Jump to content

User talk:KylieTastic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kaufmanlm (talk | contribs)
15 edits
Line 345: Line 345:
[[User:Kaufmanlm|Kaufmanlm]] ([[User talk:Kaufmanlm|talk]]) 20:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Kaufmanlm|Kaufmanlm]] ([[User talk:Kaufmanlm|talk]]) 20:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
* Hi [[User:Kaufmanlm|Kaufmanlm]], although it is generally applied to articles rather than links [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists]] is almost always a bad argument. I don't know if [[MusicBrainz]] is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], but as it looks like it's user driven content then probably not (the same for Wikipedia, IMDB, etc.). However [[MusicBrainz]] is a collection of set information where Weave appears to just scrape information from other sites, so the Beyoncé link you sent appears to just take the text from Wikipedia. It does not matter that Weave "doesn't have any adverts or promotional parts on its website" its a business that it appeared you were trying to promote by linking from one of the webs top sites. Instead of averts it appears the intent to be used as a way to promote brands (per [http://weave.me/brands.html this]). Also they have dubious licensing claims as they take Wikipedia text shared under a [[Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike]] but Weave T&C claim a level of ownership. Your actions are covered by the policy [[WP:LINKSPAM]], and as it just appears to gather info from other sources it's more like someone adding Google search links articles. If you would like to clarify this I suggest asking at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions|Wikipedia:Teahouse]], or you could ask at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] or [[Wikipedia:Help desk]]. Cheers [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic#top|talk]]) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
* Hi [[User:Kaufmanlm|Kaufmanlm]], although it is generally applied to articles rather than links [[Wikipedia:Other stuff exists]] is almost always a bad argument. I don't know if [[MusicBrainz]] is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]], but as it looks like it's user driven content then probably not (the same for Wikipedia, IMDB, etc.). However [[MusicBrainz]] is a collection of set information where Weave appears to just scrape information from other sites, so the Beyoncé link you sent appears to just take the text from Wikipedia. It does not matter that Weave "doesn't have any adverts or promotional parts on its website" its a business that it appeared you were trying to promote by linking from one of the webs top sites. Instead of averts it appears the intent to be used as a way to promote brands (per [http://weave.me/brands.html this]). Also they have dubious licensing claims as they take Wikipedia text shared under a [[Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License|Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike]] but Weave T&C claim a level of ownership. Your actions are covered by the policy [[WP:LINKSPAM]], and as it just appears to gather info from other sources it's more like someone adding Google search links articles. If you would like to clarify this I suggest asking at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions|Wikipedia:Teahouse]], or you could ask at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard]] or [[Wikipedia:Help desk]]. Cheers [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic#top|talk]]) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
* Hi KylieTastic, Thanks for the detailed response. I understand how you might think that Weave is “merely a collection of Google search links articles” but I did some research into the site and found the opposite to be true. As you would notice from the Beyoncé link there is a ton of content that isn’t scraped from anywhere on the Web. Apart from Getty Images photos, videos and reviews, many of the sections on the page have information you can’t find (or infer) from anywhere on the Web – such as all her album influencers, all her collaborators, events that she has featured in, etc. There is no Google search that can pull all this information together and a lot of the information isn’t even available on the open Web. Here is the guide on Pop music to take an example of curated information not just scraped from Google: [http://weave.me/app/weave.html?Best_of_Pop_Music_2016 Best of Pop Music]. I guarantee you that a vast majority of the organized content isn’t freely or easily available on the Web. I hope you will reconsider your decision. I will also post on the forums you mentioned to make sure I understand what is acceptable going forward. Thanks again!

Revision as of 22:59, 16 December 2016

It is approximately 6:50 PM where this user lives.

I try to answer all questions, but I also have a busy real-life and heath issues to deal with - If you have a general question it may be quicker to ask at the Wikipedia:Teahouse

Click to start a Question/section — Deleted image issue? Look up the files history here...

Heliopolis

Thanks for the message. There was a new luxury ocean liner called Heliopolis launched in 1907. Also in that year, immigrants from Malaga crammed into a old ship called Heliopolis to emigrate to Hawaii. Someone has amended the page and assumed it is the same ship. It is not and I have also provided a link to the photo of the 2nd vessel. I am a writer on ships and have published the Compendium of the World's Passenger Ships. My website is at www.shiphistory.co.uk Sorry about the many edits - I was trying to get to grips with the site. Don — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donships (talk • contribs) 22:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Donships, the best way to start is with small edits - the wiki markup is not that complex but takes a few edits to get used to. However also not that we have a policy Wikipedia:No original research and information should be sourced (see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources). So yes if you think information is incorrect and it does not have a source then its ok to remove, if it does have a source then you need to provide a better (more reliable) one you cant just assert that you know. Many of us have expertise in areas, but without sources others can not tell the expert from the (numerous) trolls, or the just misinformed. If you do have questions or want advise I recommend the Wikipedia Teahouse where you'll find lots of experienced editors. All the best. KylieTastic (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is your Spanish?

