Talk:State Corporation Commission (Virginia)

message: Moved to "State Corporation Commission (Virginia)".  We also have "Virginia State Corporation Commission", which is a redirect, but probably ought to be the main article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article is not only a copy of material sourced elsewhere, it is also a puff-piece with no critical analysis and considerable use of superlative adjectives.  See for example this reference for an alternative opinion:
* Michael Lee Pope Shedding Sunshine on the Secret World of Regulation in Virginia Thursday, August 22, 2013.  
This and other critical material needs to be added. --Zeamays (talk) 05:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This request is out of order. The State Corporation and its employees should not edit Wikipedia articles concerning itself, see wp:COI and WP:NOPAY.  The reference I provided is a factual report that includes quotes from a Virginia Delegate.  I decline to withdraw the statement or the reference, for those reasons.  --Zeamays (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

text: A Virginia newspaper articlePope, M.L. Battle for Transparency at State Corporation Commission Moves Online. Connection Newspapers, Thursday, September 5, 2013. has reported that the Virginia State Corporation Commission Director of Information Resources, Mr. Kenneth Schrad identified himself to a reporter as the Wikipedia editor Pr geeks.  Since that editor has contributed frequent text edits, much of the article must be considered self-written.  This supports the POV tag, which should not be removed until the article has been edited to remove POV content. --Zeamays (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: This article contains substantial content copied from elsewhere without evidence of license, which is a violation of our copyright policy. In addition to the flagged source, there is The Virginia State Registry. While User:Asvt12 clearly entered substantial text previously published elsewhere in 2011, material before his entry (see ) had been copied from the official site in 2010 (the state of the source at the time: ). I realize we received permission from the SCC for one of the files, and they can authorize the use of that text in the same way or by placing a release on the page itself. Please see donating copyrighted materials. Please note that granting permission for the print materials is going to be complicated, since permission for the Virginia Review, for instance, would need to come from the Virginia Association of Counties. It is likely to be easier to simply grant permission for the content on the website itself. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The two cited sources link to an official governmental page. The documents are government edicts with no copyright disclaimer attached. Most likely, they are public domain. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 10:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As WP:PD notes, state government documents are not automatically in the public domain. While there are several states in the US that do release their content into public domain, Virginia is not one of them. While actual edits are public domain by U.S. law, there is nothing to indicate that the overview of this commission was an edict as opposed to a simple descriptive document. Lack of copyright notice does not, of course, negate copyright under current U.S. law. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem