Duly noted: I am new to wikipedia. be patient with me and please try editing to help improve my articles instead of deleting the entire work. It is not my intent to advertise on here but simply to inform in an intelligent manner with no power trips or overzealous happy deletionists but instead to promote anything of interest in an insightful and thoughtful format of information. I appreciate most articles that are on here for the information age is what this free online encyclopedia is about.
Happy to learn
I am happy to learn on here, and have read alot of the guidlines for articles and templates here. The help section needs alot more down to earth explanation on some things and certainly could use more links to examples and templates for making a page without so much syntax. It has become frustrating to just find information on the syntax until I stumbled upon the cheatsheet, thank God for whomever made that. I also have to give kudos to the page about references, as it is more clear and new user friendly than trying to find information on what the heck is all this catagory, trees, and confusing me for articles and photos. Maybe a facelift for this editing format and more people would actually write an article here. Isn't there some sort of program that enables a person to make a page look good according to the wikipedia format, and not have all this syntax encoding and confusion on uploading photos and connecting it to one's articles. Also, as a newbie, it becomes quite exasperating to have to have several pages open to just write an article if one isn't memorized the syntax templates for this.
Maybe writing articles on Wikipedia isn't for everyone, but certainly it can become only greater with improvement on the editing and page creation format as well as the photo catagory and linking issues.
Just my two cents, I hope when I finally get my new article up, those editors and ones who police this encyclopedia will take into account the amount of time and effort put into an article with the research and syntax template on top of that...all I mean is 'take it easy on me'
Thanks,
The one life user
Thanks for uploading File:Portait of Rt. Hon. Countess of Shannon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to
the media description page and edit it to add
{{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are no other free photos of The Countess of Shannon, it is used in an article for Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon, I have put the format in you suggested and then stated reasons why.
Thank you, user: theonelife
Thanks for uploading File:Rt. Hon. Earl of Shannon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to
the media description page and edit it to add
{{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are no photos of the Countess of Shannon nor the Earl of Shannon in free use. I used the template it said to use when uploading on special pages for use in an article. Atleast that is what I thought. I also used all the templates I thought was necessary to show that it is a non-free use photo for use in the article only.
There are no free 'The Countess of Shannon' or the Earl of Shannon' Thank you. user: theonelife
- Hello, thanks for your response, but please re-read the pages I linked you to. The criterion is not whether there are free images, but whether some could be created. Since both Ms De Villers and her husband are living persons, new photographs of them can be produced. This is an entirely routine case under our deletion rules; I recommend you do not try to prevent it, because it just won't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I will delete the Earl of Shannon, but the Countess of Shannon photo cannot be recreated as she is living in the United States. The photo is the only photo of her showing that she is the countess of Shannon, this portrait cannot be recreated. It is a portrait that hangs in the Shannon Court and cannot be recreated.
- So what? We don't need a photo "showing that she is the countess of Shannon". If she is the countess of Shannon, what we need is a reliable source that says so, so we can cite it. The only image we need is one single portrait that shows what she looks like, and that can be taken anywhere and at any time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry too if I miss the point. It is the only photo of the Countess of Shannon, perhaps it should be considered a historical photo as it is not able to reproduce a portrait of a hanging photo which was the point to have it. Did you mean that there must be a recent photo of her even the part of the article it falls in is to depict her status of being The Countess of Shannon? I have looked at other articles of other people on here who are still alive, and they show 'past' photos of people that depict what they were doing at the time according to what is referenced in the article. Do you mean I should move the photo down, and put a recent photo in the top of the article...is this what you may be referring to? Thank you.
Final warning: if you mess with deletion tags again, as you did here [3], you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=File:Portait_of_Rt._Hon._Countess_of_Shannon.jpg&diff=421512580&oldid=421506679){kind=link}
- Dear User: Future Perfect at Sunrise, I didn't mess with deletion tags, I just changed template to reflect that it was a non-fair use as I gathered I used the wrong template for the photo, as it indicated that I used the wrong template for the photo. It said I needed to use the nonfairuse rationale template and thought I had fixed the problem with the message. That is all....it was my intent to follow the template format in the guidlines that it stated on the message to the photo that I used the wrong template. I had thought that this would fix the fair use problem as it stated. Do you understand this? It was a error on my part but not a 'messing' around with deletion tags like you accuse me of. You can rest now, I will delete the photo and move on here. Thanks.
Thanks for uploading File:Almine.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay imagetaggingbot, I put the actual source of the photo. any copyright permissions are given in other information and contact as to the validity of my use in the article, this photo was requested that I put up there as a current depiction of the person the article is about. Thanks
Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Theonelife, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)'''. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't add fair use files, I added non-fair use files but accidently used the fair use form I guess, so I went and changed the template to non-fair use rationale and deleted the fair use template. I then put a reference of the place in which I got the photo, and copyright permissions as this was permission given by Almine at www.spiritualjourneys.com which I stated, what they sent me. I also included the contact info on the copyright info on the photo. Please someone who knows what it is that I need other than permission for the photo to be used for the article. I had to go back and read how what the nonfair use rationale is and that is the form I used. It was per the request of an editor that I put a more recent photo up on the article and that is what I did as well.
What is a bot? I will have to get with the copyright owner and see how we can resolve this. Thanks alot for your help.
