User talk:Impressionistic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the many help pages.

  • Google: Wikipedia is very well indexed by Google. Searching for a term, even about an editing question, followed by "wiki" or "wikipedia" usually pulls up what you need.


Where next?[edit]

  • Check out Help:Watching pages. Your own Watchlist can become your favorite place to visit.
  • If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
  • If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
  • If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
  • For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page or the Wikipedia:Teahouse page could be your next stop!

See also[edit]

Good luck and happy editing.```Buster Seven Talk 01:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Bracegirdle[edit]

You've worked extensively on Lee Bracegirdle. However, the original article was a copypaste or paraphrase of a source not properly licensed for our use. Light copy edits do not remove the problem. See Wikipedia:PARAPHRASE for more information, or ask me.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sphilbrick, re- Lee Bracegirdle

Yes I have worked extensively on this page, and I have noticed so have others, and using Wikipedia's guidelines have gradually and carefully got rid of paraphrasing. But how many ways can one re-phrase, for example, "so-and-so was born in New York"? All the information for that page about this eminent person was carefully gathered (and I can see, I might add, also edited by others over a long period) and you have with one stroke of a pen deleted all of it. There was nothing in that article that is not already in the public domain, and it had all been re-phrased. There was complete in-line citation work and clear referencing done, and it was all done according to Wikipedia's guidelines. So I would ask you to please restore the entire article as it was, otherwise myself and all of the others who have worked on it will have to start again, and go through the entire re-phrasing process again.

After this information has been restored, I would welcome you to get back to me about specific items with which you have an issue. I would like to move on to making other contributions and related articles.

Thanks

Impressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to the article on James Chambers, yes there are only a few places where this information is available, but this is all in the public domain as well. It would be difficult to re-phrase this very basic information, which has already been repeated in many references.

Please re-instate this article as well and ask specific questions about issues you may have.

Impressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments:
  • The argument that there are only so many ways to rephrase a point is often made, but rarely convincing. However, while I don't disagree that it might be challenging to rewrite "so-and-so was born in New York", the article wasn't deleted because of a five word phrase matching.
  • Many editors start with a copy paste of material subject to copyright, and then " gradually and carefully got rid of paraphrasing". This is poor practice. Our rules against include copyright violations applies to every version in the history, as well as the current version. I spent time yesterday, with an article which followed that exact process. In my view, the current version was OK, but I had to take the time to remove form view all the prior versions.
  • You mention material in the public domain. Can you be more explicit? The article I removed was a close paraphrase of a site which i believed not be be in the public domain. If I erred, I want to know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the site which was identified as a possible source. It existed prior to the Wikipedia article, so it is not the case that someone copied the Wikipedia text to that page. If it is the case that the bio page was copied from a public domain site, please identify it. I see similarity between that site and this page but that site isn't identified as public domain. If a public domain site is identified, we can proceed to the next step, which is to confirm that it qualifies as a reliable source, and that it is properly referenced.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Chambers[edit]

Unfortunately, I note that the article on James Chambers was also a copyright problem.

If you happened to have written the underlying information, let us know, so we can offer suggestions on how it can be used.

I am sure this is discouraging to see almost all your edits disappearing, please let me know, by contacting me on my talk page, if I can help you understand what went wrong and what can be done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

Our copyright expert weighed in, unfortunately with the answer I expected. See this entry on my talk page.

I hope you won't give up. We have helpful editors at the Teahouse who can help you get started. They can also direct you to a Wikiproject where other editors, in your area of interest, may be willing to help.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sphilbrick and also thank you Moonriddengirl for these clarifications. Over the next month or so I'll find the time to gather information beginning with that source, but rather use my own words to start up a new article. As you have hinted at, I'll then go about encouraging others I know in the industry to take it upon themselves to add and edit. Regards, Impressionistic (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)impressionisticImpressionistic (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done[edit]

See User:Impressionistic/James Chambers (horn player)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally not allowed to userfy articles deleted due to copyright concerns. However, I am aware that the owner of the copyright was aware of the usage, and found it acceptable, although the terms desired did not fit with our requirements. At some time in the near future, I will want to ensure that the article is in your own words, so if you think this will take weeks rather than days, I urge you to make a copy and work on it offline, then let me know when you are ready to restore it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copyright issue[edit]

Dear Impressionistic: I was notified by Sphilbrick about your article, User:Impressionistic/James Chambers (horn player), which contains copyrighted material. Please make a copy of this article offline right away, because any Wikipedia editor reading it will likely tag it for immediate deletion. Then please remove or quickly rewrite the text into your own words (Just changing a few adjectives or such won't do - it needs be be written as if you had never read the original text, but instead had read various news sources and had made your own writeup, with only factual and no promotional material). You can keep the sources you have, but they should be properly attributed with the names of the people who wrote them, and where and when they were published. Sphilbrick has already pointed you to WP:Referencing for beginners for how to make them into inline citations.

About the photograph: You have indicated in the licensing section that it is your own work; this means that you are the photographer. If this is the case, you can use that photograph in the article, since you have donated it to Wikimedia Commons and it is free to be used by anyone. If you misunderstood, though, and didn't own the copyright to the photo, you should speak up right away and say so that we can have it removed before there is a legal mess.

When you feel that the article is ready, you have two choices: (1) You can move it directly into the encyclopedia. If you don't know how, Sphilbrick or I will help you. Or, (2) You can have it reviewed first by experienced editors, in which case you add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article and wait for a reviewer.

I hope this helps. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anne Delong, Thanks for the advice. OK, I'll try to get started this way - I've written a new article, and if I want to "move it directly into the encyclopedia" do I go to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Impressionistic/James_Chambers_%28horn_player%29 , edit it by replacing it with the new article? and then what actually moves it to the encyclopedia? Do I just click on the "move" tab at the top and remove the words "user:Impressionistic/"? Impressionistic (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)impressionistic[reply]

Yes to the first one; just change the content to what you want. About moving, make sure that the part on the left says "(Article)" and the part on the right is the article name. Make sure that you've included independent, reliable sources, though, and it doesn't sound promotional, or it will disappear again. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Impressionistic&oldid=581362598"