User talk:VernoWhitney

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

And it's  Done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

That sounds like a fabulous idea. :) Way overdue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Talkback Newspaper Image Copyright

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Haruth (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh - and you definitely deserve one of these... even though I'm not entirely sure what they are for ;-)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For being my #1 copyright guru :-) Best wishes Haruth (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm happy to help with any copyright questions you have. I may not always have an answer, but since copyright's most of what I do around here I probably know someone who will have an answer. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Copy right issue

You have emptied the article Brahmachari Walisinghe Harischandra by pointing out it is closely paraphrasing with two of the references which I have given in the article.I have reedited the article in the areas where one might suspect it for close paraphrasing.

In my talk page you have stated that This article appears to be a copy from http://sundaytimes.lk/070916/FunDay/heritage.html and http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2009/09/20/imp04.asp, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.The word copy sounds as a joke to me.Because no one on earth can say it is a copy of the above mentioned articles.

You have done two mistakes here.

1. If you have found areas where there is close paraphrasing,you should have attached it to those sections.Because the template states ~By default, this template blanks all other content on the page. To limit blanking of the text, as for a copyright violation in a single section, place at the end of the suspected copyvio area.You are lazy to do so ????

2.You are claiming a whole article is a copy of two of it's references ?????????? and trying to add a another one to your deleted articles tally.Isn't it? That is the truth.

I believe too smart users harm Wikipedia as much as the vandals.You are hoping to become an admin,but I don't think you will make it ever, with these kind of careless work.

Anyway I have edited the article to put it in to a new shape.

Shehanw (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I blanked the whole article because there were problems present throughout - maybe not every sentence (I don't recall and I'm not going to check) but not where it was worth adjusting the blanking. As far as the word "copy", sentence structure can be copied as well as words. I said in the edit summary when I blanked the article (and Moonriddengirl has since told you on your talk page), it's a close paraphrase, which still violates copyright and calls for blanking the article. Hopefully, Moonriddengirl's comments on your talk page have given you a better idea of the specific problems remaining in the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

My uploaded image files

Thank you for a speedy response. Is it possible for you to delete the image files with problems so that I can re-upload them correctly, with the right copyright licence, permission, source, etc. If I may ennumerate briefly: File:Porcine and pericardial valves.jpg wad scanned from a photo in my possession. I do not know the photographers name. It was used at a symposium in 1982 to illustrate a presentation, as was another photo I have uploaded as File: Valve openings.jpg. The proceedings of the symposium were published in a book, not for sale, presented to delegates of the symposium, by Shiley Laboratories Inc. Shiley no longer produce heart valves so am I correct in believing that the image is in the public domain? Other images - File:Mitral table.jpgFile:Valve openings.jpgFile:Aortic table.jpg were scanned from the same publication by Shiley. The imagesFile:Valve lab at lgi.jpg, File:Coloured valves.jpg are photographs in my possession and have nothing to do with Shiley Laboratories Inc. I know the photographer as Mr Catchpole but he died 15 years ago, the pictures were given by him to me. As far as I know these 2 images have not been used anywhere. If I acknowledge the photographer can I use the cc-by-sa licence? The images File: Mitral valve replacement.jpg, File: Ionescu shiley valve.jpg and File:Aortic valve replacement.jpg were scanned by me from publicity brochures in my possession which were produced by Shiley Inc. I ask the same question - are these images in the public domain as the company does not produce heart valves anymore?. I think the company was liquidated in 1987 or 1988. I am a new user of wikipedia and am nearing the end of the article that I am developing, I hoped to illustrate it with relevant images, but am now at an impasse. I need to know which copyright licence goes with each image, yes I have read the help pages but am still confused. Please help me, can you tell me what to do. If the images are deleted, can I redo them, or can I fix it without deleting them. I am also a novice to computing so using external tools is impossible for me!!!. Could you fix it for me?????Jflatarget (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to answer your questions here.