- Bots are automatic scripts. They usually don't listen when you talk to them. "Non-free" and "fair use" is pretty much the same thing in Wikipedia terms. About licensing obtained from De Villers herself: the only thing that would help would be a release under a fully free license, such as cc-by-sa, and she'd have to demonstrate that she is in fact the copyright holder to begin with (photographs are normally copyrighted by their photographers, not by the subjects they depict). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You are now (a) edit-warring, (b) using deceptive edit summaries [4], (c) pushing for the inclusion of fringe claims with no reliable sourcing, (d) undoing good faith clean-up work, reinserting numerous elements contrary to the manual of style; and all this in a brazen-faced attempt to use Wikipedia for the promotion of a semi-notable figure. This conduct will pretty quickly get you blocked if you continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit Dispute
I was unaware that there was an edit warning or a dispute on the edits as I edit all of my content in a word document and then I copy and paste because of the extensive fixing of the naked links like you requested which I have been working on off and on since yesterday, and on top of that, I did not get any notice all this time that someone was changing my format and content of my article. The style of your entry in a couple of cases are not correct in the name and placement of changing every time Almine's name comes into the article, and this is not what she is called in life, she is not De Villiers and you keep typing it De Villers. Also, The place where there are articles about her isn't about a 'De Villers' but about Almine Barton, which is why I placed the summary there to begin with. Every time you have changed this article, you make the integrity of it less because if someone looks up De Villers on these links, they will not see it is about De Villers. I have not tried to do anything brazen, I have been diligently replacing all naked links and only saved when I had to turn my computer off. You are brazenly screwing up my article with typos and changing titles like contributions to work which the catagory title work doesn't cover the content of the paragraph text and contributions covers it more with the recipes for peace and so on. I didn't even know you were editing my article and changing everything on it because I was in editing mode. Please stop slamming me, I have been working very hard on this article and in a couple of days will have the third party link for the copyrights on the photo...one photo. I am very tired as I had stayed up very late to do this editing and cleaning up of the links and information in the article for it to be up. You had made alot of requests of things I needed to change on here and I have been working on them almost constantly. How am I suppose to know you have been warning me and changing things when you never posted that you were editing it at all until late yesterday from what I see, and right off you start with a warning, jumping to conclusions and making it your mission to botch up the creditbility of my article. I am going to have to seek some other people in the wikicommunity to help me, because I asked you what was a proper reference link template to use to clean up the reference links. You never responded but instead went to work editing my article and deleting infortant data information on scientific validation and verifiablity on alternative medicine and studies proving so. This section should be included and I have reliable verifiable third party links showing the credibility of the kirilian photography which is an inline referance as well. I don't understand your anger as you have been editing without telling me, and then all of a sudden you are warning to block me. This is unfair. Why would you assume that I am trying to undo what you did when you never told me you were doing any editing before now. Please look at all the hard work I have done on the naked reference links and try to calm down with the accusations and blatant ridicule of my work. Also, you seemed to have erased my previous request to get the reference template for links so they won't be naked. I went thru the manual and found it on my own. This is what I have been doing for two days. Thank you, user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 20:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
-
tl;dr. Please make an effort at writing something readable if you want to discuss. The
pseudoscience goes out again. Medical information on Wikipedia must be sourced according to the principles of the
WP:MEDRS guideline. Those claims are as blatantly pseudoscience/fringe as it gets. You know that. – The "Almine"s go out again too. If "De Villiers" isn't her correct last name, use something else, "Barton" or whatever, but don't use her first name. – I'm sorry if I won't be able to reinstate these necessary changes without undoing whatever positive changes you may have made in your revision, about the formatting of the sources, but the way you act you leave me no other choice.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 20:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- It might have been helpful if you stated this before you gave me a warning with telling me you were doing these changes. I don't understand why this is so important for her last name to be in every place in the article. Please don't undo all the work I have done. I will just remove the scientific area and seek mediation for your abusing my article without even giving me notice. Can you please explain why you accuse me of doing something I didn't do. I never got any previous notice about this using the last name, and why this is significant on top of no notice for the scientific information. If it is psuedo science, then why does wikipedia have an article on Kirilian Photography?
- You made all this changes without an explaination! No notice as to why you were making the edits. NOTHING, until this warning. How am I suppose to know you were doing all that 'clean up' when it wasn't even notified of the clean up. Please take a look at the article before you change it. If I can't have the scientific information in there about alternative medicine and kirilian photography then I will delete it for now. I was only trying to clean up my own article since you never responded to my last message about the non-naked reference template which I already found. Please stop acting like I am the enemy here...I am really working hard on this!
Thank you user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 20:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry if you didn't notice it, but I told you in my edit summaries. When you edit an article here on Wikipedia, it is always crucial to read its edit history. You should not expect other editors to come to you and announce they are going to change something. They will simply go and
be bold and do it. It's your responsibility to keep up with events, by checking the edit history and your watchlist. Also, you made your second blanket revert of my edits after you had my warning here on your talk page. You must have seen the yellow "you have new messages" bar before you pasted in your new version, which overwrote mine for the second time. You can't complain of not having been notified.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 21:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I didn't see your warning because I was in edit mode, I didn't see this until after I saved it and it is my 'duty' as you said to check the edits, when I wasn't even aware you were editing this since I was in edit mode it doesn't tell you about any previous edits when you show previews. It doesn't say: Hello, someone has edited your article! You gave me a warning without even notifying me that you were working on 'cleaning it up' and you give me no recourse on the edits that are erroneous in your attempt to clean it up or to dispute your deletions and use of Almine's last 'maiden' name when the references clearly are articles about 'Almine'. Please look at all the work I have done on this cleaning up my own article. Being a newbie here, I guess that your being a seasoned editor that you expect me to know you are editing my article and a dispute was launched without any discussion on the reasons for changes which is plain wikiettiquette isn't it?
