User talk:Lvenosta

Welcome!
Hello, Lvenosta, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Louis Venosta, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Velella  Velella Talk 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Louis Venosta


The article Louis Venosta has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Louis Venosta


A tag has been placed on Louis Venosta requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://newplayexchange.org/users/4834/louis-venosta. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

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 "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. — Chevvin 16:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Help me!
Hi, just wanted to let you know that I'll update the entry I made with citations. If you must delete it, no problem. Honestly I just got tired of finding myself as dead links all over Wikipedia -- and to begin the process of correcting errors about various film and television projects I've created. So, my question for the moment -- for instance -- in the article on a film I wrote, directed and financed, the production companies are listed as Secondary Modern Motion Pictures and Vanguard. The citation for this is IMDB. But IMDB got this off the packaging of the DVD Collection, 'Kisses in the Dark' -- which was a release of my film ON DVD without any contractual permission and in violation of my copyright. On the FILM itself, if anyone were to watch it -- the credits list ONLY Secondary Modern as Production Company and OWNER of the film. Now, this has been an issue for years and it's not something I view as anything much more than old news. The problem is that IMDB is used to source so many things that are simply not accurate -- and they are notorious for not responding to corrections. Amazon continues to sell this DVD even though Vanguard had no right to release it. Try telling that to Amazon. Again, the question is -- you ask for citations; how does one address the issue of incorrect information that has been posted due to shoddy sourcing in the first place?

Thanks -- and I'll be happy to update my recent entry shortly.

Lvenosta (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but citations or no, the content of that page was copy-pasted from elsewhere in violation of copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and cannot host content that violates copyright. I'm sure you will appreciate that, given the copyright issues you suffered yourself.
 * Wikipedia deals with "shoddy sourcing" by finding better sources. If you sued Vanguard over their violation of your copyright, surely newspapers or entertainment magazines have reported on that, maybe Hollywood Reporter or Entertainment Weekly? Then we could cite those sources to correct the record. Huon (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Help me!
Curious, you say the text I added was copy pasted from the New Play Exchange, but how can this be a violation of copyright if I was the one who wrote the bio on the New Play Exchange? This is my personal bio -- written by me -- and it appears in a number of other places; it's on Sundance, it WILL be on IMDB as soon as I include it there. So, perhaps you can explain how something written by me could simultaneously be a violation of copyright?

Also, I see the correction made by Huon; thanks. There are a number of other factual errors as well. Most notably, The Coriolis Effect actually had it's world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January, 1994 -- not New Directors/New Films. It was chosen for NDNF after being SEEN at Sundance and Clermont Ferrand. It was reviewed in the NY Times based upon it's appearance at NDNF, but it was at Sundance that the film was seen for the first time.

Thanks.

Thanks again. First of all, to point out your lack of interest in American Short Films while at the same time disputing the information provided by actual copyright holder is just kind of astonishing. Also, to quote you, "Wikipedia deals with "shoddy sourcing" by finding better sources. If you sued Vanguard over their violation of your copyright, surely newspapers or entertainment magazines have reported on that, maybe Hollywood Reporter or Entertainment Weekly?" Surely you can't be serious in believing that because a violation of copyright was not litigated that it did not fact, occur? I chose not to sue. It was a matter a principle, not money for me. I'm an artist; time spent in court is time spent not creating. That said, I could certainly provide the contract itself that would certainly have held up in court HAD I chosen to litigate? This attitude is a primary reason companies like this behave the way they do -- 'Go ahead, sue us.' You may not be interested in short films, but if you care about copyright as you purport to do, you should at least take the time to educate yourself about such an issue before making such a ludicrous comment.

So, that aside, one last question then and I'll get back to work on this. You say to provide a source with regard to the Sundance 1994 Catalogue; since it's clearly not online, would I upload a photo of the actual page IN the catalogue? Or, is the rule that something must exist on the internet for it to be considered a viable source?

Lvenosta (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If you hold the copyright and allow everybody to re-use and modify the content for any purpose, including commercial purposes, we need evidence of that. The page that was pointed out above didn't credit you as the copyright holder nor did it say the content was freely licensed. If they got it wrong, you'll either have to ask them to fix it or otherwise provide proof of ownership, see WP:Donating copyrighted content. However, irrespective of copyright, your personal bio, written by you, would not make a good encyclopedia article.
 * Regarding the other issues with the film article you point out, as I said, we need better sources. I dug up sources for the production company (or the lack of a second, more precisely), but to be blunt, I'm not interested enough in American short films to do much more such digging. I could not easily find sources confirming that the film premiered at Sundance. If you know of such sources, you're welcome to point them out on the article's talk page and I'll gladly use them to improve the article. Huon (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)