• First, the technical portion: It is possible to correct the license, permission, source, etc. on the image as is, but it does involve more manual work and doesn't have all the prompts that a new upload offers. If you want to delete the files so you can start fresh, you should edit each of the pages and add {{db-self}} to them and an admin will come along and delete them. I'm not an admin, so I can't actually delete the files for you. If you want, I can help with getting them fixed, but that will require some additional details, so that can be covered later.
• Now, the copyright portion. I'm afraid that all of the files are copyrighted, as they were published in some form or another. Those that were published in the book and publicity brochures by Shiley are most likely copyrighted by Shiley, or possibly the original photographer. Unfortunately, the fact that they don't make heart valves anymore and were liquidated doesn't make them public domain. When the company was liquidated, some person or company ended up with the copyright, even if they don't know it. That means that in order for you to use these images on Wikipedia, they will have to meet each of the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. The two tables could alternatively be recreated as free images, since the data used to create the tables can't be copyrighted (assuming you have access to the original data, that is). As far as the photographs from Mr. Catchpole, unless you have something in writing from him, technically the copyright for those images would be held by his estate, so you could get permission from his wife or child or the like. Assuming that's impossible (or just too much trouble), they could also be used under fair use if they meet each of the criteria of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/M._Christian&diff=359124175&oldid=359123405

sorry, i reverted. this was no more a personal attack than the comment it was addressing. 128.59.182.201 (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree about that. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

My uploaded image files

Thanks very much for your very useful help. I have put a deletion template on a couple of images and have edited the licenses as non-free use rationale as you suggested. I just hope my files will not be deleted now as i would like to upload them soon to the article I am developing. I dont intend to use all the images, but a few would make the heavy topic a bit more visually interesting, as well as saving me a lot more typing of additional text. Thanks again, I know who to contact if I have any further queries.!!! Jflatarget (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. I went ahead and removed the deletion templates that had been placed on the files for lack of source/permission since none of them applied any longer. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acather96 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Resiliency Management Model copyright violation / recent changes

I have two questions:

1. Look at this page. Is the content still not different enough to remove the copyright violation warning?

2. The difficulty with writing suitable content for this page is that for something like: "The RMM has two primary objectives:

1. Establish the convergence of operational risk and resiliency management activities such as security, business continuity, and aspects of IT operations management into a single model. 2. Apply a process improvement approach to operational resiliency management through the definition and application of a capability level scale that expresses increasing levels of process improvement."

I'm not quite sure how you could change that, without changing the meaning of it. It uses a good number of technical terms that don't really have appropriate synonyms / alternative phrasings. That's why I've placed it in quotes and made sure to include a reference. Any advice on handling something like this? Thanks. Error9900 (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel it's not enough to remove the copyright violation warning. I am of course not the only editor who matters and an admin will go through in a week and see how a rewrite looks. I appreciate that you quoted that portion, but I feel that it's too lengthy to be fair use under WP:NFCC since it is their raison d'être, and could be said in your own words better (as far as the reader is concerned). As far as rephrasing it - it's not using technical terms, it's using business terms which also makes it sounds like an advertisement (not an issue as far as copyright goes, but still an issue to be considered when writing an article). Point 2, for example could be simply said as "improve operational resiliency management". VernoWhitney (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the capability levels play an important part in improving the operational resiliency management though. I'll take another look at it when I get some time, and see what I can come up with. Error9900 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So is the next step for me to just wait until someone can review the article? Or is there something else I should do? Error9900 (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. As I told you, I still feel that it's a copyright violation, but an admin will review the article (probably on the 11th if I'm counting correctly), and decide at that time to unblank it, rewrite it further, contact you to have you rewrite it further, or delete it. If you want another opinion earlier than that, User:Moonriddengirl is an admin who commonly works in the copyright area and is willing to help with rewrites, and you can ask her. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

tech point about speedy tags

It may not be obvious, but the use of a multiple reasons speedy tag prevents the automatic transfer of the speedy reasons into the deletion summary by at least some of the helper programs we admins use for deletion. . This is important information, as it's the only information non-admins can see in trying to figure out why their article got deleted. You can use more than one tag, separately, putting the most important at the top--that is the one that will get automatically transferred. As copyvio, when present, is a sure reason for deletion requiring no interpretation, I'd suggest using it as the primary reason. (Although I disagreed with a few, I think they're in general very good speedies.) DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can understand that the helper programs don't handle the template since it's still fairly new and so I'm making more work for whichever admins are cleaning up after me, but isn't part of the reason it was created to ensure that it gets marked as multiple problems so us non-admins (including those who want to recreate the page) know that it has more than just the one problem? Or is it just that most people don't bother with more than one speedy delete tag? (Oh, and I'm happy to hear that you mostly agreed with my taggings, I'd love to hear if you have any suggestions for improvement.) VernoWhitney (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