I have created a new set of shields for Mexican federal highways that are ready to upload. However, the document from which I got the drawings is in Spanish (not my first language, but I can get by) and I can't find any mention that the document or the signs depicted therein are in the public domain. So, could you or do you know anybody who speaks Spanish natively who could look it over to find any licensing information? It's located here: http://www.sct.gob.mx/normatecaNew/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/SCT_NIS_0419.pdf Thanks. –Fredddie™ 05:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I would agree with that assessment Fredddie, if added to commons there is a reasonable risk of them being challenged and deleted. Unloading to ENWP and tagging {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} would seam a reasonable route to go. — KylieTastic (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread at the Commons village pump: Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Mexican_road_signs –Fredddie™ 17:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Plowshare

Hi.

Minor query, but I'd really like to know. Recently you undid a change I made to the article for Operation Plowshare (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare) as, if I remember correctly, being 'unconstructive'.

The edit I made was to the following sentence:

"This became the first crater on Earth, definitely proven to be from an impact event."

I had removed the comma, as leaving it in would imply that the Sedan crater was in fact the first crater formed upon the planet. It's not comma splicing but I think it lies upon similar lines.

I understand that new users are encouraged to make edits in a sandbox, but this seems unnecessary when correcting a small yet obvious grammatical error. In this case I fail to see exactly how it is unconstructive.

Any response would be appreciated. Probably.

cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.241.90 (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review needs your help

Hi KylieTastic,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ifjú szívvel.jpg

Sorry, I don't get it, what's the problem with this image? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) In ictu oculi (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from STiki!

The Bronze STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, KylieTastic! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 5,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, KylieTastic. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:00:16, 22 November 2016 review of submission by HavocWWC


I as the author of his bio am associated with the companies he has worked for and the persons linked in the article can attest to the validity of the information. If further references are needed i can add those, plus his career is active and as such more content is to be added regularly. I understand what is required but i also see pages like the one for Ray Gonzalez Jr. who has a very short career and as such very little information, tey that one was approved.

HI KylieTastic, sorry is my attempted explanation came out with something like the Other stuff exists. I decided to do more research regarding the data i submitted and provided as many references as i could find. Hopefully it should meet the guidelines now. I tried to use different sources guessing it would be more reliable that way. If i need to add more references i will — Preceding unsigned comment added by HavocWWC (talk • contribs) 00:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi HavocWWC no worries, your doing everything fine, just learning as we all have the Wikipedia ways and policies. I see you've already added several other sources so a good positive move. I'm going off-line now but just wanted to reply and say your doing exactly what the Articles for creation system is designed for. It's an iterative process that hopefully ends up in a new article that your proud of creating and is good for our readers. All the best, and happy editing KylieTastic (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:00:15, 23 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Ron Boat


Kylie, this article is being written by people in Ron Boat's office and industry. Information is accurate and verifiable if anyone takes the time to read reviews etc. A blog appearing on a third party was removed from the bio even though it should be considered verification that RB is a contributor and writer totally unrelated to the blog's owner other than being a contributor. His 45 year career is as note worthy as some others found on your site and we wanted to submit it as testimony to his work with major corporations, major medical groups and independent entities.

Someone mentioned that actors can't use IMDB as a reference but it's there for some. any suggestions?

Bruce

Ron Boat (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sony Entertainment Television Logo 2016.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sony Entertainment Television Logo 2016.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) 10:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:45:17, 23 November 2016 review of submission by Typhon Antaeus


I am the founder of the company and the chief designer of the HSR. Links to our company webpage and to the Fb and Linkedin platforms have been added, as well as a reference to a book which, among others, also talks about our company. I hope this will be enough to get the article published.

Norwich Medical School

Hi, You keep on reverting the section of "Achievements" on Norwich Medical School. Could you stop or give a reasonable explanation?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drjosh c1234 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:39:46, 24 November 2016 review of submission by Zsmithzdlgs2


