vandalism and look on the table for "Repeated uploading of copyrighted material". VernoWhitney (talk) 19:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the future, please state that in your edit summary. You did nothing wrong and I'm glad your keeping track of the page. I reported the user to WP:AIV, btw.--mono 19:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would, except rollback doesn't allow me to mess with the edit summary and I can't use twinkle or other similar tools while at work. I'm sorry if the lack of a helpful edit summary was confusing. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot about rollback. Twinkle is better, however, I understand. Good talking to you!--mono 19:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mono, what happened to WP:DTTR... Airplaneman ✈ 22:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS Volunteerism

Okay, I e-mailed User:Bastique, and he says that adminship is not a firm requirement. Based on what I've seen of you, I think you'd be ideal if you'd like to raise your hands for the copyright queue. It mostly requires the patience to say one of the following:

  • Which image/article are you talking about?
  • Can you contact us from an address connected to the original source?
  • Which license did you want to use?
  • Are you the copyright holder?

or

  • Thank you.

(I'm paraphrasing, and we have form letters for almost everything.)

The one thing you might have working against you is that you are relatively short in service, and they might be more comfortable with volunteers with longer history. If you raise your hand, please don't be discouraged by refusal. :) If you do decide to raise your hand, you are absolutely welcome to stop by my page any time you want feedback (well, you're welcome to do that already :D). And please let me know if you volunteer, so I can drop a word on your behalf. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I think I'm interested, but probably not for a couple of months when my day job should get a touch less stressful, and by then I'll be less of a newcomer too. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what I've seen of you, I'd suspect at some point the lack of adminship will no longer be a drawback. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denso Hall

There are two lines quoted from two different sources and they are properly referenced. You can check the article. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did check the article which is why I tagged it as a copyright violation. They are not in quotation marks, so they are not "quoted", and they are word-for-word copies from the references. An article must be more than quotations and copying from two different sources is still copying. The article needs to be rewritten in your own words, with references supporting what you are saying but not how you are saying it. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made the changes as you suggested. AlphaGamma1991 (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your efforts. Keep up the good work! VernoWhitney (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

23 Engineer Regiment (Air Assault)

Hi I have reworked the 23 Engineer Regiment (Air Assault) article could you check your happy that it is no longer a copyvio. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards copyvio at Progressive education

Holy cow! You may have dug up the biggest single case of backwards infringement that I've ever seen. I wonder if all of this person's documents are copyright violations? See the talk of this article for some details, and now compare [1] with Medical tourism. Pretty blatant, no? :O One for Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, to be sure! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's alot of books they've made. I hadn't even thought of looking at their other books, but now that I skim through them I think it's pretty likely they copied them all. Sorry I made you look through that just to figure out that it's reverse infringement though. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. That's fine. :) That's part of the job. :D Tagging it is the right thing to do, if you find copying and we need to figure out which came first. I do find it very annoying when people do that (steal from our writers), though, because, you know, I might have deleted that as a copyvio if I had not taken the time to look or if I had not been able to compile enough evidence to make a case for reverse infringement. We encourage downstream reuse. All we ask is attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could go for days doing nothing but tagging reverse infringement articles from that one scribd author. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. I tagged some of them, listed them at Mirrors and Forks, and have halfway considered saying something about it at WT:COPYCLEAN or someplace. I might just let it go from this point. There are hundreds of people who do this. Can't address them all. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pongola River

Allthough the original article (2 lines) are mine, nothing i used was copied. It looks as if someone edited the art. after me, pls inform him/her.Flagman (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm forced to disagree with you, as the article was created by User:Chl here and the copyvio was introduced by you here. Please feel free to point out any mistake I have made. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

www.wga.hu

At the time, the guys from their site gave me the permission to use their text. Later, however, since I received numerous messages like yours, I stopped and started adding text from my own. Cao and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly FYI

Hello!

Just so you know, shouldn't be {{subst:}} CorenSearchBot's templates, as you did here. This actually caused the page to show up in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. The standard listing of what can and should be substituted is at Wikipedia:Substitution. :) Keep up the positive contributions! Avicennasis @ 08:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was doing that to get it out of Category:Possible copyright violations, since it shouldn't have been in that category either. I'll figure out something else to do next time. Thanks for letting me know. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voila. :) You can always leave a note explaining why, if you think it necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sure, come up with an easy solution. That's no fun at all. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 3

I was in the process of doing the AfD for this article. I skipped the prod since the editor is likely to contest it. Hope you don't feel like I stepped on your toes. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. And this way opens the door for G4 later. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

The Working Man's Barnstar
In appreciation of your fair editing on Shlomo Sawilowsky‎, and particularly for bringing to an end edit wars and bullying, I hereby award you this barnstar.

