User talk:JuggaletteJen216
Welcome![edit]
|
May 2014[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Crimson House (2013 Film) has been reverted.
Your edit here to The Crimson House (2013 Film) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://studioonmars.blogspot.com/2013/11/production-begins-on-crimson-house.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The article The Crimson House (2013 Film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Non-notable film, doesn't meet WP:NF
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BOVINEBOY2008 08:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Bovineboy2008 Could you advise as to more specific measures I can take to avoid having my article deleted? Thank you. JuggaletteJen216 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
- Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 07:32, Thursday, May 30, 2024 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Nomination of The Crimson House (2013 Film) for deletion[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Crimson House (2013 Film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crimson House (2013 Film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BOVINEBOY2008 19:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Conflict of interest[edit]
Hello, JuggaletteJen216. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
NFILM[edit]
Hi! I thought I'd explain WP:NFF and WP:NFILM in a little more depth than was on the AfD page. Ultimately what everything comes down to is coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS). However what can initially be confusing is what is considered to be a RS per Wikipedia's expectations/rules. A reliable source is ultimately coverage in a secondary source that is independent of the subject itself or anyone representing the subject. For example, if Dread Central wrote an article about your film, that could be considered a reliable source because it was a news story about the film in a place that is known to be reliable. However if they re-printed a press release issued by the film's publicity staff, then that would be considered a WP:PRIMARY source, meaning that they're reprinting something that you wrote yourself. (I'm just using "you" as a stand-in for whomever did the press release or is involved with the film in general.)
The thing about primary sources is that we cannot use them to show notability regardless of where they are re-printed or displayed. A movie can have press releases re-printed in various different locations, but none of them will ever really be able to be used to assert notability. Even if the press release or film website stated that the movie won an award or made a significant achievement, we'd still have to have something in a secondary RS to confirm that not only did the film win the award, but that the award (or achievement) is notable enough to count towards notability. In the past we've had people assert that they were the first to do something or that they won an award, only for the award/achievement to be something that didn't happen or was something that wouldn't really show notability in the first place. I'm not saying that you've done this or will do this, just explaining that this is why we no longer use primary sources to assert notability. Primary sources mean a lot of things, but generally they're considered to be anything issued by the people involved with the film, whether it's a commercial, a poster, or a press release. On a side note, IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source since it can be edited by anyone and is considered to be a database at best. Database entries will never really count towards notability because it's just generally expected that at some point a film will be registered in a film database somewhere, just as we expect that at some point the film company will release a trailer or poster. It's also expected that there will be listings of future showings, so sources that are just routine notifications of events like this one will not count towards notability. Sometimes you'll get some that are actual articles or reviews of the film, but in most cases they're usually a reprinting of a press release or pre-written statement about the movie.
When it comes to reliable sources, that's usually meant to represent coverage in a newspaper or a website we consider to be trusted and reliable. Blog sources are almost never usable as reliable sources to show notability as they're almost always self-published and have little to no editorial oversight that we can look at and verify. (WP:SPS) We have no way of being able to verify the source. To put it bluntly, we have no way of knowing if the blog's assertions are true or that it was written by someone who isn't part of the film's crew. Again, not saying that you'd do this but we've had people in the past try to use a blog as a source, only to discover that the film's crew dictated what the article or review could or couldn't say. (IE, telling them to use specific buzzwords or that they had to change a negative review to where it sounded positive. Sometimes the bloggers are given some sort of reward or compensation for their work in exchange for a positive review of some sort.) It happens more frequently than you'd think and because of past abuses, this is why SPS just isn't considered to be a usable source unless it can be verified.
Now something I do need to warn you about is that asserting notability for unreleased films is extremely difficult in many cases, especially if the film is small and/or indie. I know that the release date is only a day away, but even so- we still have to have a LOT of coverage to show that the movie meets notability guidelines. Even after the film is released, we'll still need quite a bit of coverage. One news story (since you said that one is forthcoming) is helpful in counting towards notability but we would need quite a bit more. I would say that for a non-released film we'd have to have a good 7-8 sources about the film's production over a period of time of maybe a few months or a year. We've had instances where there have been a lot of sources about something, but they all say the same thing and don't really show a depth of coverage.
Finally, I do need to explain conflict of interest guidelines. All this generally means is that if you are involved with the film or were asked to create the article by someone involved with the film, you just need to disclose it- especially if you were given any sort of reward in exchange for the work. It's not forbidden to edit with a COI, but it is discouraged because it's just so easy to write things in a more promotional manner than you may have intended, see more notability than there is, and/or take an article's deletion or edits personally. There's also the risk of feeling a sense of ownership (WP:OWN) over an article, which can sometimes lead to trouble. You haven't done anything that would be seen as promotional or extremely improper, but I did want to put a brief explanation of COI in this already lengthy essay I've written to you. Hope all of this helps explain things! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
- Take a gander at WP:PRIMER. Best, Schmidt, Michael Q. 15:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 1 June[edit]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the The Crimson House page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)