- Also, Kirilian Photography is on wikipedia and nowhere in this article does it say it's psuedo science. There are many articles about this technology and is verifiable despite your opinion of it.
- I thought perhaps my article was being vandalized. I also was trying to find out how to view who was changing my article and found out once I saw your warning. Being a newbie here is tough enough when I was working on my article and especially since I had to go and look up the template for extended reference links so I wouldn't have to have naked urls. This was a big editing job to do alone, and I did most all of it in a word doc because I didn't want to lose the information if something happened while I was editing since using show preview doesn't save it anyway!!!!!
- also, I listed catagories for my article, and I noticed those kept disappearing...why are you deleting the catagories? All the catagories I listed are valid in relation to the article. I got these catagories from the catagory lists...maybe it's a stupid question, but being a newbie here, I have to ask!
- Last but not least, why is it so important to use her last name when she clearly is 'known' as plainly 'Almine' in all the articles and references of her career. Madonna doesn't use her last name either, it isn't about her last name, it's about the verifiable references in all the links for validation on articles that state her name clearly as 'Almine'. Not 'De Villers, Not Barton, so...have some patience with me and explain this to me as to why this is something that I cannot discuss with you as you seem to have made up your mind.
- also, I listed catagories for my article, and I noticed those kept disappearing...why are you deleting the catagories? All the catagories I listed are valid in relation to the article. I got these catagories from the catagory lists...maybe it's a stupid question, but being a newbie here, I have to ask!
Thank you user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 21:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, one more thing....The saying I have message I could not click on if I were to save my article, I didn't want to click on messages because I was in edit mode and trying to fix all the naked links...have some common sense...besides your message was sent late yesterday, and I had been working on it since the last discussion about naked links and no response from you by the way. Little did I know, you weren't cleaning up links, you were just changing names and deleting whole paragraphs and catagories.
user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 21:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Theonelife. I'm Danger and I've been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I wanted to let you know about how we format comments on talk pages here. When you start a new section, don't put anything in front of your text. Then it will be aligned left and will look like this paragraph.
To start a new paragraph, like this one, leave a blank line in the edit box.
- When you respond to a comment, put a colon (:) in front of the text. It will look like this paragraph.
- Each new paragraph in this response must have a colon in front of it.
- If you respond to a response, use one more colon than that post used. (This paragraph has two colons in front of it.)
Most of the time, you should not use bullets. Please keep every paragraph in a post at the same level (same number of colons). Following these conventions will help other editors understand your posts better. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to post them on my talk page. Danger ( talk) 23:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please follow these conventions. It is rather difficult to read your posts. Danger ( talk) 01:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please do not assume
ownership of articles such as
Almine Barton. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It's my user contribution
- Well, hello Orangemike, nice of you to chime in here! I didn't make an article called Almine Barton, first of all. It is an article called Almine De Villiers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton). I am not complaining about edits, I am complaining about someone editing while I am editing and then accusing me of blatant edit warring when it has only been since yesterday that I was to given the tag of writing a lead, fixing naked links and references. That is alot of work, I was doing this, and my dispute isn't about the edits of my content so much as it was being done simultaneously then being threaten of blocking and warning without any notice that these edits were going on in the first place. I had been working on this article since yesterday afternoon and had all the links fixed. Unfortunately, it doesn't reflect those edits and why don't I have a right to fix the article that I contributed in the first place. Also, even after I tried to plead that the admin at least look at what I had done and I can fix whatever issues remained, I got that it didn't matter, I don't really have a say in it because of the lack of 'good faith'.Seems like a misunderstanding and no 'good faith' attitude since I am not being given a choice on my edits, or work the last 24 hours....give me some time people...I thought this was a community, not a dictatorship.
So not much fun being a newbie here. So nice to be welcomed there Orangemike, thanks for your input. User:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 00:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
While you submitted the contribution, the moment you hit 'Save Page', it was no longer yours. As it says under the 'Save Page' button, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." You're seeing this as an attack on your page, and I assure you it is not. People are editing the article because they care about it, and want it to be an acceptable article for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has certain guidelines, and if those guidelines are not met, then the article is deleted. So in editing the article to meet those guidelines, the editors are making sure that the article is not deleted.
Likewise, there are rules (such as WP:3RR) that govern how articles are to be edited. When any user violates these rules, it is disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. These are not to punish users, or to make it seem like we don't want things edited, but because if these rules were not in place, people would edit back and forth without coming to any consensus whatsoever, and articles would be of no use to anyone visiting Wikipedia, as the information would be constantly changing back and forth to what opposing users assumed was the 'correct' edit. There are guidelines such as WP:BRD that help users discuss changes in a page to avoid edit wars, and the discussion pages are provided so that these things may be discussed and consensus may be reached. If you have any questions, please feel free to visit my talk page and I'll be glad to help you any way I can (but please keep your messages as short and simple as possible)! Thank you. - SudoGhost ( talk) 01:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you are editing these articles but when you are making changes you appear to be working from earlier versions of the article, so that when you make your changes, you wipe out any subsequent edits. Are you working on the source code offline and then uploading the material back wholesale into the edit space? That's all I can figure at the moment. If that's your practice, you've got to stop it, and make your edits live. Wikipedia has mechanisms to keep two editors from editing the same page at the same time - thus working on conflicting versions - and if you are editing offline in, e.g, a word processor, you are inadvertently confounding that safeguard. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Or - maybe not? I may have spoken too quickly about wiping out later edits. Thanks for fixing all those refs - that's helpful.
