User talk:Wool3linen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeffery Vance (March 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Makro (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jeffery Vance (March 28)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!
  • Please remember to link to the submission!
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC Jeffery Vance was accepted[edit]

Jeffery Vance, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Missvain (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chaplin[edit]

Hi Wool3linen,

I saw that you've made some changes and additions to the Chaplin article. It's great to have footnotes from the books by Vance; however, would you be able to correct the referencing? At the moment, you've mainly added new footnotes; however, the Wikipedia style is to add the name and page numbers to the already existing footnote, rather than to create a new one (otherwise, when listing references, we would always have a huge number of footnotes after each sentence). Also, when you reference, you should not put all of the details about the book in the footnote, just the author's surname and the page number (if you are using several works by the same author, you should write the author's surname and the publication year in brackets). The actual title of the book, publisher etc. goes to the "Sources" section, where all the works referenced are listed alphabetically. It would be great if you could make these corrections, otherwise someone else has to :) TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Saw that you've noticed some of the errors yourself; but could you please use the cite form when adding works to the Sources-section? That way they would show up correctly.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
In general, if in doubt when correcting the references, use the already existing references as an example. The article is a featured article, meaning that the referencing is done according to the accepted Wikipedia style.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Hi TruHearSusie3, Thanks, as I am still learning about Wikipedia editing I really appreciate your feedback. I corrected the sources section but I am not sure how to correct the rest. How do I link it to the source? I removed the first full citation and replaced it with just the last name and page, is this correct? Wool3linen (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it always takes a bit of time to get the hang of things :) Ok, so for example:
  • "In November 1926, Grey took the children and left the family home."<>Robinson, p. 371.<><>Chaplin and Vance, p. 98<><>Vance, p. 172.<> (I've taken the 'ref' and /ref out because if I leave them in here on the talk page, I'm not able to demonstrate how it should be done. However, in the actual article you of course need to use the 'ref' and /'ref') Instead of having three footnotes, you should do it like this <>Robinson, p. 371; Chaplin and Vance, p. 98; Vance, p. 172<> (again, with the ref and /ref in the real footnote). This way, we will only have one neat footnote. Also, remember to always mark page numbers with p. or pp., rather than just "Vance, 92".
  • Also, don't 'over-reference'. The above fact is not very controversial, it's just a fact, and hence there isn't really need to have three references. In contrast, sentences like the next one ("A bitter divorce followed, in which Grey's application – accusing Chaplin of infidelity, abuse, and of harbouring "perverted sexual desires" – was leaked to the press.") is something that should preferably have more than just one source, as it is expressing something that could possibly be seen as just one biographer's opinion (that the divorce was 'bitter'). Furthermore, there's no need to use both Vance books in the same reference, as presumably they have exactly the same info and are written by the same guy. You should in this case use the one that was published first.
  • Remember to also make sure that there's no gap between the end of the sentence and the footnote (e.g. "Chaplin was a comedian." < r e f>Robinson</ r e f >. This is of course really minor, but I'll rather be thorough! :)
  • When you want to give the details of the book/journal article in the "Sources" section, you don't need to use the <r e f > and </ r e f>, those are only for footnotes. You just use the cite template (which you've done correctly), and add a * before it in order to make a bullet point.
  • Finally, I've deleted the footnote 'refs' from the books you've listed there, but noticed that you've used the cite book template also for the journal article. There is a separate journal article template, there are examples of that in that section as we've previously cited other articles.
Hopefully you'll find this helpful :) In general, whenever you feel in doubt, just mimic the way in which things have been done before in the article. Let me know if there's something that wasn't clear, I'll be happy to help :) And welcome to Wikipedia! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

TrueHeartSusie3. Thanks for the suggestions, can I ask why my favorite quote from Vance was removed that stated “What Shakespeare is to Elizabethan theater, Dickens to the Victorian novel, and Picasso to modern art, Chaplin is to twentieth century cinema.” I feel this is an important commentary and is not vague in anyway. I feel considering his contribution to the topic a quote from him is essential on a page discussing Chaplin.

It's a wonderful quote, but we've already got a similar one opening that whole section. If we had two very similar, praising comments expressing essentially the same idea (=that Chaplin is one of the central icons of 20th century cinema), we wouldn't be making a point but would rather just appear to be collecting praise about Chaplin, which is not fitting for an encyclopedia article. Nothing wrong with the quote per se.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

The quote does not express the idea that Chaplin "is one of the central icons of the 20th century" but rather the defining artist unique to a medium of artistic expression. Shakespeare (Elizabethan theater); Dickens (Victorian novel); Picasso (modern art: Chaplin (twentieth century American cinema). This is about singling out a leading light that defines an art and not something as simple as iconography. Please re-address this as I feel strongly this must be included.

