User talk:Janice M. Ladendorf
Welcome[edit]
|
Welcome to Wikipedia!
 Hi, Janice M. Ladendorf, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia! Here are some links that may help you:
You may also be interested in WikiProject Equine, which writes and improves articles about horses, horse sports (including the Olympic disciplines), horse care and training, or WikiProject Horse racing, which focuses on horse races, racehorses, and jockeys. Please remember to sign your talk page posts with four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your username and the date. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. And again, welcome! White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC) |
Thank you for your welcome and information. Project Horse sounds really interesting. I'm working on an article in my sandbox and stuck on the techniques for getting photos accepted. Three haven't made it yet. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the photo uploading procedure, but you have to have the copyright or they must be freely licensed (public domain) in order to upload. (Unfree pics are only OK for dead people/animals; everything else has to be free.) The Upload Wizard thing is supposed to help, but it doesn't seem to work that great. Pictures of pretty much anything are good if you can get them up! White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
My article is about Frank T. Hopkins. I have just published a new book which should be the definitive study of his life, horses, and exploits. What is already on Wikipedia articles under Frank Hopkins and Hidalgo is misleading, inaccurate, and unsupported. My photos are mostly of Frank (died in 1951) and his horses. I'll let you when my article is ready for review. I know the information is correct, but I still not sure if I understand Wikipedia policies and formatting rules.
I know I can't cite my own work in Wikipedia, but could I list some of my published work on my user page?
I appreciate any help you can give me.
- Yes, it is fine to note that you've written books on your userpage, as long as you're not doing it in a promotional way. (Some people write stuff that basically says, "Buy my book".) I agree, the article on Hopkins is not good and needs improvement. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, I'll just list my books when I set up my user page. Article on Hopkins - since most of what it says is not true, I could't just edit it. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes you do have to edit/rewrite a cruddy existing article, because it won't be deleted and the only way to improve it is to edit. At Treeing Walker Coonhound I basically rewrote the whole thing because it was basically thousands of words of original research, with no real details about relevant information. (And all the other dog breed articles are in the same mess, but I only do breeds of dogs I like.) Sometimes they can do a merge of an existing article and a draft.
- In writing about people, you have to remember to use secondary sources for the most part. Primary sources are all right for things like birthdates/spouses' names and when they married, but the biggest part of the article should come from newspapers, books, magazines, or that kind of thing. I've done a few articles on old-time horse trainers, primarily those in the Tennessee Walking Horse or Saddlebred breeds (see Tom Bass (horse trainer), Bud Dunn, and Floyd Carothers, among others) and most of the career details have to be from secondary sources. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopkins information in Wikipedia - Judging by Talk page, author will refuse to accept any changes (Does he really believe the Gulf of Syria exists?), As far as I can determine, he is basically using propaganda put out by the Long Rider's Guild which has little or no research behind it plus a few weird additions of his own. There are two viewpoints on Hopkins and his is one of them. Mine is the alternate view. In my draft article, yes, I did cite and list only secondary sources. I understood that Wikipedia will publish alternate viewpoints. I'll check out your articles for ideas.Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Your articles were both brief and factual. My draft also focuses on factual information, but I included some background information to help the reader understand the facts plus some links to other information in Wikipedia. From what you said, I don't think these men were as controversial as Frank became after the movie, Hidalgo, was released. Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2016
(UTC):I don't know who originally created the existing article; Montanabw is the editor who watches most of the horse articles to keep them from getting vandalized (people love to write "they are so adorable omg i luv them" in breed articles, "this is so stupid, do it my way" in the discipline articles, etc. It never ends. Then you have the sneaky vandals that mess up dates or figures on purpose, and other variations.) I watch a few, but Montanabw does most of the work. I think she meant that it was fine to improve the article if you have the sources, but to realize that Hopkins was controversial. You can write about the controversy as long as it's in a neutral way (like I did at Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration#Controversies), by saying X thinks Y, A thinks B. White Arabian Filly Neigh 20:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- Just stopping by because I was pinged. Janice, the bottom line is that Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to promote yourself. (There are a few people who list their publications on their wikipedia talk pages, but it's not OK if you are trying to do SEO with backlinks, and the only examples I know of are people who have a wikipedia article about themselves too, which is rare, and also kind of weird and generally frowned upon as tacky). Please read WP:NOADS and WP:COI. To the extent that you think the Hopkins article is inaccurate, you need to provide neutral, reliable, third-party sources. In other words, your own research is not appropriate here. (see No original research). To the extent you have been having trouble getting your material included, it's because you are putting forth your own work as proof, or else are not providing citations to anything anyone else can verify. In short, Hopkins made up his own myth and getting to what was actually true can be a challenge. Montanabw(talk) 23:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I have already been politely advised not to cite my own work in Wikipedia. I did not know this when I put the first entry on the talk page. I've just added back up notes (references) to the items I questioned on the Hopkins Talk page. My book describes my search what was actually true, including what Frank actually said, not what others said he said.
If you haven't read either Hidalgo or my book, then I don't see the point of any further discussion of details. Some of the information you are looking for is in the article I have written, but have not yet submitted for editing because I am still having problems with the photos. I already linked it to the Wikipedia pages on Frank Hopkins and the movie Hidalgo.
- We aren't going to use your books. For one thing, your books are all self-published (see WP:SELFPUB) they are not viewed as reliable sources for wikipedia. If you wish to provide the underlying research sources you consulted (other than interviews, which are also OR) those would be useful here. In short, no, you cannot use Wikipedia to promote your work. Go to Random House or somewhere like that, and if they bite on your submissions, come back and talk to us here when they put out a release date. Montanabw(talk) 17:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
My book is not cited in the article I wrote for Wikipedia. What is cited is the sources I used.Janice M. Ladendorf (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)