JohnInDC (
talk) 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes JohnInDc, that is what I was trying to tell you, I was fixing the naked user links...I only copied what I had originally done with the corrections and didn't edit content whatsoever, please have a look people, I am not the bad guy here. I worked very hard on fixing those citations and links since yesterday which was my main objective. Can someone please take the tags off the article to reflect that these changes have been made? Thanks, user:theonelife
Theonelife (
talk) 02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those changes were very helpful, thanks. (Henceforth though please don't edit offline - or if you do, make sure that when you upload the material, that the article has not changed in the meantime, and you are overwriting precisely the same version of the article that you were editing offline. Otherwise you undo other editors' work and it makes you appear obdurate.) I'm afraid the tags need to stay, though - there are a lot of references there but they may not all be appropriate or sufficient. E.g., the reference to Oregon State was simply to the school itself, and did not establish that the subject had obtained a degree there. That sort of reference is appropriately conveyed through a wikilink of "Oregon State" to the appropriate Wikipedia article. (I fixed it.) Also, Wikipedia sources must be "reliable" ones; and autobiographies can't rely too heavily on self-published material. Now that I can see the names of all the references laid out, I am not confident they'll all meet those tests. In short, the references - while now formatted much more usefully - still need review and work, and the tags should stay. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you JohnInDc, I did alot of research on this, and the peerage, and articles are valid third party links not written by Spiritual Journeys or Almine Barton except the ones that say they were written by her in her bibliography. I see what you mean now about references for the college...I wasn't aware that you could do this sort of thing online, so thank you for fixing it. Hey, I am just learning here, and I all I want is to be treated with 'good faith' that I am working hard to make this article presentable and valuable to the wikicommunity. I have had many accusations of things that weren't true and yes, I was editing sections from a word doc, and pasting them when I got accused of edit warring. So why can't the tags for the lead be removed, seems to me that part has been fixed, and as for the verifiability of the links, it took a long time to find the family lineage and peerage as I have done all this research myself for all the ancestry and so on...thanks for your patience and taking the time to explain these things to me, it's a learning experience, and I am exhausted from staring at the syntax. Have a good weekend, user:theonelife
Theonelife (
talk) 03:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well - take a look at my latest comments on the article's talk page. You have a lot of references but it's really hard to tell which of them actually establish anything; and, perhaps I'm mis-estimating, but it looked to me like an awful lot of the substantive refs were right back to Almine herself. Furthermore, for those that weren't, I'm not at all confident that they would be deemed "reliable" sources. I took out the "lead" tag, but that was I'm afraid about the least of the problems. Let's see what happens. Meantime again, don't take any of this personally. Thanks -
JohnInDC (
talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay JohnInDc, I have always tried to have a rational civil conversation, but that wasn't the case, I got attacked and all the work I did was reverted. The only links that go back to anything of Almine's is where the reference to it came from one of her books, Alot of my references were deleted and I don't see how you can write about someone without having some reference to their work, especially if you are referring to their work. Peerage and family history was carefully researched and third party links, I didn't get that from any source of hers, I had to research the Shannon court and all those items. Since alot of my references to the family history and the edict of nantes was removed, all I can say is piece by piece is looks less and less reliable. Take example, Leonard Orr, he has ONE reference and it goes to his website. this article has been there for about three years. I was going to edit that one next after I finally fixed everything on this article and I felt confident enough to go off and do some edits. Again, I am not taking it personally but it is impossible to write an article about someone's work and accomplishments without it having no third party reference. I thought Almine's story was interesting and informational, and also since she is the Countess of Shannon, there is nobility there.
- Well - take a look at my latest comments on the article's talk page. You have a lot of references but it's really hard to tell which of them actually establish anything; and, perhaps I'm mis-estimating, but it looked to me like an awful lot of the substantive refs were right back to Almine herself. Furthermore, for those that weren't, I'm not at all confident that they would be deemed "reliable" sources. I took out the "lead" tag, but that was I'm afraid about the least of the problems. Let's see what happens. Meantime again, don't take any of this personally. Thanks -
JohnInDC (
talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes JohnInDc, that is what I was trying to tell you, I was fixing the naked user links...I only copied what I had originally done with the corrections and didn't edit content whatsoever, please have a look people, I am not the bad guy here. I worked very hard on fixing those citations and links since yesterday which was my main objective. Can someone please take the tags off the article to reflect that these changes have been made? Thanks, user:theonelife
Theonelife (
talk) 02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I am going to take a wikibreak now, this stuff is exhausting! Thanks again, user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 03:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You can find the article at User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton. I will oversee and make sure the article follow our rules before moving back into main space. I am not conivnced this individual meets our notability requrements but lets see what we can do to fix it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you and I appreciate your interests, but if you go by what was left in the current article, it would not read as a 'notable' person in the deletions of everything that had been done so far. Please see all the previous edits and deletions.
Thanks you for your time, User:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 22:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Countess of Shannon Family crest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 ( talk) 05:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
| WikiWomen Unite! | |
|---|---|
 |
Hi Theonelife! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our
meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate! |
MfD nomination of User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton
User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)''', a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)''' and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)''' during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Ok...JOHNCD, I don't understand why it bothers anyone that I have this on my user page...can you please explain why you need to delete something that is on my page...( talk)
Duly noted: I am new to wikipedia. be patient with me and please try editing to help improve my articles instead of deleting the entire work. It is not my intent to advertise on here but simply to inform in an intelligent manner with no power trips or overzealous happy deletionists but instead to promote anything of interest in an insightful and thoughtful format of information. I appreciate most articles that are on here for the information age is what this free online encyclopedia is about.