yes, it helps to give information; so much so that if there is a good faith holdon, if there is any chance of there ever being a decent article, I copy the holdon message to the user talk, and answer it. The twinkle template most of us use for the actual deletions has space for two reasons: the reason it transfers from the first tag, & a second box labelled additional reason, which i fill in when appropriate even if there was only a tag for a single reason. I will very often add a G11 to an A7, or either or both to a copyvio--specially when its a copyvio from a site where the person wants to give permission, and it would be unsuitable even so. (If the copyvio is the top template, it transfers the link to the page being copied also) ) But, in truth, part of the reason is not just to help the user, but to decrease unnecessary challenges to the deletions. At the moment, few people are using the multi templates, and in fact the twinkle template for placing deletion tags does not let you place more than one tag; the other has to be added manually. Of course we can fix twinkle, but if we update it, it only helps the people who use it as a gadget. Anyone who has customized the code doesnt get updated--or even notified there's been an update (and similarly for the other helper programs) Dealing with such interactions is one of the problems in not having a centralized organization or even centralized programming. Only edit filters are dealt with centrally, & usually an important template breaks every week or so because of unanticipated problems. Anyway, do keep using it occasionally, if only so it keeps the problem obvious. I'll look around some more and then mention this at the CSD talk p.

The only other points I notice are, first, that in many cases of copyvio or spam, it is possible to simply stubbify the article, if it is one that is reasonable likely to be worth an article, and second, that if the article is empty, check the history to see if it was removed by the user, in which case the tag is db-author. And see my note about Appleton's at User talk:Bob Burkhardt DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I will make an effort to use {{db-multiple}} less often. I don't use scripts for editing so the problem with people customizing the code and not getting central updates hadn't occured to me. As far as stubbifying spam and copyvio - I'll try to do that more often, I guess I worry that people will just revert the copyvio and I won't catch it until a week or so later when I'm double checking the copyright problems (if ever). And I appreciate the note about Appleton's, although to be honest (at the moment at least) I'm only concerned about the copyright and attribution taggings. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Charlotte Marsh

I confirm that the material is from my own website - now at www.myersnorth.co.uk Bandalore (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is totally unreferenced. I am not convinced that any of it is true. None of the bios at the referenced website refer to any sources; it does not appear to be a WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

See also The People's Theatre, Newcastle upon Tyne. Same problem. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

While the lack of citations to reliable sources is a problem, the author appears to have some decent credentials. Regardless, right now I'm more concerned with getting solid confirmation regarding this and the copyright status of this and other articles which have been copied from the website. I'm afraid you're on your own as far as fixing the lack of references goes. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Red House Report

I can understand that copyrighted material needs to be removed, but there must be a way that details can be added explaining the same story in a different way.

Instead of just deleting everything, maybe you should of just altered it to make it acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.37.131 (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And maybe it shouldn't have been copied here in the first place. I'm not very good at rewriting sufficiently to avoid a close paraphrase and so I don't often do it, particularly in areas I know nothing about. If you want to rewrite it, feel free. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I like you.

You're funny. Most people around here aren't. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you think I'm funny. In this case I'm fairly confident I'm right though, if that changes your opinion of me. VernoWhitney (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Permissions

Tried to follow instructions about submitting evidence of copyright entitlement on a deleted article on Julie Hadden to: permissions-enwikimedia.org however the e-mail address was invalid.

What's next? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BLFan7 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be an "@" between "permissions-en" and "wikimedia.org". Try emailing that address, and once the permission is confirmed the page will be restored by an admin. Feel free to ask if you have any other questions. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tada! Thanks for helping.