Edstat (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! It's nice to see everything settled down and a well-referenced article come out of it. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I am simply linking these authors to a book that mentions them. I figured that those who are searching for these authors would like books that talk about them too. I'm just trying to help by adding content. Sorry to cause any inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.194.78.59 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 13 April 2010

wga.hu

You are opening a copyright violation against me for something I did five years ago?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was a newbie here! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Re: your latest at CCI, I'm afraid that upsetting people is par for the course in this line of work. Depending on the circumstances, I go for either friendly soothing or a businesslike demeanor, and the turmoil soon settles down. Except when it doesn't, and then it almost always winds up nowhere good. :/ Oh, the stories I could tell. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Maybe I'll ask you about those times later. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided I don't want to tell you. You do really good work. I want to keep you around. :D But I wanted to note to ease your passage through life that having notified a contributor of a CCI, you are not required to notify him of subsequent actions. The directions (at the top of Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Roman888) don't explicitly say you don't (though they will from now on), but this section says so (now). Sorry for the gap in instructions there; this is another case of processes evolving on the fly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, leaving it at just the notice of the CCI would seem to avoid the drama. And since all of the open CCIs have presumably already been notified then that just leaves checking/tagging/cleaning as appropriate. I like it. Thanks for the heads up. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll double check to make sure they all received proper notice. If there's any chance they may be unaware, I'll let them know. Do you object to my refactoring your latest notices to Bci2? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I was just copying the templates suggested by {{copyvio}}. Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it looks like while I've not been hard at work, you have been. Now that I've taken care of the two remaining images, there seems to be only one article left. I've moved on to another CCI rather than risk covering the same ground that you're treading. If you want me to finish it, let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave the honor of wrapping it to you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually left that one for you since you had restored it previously, and he hasn't made any substantive changes since. I skimmed it and didn't see any copyvio, but I figured you might have a better idea whether it was clear or not since I don't know exactly what it was infringing in the first place. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, all right. Then I'm on it. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus

Saw your note on Wolfkeeper's page on this. Basically his changes all flow from his determination to rid Wikipedia of articles about words (e.g., Thou, Prithee, Yankee, Gay, etc). Most editors oppose this view and that's probably who he's referring to when he says, "...some people really don't believe that Wikipedia needs to be an Encyclopedia for example". --NeilN talk to me 00:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, I hadn't run into him before - just saw the slew of changes to the policy pages on my watchlist today and felt obliged to say my piece while he argued it out elsewhere. Thanks for stopping by! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on Expermiment 2 on Shlomo Sawilowsky

I'll check back in a week, but I would like your opinion on Exerp. 2. I copied the information that was on the page before it was hammered by Keifer.Wolfowitz, Iulus, and smartse. None of the subject matter falls under math - it is applied statistics/data analysis or research design.

Taking your advice, and motivated by your "sigh", I have reverted both Enflo and Oscar Kempthorne's pages to the way Keifer.Wolfowitz had them. (He wrote almost all of Enflo.) I don't want to burden you, but I would appreciate it if you would review those two pages as I have restored them before making your decision on the Shlomo Sawilowsky page.

If you Google books on Sawilowsky and Enflo, you will find roughly the same number of pages listing textbooks citing their work. If you Google scholar, you will find for "Enflo, P." 226 hits, and "Sawilowsky, S."253" hits, which means academics cite their work at about the same level.

Kempthorne is a different story. (Apart from a half century head start), having written one of the classics in the field, that single book accounts for almost all of the 3,740 Google Scholar hits, which is why I mentioned on the Kempthorne discussion page that he is far more notable than what Keifer.Wolfowitz wrote, and hence that page should be expanded.