Happy to learn
I am happy to learn on here, and have read alot of the guidlines for articles and templates here. The help section needs alot more down to earth explanation on some things and certainly could use more links to examples and templates for making a page without so much syntax. It has become frustrating to just find information on the syntax until I stumbled upon the cheatsheet, thank God for whomever made that. I also have to give kudos to the page about references, as it is more clear and new user friendly than trying to find information on what the heck is all this catagory, trees, and confusing me for articles and photos. Maybe a facelift for this editing format and more people would actually write an article here. Isn't there some sort of program that enables a person to make a page look good according to the wikipedia format, and not have all this syntax encoding and confusion on uploading photos and connecting it to one's articles. Also, as a newbie, it becomes quite exasperating to have to have several pages open to just write an article if one isn't memorized the syntax templates for this.
Maybe writing articles on Wikipedia isn't for everyone, but certainly it can become only greater with improvement on the editing and page creation format as well as the photo catagory and linking issues.
Just my two cents, I hope when I finally get my new article up, those editors and ones who police this encyclopedia will take into account the amount of time and effort put into an article with the research and syntax template on top of that...all I mean is 'take it easy on me'
Thanks,
The one life user
Thanks for uploading File:Portait of Rt. Hon. Countess of Shannon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to
the media description page and edit it to add
{{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are no other free photos of The Countess of Shannon, it is used in an article for Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon, I have put the format in you suggested and then stated reasons why.
Thank you, user: theonelife
Thanks for uploading File:Rt. Hon. Earl of Shannon.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to
the media description page and edit it to add
{{ di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are no photos of the Countess of Shannon nor the Earl of Shannon in free use. I used the template it said to use when uploading on special pages for use in an article. Atleast that is what I thought. I also used all the templates I thought was necessary to show that it is a non-free use photo for use in the article only.
There are no free 'The Countess of Shannon' or the Earl of Shannon' Thank you. user: theonelife
- Hello, thanks for your response, but please re-read the pages I linked you to. The criterion is not whether there are free images, but whether some could be created. Since both Ms De Villers and her husband are living persons, new photographs of them can be produced. This is an entirely routine case under our deletion rules; I recommend you do not try to prevent it, because it just won't work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I will delete the Earl of Shannon, but the Countess of Shannon photo cannot be recreated as she is living in the United States. The photo is the only photo of her showing that she is the countess of Shannon, this portrait cannot be recreated. It is a portrait that hangs in the Shannon Court and cannot be recreated.
- So what? We don't need a photo "showing that she is the countess of Shannon". If she is the countess of Shannon, what we need is a reliable source that says so, so we can cite it. The only image we need is one single portrait that shows what she looks like, and that can be taken anywhere and at any time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am sorry too if I miss the point. It is the only photo of the Countess of Shannon, perhaps it should be considered a historical photo as it is not able to reproduce a portrait of a hanging photo which was the point to have it. Did you mean that there must be a recent photo of her even the part of the article it falls in is to depict her status of being The Countess of Shannon? I have looked at other articles of other people on here who are still alive, and they show 'past' photos of people that depict what they were doing at the time according to what is referenced in the article. Do you mean I should move the photo down, and put a recent photo in the top of the article...is this what you may be referring to? Thank you.
Final warning: if you mess with deletion tags again, as you did here [3], you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dear User: Future Perfect at Sunrise, I didn't mess with deletion tags, I just changed template to reflect that it was a non-fair use as I gathered I used the wrong template for the photo, as it indicated that I used the wrong template for the photo. It said I needed to use the nonfairuse rationale template and thought I had fixed the problem with the message. That is all....it was my intent to follow the template format in the guidlines that it stated on the message to the photo that I used the wrong template. I had thought that this would fix the fair use problem as it stated. Do you understand this? It was a error on my part but not a 'messing' around with deletion tags like you accuse me of. You can rest now, I will delete the photo and move on here. Thanks.
Thanks for uploading File:Almine.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 19:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Okay imagetaggingbot, I put the actual source of the photo. any copyright permissions are given in other information and contact as to the validity of my use in the article, this photo was requested that I put up there as a current depiction of the person the article is about. Thanks
Non-free files in your user space
Hey there Theonelife, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)'''. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
- See a log of files removed today here.
- Shut off the bot here.
- Report errors here.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't add fair use files, I added non-fair use files but accidently used the fair use form I guess, so I went and changed the template to non-fair use rationale and deleted the fair use template. I then put a reference of the place in which I got the photo, and copyright permissions as this was permission given by Almine at www.spiritualjourneys.com which I stated, what they sent me. I also included the contact info on the copyright info on the photo. Please someone who knows what it is that I need other than permission for the photo to be used for the article. I had to go back and read how what the nonfair use rationale is and that is the form I used. It was per the request of an editor that I put a more recent photo up on the article and that is what I did as well.
What is a bot? I will have to get with the copyright owner and see how we can resolve this. Thanks alot for your help.
- Bots are automatic scripts. They usually don't listen when you talk to them. "Non-free" and "fair use" is pretty much the same thing in Wikipedia terms. About licensing obtained from De Villers herself: the only thing that would help would be a release under a fully free license, such as cc-by-sa, and she'd have to demonstrate that she is in fact the copyright holder to begin with (photographs are normally copyrighted by their photographers, not by the subjects they depict). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You are now (a) edit-warring, (b) using deceptive edit summaries [4], (c) pushing for the inclusion of fringe claims with no reliable sourcing, (d) undoing good faith clean-up work, reinserting numerous elements contrary to the manual of style; and all this in a brazen-faced attempt to use Wikipedia for the promotion of a semi-notable figure. This conduct will pretty quickly get you blocked if you continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit Dispute
I was unaware that there was an edit warning or a dispute on the edits as I edit all of my content in a word document and then I copy and paste because of the extensive fixing of the naked links like you requested which I have been working on off and on since yesterday, and on top of that, I did not get any notice all this time that someone was changing my format and content of my article. The style of your entry in a couple of cases are not correct in the name and placement of changing every time Almine's name comes into the article, and this is not what she is called in life, she is not De Villiers and you keep typing it De Villers. Also, The place where there are articles about her isn't about a 'De Villers' but about Almine Barton, which is why I placed the summary there to begin with. Every time you have changed this article, you make the integrity of it less because if someone looks up De Villers on these links, they will not see it is about De Villers. I have not tried to do anything brazen, I have been diligently replacing all naked links and only saved when I had to turn my computer off. You are brazenly screwing up my article with typos and changing titles like contributions to work which the catagory title work doesn't cover the content of the paragraph text and contributions covers it more with the recipes for peace and so on. I didn't even know you were editing my article and changing everything on it because I was in editing mode. Please stop slamming me, I have been working very hard on this article and in a couple of days will have the third party link for the copyrights on the photo...one photo. I am very tired as I had stayed up very late to do this editing and cleaning up of the links and information in the article for it to be up. You had made alot of requests of things I needed to change on here and I have been working on them almost constantly. How am I suppose to know you have been warning me and changing things when you never posted that you were editing it at all until late yesterday from what I see, and right off you start with a warning, jumping to conclusions and making it your mission to botch up the creditbility of my article. I am going to have to seek some other people in the wikicommunity to help me, because I asked you what was a proper reference link template to use to clean up the reference links. You never responded but instead went to work editing my article and deleting infortant data information on scientific validation and verifiablity on alternative medicine and studies proving so. This section should be included and I have reliable verifiable third party links showing the credibility of the kirilian photography which is an inline referance as well. I don't understand your anger as you have been editing without telling me, and then all of a sudden you are warning to block me. This is unfair. Why would you assume that I am trying to undo what you did when you never told me you were doing any editing before now. Please look at all the hard work I have done on the naked reference links and try to calm down with the accusations and blatant ridicule of my work. Also, you seemed to have erased my previous request to get the reference template for links so they won't be naked. I went thru the manual and found it on my own. This is what I have been doing for two days. Thank you, user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 20:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
-
tl;dr. Please make an effort at writing something readable if you want to discuss. The
pseudoscience goes out again. Medical information on Wikipedia must be sourced according to the principles of the
WP:MEDRS guideline. Those claims are as blatantly pseudoscience/fringe as it gets. You know that. – The "Almine"s go out again too. If "De Villiers" isn't her correct last name, use something else, "Barton" or whatever, but don't use her first name. – I'm sorry if I won't be able to reinstate these necessary changes without undoing whatever positive changes you may have made in your revision, about the formatting of the sources, but the way you act you leave me no other choice.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 20:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- It might have been helpful if you stated this before you gave me a warning with telling me you were doing these changes. I don't understand why this is so important for her last name to be in every place in the article. Please don't undo all the work I have done. I will just remove the scientific area and seek mediation for your abusing my article without even giving me notice. Can you please explain why you accuse me of doing something I didn't do. I never got any previous notice about this using the last name, and why this is significant on top of no notice for the scientific information. If it is psuedo science, then why does wikipedia have an article on Kirilian Photography?
- You made all this changes without an explaination! No notice as to why you were making the edits. NOTHING, until this warning. How am I suppose to know you were doing all that 'clean up' when it wasn't even notified of the clean up. Please take a look at the article before you change it. If I can't have the scientific information in there about alternative medicine and kirilian photography then I will delete it for now. I was only trying to clean up my own article since you never responded to my last message about the non-naked reference template which I already found. Please stop acting like I am the enemy here...I am really working hard on this!
Thank you user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 20:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry if you didn't notice it, but I told you in my edit summaries. When you edit an article here on Wikipedia, it is always crucial to read its edit history. You should not expect other editors to come to you and announce they are going to change something. They will simply go and
be bold and do it. It's your responsibility to keep up with events, by checking the edit history and your watchlist. Also, you made your second blanket revert of my edits after you had my warning here on your talk page. You must have seen the yellow "you have new messages" bar before you pasted in your new version, which overwrote mine for the second time. You can't complain of not having been notified.
Fut.Perf.
☼ 21:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, I didn't see your warning because I was in edit mode, I didn't see this until after I saved it and it is my 'duty' as you said to check the edits, when I wasn't even aware you were editing this since I was in edit mode it doesn't tell you about any previous edits when you show previews. It doesn't say: Hello, someone has edited your article! You gave me a warning without even notifying me that you were working on 'cleaning it up' and you give me no recourse on the edits that are erroneous in your attempt to clean it up or to dispute your deletions and use of Almine's last 'maiden' name when the references clearly are articles about 'Almine'. Please look at all the work I have done on this cleaning up my own article. Being a newbie here, I guess that your being a seasoned editor that you expect me to know you are editing my article and a dispute was launched without any discussion on the reasons for changes which is plain wikiettiquette isn't it?
- Also, Kirilian Photography is on wikipedia and nowhere in this article does it say it's psuedo science. There are many articles about this technology and is verifiable despite your opinion of it.
