User talk:PCMorphy72/Max Barrett

Why rewrite it?

8 February 2012; http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help

[08:33] == PCMorphy72 [51513a7d@gateway/web/freenode/ip.81.81.58.125] has joined #wikipedia-en-help
[08:33] <+Helpmebot> Hello PCMorphy72, welcome to #wikipedia-en-help! Please type your question about editing Wikipedia below. A helper should be with you shortly.

[...]

[08:35] <PCMorphy72> hi all

[08:36] <+wctaiwan> Hey. Got a question?

[08:36] <PCMorphy72> I have aproblem with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Max_Barrett

[08:36] <+wctaiwan> what about it?

[08:37] <PCMorphy72> I wount want to talk to the person who declined it.
[08:37] <PCMorphy72> but there it's suggested to go here
[08:37] <PCMorphy72> the mater of fact is in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_references#General_references

[08:37] <+wctaiwan> They don't seem to be here right now.
[08:38] <+wctaiwan> and yeah, I see what you're saying--are those the only sources you have used?

[08:38] <PCMorphy72> CAn I talk about it with you?
[08:38] <PCMorphy72> I've mixed just the two souced in references
[08:38] <PCMorphy72> and because it's stated "In underdeveloped articles, a general references section may exist even though no inline citations at all have yet been added, especially when all article content is supported by a single source."
[08:39] <PCMorphy72> I dont' see why not to apply the same thing for 2 sources

[08:39] <+wctaiwan> Hm, okay. I'd tend to agree with you, but the less sources you have--especially if they can't be checked--the more careful reviewers need to be with regard to notability.

[08:40] <PCMorphy72> I undestand but that famous person has not many sources for his long biography
[08:40] <PCMorphy72> I've practically removed the less objective and less neutral parts

[08:40] <+wctaiwan> Hold on, let me check around a bit / get opinions from others. Aside from some tone issues and the aforementioned lack of sources, the article seems to be in good shape.

[08:40] <PCMorphy72> thank you

[...]

[08:43] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: unrelated issue: are you sure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Barrett.png would be under public domain?
[08:43] <+wctaiwan> s/under/in/

[08:43] <PCMorphy72> of course the snapshot has more tha 50 years

[08:44] <+wctaiwan> well, that alone isn't enough--what matters is that the author has been dead for at least 50 years.

[08:44] <PCMorphy72> and I know such snapshots is property of the pictured person
[08:44] <PCMorphy72> yes he dead in 1961

[08:45] <+wctaiwan> Eh, no. The copyright of the photograph, unless explicitly made clear, generally belongs to the photographer.

[08:45] <PCMorphy72> yes but its not an artistic snapshot just a biographical one

[08:45] <+wctaiwan> that doesn't make a difference really, but I suppose we'll worry about that later.

[08:45] <PCMorphy72> as that one of his childhoood taken from ancestry .com which I'm pretty sure it's public domain

[08:46] <+wctaiwan> the childhood one is probably PD alright, but that one's more problematic.

[08:47] <PCMorphy72> f it's the only problem it may be removed when someone will be sure

[08:47] <+wctaiwan> Yeah, so we'll worry about that later.

[08:47] <PCMorphy72> ok

[08:48] <+wctaiwan> Right now I'm trying to find someone else to check the article. I think it's largely alright and can be approved after adjusting some of the tone, but I'm reluctant to just go ahead and do it when another reviewer has declined it already.

[08:48] <PCMorphy72> in fact without any intervent I son't know if it's correct to try anothe submission without any modify

[08:49] <+wctaiwan> sorry?

[08:49] <PCMorphy72> MAy I do a "save" of the article without any "edit"?
[08:50] <PCMorphy72> intervent=interventio, sorry for my bad english
[08:50] <PCMorphy72> intervention

[08:51] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: OK. I talked it over with someone else and they seem to find the article alright as well. I'll approve it now.
[08:51] <+wctaiwan> and if you save the article without changing anything, all it does is refresh the cached copy (i.e. nothing, in most cases). Why would you want to do that?

[...]

[08:54] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: approved.
[08:54] <+wctaiwan> it's now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Barrett
[08:54] <+wctaiwan> I'm going to do some further trimming of things that may not be neutral, but it's mostly good now.

[08:55] <PCMorphy72> thank you very much

[08:57] <+wctaiwan> thanks

[...]

[09:01] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: how much of the article did you copy from other places?

[09:03] <PCMorphy72> Almost all the parts

[09:04] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: I'm going to have to delete that article
[09:04] <+wctaiwan> You should take the facts from your sources but put them in your own words
[09:04] <+wctaiwan> otherwise it is a copyright violation :/
[09:04] <+wctaiwan> which is illegal.

[09:04] <PCMorphy72> I've just did a tune, mixing and removed the unobjective parts

[09:05] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: You can't do that.

[09:05] <PCMorphy72> the second source has not copyright i think
[09:05] <PCMorphy72> an dthe first part may be wrote in different way

[09:05] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: even if it is not copyrighted--which you don't know--we usually can't just go and take entire passages out of a source.

[09:06] <PCMorphy72> I undestrand ... It's a pity the article has survided for just so few minutes

[09:06] <+wctaiwan> PCMorphy72: Sorry, that's how it works.

[09:06] <PCMorphy72> thank you very much

[09:06] <+wctaiwan> Seems like an interesting person though. You might want to try rewriting it and submitting again
[09:07] <+wctaiwan> this time in your own words.