User talk:VernoWhitney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:VWBot)
Jump to: navigation, search
This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at

New Reference deleted in "Further Reading" section on "Feng Shui" article[edit]

Hi Verno Whitney, I just received your email dated 14:25 17th Jun 2015 regarding a new item added by myself was deleted by you.

This is referred to the "Further Reading" section on "Feng Shui" article. My new item was a reference:

Mak, Michael & So, Albert. Scientific Feng Shui for the Built Environment: Theories and Applications, Enhanced New Edition. City University of Hong Kong, 2015.

This book is an academic discourses in this area. It is a serious endeavour to document and interpret some scientific aspects contained in Feng Shui tradition. I sincerely believe the reference to this book is suitable to be added to the "Further Reading" section of the "Feng Shui" article.

I look forward to your kind consideration and approval.


Dr Michael Mak Username: Drmmak Email: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmmak (talkcontribs) 22:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

First off, I was not the editor who removed your addition, that was Mean as custard (talk · contribs). However, I left you that message because in general you should not be including references to (what appears to be) your own work on Wikipedia. I understand that it is a serious academic work, but as are an involved party with the book you are hardly an unbiased party. I recommend that you start a new section on the Talk:Feng Shui and suggest that the book be added to the Further Reading section. At that point you can let others review it and determine whether it really is suitable for inclusion in the article without being influenced by any personal preconceptions about the work. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Mafia Capitale[edit]

There are hundreds of reliable and authoritative sources. Every day there are new investigations of the Italian judiciary and further details. Even the Pope Francis speaks of this investigation of Mafia Capital. I have no more time to devote to this article. I have to continue my historical research on Catholic church of the XVIII century. Manox81 (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So far the known reliable sources only seem to be clearly referring to an investigation, not a specific organization. If you can point out a single clearly reliable source which explicitly defines the Mafia Capitale as a unified organization it would go a long way towards keeping the article from being deleted. Regardless of how that goes, though, happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not correct edit.[edit]

Hi VernoWhitney, you recently edited my correct entry on the Dyson Sphere. Your edit comment was not correct, just as it is not correct to built a house, or believe it is possible to handcuff god. If you can't understand that then I can't help you. Actually, to be honest, I can't help you. Wikipedia is a place for information to be put that points to the truth without actually being true. Your edit pointed the arrow in the opposite direction away from god. I wouldn't be surprised if you are now dead, for if you are not you certainly are dying. Please do not respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondeanmack (talkcontribs) 22:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're not interested in a response you probably shouldn't post on my talk page... Anyways, happy editing! VernoWhitney (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio Advice[edit]

VernoWhitney, what is the copyright situation for a letter/note? My understanding: current interpretations of copyright law gives more protection to unpublished than published works. In this wiki example, , it seems the entire section "Notes from the deceased" is problematic (good reading though) Advice please --Lucas559 (talk) 01:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

In the United States: For any written work created on or after January 1, 1978 which has neither been published nor registered with the Copyright Office (both of which could only be done by the copyright holder or their heirs--not the FBI--then it's going to be copyrighted for 70 years after the author's death. As far as I can tell that's the situation here, which means that quote is subject to our non-free content rules which it certainly fails being far too long and not serving a unique and irreplaceable encyclopedic purpose. Copyright terms get pretty messy, so if you have any further questions on that matter feel free to ask. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)