- I thought perhaps my article was being vandalized. I also was trying to find out how to view who was changing my article and found out once I saw your warning. Being a newbie here is tough enough when I was working on my article and especially since I had to go and look up the template for extended reference links so I wouldn't have to have naked urls. This was a big editing job to do alone, and I did most all of it in a word doc because I didn't want to lose the information if something happened while I was editing since using show preview doesn't save it anyway!!!!!
- also, I listed catagories for my article, and I noticed those kept disappearing...why are you deleting the catagories? All the catagories I listed are valid in relation to the article. I got these catagories from the catagory lists...maybe it's a stupid question, but being a newbie here, I have to ask!
- Last but not least, why is it so important to use her last name when she clearly is 'known' as plainly 'Almine' in all the articles and references of her career. Madonna doesn't use her last name either, it isn't about her last name, it's about the verifiable references in all the links for validation on articles that state her name clearly as 'Almine'. Not 'De Villers, Not Barton, so...have some patience with me and explain this to me as to why this is something that I cannot discuss with you as you seem to have made up your mind.
- also, I listed catagories for my article, and I noticed those kept disappearing...why are you deleting the catagories? All the catagories I listed are valid in relation to the article. I got these catagories from the catagory lists...maybe it's a stupid question, but being a newbie here, I have to ask!
Thank you user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 21:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Also, one more thing....The saying I have message I could not click on if I were to save my article, I didn't want to click on messages because I was in edit mode and trying to fix all the naked links...have some common sense...besides your message was sent late yesterday, and I had been working on it since the last discussion about naked links and no response from you by the way. Little did I know, you weren't cleaning up links, you were just changing names and deleting whole paragraphs and catagories.
user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 21:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Theonelife. I'm Danger and I've been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I wanted to let you know about how we format comments on talk pages here. When you start a new section, don't put anything in front of your text. Then it will be aligned left and will look like this paragraph.
To start a new paragraph, like this one, leave a blank line in the edit box.
- When you respond to a comment, put a colon (:) in front of the text. It will look like this paragraph.
- Each new paragraph in this response must have a colon in front of it.
- If you respond to a response, use one more colon than that post used. (This paragraph has two colons in front of it.)
Most of the time, you should not use bullets. Please keep every paragraph in a post at the same level (same number of colons). Following these conventions will help other editors understand your posts better. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to post them on my talk page. Danger ( talk) 23:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Again, please follow these conventions. It is rather difficult to read your posts. Danger ( talk) 01:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please do not assume
ownership of articles such as
Almine Barton. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --
Orange Mike |
Talk 00:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
It's my user contribution
- Well, hello Orangemike, nice of you to chime in here! I didn't make an article called Almine Barton, first of all. It is an article called Almine De Villiers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton). I am not complaining about edits, I am complaining about someone editing while I am editing and then accusing me of blatant edit warring when it has only been since yesterday that I was to given the tag of writing a lead, fixing naked links and references. That is alot of work, I was doing this, and my dispute isn't about the edits of my content so much as it was being done simultaneously then being threaten of blocking and warning without any notice that these edits were going on in the first place. I had been working on this article since yesterday afternoon and had all the links fixed. Unfortunately, it doesn't reflect those edits and why don't I have a right to fix the article that I contributed in the first place. Also, even after I tried to plead that the admin at least look at what I had done and I can fix whatever issues remained, I got that it didn't matter, I don't really have a say in it because of the lack of 'good faith'.Seems like a misunderstanding and no 'good faith' attitude since I am not being given a choice on my edits, or work the last 24 hours....give me some time people...I thought this was a community, not a dictatorship.
So not much fun being a newbie here. So nice to be welcomed there Orangemike, thanks for your input. User:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 00:40, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
While you submitted the contribution, the moment you hit 'Save Page', it was no longer yours. As it says under the 'Save Page' button, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." You're seeing this as an attack on your page, and I assure you it is not. People are editing the article because they care about it, and want it to be an acceptable article for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has certain guidelines, and if those guidelines are not met, then the article is deleted. So in editing the article to meet those guidelines, the editors are making sure that the article is not deleted.
Likewise, there are rules (such as WP:3RR) that govern how articles are to be edited. When any user violates these rules, it is disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. These are not to punish users, or to make it seem like we don't want things edited, but because if these rules were not in place, people would edit back and forth without coming to any consensus whatsoever, and articles would be of no use to anyone visiting Wikipedia, as the information would be constantly changing back and forth to what opposing users assumed was the 'correct' edit. There are guidelines such as WP:BRD that help users discuss changes in a page to avoid edit wars, and the discussion pages are provided so that these things may be discussed and consensus may be reached. If you have any questions, please feel free to visit my talk page and I'll be glad to help you any way I can (but please keep your messages as short and simple as possible)! Thank you. - SudoGhost ( talk) 01:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you are editing these articles but when you are making changes you appear to be working from earlier versions of the article, so that when you make your changes, you wipe out any subsequent edits. Are you working on the source code offline and then uploading the material back wholesale into the edit space? That's all I can figure at the moment. If that's your practice, you've got to stop it, and make your edits live. Wikipedia has mechanisms to keep two editors from editing the same page at the same time - thus working on conflicting versions - and if you are editing offline in, e.g, a word processor, you are inadvertently confounding that safeguard. Thanks. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Or - maybe not? I may have spoken too quickly about wiping out later edits. Thanks for fixing all those refs - that's helpful.
