User talk:Bosh506

Blackmark

Please understand: You cannot put your own private commentary and original-research essaying into a Wikipedia article, and your summarily reverting to your policy-violating edit, without discussion, is serious enough to warrant admin intervention. You're supposed to discuss your proposed edit if another edit has issues with it. What you are doing is edit-warring, and over an edit that clearly violates a core Wikipedia policy. Let us discuss your edits, please, and how they can be made to work as per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's important to use edit-summaries in the edit-summary box below the edit box. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How can we make the work so it abides by the policies and guidelines?Bosh506 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)bosh506

That's a big question. The basic things are 1) adhere to the core policies of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, which I've linked to here, and proper citing and footnoting format.

One of the Pillars, Nor Original Research, says that the only critical or analytical commentary we can use has to come from authoritative third-party sources, such as R. C. Harvey. Paraphrasing them, with citing, is fine, but the paraphrase has to be honest and not be slanted toward our own point of view.

The best thing I can say for now is to see how the edit I made to the Artwork sections follows these policies and guidelines I mention above, and try to do the same on the Style & format section. I'll leave it alone till tomorrow. You can also ask other editors to pitch in and help — I've found many of us on WikiProject Comics are happy to. User:TriiipleThreat, User:Nightscream and User:Darkwarriorblake, among many others, are good people to talk to.

I might have spotty Internet service since I'm in the Hurricane Sandy affected areas, so I don't get back to your right away, that's the reason. Good Wiki'ing to you! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Bosh, I'm sorry to say, but your latest essays at Blackmark contained a host of violations and also repeated content that already appears under "Critical assessments." Other parts of the material are about Gil Kane in general and not Blackmark specifically, and the overall tone reads like original-research synthesis, which is another way of saying a personal essay or POV argument supported by cherry-picked citations. On a lesser note, the incorrect citation formatting was unsalvageable. I'm not sure you're understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral compendium of facts and not a place for POV discussion, however learned, of a subject.

I've found the best way to learn how to edit Wikipedia is to start small. Editing in a fact or two at a time and getting the hang of it is much preferable to writing personal essays and having them be reverted for violating policies, guidelines and, to a lesser extent, MOS. I can help if you'd like, since I'm afraid you're not understanding right off: What you wrote now isn't appreciably different from what you wrote a week or two ago. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you help us edit it then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosh506 (talk • contribs)

I'll be glad to try. You do see I took some of your R.C Harvey material from last time and condensed it under "Critical assessments," right? I'll go through your current version and see if there's anything else in there that a) is about Blackmark specifically and not Kane's art style in general, b) are individual, concrete opinions of the cited critic, without embellishment or drawing POV conclusions, and c) are not hype-y opinions taken from the primary source itself and not from disinterested third parties. I hope that's alright.

In fact, I found Harvey's book online for ten bucks, and I've ordered a copy so that I can insert the proper page numbers. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've gone over both of the short essays you wrote. There is nothing more in either than I did not already cull and place under "Critical assessments." All the rest of the material you added falls into one of the three categories I give in the post above, or else are your own personal opinions and original-research conclusions.

I'll have to ask again: Please refrain from adding your essays back into the article. They violate numerous Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as previously noted, and the usable material that could be culled from your edits has been added under "Critical assessments." Thank you. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blackmarksupportive.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Blackmarksupportive.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BlackmarkAdditive.png)

Thanks for uploading File:BlackmarkAdditive.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BlackmarkFaces.png)

Thanks for uploading File:BlackmarkFaces.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BlackmarkFights.png)

Thanks for uploading File:BlackmarkFights.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)