User talk:Vandevenp

Vandevenp, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Vandevenp! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfounded copyright issue (5), please restore text

Dear 'Justlettersandnumbers'. In february, you deleted and blocked a large and rather valuable contribution to 'digital painting' that I made over a long time, because of an unfounded copyright issue. You were checking the matter with the help of the ticket number that I gave you. As you can see, the lemma now only offers very limited information, partly inaccurate, and certainly not without commercial influence. What did you find out about the assumed 'copyright infringement'? Please let me know how we proceed. Kind regards, Pauline van de Ven (26/4/2018). The (my) text is in the public domain and archived. Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6yxru31z6 to access the cached copy.

september 2017 (2)

Dear Nechvatal
I removed an external link to a personal page containting a poem in digital painting. It is not clear to me what information about digital painting it contains. Pease feel free to undo the removal with a short motivation.
Pauline van de Ven

Dear Kiwi,
I don't think it a good idea to make one painting (a comics image) the icon of digital painting by putting it on top of the digital painting lemma in the wikipedia. This is not the place for promoting illustration software or the work of unknown illustrators. Thanks for your understanding. Illustrations preferably are supplied by established, well known artists of international reputation. Another objective way to illustrate this page would be to assemble collections of vector, raster, vector-raster and new photography paintings within one or several of the large online sales platforms for digital painting, and link these in the page.
Pauline van de Ven

September 2017 (1)

Hello, I'm Freshacconci. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Digital painting, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. freshacconci talk to me 12:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Freshacconi,
I have updated several headings in 'Digital Painting' yesterday. It is largely text that I had contributed myself some time ago. I updated it with great care. As a gallery director, awarded digital painter and writer of 'Digital painting survey 2013-2017' I am able to give up-to-date, reliable and /independent/ information on the subject. The current text is already a great improvement. Please allow me some time to supplement it with references and links. As to illustrations, I don't think it a good idea to make one painting (a new-photography image) the icon of digital painting by putting it in the wikipedia. On the other hand, paintings can be a useful illustration to the various directions that can be distinguished, and it seems a bit odd to leave them out entirely. I propose to join our efforts and make a few collections of vector, raster, vector-raster and new photography paintings in one or several of the online platforms for digital paintings and link these in the page. I would be grateful for any language corrections since I am not a native English speaker. Best regards,
Pauline van de Ven

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Vandevenp, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Digital painting have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfounded Copyright issue, februari 28 2018

Hi, Thanks for letting me know that you removed my contributions to the Wikipedia entry 'Digital Painting' two weeks ago because of a supposed copyright issue.

I am the sole creator of the Wikipedia contributions.

The blog that you refer to: http://paulinevandeven.blogspot.nl/p/over-digitale-schilderkunst.html was obviously my own, but it does no longer exist. I have discontinued it about a year ago. It can no longer be found on the web.

I have replaced it by this website: http://www.digitalpainting.be Of this website, I am the sole owner and only contributor.

The text that you will find on http://www.digitalpainting.be is an updated, more complete version of the text in my earlier blog, and substantially the same as my contributions to 'Digital Painting' in the Wikipedia.

In response to your message, I have donated the text of my website http://www.digitalpainting.be to the Public Domain. Please find the CC0 license on all its pages. I hope this solves our problem, and that the carefully formulated and not yet commonly available content can be restored.

If not, please let me know. Pauline van de Ven

Kind regards, Pauline van de Ven

Unfounded copyright issue

No copyright violation has been found. Ticket#: 2018031510008256. Kindly restore the deleted content. Thank you. Pauline van de Ven

Unfounded Copyright issue, March 31 2018

A month ago, my contributions to 'digital painting' were removed and the text blocked from restoration because of a presumed copyright issue. The removal took place before an infringement was ascertained.

Shortly afterwards, WikiMedia's Permissions department let me know that the investigation did not reveal any infringement. Ticket#: 2018031510008256. I send word to the moderator and asked to restore the text. I got no reply. The text still remains blocked so I can not restore it myself.