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Hey! I may be a pretty new user, but I totally feel like you deserve this for all your work on the 39 Clues pages. You keep showing up on my watchlist :). Thanks for helping! Homework2 pass a notesign! 17:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It was your question that prompted my latest burst of activity in the area anyways. I am sadly not very good at the actual content creation, but finding sources and maintenance work I'm good at, so I do what I can to make things nicer in my own way. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:Suah2020

Hello VernoWhitney, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:Suah2020, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that with a talk page, it's probably sufficient to revert back to the clean content prior to its placement and leave a copyright warning. If it is restored, ANI may be able to help. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

CCI clerkship

Hi, Verno. Would you like to consider applying for CCI clerkship? User:GrooveDog seems to be pretty much dormant since December, so User:MER-C is it. Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Instructions contains more information about the job. Although it doesn't say so, I imagine it would be appropriate for you to leave any you request for another clerk or admin to open. Anyway, you should have an idea what the workload would be - not so much. :) A little flurry of activity around the opening of new listings and perhaps occasional archiving. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, sure? I imagine I can handle that since most of the work is in completing the CCIs and not opening them anyways. Do I just mention it on the CCI talk page as the instructions say, or MER-C's talk page as was told to Acather96? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's go for it on the CCI talk page. :) We have "new process board" growing pains, but that seems like the best place. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, sailor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hooray! Not that MER-C or any of you lot of copyvio admins seem to be falling behind much in that area, but I appreciate the !votes of confidence. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Alfredo Jahn copyright problem

I see you added a copyright section on the new page I created for my great grandfather, Alfredo_Jahn. All of the information I added was my own. It comes from my tribute site http://www.jahnweb.com/alfredo/papa_jahn/index.html. Please remove this notice from the page.

Thanks, Alfredo Jahn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredojahn (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said on Coren's talk page and your talk page, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials in order for us to confirm copyright ownership. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Web Gallery of Art

Vernon, just for your info, this site (Raphael paintings etc) is itself a copyvio site, usually lifting it's copy wholesale from art history books. Personally I'd just remove these paras without bothering with the template. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless the art history books are public domain then the text is still copyvio from somewhere. But as far as removing the paragraphs, I could (or you could), but I'm just a sucker for classic art, so I'd rather see it rewritten than removed (and I'm not good at rewriting, which is why I'm blanking and listing them for others to clean up if they can). VernoWhitney (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not very likely to happen frankly. They'll just sit there looking ugly. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, something (either deleting or rewriting) will happen to them about a week after I tag them, since that's how long things are left in queue at WP:CP. Some of my earlier taggings were delayed a bit because there was a glimmer of hope that wga.hu had given permission for a bunch of its text to be copied to Wikipedia, but I assure you that the won't "sit there looking ugly" for too long. Of course, if you're volunteering to rewrite them, feel free and the templates can be removed that much sooner. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I've seen that "permission" in the past, but they don't have the copyright to give it away. I'm surprised the publishers have let them get away with it all these years - Hungarian copyright law is standard and enforceable. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you happen to know which books they've copied from, I'd appreciate it, because there are four articles in particular ([1], [2], [3], and [4]) which we've been leaving alone because we have permission from the website, and I haven't come across the text online anywhere else besides that site and Wikipedia mirrors, but I'm willing to double check them against some hardcopy sources if you know some particulars. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In general no, they just seem to use fairly standard works on each artist, usually not available online. For example all the Durer print entries are word for word from the Dover complete engravings/woodcuts books. But it will be a copyvio from somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you obviously know more about this area than I do, any chance you know what the standard works might be for Caravaggio and Verrocchio, so I can track them down at my local library? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

There are really too many possibilities. I think they also use works on periods - Baroque art etc. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• AHA! lucky hit. PS, I think Attilios stopped doing these some time ago, so no need to get too heavy with him. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That's outstanding, thanks! And from what we saw he hasn't copied any material since he was notified that there might be a problem back in late '05, it's just that nobody went through and cleaned them up yet. Now at least we actually have a process for dealing with extensive copyright problems, so we've just added the artwork to the backlog. Thanks again for that reference. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Just when you think you've seen it all.... --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, VernoWhitney. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry for the tb, its just I was wondering if you could help me with something Acather96 (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Great Globe

Dear VernoWhitney, you have repeatedly distroyed this artikel. www.isleofpurbeck.com/durlston.html states:

The Globe was constructed from Portland stone in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887, for George Burt. Burt was Mowlems nephew and one-time partner. It is popular belief that the construction was in London/Greenwich because there were not sufficiently skillful craftsmen locally. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is of 15 sections.

