User talk:Puffin/Archive 8#G13 nominations
{{talk archive}}
Invitation to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Breakfast|WikiProject Breakfast]]
width="100%" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="5" style="background-color:#dff2f3"
! File:Breakfast!.jpg Hello, Puffin.
You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC) |
Abrahams Commission
Dear Puffin,
I notice that you have prefaced an article I recently contributed on the Abrahams Commission with a number of remarks including:
Some sections excessively long and could be separated by using level 3 headings,
This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject. (April 2013)
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (April 2013)
This article may contain original research. (April 2013).
My responses are:
1. There are four coherent and self-contained sections that would be difficult to split. Unless you have any specific proposals for division, please withdraw this remark.
2. I strongly disagree. If you can point to any opinion or personal reflection on my part, please specify, if you cannot, please withdraw this remark.
3. There are 43 inline citations, all clearly related to a sentence, group of sentences or section, so this is plain wrong.
4. There is no original research. If you disagree, please point it out
I also noticed that your log of contributions for 5th April showed upwards of 50 entries including this in the hour following 0920 on 5th April, so I have a legitimate concern about how much time you spent on reaching these conclusions. Overall, I think what you have done goes beyond legitimate editing and should be corrected.
Shscoulsdon (talk) 09:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
:See WP:BODY: Sections and subsections are introduced by headings. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose.
:Personal opinions without a direct citation or quote, for example "even though it had been badly managed and deforested" and "Many Africans living on Native Trust Land felt strong resentment at the large areas of under-used estate land."
:See WP:OR: "Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source."
:The verifiability policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. The first paragraph of the section "Abrahams Commission" has no inline citations.
:If you believe that the article is appropriate for the summary style, then the lead section may need to be extended to cover the main points of the article.
:Inline citations belong directly after the punctuation. Please use appropriate citation templates such as {{tl|cite journal}}.
:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Solarra Its not like anyone else makes a lot of semi automated edits within a short period of time.] Puffin Let's talk! 09:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Improvements needed - Maybe not
Dear Puffin,
Thank you for the quick response. My response is:
Subsections: This obviously depends on whether the sections can be broken down naturally. I don't think they can, but if you can see obvious breaks feel free, but otherwise leave well alone.
Personal opinions: You are wrong in both cases. Firstly "even though it had been badly managed and deforested" is what reference [36] says, which in turn comes from the report of the government surveyor who White quotes. As this reference [36] is at the end of the sentence that contains this phrase, I don't see how you can say it is uncited. Secondly, "Many Africans living on Native Trust Land felt strong resentment at the large areas of under-used estate land." This is not my opinion, but comes from Baker, reference [25], and it's not really Baker's opinion so much as a reasoned conclusion. I accept citation [25] covers two paragraphs (it is a summary of 3 pages of Baker), but it would add nothing to split this between 3 or 4 separate references.
The first paragraph of the section "Abrahams Commission" has no inline citations: See above, citation [25] covers two paragraphs. As a general point, I have never heard it as a general rule that every sentence or paragraph must have a citation. Perhaps more to the point, if this is the only instance, it doesn't justify a general criticism.
In summary, I would agree to split the references in the first paragraph of the section "Abrahams Commission" if you will agree to drop the comment "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations." unless you can justify that comment by further specific examples.
Shscoulsdon (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Images question
Hi Puffin, I'm trying to figure out if you can point me to what we do with images from Flickr where we have these two licenses: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/deed.en and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/deed.en In these situations, it's clear the uploaders are OK with free use, but put limits on commercial use (and I never did get what a "derivative work" is, anyway... just don't crop it or something?) and I see these tags a lot, probably because the uploaders don't know about WP and commons rules. So anyway, short of going through the whole OTRS hassle and such, wasn't there a time when such images were OK on WP even if they weren't on Commons? I don't want to upload things that are not going to pass muster, just trying to get an idea of where that gray line is; the stuff I'm particularly looking at isn't going to meet a fair use tag because someone, eventually, could take photos of similar subject matter, it's more that these particular images are nicely done... OK, I'm rambling, just wondering if you have any thoughts. Montanabw(talk) 21:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
:Both are not ok on Wikipedia, according to this page:
style="margin: auto"
!Statement on image page. ! [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/meet-the-licenses License] ! OK here? |
© All rights reserved
| Copyrighted | 25px NOT OK |
{{nowrap|25px25px25px Some rights reserved}}
| {{nowrap|[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0 CC-BY-NC-ND]}} | {{nowrap|25px NOT OK}} |
25px25px25px Some rights reserved
| [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0 CC-BY-NC-SA] | 25px NOT OK |
25px25px Some rights reserved
| [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 CC-BY-NC] | 25px NOT OK |
25px25px Some rights reserved
| [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0 CC-BY-ND] | 25px NOT OK |
25px Some rights reserved
| [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 CC-BY] | 20px OK |
25px25px Some rights reserved
| [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0 CC-BY-SA] | 20px OK |
No known copyright restrictions.
| [http://www.flickr.com/commons/usage Public Domain] | 20px OK |
25px BY means the image license requires [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses attribution], as in an image is "BY" a certain person.
25px SA is for [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses "Share Alike"].
25px NC is for [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses non-commercial] use only and is NOT OK.
25px ND is [http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses no derivative] works and is NOT OK.
|-
|If the image is not OK, consider asking the author to release their work under a free license such as [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0 CC-BY] (Creative Commons Attribution license), or [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 CC-BY-SA] (Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike). See also Commons:OTRS. Puffin Let's talk! 10:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
::The ND one makes no sense to me. Any notion as to WHY it is "not OK?" I can see the NC one because people use stuff from wikipedia in commercial ventures, but ND, as I understand it, basically just means to use the whole image and not change it, am I correct on that? Montanabw(talk) 15:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
:::See[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/] Puffin Let's talk! 21:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing?
I notice you haven't responded to my last post, so to summarise:
1. The Article on the Abrahams Commission was accepted on 1 April.
2. On 5 April, you spent a very short time (according to your Contributions log) looking at it, and added multiple tags.
3. When I raised reasoned objections, you removed some of these but tried to defend others.
4. I pointed out yesterday that your defences did not hold water.
It has been suggested that your editing was "Tag-bombing", a form of Disruptive Editing, and I have to say a glance at your Contributions log shows a worryingly high level of negative actions. I have now asked you twice to remove the tag "This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations". Could you either so so in the next 24 hours or respond? If you fail to so either , I will assume your agreement.
Shscoulsdon (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
:{{tps}}I agree with the tagging. The sources at the bottom do not actually state what they are about, and some of the sources need expanding, to give full book information etc. Therefore, please don't remove the tags without action. Mdann52 (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Your AfD nominations of Animorphs characters
I just finished closing them, but in the future, it is recommended that you group similar articles into the same nomination. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
[[WP:FOOD]] Needs You!
Hi there Puffin! I've noticed you have yourself listed as a member of the Food and Drink Wikiproject. Unfortunately it looks like the project has been slowly sliding into inactivity except for a couple of people. That makes me a sad potato, and nobody likes a sad potato amirite?
If you'd like to turn my frown upside down, can you do two small things?
First off, go here and add {{tl|Tick}} ({{Tick}}) next to your name if you're still part of the project.
Second, go to the project talkpage and participate in a discussion about how to make the project more active, and how to go about making articles in our area of interest a lot better.
You don't want to make me cry, do you? Potatoes have a lot of eyes you know. So come on, join in! :)
— The Potato Hose 18:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Recruitment Centre/Shell|introduction=Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).
So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC) }} |
WikiProject AFC needs your help... again
WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.
Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!
A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.
Delivered at 12:45, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC