User talk:Holzman-tweed/archive1

Jeff Mach

I'm wondering why this person is notable. His company doesn't seem to meet our notability requirements for companies and he does not appear to meet our notability requirements for people. The article uses primarily unreliable sources such as blogs which will need to be removed per our biographies of living people policy. Such sources can't be used to establish notability even in articles not about living people. I hate to ask this, but is Mach a friend or associate of yours? If so, you should probably take a look at our conflict of interest policy. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking each point separetely:

1. I would hope that I am a good enough author that I explained this person's notability in the article, as documented by the references to for example Ren Faire News and North Jersey News. I believe Mr. Mach's various works and the recognition they have received are notable in the same way that John Boardman's efforts in play-by-mail gaming are notable. (While Prof. Boardman is also notable as a physicist, I think he's better known for his efforts in Diplomacy-by-mail).
2. My reading of WP:BLOGS is that blogs one publishes about oneself are to be regarded as unreliable (and primary!). If a second person publishes a blog containing non-contentious information about the primary source, I don't see how that's different from how the source is different from a newspaper publishing articles written by writers in its employ.
3. I am acquainted with Mr. Mach and have volunteered to work at some of his events. I am familiar with WP:COI, which discourages but does not forbid potentially conflicted editors from editing, and I will be happy to note this on the talk page. More importantly, I believe I have written an article that complies with WP:NPOV. If you disagree, I am happy to discuss any specific statements in the article you feel are not neutral.

Thanks for the disclosure. You wouldn't believe how many people resist such disclosure. I've got no problem with your editing the articles because it is much easier to trust someone willing to disclose. On blogs, self-published sources can't be used for anything on Wikipedia with very few exceptions. Blogs can never be used a sources in articles about living people. For other articles, the only exception is if the blog post is written by a previously published expert in the field being blogged about, and this exception does not apply to articles about living people. In fact, we generally can't even link to blogs in the external links section of articles. Even when blogs can be used, they don't contribute to notability. Notability can only be shown by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". For living people, this normally means significant biographical coverage. Yworo (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My thinking about notability of Mach, his company and events is that the most major event might just be notable, but that Mach and his company are not, because notability is not inherited. If the primary event is notable, then the company and the individual can be mentioned in the article about the event, but I don't believe there is enough reliable biographical material to support a stand-alone article on Mach or sufficient reliable sources about the company to support a stand-alone article on it either. Having an article about Mach could be a liability to both him and Wikipedia. Very few people watch articles about non- or marginally-notable individuals. If the guy has any enemies, the article becomes a target for publishing libel, which can stay there for some time before it is noticed. Yworo (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ironic -- my intention in including the blogs was to show widespread notability in an area that favor blogs as their media because newspapers don't necessarily fully cover them, yet founded on notibility rooted in published sources -- much in the way that several blogs are used as sources in G.D. Falksen's page without challenge. (Part of my editing practice is to try to model new pages or modified pages on what seem to be well established and accepted pre-existing pages.) If Steampunk World's Fair isn't notable, I can't see how any SF convention or personality is notable, and plenty of them have pages with mild or no challenge. I'm certainly prepared to maintain each of the pages in question, adding material from better regarded sources as I find them. (I also watch the articles in which I make a significant editorial interest.) - Holzman-Tweed (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

On blogs, if they are self-published, the self-published policy applies. However, if they have an editorial staff, accept submissions and verify material before publication, then they are a reliable source that just happens to use blog format. Hope this help you distinguish what is necessary when it comes to blogs. The Steampunk World's Fair looks like it just barely meets our notability requirements. One more good source and I'll take off the notability tag. But do be careful about comparing to other articles ... the usual result is the tagging or deletion of those other articles rather than the argument supporting the notability of the article in question. We call it the other stuff exists argument. Yworo (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Where's a good place to document whether a given blog has an editorial staff, accepts submissions, and verifies material before publication? I think some of the blogs I've included, for example the Tor.com blog, qualify. Also, how about blogs where the editor(s) publish as well as accept submissions? Holzman-Tweed (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added sources to SPWF and reviewed the sources on the Jeff Mach page. The Jeff Mach talk page has notes and questions on what I've left, if a source was clearly insufficient I've removed it.

Holzman-Tweed (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not include unsupported or inaccurate statements. Whenever you add possibly controversial statements about a living person to an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Sachi Matsumoto, you must include proper sources. If you don't know how to cite a source, you may want to read Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for guidelines. Thank you. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 05:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

My sole change to the Sachi Matsumoto page was to add an infobox. The infobox contains nothing that was not contained in the main article, specifically a date of birth. You cannot possibly be suggesting that a date of birth is controversial, but if you would like that referenced I will happily cite the IMDB entry. On this basis, I am going to undo your revert. Please do not undo this change again without identifying the specific information you regard as controversial and in need of a source.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source FYI. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 16:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Then why have you failed to remove Ms. Matsumoto's date of birth from the main body of the article? Your reverts are not internally consistent: please explain.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 16:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. And note: IMDb is not a reliable source because it consists of user-submitted info and as such is prone to factual errors. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As of this writing, you have not removed the following text from the article: "born March 29, 1973." Do you regard this as contentious or not? The only thing you seem to have removed is the infobox.Holzman-Tweed (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have removed it. Thanks for pointing it out. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I will now boggle that you consider date of birth to be contentious. Holzman-Tweed (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Watch City Festival Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Watch City Festival Logo.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 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).

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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Watch City Festival logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Watch City Festival logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Beth and Annie.png

Thanks for uploading File:Beth and Annie.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided an e-mail from the creator/owner of the image granting permission to use it when I uploaded. I'm not clear what more is needed? Holzman-Tweed (talk) 06:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Headshot of Elizabeth M. Stephens.png

Thanks for uploading File:Headshot of Elizabeth M. Stephens.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I provided an e-mail from the creator/owner of the image granting permission to use it when I uploaded. I'm not clear what more is needed? Holzman-Tweed (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree files

Some of the files that you have uploaded may be unfree. See Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 February 26#OTRS pending since November. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Which files? Holzman-Tweed (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steampunk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Bennett. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)