User talk:Verdatum

It seems pretty clear that you do not understand exactly what COPYVIO is. COPYVIO requires extensive, or total, verbatim copying of text. Small portions of a textual material, or one that is re-worded from an original, are not COPYVIO. If this distinction is not clear to you, please take the time to read up on copyright law before you go accusing people of breaking it.

To add to the problem, the COPYVIO page clearly notes "If you suspect a copyright violation, you should at least bring up the issue on that page's discussion page." This is basic courtesy; asking before accusing is a rather good policy in all walks of life - one that you failed to heed.

The article in question in no way represents a COPYVIO. I am restoring the content.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Sorry for blowing up on you, Not my finest hour. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We continue to work on Spontaneous Generation and its connected subject heterogenesis. Your thoughts on the work will always be appreciated. Best Wishes IceDragon64 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jc37. I'm just dropping you a note letting you know I reverted your recent edits to Orator. I was confused as to why you re-added an arbitrary list of orators without giving any justification, when it had already been decried on the discussion page. I assume you had some good reason, since I've always seen your name attached to beneficial edits :) -Verdatum (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, that's always nice to hear : )

As for the list at Orator, it isn't "arbitrary". If you go back through the edit history, you'll note that I did a lot of pruning (and cleaning up) of that list. AFAIK, the last "current state" of the list represented individuals who were known particularly as orators, and who gave "famous" speeches. (Not just merely people who often gave speeches.) And this, I believe, is represented in references in their various articles. (Which, I know, should probably be reflected directly in this article : )

The "pulpit" list, however, probably needs quite a bit of pruning yet. (I didn't do much with it.) Merely giving sermons shouldn't be the only inclusion criteria...

Anyway, I hope this clarifies... - jc37 18:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you revert my removal of the EL section in this article, stating that some of them were good links. I have to disagree with you on that point; I looked at all of the links and they are all to "how-to" webpages. According to WP:NOTHOWTO, Wikipedia is not a how to, therefore we shouldn't be linking to how to pages. Also, WP:EL states that articles shouldn't contain links that wouldn't be contained in a FA, of which none of these links would. Let me know what you think. Wizard191 (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from. WP:NOTHOWTO can be a little confusing in some situations. As I understand it, WP:NOTHOWTO is intended to prevent advise articles; content that uses the imperative (aka command) sentence form. An article that explains how a topic is produced may tell you "how to produce topicX", still, it is not considered howto.

I think you are misreading the section of WP:EL in question. If I'm not mistaken the section in question is "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid [...] Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." The intent is, if the link provides factual information that you could just extract and include in the article itself and have that inclusion still allow the article to maintain FA status, then you should just include the information. Here, if we were to include the specific howto information, then it would be directly in conflict with NOTHOWTO; since there are any number of ways to produce a hot-wire cutter. Even if the howto information could be rendered generic, the link it self (presumably) gives detailed pictures and diagrams that facilitate the understanding of the construction of the device.

External links are not required to meet WP policies to be included in WP articles. From WP:EL, Links to consider include "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

Ultimately, I think, simply, having at least one decent page demonstrating the construction of a cutter improves the article. It reinforces the fact that despite comercial models being available, they are frequently homemade.

If you wish to continue this discussion, I would recommend copying it (minus this line, I suppose) to Talk:Hot-wire foam cutter to allow others to voice opinion, and provide an archive of the process of reaching consensus, so the article doesn't repeatedly bounce back and forth between the two viewpoints. -Verdatum (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've continued the discussion at Talk:Hot-wire foam cutter. Wizard191 (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you can join! Looking forward to working with you on improving articles.

Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found Hi, Verdatum, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a link to the image file in question at Talk:Jodie Foster#Two practically identical photos of her on this page. The main focus for the editor who uploaded it has been that she doesn't seem to like the photo of Foster with her hair curled. Unflattering is her POV about it. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found it there, and thought I would give you a suggestion.

This is an effective way that I always use to disarm the "cruft" allegation:

Please, per WP:Cruft "use of this term may be regarded as pejorative, and when used in discussion about another editor's contributions, it can sometimes be regarded as uncivil." [1]

Ikip (talk) 02:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You removed one comment in a series of personal attacks and left the inappropriate comments and attacks of other users. Your removal of that one comment as opposed to all of the attacks that took place appeared to be an attempt to instigate further attacks. I reverted your edit to avoid that.  Anonymous  ^Talk . —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I totally agree with your edit. I tried myself a year or so back and got reversed. I'll keep an eye on this one. Possibly one or two lines on the topic would be valid. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 1 (September 2009) Content News and announcements Want ads Feature: Article rescue as a team effort Featured editor: MichaelQSchmidt

Hello Verdatum. I would appreciate if you could had some comments to the neutrality-in-question debate over the the New World Order (conspiracy theory) article on its talk page. Thanking you in advance. --Loremaster (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a difficult time figuring out what the Consensus is in this debate where you're now also present and appear to be quite dispassionate. Two editors are expressing very strong view to me. But I see only that they raise diverse issues. Therefore it would be extremely useful I think to all of us, if you simply pointed out what the consensus is on any particular issue - so that at least I could conform my actions to the Consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know you can log in on remote computers. If you have concerns for security, you can use the secure server. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Main_Page. -Verdatum (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that but my problem is actually that I am using my PlayStation 3 to access the Internet until my home computer is fixed and the PS3 browser has suddenly stop allowing to log in to Wikipedia... --Loremaster (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chile signs UN Charter 1945.jpg Don't want to inflame things by asking this question of you on the page above (I'm sure you now why).