It is a significant contribution of over 100 edits, corrections and additions that I have made over the years. The information is professional and accurate, about a subject where information is still not commonly present on the Internet.

I would appreceate it if you would release the content.

Kind regards, Paulne van de Ven

Hi! I didn't see your earlier posts on this page – that could have been because you didn't sign them (you do that with four tildes, "~~~~"). I'm having some difficulty following what you say here. I removed that content from Digital painting because a copyright infringement was ascertained – by me. What is Wikimedia's "Permissions department", and how and when did it it communicate with you? I've looked at ticket 2018031510008256 and the only reply to it so far has been an automated confirmation of receipt. Which "moderator" did you contact, and how?

If you could give some clear answers to these questions perhaps I can help to sort this out. That does not, however, necessarily mean that the content will be restored to the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

reply to 'justlettersandnumbers'

Hi, Thanks for your reply. I sign my posts with my real life name, I was not aware that is not sufficient? The mentioned ticket number was given in a reply to the following message, sent by me at 15 maart 2018 om 15:48 to info-en-c@wikimedia.org:

===== Dear Sir, Madam,

I received a message that my contributions to the Wikipedia entry 'Digital Painting' have been removed because of a supposed copyright issue. I am the sole creator of the added text. My blog that ​the message refers to: http://paulinevandeven.blogspot.nl/p/over-digitale-schilderkunst.html does no longer exist. I have discontinued it about a year ago. It can no longer be found on the web. I have replaced it by this website: http://www.digitalpainting.be Of this website, I am the sole owner and only contrubutor. The text that you will find on this site is an updated, more complete version of the text in my earlier blog, and substantially the same as my contributions to the Wikipedia entry 'Digital Painting'. In response to ​the ​message, I have donated the text of my website http://www.digitalpainting.be to the Public Domain. Please find the CC0 license on all its pages.

I hope this solves our problem, and that the not yet commonly available content can be restored. If not, please let me know.

Kind regards,

Pauline van de Ven =====

I received an answer to this mail, containing an automatic text-comparison, with the decision that 'no copyright violation' was found.

I am looking for this message in my mail, but can not find it. It may have been sent from another email adress, which makes it difficult to find. Or it may have been a temporary or otherwise removed attachment. I could ask for a new ticket, but you have all the neccessary information to reach the conclusion that there is no copyright violation. Let me know how to proceed.

Thanks, best regards, Pauline van de Ven Vandevenp (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Pauline, I'm sorry, but I can't see how to move this forward without more clarity and/or clarification. Here's what I know:

• There was a copyright violation (as understood in Wikipedia) at Digital painting from http://paulinevandeven.blogspot.nl/p/over-digitale-schilderkunst.html. If suitable permission for that content is received by OTRS, it may be possible to un-hide the history of that Wikipedia page. That does not mean that the content will necessarily be restored to the article.
• To date, the only reply sent to the sender of ticket #2018031510008256 is an automated response which confirms receipt and gives the ticket number. I've located another ticket, #2018031510010181, to which as far as I can see no reply has been sent. I have merged it with the earlier one.

If you can confirm that this is your understanding also, I can pick up that ticket and start communication with the sender. If, on the other hand, you have already been communicating with someone else about this, then that person should continue to handle it. If you can give me the ticket number for that correspondence I will make sure that that person is also made aware of ticket #2018031510008256. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Reply to justlettersandnumbers

Hi, justlettersandnumbers, I have given you the only ticket number that I have. I can not confirm what you write, "that a copyright violation was found". On the contrary: no violation was found. A substantial contribution was deleted unjustified. Even if it was deleted unjustified, you write, 'it would not mean that the content will necessarily be restored to the article'. I am surprised that the administrative procedure does not respect contributions untill they are proven to be incorrect, imprecise or in any way improper. After all, we donate time, effort and money. (April 1, 2018)

Best regards, Pauline van de VenVandevenp (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)