I write:

The Globe was constructed from Portland stone in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. It was erected by W.M. Hardy in the park upon a platform cut into the solid rock during the same year. It measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons, and is made up of 15 sections of stone and joined together with granite dowels. Its position on the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.

The Globe was constructed of Portland stone. It was made in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich in 1887. It was brought to Swanage by sea and was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform chopped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.

The Great Globe is made of Portland stone. It was constructed in Mowlem's Yard in Greenwich during 1887 and was brought to Swanage by sea. The Globe was erected by W.M. Hardy upon a platform choped into the solid rock of the hill in the course of the same year. The Great Globe measures 10 feet in diameter, it weighs 40 tons and is accomplished out of 15 segments of stone, connected by granite dowels. Its position upon the cliff is 136 feet above sea level.

Please do not get on my nerves. Thanks --Huligan0 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Traced SVG copyright

Hi! I recently traced a logo from PNG format to SVG using Inkscape. I am trying to upload it, but I am unsure of whom the license belongs to. Does it belong to me, as I traced the bitmap? Or is it again a fair use rationale image like the original PNG? —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 19:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If the original is fair use, then your copy if it would also have to be fair use since you've created a copy (or really close derivative work) of their copyrighted logo. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

All right...thanks! —Untitledmind⁷² (let's talk + contribs) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"Canvassing"

Canvassing? I was asking DreamFocus if there was a way to get some extra attention from other rescue squad members. Really, that's considered canvassing? It's about as harmless as adding a rescue tag! PÆonU (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the "other rescue squad members" that's the problem. Adding a rescue tag is, at least theoretically, only asking for help in improving references and writing in the article, not asking for more keep !votes in AfDs. However, particularly the way you phrased your request "More jerks are saying to delete it and although I made a great point at the bottom of the page, I'm worried we won't get enough keep votes" made it clear that you weren't just looking for more interested parties, you were looking for more interested parties who would !vote keep. Per Wikipedia:Canvassing, this falls into the category of votestacking. I called it a failed attempt at canvassing because Dream Focus had already joined the conversation, and was absolutely correct in telling you that there isn't a way to get more people besides the rescue tag and posting to any possibly interested projects. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Referencing on the CarbonFix wiki page

Hey! I have been finding links to improve the CarbonFix standard wiki page, but you keep taking them down... Could you please explain why? Should I send you copies of the reports/websites which back up what is on the carbonfix standard wiki page? thanks in advance for your reply! Wiki-Mich (talk) 09:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The edits which are intoducing more links (which appear to be fine) are also reintroducing copyrighted text. There are no issues with you improving the article, but previously published copyrighted text may not be used unless permission from the copyright holder has been verified. If you are attempting to introduce text which is close, but not exactly, like copyrighted text, please remember that close paraphrases are still a copyright violation. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Images without a fair use rationale

When you see a logo or other image without a fair use rationale being used in a way that would be permissible if it had a fair use rationale, please consider adding the standard fair use rationale rather than tagging the article for deletion. Similarly, if an image has been incorrectly identified as public domain, please consider replacing the incorrect public domain tag with {{non-free logo}} and adding the standard fair use rationale. Doing this will ensure that the affected pages remain in compliance with policy without removing the logo. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I did consider it and decided I had better things to do with my time last night. Thanks though. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NHCAN (New Haven Citizens Action Network)

I am confused how can I do copyright infringement on our own web site... it is our words we have the copyright? Can I please put it back up? It will take a week or two to get the page in order but allow us to do it before you start clipping it I have till the 20th to get it in order... I have serval others from the group that will swing by and make corrections but wow I can not put words from our own web site.... I give permission to myself to use our words. --Happypixie (talk) 18:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