But I'd love to hear your opinion of the propriety of that image - UN Charter, San Francisco, 1945? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is appropriate, it does not appear to be justified in the caption or the article body. As I recall there were 3 times as many images on this article when I first encountered it. Since I don't consider this article to be very crucial, I generally decided to pick my battles as time allowed. -Verdatum (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's inappropriate. And I think the article is important: it's useful and informative to know the thoughts of hatemongers, and other cooks and crackpots it might be need should there come a time one needs to defend oneself. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PS1: The subtle message - the subtext - is that this is the convention to establish the malevolent New World Order (conspiracy theory). And of course, those un-named quakes behind the scenes are telling us that the individuals in the photograph to the right are conspiring - in order to "take over the world." --Ludvikus (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• PS2: I'm having a difficult time figuring out what the Consensus is in this debate where you're now also present and appear to be quite dispassionate. Two editors are expressing very strong view to me. But I see only that they raise diverse issues. Therefore it would be extremely useful I think to all of us, if you simply pointed out what the consensus is on any particular issue - so that at least I could conform my actions to the Consensus. --Ludvikus (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is consensus. Consensus takes time. The arguments that have been raised are only a day or two old. If you feel more input on a discussion is needed, you can post a request on Wikipedia:Third opinion, but again, you might want to wait at least another day. -Verdatum (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me please know if you think this might be useful. If you think not, I may very well drop the project I started. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The project was closed. --Loremaster (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood what this is: WP:Refactoring --Ludvikus (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that this was done in good faith. Did Loremaster get to you? There seems to be a big change in yout attitute. What happened?

--Ludvikus (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Verdatum, I'm going to be away today for several hours. So I thought you should know that I will not be able to participate. I also want you to know that I, personally own either Originals, or Photocopies of every kind of source on this topic. So I can make these available to you, or anyone else, as an email attachment at least. Also, I find many of the sources lousy. The article should rely on the Secondary sources, but relies often on non-notable sources. Anyway, I want to tell you that I fully understand that this is a team-effort at Wikipedia. And although I think I know about this particular subject more than anyone at Wikipedia, I will neither ego-trip about it. Furthermore, I understand that at Wikipedia we have "truth by the [[ballot]." I wish you the best. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. Wikipedia decisions are intended to work on a time-frame closer to weeks, not hours. This is intentional so that editors don't need to inspect changes constantly, and can instead go have lives too. As far as my efforts on the Protocols article, I'm probably not going to do much more than policy enforcement and just leave recommendations for any larger changes I see appropriate on the talkpage. When a fact is cited with an offline source, I generally take it in good faith to be accurate unless it's extremely dubious. I also don't expect to do much editing until the review completes, which should take 2 weeks. -Verdatum (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to keep up with the latest scholarship. The article by the above world-class PSM scholar is available online and can be downloaded as a PDF file from this link: Hagemeister, Michael: "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion: PSM - Hagemeister 35 (1103)". Retrieved 2009-09-27. It questions the novelty of the finding reported in the French press. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in doing research in this topic. I'm just doing policy enforcement and reorganization for the sake of clarity. -Verdatum (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, my friend, Veritas Verdatum, here's the truth Verbatim: In the U.S., any work published before January 1, 1923 anywhere in the world - is in the public domain. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it, thanks for correcting me. -Verdatum (talk) 05:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great editing work - except for failing to recognize the Navigation tool/Side bar: Template:The Protocols. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did recognize it. I just moved it lower. If you'd prefer, the images can be moved lower instead. Also, when you are discussing a template, just link it as [[Template:The Protocols]] instead of {{The Protocols}}. -Verdatum (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be good to use the 2-page [[[primary source]] Table of] Contents from Praemonitus Praemunitus. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by this. -Verdatum (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of OR summarizing the contents of the PSM, use the "Contents" of Praemonitus Praemunitus - which you deleted. --Ludvikus (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I follow you. I'll address this at the section you created. -Verdatum (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		It's a real pleasure awarding you this Barnstar for my particular Recognition and Appreciation of your Ability to Listen to Reason and to easily Admit when you're Mistaken, as all of us can be - even Me, Myself, and I (all three of us). And I award you this especially in the Context of working with you on Exposing the True Facts behind The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, using Secondary sources, and avoiding, as much as possible, Original research. With respect to the United States it is Robert Singerman who did the best scholarly work on this "Warrant for Genocide," regarding the American Career of this literary forgery. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do I do this? Because you truly deserve it - being a rare exception to the rule. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Verdatum. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, nice working with you (this time on the above). Needs more work on my part - but I don't have the time.

--Ludvikus (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to use the info from the opera, copy it, but don't pour other people's hard work into an article that will be lost to deletion. MMetro (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't work that way. -Verdatum (talk) 15:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

Hey there Verdatum, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free images are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User talk:Verdatum. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir: You may recall an AfD discussion last year for James Wesley Rawles. (The result was keep.) Well, now a wiki article on one of his books has been AfDed. Your sage comments, one way or the other, would be appreciated. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/How_to_Survive_the_End_of_the_World_as_We_Know_It Trasel (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've recently added some information at the UVB-76 Discussion Page that I would like some additional input on; as you've been fairly active with the article and discussion, your input would be appreciated. Aeternitas827 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to remove Panzergewinde from Threaded pipe#See also That article has since been created. A bit of patience would have been nice. Peter Horn User talk 01:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One should create the article first, then add it to "see also" sections. If it was added to the article only a couple hours ago then maybe you'd have a point, but it was more than a day ago. It wasn't hard for you to re-add it, so all is well. -Verdatum (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Matrix mold has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No context. Unreferenced with no indication of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wizard191 (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article PaltalkScene has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seemingly non-notable software.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IBMbuckling.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Talk:Love-shyness/archive 1 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IBMbuckling.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. HouseBlaster^talk 15:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your reply on the FFD page. I have requested speedy deletion per WP:G7. HouseBlaster^talk 23:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly! -Verdatum (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Aseity, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]