The point is three math majors cannot see beyond their food chain, and hence they denigrate statistics with a vengence. In my view that bias should not be permitted. Thanks. Edstat (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Enflo and Sawilowsky.
Perhaps it is folly for me to rebut claims of Sawilowsky's superiority, to which Edstat doggedly returns.
Looking at Google Book Search, we see Enflo's impact has been larger: Searching for the string "Per Enflo" yields 235 citations, while searching for "Shlomo Sawilowsky" yields 32 citations, most of which (to judge only by the first page) were authored by Sawilowsky. I previously showed that Sawilowsky was an order (or two) of magnitude below Jöreskog using Google Scholar, when "Edstat" claimed the opposite.
Looking at Google Scholar, we see that Enflo's articles majorize Sawilowsky in citations: That is, the cumulative number of citations (in order of number of citations) favors Enflo.
In mathematics (and especially the elite journals in which Enflo's articles appear), mathematics articles cite very few papers, and Enflo's papers are very highly cited in functional analysis and operator theory (look at the citations of articles citing Enflo, to see the drop-off). To avoid copy-right problems and to conform to WP policy, only two paper's citations are shown:
*A counterexample to the approximation problem in Banach spaces P Enflo - Acta Mathematica, 1973 - Springer Citerat av 192 [Duplicate entry] Citerat av 99
*Extremal vectors and invariant subspaces S Ansari, P Enflo - Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 1998 Citerat av 37
All of these papers have stimulated research by the leaders in functional analysis and operator theory, and most of these are described as "breakthroughs", and most are featured in advanced monographs in mathematical analysis.
In contrast, in psychology and education and applied social-science statistics, Sawilowsky-style articles cite many more articles. Enflo's advantage would be even greater if his citation-sums were field-normalized. To appreciate the mediocrity of Sawilowsky, compare his results with Karl Gustav Jöreskog, whose publications have thousands of citations, or with Jöreskog's student Bengt Muthén (who is a professor at an education school at UCLA) or with Larry V. Hedges, who is professor of education at the University of Chicago. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is to everyone involved in the Sawilowsky/Enflo debate: I don't care which one is more notable than the other and I don't think it matters at all for purposes of their Wikipedia articles.
The articles can not be directly compared, but policies should be applied fairly and equally across every article. From what I've seen that appears to be Edstat's goal. While I believe his methods of figuring out what policies apply to the content in Sawilowsky and then applying them similarly to Enflo have at times been disruptive, the goal as far as I can tell is a laudable one. A bit more talking before acting may be in order.
In response, both you (Kiefer.Wolfowitz) and Iulus Ascanius have, knowingly or not, attacked both Edstat and Sawilowsky. Even if Edstat is violating policy, this is no reason to violate policy in retaliation. Continued violation of policy would be a reason to request intervention via an admin or some other mediator. Again, I believe your goal of maintaining high quality in the articles you are editing (these two in particular) is laudable. As far as I can tell both of you use talk pages well, but I feel a more measured response is called for. In all cases, Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith may be reasonable reading. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for drawing out attention to the policy, which does not excuse any attacks under any circumstances---particularly not in response to attacks. I acknowledge having violated "Wikipedia attack" policy, in responding to various allegations of being a mathematician and not a statistician, harboring anti-semitism, being biased against midwestern state universities like Wayne State, etc. I thank you for your warning, and acknowledge that future violations could well result in more formal action. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us be clear, however: I have never attacked Sawilowski, whose achievements are of the level usually associated with a full professor of quantitative methods (quite good, so that I wish there were more like him), as I have commented many times before. On the contrary, I am the only editor to have supplied an independent citation of Sawilowsky's impact (Hettmansberger and McKean). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edstat's harrassment (imho)

Please see my user page. Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
For your work at this now completed CCI, helping to wrap up a long-standing copyright problem. Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the old school. :) Thanks! Truly, your work in the copyright sector of Wikipedia is very much appreciated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the star! It may be shallow but I do have like shiny things. ^_^ Hopefully you still like me in a week when the 4 articles I blanked come up for review. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acharuli

Hi, I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on this page. The dance may be notable (you could check for sources and prod it or send it to AfD if you can't find evidence of notability) and if so it would make for a good spinout article from Dances of Georgia. At the least the title would be plausible redirect back to the other article. ThemFromSpace 07:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palawan Council for Sustainable Development

I saw you declined speedy on this article with the reason "Adapted from CC-BY content" and was looking for clarification. When I look at the source page's copyright notice I see "The text ... may be downloaded for free-provided that credits or acknowledgement be accorded" (emphasis added), but I didn't see anything regarding distribution or creation of derivative works which would imply a CC-BY license, let alone an explicit license. Did I miss something? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true. I interpreted "Downloaded" as "Spread", but it doesn't explicitly mention that it may be adapted, or that it may be used for commercial purposes. It may as well be BY-NC or BY-ND as permission isn't explicitly given for those. I actually asked for some feedback on the admin IRC channel, but i phrased the question wrong since i asked if CC-BY was compatible (Which presumed thought was), instead of asking if the copyright notice actually constituted CC-BY. I think you are right on this one though, as the notice doesn't explicitly allow adaption or commercial use. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia mirrors, etc.