As I stated at the article's talk page, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Until permission is verified copyrighted material will be removed. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Alan's Mill Copyright Infringement

Could you please reference the source that you say the paragraph is infringing? Also could you add to the articles discussion page the the comparative sections so that other people can take a look at the alleged infringement? Onefinalstep (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is already referenced on the article. I will provide some example comparisons on the article's talk page. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Onefinalstep (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		I keep seeing your name pop up while reviewing copyright violations for speedy deletion. Keep up the good work :). - 2/0 (cont.) 19:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to see there are other editors out there cleaning up all of the copyvios that crop up. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ian Robinson (writer) bibliography

Thanks for restoring the bibliography that I deleted in panic. Permission has now been received and forwarded. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that the automated message caused a panic. Unless the bibliography is only a selected portion of his works, then it can't actually be copyrighted, so there shouldn't be a problem anyways. Of course the bot doesn't know what content is creative and what isn't, and so tags anything that matches a large amount of text in order to notify people (like me), that a problem may exist. I'll keep an eye on your article for a while, but I don't expect any copyright problems. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, VW. I've decided that the article would be better subtitled as (publisher) but there doesn't seem an immediate way to change this from (writer). Would you be kind enough to tell me how I can amend the heading? Thx Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's a "Move" option for the page (although I couldn't tell you where it is in the new interface). I've taken the liberty of moving it to Ian Robinson (publisher). I hope that's what you're looking for. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that was FAST...or did it happen automatically? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I did it manually. I just happened to be playing around and not busy when your message came in. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Orthostatic vital signs

Hi, I am new to wikipedia, probably this was one of my first article, though the article looks a close paraphrase I request you to keep the article as it until someone challenges to delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Udgikerian (talk • contribs) 11:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to consider this a challenge then. Wikipedia can not accept material which infringes copyright, and such material will be deleted. Feel free to rewrite the page further, preferably from scratch, at the temporary page provided. An admin will review the article and the temporary page in about a week and determine the course of action from there. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

For not being very active at WP:SCV. Tests at school, and more to come :( Will be able to help out more at the weekend! Acather96 (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I've been busy with work too, and weekend is usually when I'm least active so it'll all work out. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For jumping in at the help desk - the OP was clealry not fully satisfied with my answer (not was I) so I'm happy to see additional comments on the subject.--SPhilbrickT 02:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem, since MRG's taking a short break starting tomorrow, and I work in roughly the same area (although I'm not nearly as eloquent or expert as she) I'm just making an extra effort to stalk her page. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BLANKING PAGE

cOPYRIGHT VIOLATION PAGE IS OBSOLETE, ARTICLE HAVING BEEN REWRITTEN ACCEPTABLY. (CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF PAGE GIVES IMPRESSION THAT REVISED ARTICLE IS IN VIOLATION.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylomorphism (talk • contribs) 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I was in error. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hylomorphism (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Green European Institute

Hi! I'm quite new at Wikipedia. When creating an entry for GEF I did not intend to violate copyright, then I changed the entry just giving a brief idea of what was published earlier. Again there are some problems. Can you be so kind as to tell me what I can do know. I have acknowledged all the sources I have used. How can I defend my entry? Thanks in advance for your kind cooperation! Lila Religa (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While you reworded the text so it is not a direct copy of the source and so not in any danger of immediate deletion, it appears that User:GregJackP feels that what you have now is a close paraphrase, at least of http://www.gef.eu/index.php?id=4, which is still a copyright problem as a derivative work. Since he's the one that tagged the article as a continuing copyright problem, I recommend that you ask him for further clarification as to just which parts remain problematic. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

CHS Electronics

The CHS Electronics article is neither objective or factual. The author is obviously biased against the individuals. In the author's comments on your talk page he uses the word "prosecution" which shows malice and negative intent when the case was actually a dismissed class action suit. The company was built over 14 years, but the original writer has only talked about the bankruptcy and alleged fraud. I am making a formal request to remove this article, or I would happy to create a new article for CHS. This article should be the story about the company and not the individuals.

Courtlandw (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Courtlandw