I'm confused as to why this article was rejected. A less substantial, and less well-sourced, version of it already exists, and has been accepted, on the Italian Wikipedia. This article uses one of the same sources I used, which in my article was rejected as insufficiently authoritative. Nesbett, being an English composer, is more notable to English readers than he is to Italians, so if the Italian article was accepted then why was mine (which was more relevant and better-referenced) rejected? If someone can explain the difference in policy regarding the English and Italian Wikipedias' different standards for notability and different definitions of a valid source, that would be great, as I currently can't understand it. Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 09:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Zsmithzdlgs2, differnt langauge Wikipedias have different policies. I belive in general most other languages have lower standards, much as English Wikipedia did in the early days. Your article was not "rejected as insufficiently authoritative" but as it failed to show notability - to quote the notice "Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". English Wikipedia has two main relevant notabilty standards for this article Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Your sources do show they existed but not that what they did was notable unless appearing in the Eton Choirbook is a higher acolaid than I understand (music is not my area of expertise). I would suggest looking for any aditional information and sources, or if you wish you could re-submit for a second opinion, or maybe ask for feedback at WikiProject Classical music. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow. That honestly surprises me about the different criteria, but OK. It produces a very counterintuitive result! Whether the Choirbook is a significant thing on its own is a matter of opinion; to people interested in early English music it's comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls, but to the wider world it's completely unheard-of. It's not an *award* that would prove notability by itself (like a Nobel Prize or Oscar would, or being listed in one of Time's lists of influential people), but it was a collection of music put together when publishing was not quick, cheap or easy - so *at the time* Nesbett's stuff was clearly notable enough to be included for publication. I won't labour the point; I accept that in the grand scheme of things the whole field of early music is quite niche, so I'm at a disadvantage in terms of "notability" before I even start writing about it. I actually asked in the IRC channel as well and was advised to try and find something from JSTOR to give a more solid scholarly basis. I'll try that - and if I can't find anything, then I guess I'll have to accept that there isn't (yet) enough scholarship of Nesbett, which I suppose would answer the question of his notability. Thanks Zsmithzdlgs2 (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Zsmithzdlgs2, yes I was surprised that their wasn't more standaisation between languages when I started editing, but most polices are all locally evolved. I guess the language barrier would make it a hard to do. However I just wanted to say that it does not really matter if its a niche subject or else we would just be a site of popular media and celebrity pages (what a horrible thought). If the Choirbook is comparable to the Dead Sea Scrolls then yes his inclusion would be quite notable. I would certinaly say that if you can find any other sources it would definetly be worth re-submitting, he is certinaly of some note. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of KRSSG page.

Hi KylieTastic, The article on this topic has been deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, however the article is is related to IIT Kharagpur an Educational institution. There are similar articles on Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpurpage under section Student organisations. I request you to undo the deletion of the article.If there is any linking that I can do with other articles, I will do that.

Regards, Lyoko_x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyoko x (talk • contribs) 10:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I saw that you edited my edits on the page of Guru Gobind Singh Ji and on Guru Granth Sahib Ji. I am not a pro and that is the reason I deleted the pictures by mistake. I would want you to help me to add "Ji" after the name of the text which appears under the image as Ji is used to give respect in India. Next was the removal of death. Dear Sir may I request you to please consider that Guru Gobind Singh Ji is our Guru. We never use the word "died" for a Guru as a Guru never dies. He attains immortality. So please let this be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramdeeptung (talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Paramdeeptung don't worry about not being a pro we all have to learn - but I suggest you just look at your edits after you have done them, the pages were covered with broken red-links. "Ji" appears to be a honorific title and we have a policy on not overusing them - see MOS:HONORIFIC. As for death vs attaining immortality this is an Encyclopaedia and as such it is a fact that people die (at least in this existence) but "attaining immortality" would appear to be a matter of opinion. To be encyclopaedic you could change it so that is says both, i.e. person _____ died (some date) but the followers of _____ believe that they have attained immortality. Lastly in your edit here you changed the parameters of the infobox from "death_date"/"death_place" to "immortality_date"/"immortality_place" - parameters of templates are 'code' not visible text to readers and all you did was effectively delete the information. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Runman826/sandbox/Gregory Ouellette

Hi Kylie..Thank you for your response on the page!...I think I know what to do to correct the problem. Should I be adding {{ }} before and after each reference source. All the best!

  • Hi Runman826, sorry no it's not as simple as adding {{ }}. Firstly in-line citations are not added by just adding [x] but by the mark-up <ref> reference contents</ref>. The easiest basic way to add a reference is just to add the url in the ref tags like: <ref>http://your-url-to-your-source</ref>. Or you use the various citation templates to add more details such as <ref>{{cite web|title=My source Title|url=htttp://mysourceurl.com|accessdate=24 November 2016}}</ref> however the easiest way to add these more complex references is to use the refToolbar (see Help:Referencing for beginners where that section has a video if its not clear). Your reference in the reference section do not actually have the urls to the source otherwise I would sort one out as an example. Give it a try and if you run in to difficulty ask for help either here or as I'm only around some of the time ask at the Wikipedia Teahouse where lots of experienced editors help out new editors. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KylieTastic. Thank you for your notes! I took your advice and watched the video on properly citing sources and made the correct changes. (Runman826 (talk) 20:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • Hi Runman826, no worries. I've moved the refs into the place-holder positions you left (with this edit). The Wiki software then generates the [1 etc links to the references that are then listed in the reference section. It does this by having the template {{reflist}} in the references section. FYI anything in double curly brackets {{ }} is a template that does extra work for you just like the cite web ones you added. You can see the info on templates for instance for cite web in the Template area i.e. Template:Cite web. If your happy with the changes hit the RESUBMIT button on the article and it will be added to the review list again, I'm going offline as I've been working way to many hours and I need a break from computer screens. All the best KylieTastic (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discourse