Hello! The quote you just put on the Chaplin page from Vance is a great quote ("No human being is more responsible..."), and I believe should be kept. However, you sourced it incorrectly, as merely putting the same quote in as the source for the quote is wrong. You need to include the usual information (author, publisher, page etc). If it is the same Vance book as has been quoted throughout the article, it should be relatively easy. I would add it, but I do not have the source you are working with and so I do not know the page number. Vyselink (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NVM lol. It appears that as I was typing you caught it. Good show. Vyselink (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is please don't fill the Legacy-section with very similar quotes. The point of that section is to explain how Chaplin is remembered and what is his place in film history. It should not be a repository for gushing quotes, and that's why we need to be very selective about what is included.TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

True Heart Susie: The Wiki entry does not use the same language as your reply. You are using the word "discuss" but the entry uses the word "omitted." Chaplin does mention THE CIRCUS in his autobiography (see page 288 of the original Bodley Head 1964 edition) therefore it is not "omitted" but you are correct in your reply to me me that Chaplin does not "discuss" the film in his 1964 book. However, your reply in not what is written in the Wiki entry. The phrase "in his later years" is indeed vague and an encyclopedia should reference specific dates. The rewrite corrects all this and uses am authoritative source (a 20+ page monograph on specifically THE CIRCUS from one of the finest film journals written by a leading Chaplin scholar).

Omits discussion of the film, yes. Also, you are misunderstanding the point of Wikipedia. It is not to provide minute details on every single little thing in an artist's life, but to provide an overview of it (this is why all of Chaplin's films also have their own pages, so that detailed discussion of their production does not clutter his bio article). Sometimes, we need to be what you call 'vague' about some things because they are NOT essential in that context and would hence make the article difficult to read; the reader would not be able to see the forest for the trees. You are new to WP, so perhaps you are not aware of the featured article criteria and the reviewing process that takes place before an article becomes a 'featured' one. The article has to go through a rigorous reviewing process by several experienced editors, often taking weeks to complete (and all of this is preceded by the research and writing period, which in the case of this article took over a year for two editors). This is why relatively few articles are 'featured', because it takes a lot of work. Every single sentence is analysed and finetuned in that process; every word is thought over. Before starting to change the content of an FA article, it is worth to think why certain decisions were made, and not to rush to edit because it doesn't look good to you at the first glance. We're thinking of the big picture here. The FAC discussions are archived on the article's Talk-page, in case you want to take a look. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wool3linen, I haven't agreed with all your edits to the Chaplin page, but I see from your contributions that you've been working on/expanding a range of classic film articles and that's fantastic. You said you're new here, so I just wanted to chip in and say please don't be discourages by this incident. It would be a shame if you were put off, because wikipedia needs people working in this area. Please continue making additions to the articles that need it. Cheers --Loeba (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Loeba, Thank you for your message. I appreciate it Wool3linen (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember what it was like to be a newbie and getting caught up in the "behind the scenes" stuff for the first time - I couldn't believe it! I know it can feel horribly frustrating and unreasonable - especially when you're just trying to do what you see as best (which I know, and I'm sure Susie knows that too)...but ultimately we're all just saying what we think is appropriate for the article. I hope you understand and take on the points that Susie made above though, and the points in the edit summaries. And I hope you agree that the Chaplin article is in excellent shape on the whole, and that his film articles are in more need of work..? It would be great if you could continue to work on them. --Loeba (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Loeba has sound advice here, and I do agree that Chaplin's film articles really do need work. Feel free to ask if you need assistance improving articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Chaplin[edit]

Hi Wool3linen, as you are an active editor on Charlie Chaplin I thought we should tell you about this Saturday's editathon at the Cinema Museum in London. The main focus will be the Tramp as it comes up to the centenary of its release, but other Chaplin related articles may well get changed, especially as the Chaplin Association has promised to allow us to photograph some of the exhibits that they have loaned to the museum. There will be some film experts and several experienced Wikipedians at the event, and there is a talkpage for any queries, special requests for photographs or things to check in the reference sources available at the museum. And of course if you are anywhere near London you would be very welcome to come along. Regards Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015[edit]

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to The Immigrant (1917 film). While objective prose about beliefs, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm J. M.. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Robert James-Collier, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! —J. M. (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wool3linen&oldid=1144656371"