Hi VernoWhitney. Thanks for your excellent work at SCV! :) I just wanted to let you know that when CSB tags an article as a copyvio of a Wikipedia mirror, attribution is most likely needed in the history per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. So rather than just deleting the CSB notice as you did in this edit, you should also note in an edit summary where the content came from (in this case, Darwinia (plant)). You can also use the {{copied}} template. Cheers, Theleftorium 19:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up: I had a feeling I was forgetting something with the mirror sites, but I couldn't put my finger on what it was. I'll make an effort to use the edit summary in the future. Thanks for pointing that out to me. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy about knowing before editing?

On an entirely different matter ...

Am I correct in assuming that there is no Wikipedia policy suggesting an obligation to learn about the topic of articles before editing: That is, to take reasonable care of having read something about the topic on which they are editing? I could not find any such policy in a (brief) search. I assume that such a policy could increase credential-comparisons, which may be harmful for the Wikipedia project. Is this understanding correct! (Feel free not to reply, of course.) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is such a policy, I am unaware of one. I also imagine it would be detrimental to the project, for many reasons. In general, knowing and following Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be sufficient in order to edit without disruption. There is an essay which touches on this subject at Wikipedia:Competence is required. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your helpful comment. For once, I was euphemistic---I had removed "competence" from my draft. Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More extraordinary than extraordinary

The Faster Than Guillaume Bastille award
I hereby bestow on you the "Faster Than Guillaume Bastille" award, featuring speed skater Shani Davis whose 1500m. speed record of 2009 remains unbested...making him, yes, an even faster guy with a compatibly licensed image. Short of steroid abuse or other shortcuts, it's hard to imagine a quicker finish than this. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to inspire. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(By the way, I'm torn. I had originally used Jeremy Wotherspoon here, but it didn't quite work since they don't do the same distance. Shani does the same distance, but his image lacks the majesty somehow. If you like this one better, you feel free to ignore the differences between speed of race. :D) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the appreciation and all (and I'm very impressed by your attention to detail when creating on-the-spot awards), but I don't think finishing that particular one is worth singing praises over, with only 48 articles, and less total contributions than a single article on that other CCI. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, take it as a moment of whimsy, then. :D Me, I'm cheered whenever one comes off the list. And you've helped clear a couple, as well as contributing substantially to those that are left. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(And, yes, that other one has been particularly time-consuming to untangle, though so far I have found none so challenging as [Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114 this one]. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The 39 Clues Task Force

The 39 Clues Task Force: 19 April 2010

Project Page · General Forums · You are receiving this notice because you are listed here. If you no longer wish to receive these notices, make a note next to your name it that you wish to opt-out of the newsletter. · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:War Years Remembered

Sorry, I did not see the advice on talk page, but I am used to remove copyvios and detecting promotional and biased articles because of my experience of being new pages patroller on Spanish Wikipedia. I will be more careful next time. Der Ausländer: Was willst du mir sagen? 20:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hehe thanks for the help

The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence
For your recent assistance responding to the request I left on someone else's talk page, I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For confirmation on Coren's Bot's accusation. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, thanks for the award! ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Foundation Consulting

Good day - we have added a very basic listing regarding our organization to support interested parties in neautrally prequalifying the software platforms we consult on and implement. There is a level of complexity in these offering that can be well supported by some due diligence in this environs. As the nature of the brief article is very fact based (location, core services, employees, recognition from verifiable thrid aprties, etc), I feel the notation flagging it as potentially biased can be reconsidered. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcanoe (talk • contribs) 13:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read the article in detail, so I do not know whether or not the article actually requires cleanup, but I strongly feel that the assertion on the talk page that "This page is maintained by their marketing staff" speaks strongly to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline and warrants a review of the article. As such I will look at it later today. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Foundation Consulting

In the spirit of cooperation and openness, I shared my connection to the corporation I was profiling. I will suggest that those closest to a source may also very much be capable of presenting greater "factual" depth to their material. Again, it was not unambiguous advertising we were intending to place here, but rather a brief article supporting the pre-qualification of our professional activities, which are complex and well suited to due diligence online within Wikipedia's body of knowledge. As it appears there is hostility toward the content I attempted to post, I have removed it and will rework the entiry to further strip out any hint of unambiguous advertising and try again. I see many corporations with articles which are acceptable to the community and will review those for additional insight, having reviewed the posted policies you referred to. Thank you again for your assistance in positioning our content in accordance to the necessary governance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcanoe (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you disclosed the connection to the corporation, as this is encouraged by the conflict of interest guideline. I personally do not feel it was unambiguous advertising, or else I would have tagged it as such. Regardless of any advertising, however, I feel that the company fails to meet the standards of notability which are required for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is why I nominated it for deletion. Since you are close to the source, if you are aware of any reliable sources which would show that it does in fact meet the standards of notability I encourage you to provide them along with your explanation of why it really is a notable company and should not be deleted. I am sorry that you feel there is hostility toward the content you attempted to post and apologize if any of that is my fault. I do encourage you to review the articles of other corporations, but as you do keep in mind that some of them may also fail to meet the standards of Wikipedia and merely haven't been noticed or improved yet, and so may not be a good basis for your own articles. You can of course feel free to improve them or nominate them for deletion if you feel this is warranted per our policies and guidelines. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moderation of Joule Centre page