JohnInDC (
talk) 02:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes JohnInDc, that is what I was trying to tell you, I was fixing the naked user links...I only copied what I had originally done with the corrections and didn't edit content whatsoever, please have a look people, I am not the bad guy here. I worked very hard on fixing those citations and links since yesterday which was my main objective. Can someone please take the tags off the article to reflect that these changes have been made? Thanks, user:theonelife
Theonelife (
talk) 02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Those changes were very helpful, thanks. (Henceforth though please don't edit offline - or if you do, make sure that when you upload the material, that the article has not changed in the meantime, and you are overwriting precisely the same version of the article that you were editing offline. Otherwise you undo other editors' work and it makes you appear obdurate.) I'm afraid the tags need to stay, though - there are a lot of references there but they may not all be appropriate or sufficient. E.g., the reference to Oregon State was simply to the school itself, and did not establish that the subject had obtained a degree there. That sort of reference is appropriately conveyed through a wikilink of "Oregon State" to the appropriate Wikipedia article. (I fixed it.) Also, Wikipedia sources must be "reliable" ones; and autobiographies can't rely too heavily on self-published material. Now that I can see the names of all the references laid out, I am not confident they'll all meet those tests. In short, the references - while now formatted much more usefully - still need review and work, and the tags should stay. JohnInDC ( talk) 02:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you JohnInDc, I did alot of research on this, and the peerage, and articles are valid third party links not written by Spiritual Journeys or Almine Barton except the ones that say they were written by her in her bibliography. I see what you mean now about references for the college...I wasn't aware that you could do this sort of thing online, so thank you for fixing it. Hey, I am just learning here, and I all I want is to be treated with 'good faith' that I am working hard to make this article presentable and valuable to the wikicommunity. I have had many accusations of things that weren't true and yes, I was editing sections from a word doc, and pasting them when I got accused of edit warring. So why can't the tags for the lead be removed, seems to me that part has been fixed, and as for the verifiability of the links, it took a long time to find the family lineage and peerage as I have done all this research myself for all the ancestry and so on...thanks for your patience and taking the time to explain these things to me, it's a learning experience, and I am exhausted from staring at the syntax. Have a good weekend, user:theonelife
Theonelife (
talk) 03:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well - take a look at my latest comments on the article's talk page. You have a lot of references but it's really hard to tell which of them actually establish anything; and, perhaps I'm mis-estimating, but it looked to me like an awful lot of the substantive refs were right back to Almine herself. Furthermore, for those that weren't, I'm not at all confident that they would be deemed "reliable" sources. I took out the "lead" tag, but that was I'm afraid about the least of the problems. Let's see what happens. Meantime again, don't take any of this personally. Thanks -
JohnInDC (
talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Okay JohnInDc, I have always tried to have a rational civil conversation, but that wasn't the case, I got attacked and all the work I did was reverted. The only links that go back to anything of Almine's is where the reference to it came from one of her books, Alot of my references were deleted and I don't see how you can write about someone without having some reference to their work, especially if you are referring to their work. Peerage and family history was carefully researched and third party links, I didn't get that from any source of hers, I had to research the Shannon court and all those items. Since alot of my references to the family history and the edict of nantes was removed, all I can say is piece by piece is looks less and less reliable. Take example, Leonard Orr, he has ONE reference and it goes to his website. this article has been there for about three years. I was going to edit that one next after I finally fixed everything on this article and I felt confident enough to go off and do some edits. Again, I am not taking it personally but it is impossible to write an article about someone's work and accomplishments without it having no third party reference. I thought Almine's story was interesting and informational, and also since she is the Countess of Shannon, there is nobility there.
- Well - take a look at my latest comments on the article's talk page. You have a lot of references but it's really hard to tell which of them actually establish anything; and, perhaps I'm mis-estimating, but it looked to me like an awful lot of the substantive refs were right back to Almine herself. Furthermore, for those that weren't, I'm not at all confident that they would be deemed "reliable" sources. I took out the "lead" tag, but that was I'm afraid about the least of the problems. Let's see what happens. Meantime again, don't take any of this personally. Thanks -
JohnInDC (
talk) 03:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes JohnInDc, that is what I was trying to tell you, I was fixing the naked user links...I only copied what I had originally done with the corrections and didn't edit content whatsoever, please have a look people, I am not the bad guy here. I worked very hard on fixing those citations and links since yesterday which was my main objective. Can someone please take the tags off the article to reflect that these changes have been made? Thanks, user:theonelife
Theonelife (
talk) 02:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I am going to take a wikibreak now, this stuff is exhausting! Thanks again, user:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 03:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You can find the article at User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton. I will oversee and make sure the article follow our rules before moving back into main space. I am not conivnced this individual meets our notability requrements but lets see what we can do to fix it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•( contribs) 21:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you and I appreciate your interests, but if you go by what was left in the current article, it would not read as a 'notable' person in the deletions of everything that had been done so far. Please see all the previous edits and deletions.
Thanks you for your time, User:theonelife Theonelife ( talk) 22:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Countess of Shannon Family crest.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 ( talk) 05:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
| WikiWomen Unite! | |
|---|---|
|
Hi Theonelife! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our
meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate! |
MfD nomination of User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton
User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ResidentAnthropologist/Almine Barton during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. § FreeRangeFrog croak 17:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)''', a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)''' and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Theonelife/'''Almine De Villers, The Countess of Shannon (Almine Barton)''' during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. JohnCD ( talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Ok...JOHNCD, I don't understand why it bothers anyone that I have this on my user page...can you please explain why you need to delete something that is on my page...( talk)