User talk:T.bennett54729

T.bennett54729, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi T.bennett54729! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Soni (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Vermilion College.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Vermilion College.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Vermilion College Logo.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Vermilion College Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising and copyright

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.Canterbury Tail talk 13:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

To put a finer point on the above, te next time you restore copyright violation or promotional content, I'll ask that this account be blocked. if necessary, the article can also be protected. Thank you, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in reference - Make sure you know copyright information before you create a libel statement. Both owner and what is considered public domain

I have no idea what that means. I do suggest reading WP:COI. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certain webpages and information that is provided online is considered public domain. Wikipedia is a public domain website. This means information can be taken, used, and altered without violating copyright law. Your sited information above is in reference to public domain information as the college site is a publicly funded state institution. Copyright needs to be specifically stated or would violate academic freedom.

Secondly, Libel statements are written statements directly defaming or altering an individual. In this case the editor. You also have sited a Conflict of Interest which is a general assumption of additional editors.

Last, since edits you have recently made do not reference false/misleading/incorrect information, I will not revert the edits. However prior edits to this site have been boardering vandalism as they reverted or altered to false/misleading/incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T.bennett54729 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand copyright. Information provided online is not considered to be in the public domain. Wikipedia is not public domain; it is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:06, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no understanding of copyright. Obviously not all online information/articles are copyright free, infact most are not. But certain information provided by government entities are considered public domain. Unless specifically stated, this government work lies in the public domain and not subject to copyright laws. What you have provided at CC BY-SA 3.0 is the licencing of wikipedia, it has nothing to do with the freedom of information provided by some government funded entities.

The page has been requested for deletion as the individuals reverting to prior pages are also inadvertantly leading to false/incorrect/misleading information and do not have updated or correctly sited material.

So explain to me what that copyright a the bottom of the reference page is referring to? Is it specific works on that page? Is is the logos and pictures which have additional waivers attached to them? or is is the written works? There is some really great informaiton on https://mn.gov/portal/ that might help you out specifically to answer some of those questions.

The copyright information on the bottom of all the college web pages means that everything on that website is copyrighted information and owned by Vermilion College. As a result you cannot use anything on the website without their express permission. The college isn't government owned and not part of the government of Minnesota therefore state of Minnesota government copyright policies don't apply here. Canterbury Tail talk 21:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really it isn't government owned? Funny, how all employees are listed as government employees. This is why wikipedia has turned into the trashcan of the internet. individuals with no knowledge on a subject are editing pages. This page is currently incorrect.

Well I'm not an expert on the school so I could be wrong. However the most important point here is that every page on their site they claim copyright over, so Wikipedia cannot take any of it and publish it. Has a copyright notice, can't use it, it's that straightforward. Canterbury Tail talk 14:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

T.bennett54729 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked due to publishing content that was considered marketing or having a marketing tone during my edits to Vermilion College. Edits after my first attempt were conducted by meeting policies and guidelines, even going as far as copying the format of other universities. However, the material that was properly sited on the page was being deleted by users who disagreed with my first edits to the page. The current state of the page I was editting has false/incorrect/misleading information on it. I have attempted to correct that information. I have also published government owned text that is considered public domain. I would understand if this was a temporary block due to disagreements in editing, or a misunderstanding of wikipedia's copyright policy (seperate for the legal deinition), but to include the ban indefinately due to advertise I feel is an attempt at retaliation due to a personal disagreement as all edits to the page after my first attempt strived to provide only factual information.

Decline reason:

You may consider the content of the website to be public domain but that doesn't mean it is. Until the website updates the copyright notification, you are not free to use content. Nor should you directly copy marketing content in any case. At the moment, it's clear if you were unblocked, you'd just continue with that behaviour. As such, I'm declining the unblock request. Yamla (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

By this definition the block that I was given was due to advertising and promotional items, not for copyright infringement. As owner of the text in question, I can say without doubt that the text on the page in reference was produced by a state of Minnesota agency and specifically the text by law produced by the state is public domain.

Great! You'll have no problem updating the copyright notice to indicate all content is in the public domain. Only... now you have introduced concerns around WP:COI and WP:PAID to go along with WP:PROMO. --Yamla (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with trying to better the site. WP:COI has to be one of the worst documents I have read. Ultimately if you have any knowledge on a subject, you should not talk about the subject and rely on others to edit it or interpet your edits. So the preferred way to avoid bias is to have individuals with no knowledge make, edit and update information. Information on this site is considered libel. My request for deletion of the site to at least keep information correct was improperly removed with no edits. This was also a violation of terms. Glad you are having fun keeping wikipedia "real".

So what information on here is incorrect? It seems fine when referenced against the website, and the name is correct again according to the sources, it was yourself that moved the article to an unsourced name. Canterbury Tail talk 01:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from missing information, just on the page as is: Vermilion houses over 60% of it's student body. The campus size is over 80 acres. The Law Enforcement program and Seasonal Park Law Enforcement Ranger Training are completely seperate. Students taking one can take the other, but the purpose and link between them is completely misleading on the page. The Art Studio that was built in 2015 was an open air art studio. A wood and soda kiln are in it but so is a metal foundry and other studio items. It omits that the president of the college is William Maki. The student body size is given as 711, this varies year to year and flat estimate would be best. The number of sports has changed to 7. Another admin had taken down the campus picture before due to copyright issues. That is why I had removed the picture from all more recent versions. I appreciate you asking.

I didn't address your name change either. The name of the College is Vermilion. Academia generally divide colleges and universities based on the degrees they award. Traditionally a university offers post graduate degrees (masters, doctorial degrees, special degrees) while colleges offer under graduate degrees. For a long time, colleges that offered Assoicate level undergraduate degrees or diplomas were classified as community colleges, technical colleges or junior colleges. One of the things you would see on a previous version of this page is a history of names that we have gone by. The constant since 1930s has been the official name, Vermilion. The community college or college is a trailer signifing the type of college. Since 2009 Vermilion has only been referred to as Vermilion with a tag line "the Boundary Waters College". Mailing, history, and web address you will see both the post 2009 and pre 2009 names as a way of continuity.

@GB fan: So you don't call the repeated use of you should not, the preferred way, and to at least keep information correct disruptive? I'll give you that they are not a real attack per se, but they definitely sound like one editor trying to dictate the Wikipedia community/lash out at the community for not getting their way. Additionally, the phrase Glad you are having fun keeping wikipedia "real" is inappropriate use of sarcasm at the least, and appears to be an attack to me. I won't revert again, but just offering my full rationale. 24.63.117.188 (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All I said is it wasn't an attack. It may be become disruptive if it continues, but a single parting shot on their talk page is not a problem. ~ GB fan 23:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]