Hi I am slightly unhappy with the editing of my updates to the Joule centre website, you removed some text which was copyrighted from a website which is fine but you also removed a some text I had just wrote myself so I can assure you none of it was copyrighted. You also asked for more reliable references but I fail to see what is wrong with the ones I originally put up (several of which were from government websites!) and I have looked at numerous other profiles where the organisations websites are quoted as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclarke4 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're unhappy with the editing of your updates to Joule Centre for Energy Research, but we can not accept copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. I had already cleaned the article and after seeing the first two paragraphs consisting of entirely copyright violations (either word-for-word copy or very close paraphrase) I felt it wasn't worth my time to check the remainder of the article again. I tagged it as relying on primary sources, which is to say sources affiliated with the centre, in order for Wikipedia articles to be verifiable independent sources are required. This was explained on the tag that you removed. You have also replaced the lead paragraph with a copyrighted paragraph (again), so I have removed that text and will repeat my warning in case you missed it the first time: persistent uploaders of copyrighted material will be blocked from editing. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish-Christian tradition and Open Theism

Hello! Sorry, I am new, so I don't really know which talk-page to write on, and how to write and just about everything here. Anyway... do you have any sugesstions to how to include my links? I added them on the talk-page on "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". I really would appreciate your input in this, because you are experienced here.

"Jewish-Christian tradition" can be understood by people in many different ways. Professor Emeritus W. D. Davies, a famous scholar in theology (and not a member in LDS) said: Mormonism is the Jewish-Christian tradition in an American key. He explained in "Israel, the Mormons and the Land" http://rsc.byu.edu/pubWDaviesIsraelMormonsLand.php . It is difficult to explain everything in a few sentences, sorry. LDS view themselves as Jewish-Christians too.

Also the famous lutheran theologian Krister Stendahl was active in Jewish-Christian dialogue and was a close friend of LDS and helped them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krister_Stendahl

Reflections on Mormonism : Judaeo-Christian parallels : papers delivered at the Religious Studies Center Symposium, Brigham Young University, March 10-11, 1978 http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/rsc&CISOPTR=36013

LDS are strictly Open Theists, says professor emeritus Louis Midgley at BYU.

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/01/20/lcm_open_theism/ 90.231.11.211 (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first a disclaimer: most of my work at that article and elsewhere on Wikipedia is keeping vandalism out. I'm less experienced with putting new things in. But continuing, I'm not sure exactly what you want to write or where, the first two links you gave me seem to be asking for a new article on Jewish-Christian tradition (or something like that, or possibly a new parapgraph within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but in either case I think you actually need to explain what the Jewish-Christian tradition is. I read through the first source you had when you added it the first time - the reason I removed it is because I've never heard of "Jewish-Christian tradition", was unable to find a definition for it online, and was unable to figure out what it was supposed to mean by reading the source. If it's not a common term it needs to be explained, either in the article or elsewhere in Wikipedia preferably. I can't see the "Reflections on Mormonism" link you provided at the moment, because it keeps breaking my web browser, but if by "Jewish-Christian" your sources mean what is commonly refered to as Judeo-Christian, maybe it would be better to place it in that article. Finally, the Open Theists link probably fits best in the Open theism article. Each of these could fit in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, but in any case it needs to be clear what you're trying to say with the sources. You may be able to get a better answer at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. I hope I haven't been too confusing. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Gnevin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnevin (talk • contribs) 20:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just a quick note of thanks for adding the split info for the recent Odile of Alsace/Cologne entries. If I do a similar split in the future, I'll try to remember to do something similar. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just one of the many details of copyright around here that I'm still learning. :) An edit summary linking to the other article would be fine, but I think there was a typo in yours so I figured I may as well make it explicit while I was doublechecking the copyvio hit from the bot anyways. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your feedback/help with a (fixed) copyright infringement.

Hi!

I am a new editor and got a message from you, because my wikipage /Eyewriter was put down. Since I am the original author of the blogpost that I used to create the Wiki, I followed your instructions, got a permit from CReative Commons, and explained it on my talk page, which I copy below. I would like to ask for your help so that I can fix this as quickly as possible... I have to say that my work as an editor is part of a coursework I'm doing for a class in Digital Media at New York University, so it's important for me to be able to successfuly create /Eyewriter as soon as possible! I really appreciate your help with this. Thanks! --Lachinos (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page explains what I've done, as follows:

Re-use permitted under Creative Commons License.


Hello, I received a "Copyright Infringement" message from Wikipedia while creating and editing the Eyewriter page, as follows:

The previous content of this page appears to infringe on the copyright of the text from the source(s) below and is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems: 

 http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/jimenalara/empathy-not-sympathy-diy-custom-made-assistive-technology/

Do not edit this page until an administrator or an OTRS agent has resolved this issue.


This is to state that the content on http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/jimenalara/empathy-not-sympathy-diy-custom-made-assistive-technology/ was originally written by me, citing the sources as I was doing in this wiki page as well. I wish for my information to be published as part of this entry, as allowed by the Wikipedia administration:

The original website now states that re-use is permitted under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0.

The permit can be found here [1]. The terms of re-use can be found here [2]


I have contacted permissions@wikimedia.org to notify this, as well.


Thank you. --Lachinos (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so there's a team which will receive the email you sent and once they receive your email and verify that it's sufficient, then they will restore the page. Alternatively, since you placed the CC-BY-SA notice on the original webpage, you can recreate the page now and it should be fine, since you've already placed the note on the talk page. Just make sure that you don't copy from other webpages, just the one you wrote. Hope that helps. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grail (women's movement)

Thanks for marking up the attributions on my disambiguation split of Grail Movement. - Chonak (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 April 17

Hi. :) I just wanted to say that after rereading that exchange, it occurred to me that my initial note might have sounded critical of you for not doing the same. I just wanted to be clear, if so, that I really didn't intend it that way. If anything, I wanted to explain why I picked this of all articles to rewrite today. (Another reason: it was the last one I got to. :))

I used to feel horribly guilty when I deleted articles on notable subjects at CP, but I eventually got over it (for the most part). I just remind myself that they were never legally ours to begin with. Deleting them leaves gaps in our coverage, certainly, but also creates redlinks that hopefully will bring other contributors to replace them with content we can have. I think tagging them and processing them is a very important part of building usable content all on its own...which is good, since most of the time it's all I can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it that way at all, no worries. I'm glad you have the talent and time to rewrite even some of the articles, particularly the ones from CCI that have been around for 4-5 years. Those are the deletions that bother me. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your Rubbish

(Malik Safdar Dholka 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC))Hellow dear vernoWhitney, are you the editer incheaf of wikipedia, or the persone who know's every thing, "Dhaulka" is my history and i have the right to write it, so please make no disturbance, you know nothing about this article so please let the person do, who atleast know.(Malik Safdar Dholka 05:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Mr vernoWhitney, are you the editor in cheaf of Wikipedia or the one who knows every thing, please fo GOD sake don't disturb any one to make healthy contributions, "Dhaulka" is my history i have the right to write it hare, so please don't disturbe me as you don't know any thing about Dhaulka, so please don't make Rubbish . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dholka (talk • contribs) 05:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're accusing me of as Dhaulka has been deleted since I looked at it. All I recall doing is redirecting it to Chak 124 NB, which contained every piece of text and photo that was in Dhaulka and more. If you could tell me what mistake you believe I made, I am open to a conversation. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Thanks for catching this. Clearly I was going too fast. :) Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - I recognize it as vandalism right away because I've been reverting this same vandal since January and they keep inserting the same text over and over again on this and a handful of other pages. If I thought it was anything other than a simple mistake I would've asked you about it. Thanks for protecting the page. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M.G.S. Narayanan

Pls check the new article at Talk:M.G.S._Narayanan/TempNMKuttiady (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some problems with it. At first glance I see that one source says:

Since 1969, he was closely associated with the Indian History Congress, of which he was member of Executive Committee for several years from 1974; Local Secretary (1976); President of Section I-Ancient India (1978); Joint Secretary for many years, and General Secretary (1983-1985).

and your article says:

Since 1969, he was closely associated with the Indian History Congress, of which he was member of Executive Committee for several years from 1974; Local Secretary (1976) and general secretary of the Indian History Congress during 1982-85.

Later, your list of "more prominent" works is also still almost identical to that provided in the other source I tagged. Choosing which works of his are more prominent is a qualitative (and thus creative) decision, unless you have some objective standard to measure his books against, which I'm not seeing. There are probably more issues still in the article, but those are the two that stand out at first glance. If you haven't already, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The first comparison was changed a few minutes after I put the msg on your page. It now reads

Since 1969, he was member of Executive Committee of the Indian History Congress and later went on to become its general secretary during 1982-85. He was President of Indian History and Culture Society (2001) and member of academic bodies like Journal of Indian History, Indian Historical Review etc.

Here the thing is the rest of the sentence is his technical position, it cannot be reworded. The list of books , if you look closely is not the same as in the list. There is one addition and more details about the co-authors. The list is a combination from Google books, his profile and the Frontline magazine features on him. Again, quoting the names of his books from a website/magazine cannot be a copyright violation of the magazine/website.NMKuttiady (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that sentence looks good. You are correct that facts cannot be reworded (or at least don't have to be), but the arrangement of those facts can still be an issue. You are likely also correct regarding the list of books, I apologize for not looking more closely at the various sources last time. However, your article still quotes the source exactly in at least one place:

As General Editor of the Calicut University Historical Series, he brought out 3 volumes of sources for Kerala History, including Vanjeri Grandhavari, 1987, which he himself edited. He was Chief Editor of Malabar, 1994, a compilation of extracts from research works in the last hundred years.

Again, I haven't reviewed the entire article in detail, so if you could review it again (since you wrote it originally) and rewrite it where it reads closely to the source, I will be more than happy to look over it once you think all of it is clean. Thanks. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added my final touches..Gonna sleep..........NMKuttiady (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks good as far as I can tell, but for future reference you may want to wait until you get an actual response and not just assume (and imply) that I've reviewed your final draft. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote every sentence in there, so that tag was basically for a completely different text. I'd waited a day and thought you might have lost interest and so replaced the content for the benefit of the audience. If it can benefit even one person by reading it, the better.NMKuttiady (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Sad much?

Why don't you relax? I just created that article today. I was attempting to rewrite the article and add references but you are flipping out and erasing everything. I understand copyright rules. As for other articles I've worked on, just worry about yourself. JHawk88 (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No

I havn't used copyrighted information. I usually use the process of copying and pasting, then rewriting the material and referencing it. None of the articles I have edited are violating the rules. I find it insulting that you are attacking me like this. I was not able to finish rewriting the material because something came up. I was going to finish it later. From now on, I will not save the edits if I cannot completely rewrite the material first. I truly do understand the copyright rules. I am sorry about this. Now please drop it. JHawk88 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just have to say

I'm very impressed with the way you keep up with older listings at SCV and CP. You really show some amazing dedication, and I have little doubt that if you continue to want to at some point you'll be dropping the last word off of this template. Feel free to let me know if you should ever think you need work in some areas to prepare you. (And, if not, that's fine, too. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figure keeping up with the mostly easier ones lets you spend more time on the complicated ones and CCI, so I have no problems with that tradeoff. And I may very well take you up on that offer (along with giving a shot at OTRS volunteering) once my work stress drops a little (which should be in about a month - I can see the light at the end of the tunnel!). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verno, the amount of work you put in to copyright violations around here, you may need to request a rename to something more apt. – Toon 18:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's hilarious. I appreciate the compliment, but I think I'll stick with what I've got. ^_^ VernoWhitney (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Oh, stop it, y'all. :) Verno, I'm available whenever you like. Just to let you know, I would not encourage you to dive into the experience too quickly. If anything, I'd probably urge you to overprepare. I went into it with little clue what RfA was like; I hadn't even been registered for six months. I'm not sure I'd pass in today's environment. I didn't pass with much of a margin in 2007! Not like some people I could name! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been watching the feeding frenzy at WP:RfA and have no intention of jumping in there any time soon. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what everyone was smoking that week... Mind you, the RfA scene seems a lot more vicious now than this time last year. I was pretty fortunate in that the questions I got made it pretty easy for me to come across well. Some of the questions asked of candidates now seem nothing short of divisive; the "consensus" judging questions are often impossible to answer without garnering opposes from some. We who see your work know that you'll make a brilliant admin; I think those who hang around at RfA sometimes forget that they are talking about a fellow human being. The advice I got from both of my nominators definitely helped me approach it. I'd echo what M says above; for your own peace of mind, just make sure you are completely confident in your preparation. You can never have too much experience. – Toon 19:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So assuming I have both of you as talk page stalkers of my very own now: I'm curious about two articles that the two of you both looked at some time ago. Both of them are word-for-word copies of GFDL sources which were added after the retroactive date of November 1, 2008 which means that we should remove the content. I know there's not much creative content, but since you went to the trouble of attributing them I figured there was enough for it to be copyvio otherwise. Following this logic, I tagged one for speedy deletion and was denied, so I figured I'd jump straight to the people that dealt with the copyright issues for the articles the first time around to see what your take is on them now. Thoughts? VernoWhitney (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you have me as a talk page stalker, but with a caveat: I'm a very irregular stalker. :) I'm inclined to check in if I'm expecting a reply or if I see something that catches me eye on my watchlist. Or if I'm procrastinating. :D

Anyway, stuff like that dates from the great transition. We knew when we accepted it that it would be unusable if the vote was to change, but since it was our license at the time we had no choice. There may be plenty of examples like that waiting for cleanup. Whether there's enough creativity to warrant copyright protection is, as you know, a bit subjective. When it comes to attribution, I personally prefer to err on the side of caution, figuring we don't lose anything by attributing if it doesn't clear the threshold. My preference would be where possible to rewrite the material if there's not much creative content on it. If there's a lot, we may need to G12 it just to get a clean start. I'll go see what's up with those two examples. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it's  Done. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know, I'm not actually stalking you. I'm also talkstalking Nihonjoe at the moment. :) I updated the Orthodox Wiki template recently, but that one wasn't using it. And, oops, Toon, my edit summary there sounds snarky. I remembered having visited that article and would have sworn I had placed the template myself. :O We have way too many attribution templates, and I wasn't intending to chew you out for not using that specific one. I thought I was making a good natured jibe at me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I'm glad I'm not the only one who ends up following other editors around in helpful stalking patterns. ^_^ I've been working my way through the articles that currently use {{GFDLSource}} and I think this morning I'll change some of them to the (so-far unused?) {{GFDLlegacy}} attribution, since we shouldn't need the Source template at all anymore unless I'm missing something. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a fabulous idea. :) Way overdue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, that does sound snarky, doesn't it! I like how worried this user was to make sure that they didn't offend me. Those attribution templates are a bloody nightmare, to be honest; not only are many names difficult to find (I'm looking at this) and there also seem to be two different systems for identifying the revisions—one of which probably isn't specific enough (date format (but not time)) and one which is just a hassle to get to (revision). Then we have the whole "sourcepath" "sourcearticle" and "source" fields... ugh. I sometimes wake up in cold sweats after using them. Oh and Verno, don't worry, my talk page stalking will be limited from now on seeing as I started a new job today; for which the interview was considerably less stressful as those RfAs, I might add. – Toon 18:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on the new job! I hope it leaves you more spare time than you anticipate. :D And I'll have to take a page from that user's book. :) I have of late been especially incivil to me. Imagine if somebody else had edited Verno's page before I could save that one. Yikes. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I wasn't suggesting you needed to follow suit; I hadn't even read it in the way the user worried about—cue a furrowed brow followed swiftly by mild amusement on my part. I was going to say, you need to be careful or someone might push the little "block" button if you keep up this self-abuse! Anyway, I'm sure Verno's sick of my pointless comments triggering the orange banner. – Toon 18:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I find the banter quite amusing. I was also actually doing work <gasp>, so I only got one orange banner. Also, congratulations on your new job! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that vandalism on my user page. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't think it counted as quite funny enough to leave it there. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio!?

I made significant edits to Thomas Curtis Clarke, which should be easy for you to verify. Having written over 5000 similar articles, this is the first one that has garnered me a copyvio warning. If you have some sort of rule of thumb you're applying, please let me know what it is. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not User:VernoWhitney, but I may able to help explain. I have left you a note at your talk page with some specific examples. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salina High School Central

What source was copyvioed? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 15:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one. One editor has been inserting that paragraph in about a hundred different articles and only changing the name of the high school in question. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks...I should have noticed that, because I know for a fact neither Central or South offer AP credit in Pre-calculus or Computer Science...do you want my help clearing out the rest of the places this user put that stuff, or have you got it under control? Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 15:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the offer, and you can feel free to pitch in if you want. All of their contributions are listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/JHawk88 and I'm working my way up from the bottom. As far as copyright cleanup goes, this one isn't too bad at all, but we're still checking all of their contributions because they've used other sources besides just that one paragraph. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Don't worry if you aren't interested in cleanup. It's what I do everyday, so I'm used to it and will handle it just fine if you'd rather spend your time somewhere else. VernoWhitney (talk)

April 30

i'm not attacking but giving you worning that not to disturb others contributions

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VernoWhitney&oldid=359282908"