Discourse is a new generation of discussion with different features and capabilities that are rapidly changing, so the versions should be included within the wikipedia website as an abstract. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.217 (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter

Hello KylieTastic,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 807 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Removal of Image: Lesser Slave River

Hi there,

I notice that my image of a gateway sign for the Municipal District of Lesser Slave River keeps getting deleted and replaced with a defaced version of the sign. I believe the contention is that the logo on the image is copyrighted. However, I am the legal owner of the copyright as I am the logo's creator. I thought I had provided all the fair use sign-offs when I uploaded the image to Wikipedia. Is there any way for me to upload the correct image in place of the defaced one?

My main concern with the defaced image being on the Municipal District of Lesser Slave River's Wikipedia page is that this image does not fairly or accurately represent the municipality's gateway signage.

I am a Wikipedia novice, so any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean Mellis (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean Mellis: The logo is already in the infobox, with the proper licenses, so I don't understand why you assert that the boundary sign has to be in the infobox. I don't even think that boundary signs should be in the infobox, they're not an accurate representation of the community. Since I assume you live in the MD of Lesser Slave River, you must know of a beautiful location that can represent the community, I'm thinking Athabasca River, or Lesser Slave Lake. I'll ask you again to take a picture of it, and upload that. But until then, all we have uploaded of the MD is the boundary sign that someone took. 117Avenue (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

South Texas Family Planning & Health Corporation

Thanks for PROD-ing it. I've had it on watch since it was first created to see if the creator would improve it before proposing deletion. I can see why they haven't. I looked myself and there is zero coverage apart from one or two passing mentions in local papers. If the PROD is removed, I'll take it to AfD. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Raddatz

If I provide a link to the video showing her crying on national TV, would that be enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.131.106 (talk) 05:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, I've just seen the clip and yes it's not what you expect of a professional, however the statement "Her lack of impartiality was further shown" would appear to be speculative. Impartiality should be judged on what people say and/or actions they take, not speculation on the reason someone is emotional. Also your edit said "after Trump won" which was not true, he just looked likely to win at 244 to 215 (on screen at the time). So a more accurate statement would be that she became clearly emotional during election coverage when Trump was close to winning the presidency. Oh and yes you should always have a source for such statements. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I'm not sure - it was certainly an incident that was unusual so could be mentioned however the tone needs to be neutral. I would suggest maybe posting a suggested addition with a link on the artcile talk page to get feedback. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Letters To James Cameron

I wrote letters to James Cameron that will tell James Cameron to never make Avatar2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7830:6B9:BC0A:889E:548D:7277 (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It's not vandalism for James Cameron to never make Avatar2, because I wrote to James Cameron that will tell James Cameron to never make Avatar2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7830:6B9:BC0A:889E:548D:7277 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive editing if James Cameron will never make Avatar2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7830:6B9:BC0A:889E:548D:7277 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I care if I wrote to James Cameron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7830:6B9:BC0A:889E:548D:7277 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a mistake when you told me that James Cameron will make Avatar2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:7830:6B9:BC0A:889E:548D:7277 (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Shaikh page

Hey Kylie - I saw the recommendations you made and tried to clean up the content and updated a bunch of sources (37 in total now, mostly news organizations and published books). Please let me know if there are any other changes I should make. This is my first crack at this!2601:196:4701:A60F:EC3C:B1CC:90BA:83F4 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Photos

Hello, you reverted my edit yesterday on Next Nova Scotia general election. I attempted to upload a photo of our leader Gary Burrill as the other two Nova Scotia parties had pictures of their leaders up. Mainstream media in Nova Scotia has a bias against the NDP because they are left leaning. For some reason, Wikipedia would not permit me to upload a photo even though I've confirmed my account through email. GlaceBayNDP (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi GlaceBayNDP, you have to be autoconfirmed before you can upload images to English Wikipedia - which normally means your account has to be 4 days old and have 10+ edits. This is applied to all people automatically, no political bias. Also note that to upload images to English Wikipedia they normally have to copyright free or released under a 'free' use licence, although English Wikipedia does allow some Wikipedia:Non-free content under 'fair use'. If you do have a copyright free, or compatible licensed image you can upload now over on Wikimedia Commons - but they do not accept fair use images. Wikimedia Commons images can be used on all language Wikipedias, and your account you created here will be valid their as well. Hope that explains things. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi again GlaceBayNDP, I just had a look and I could not find a copyright free, or free licensed image of him. This is a problem we have with a lot of people who complain about the lack of an image, they just don't make one available freely and want to control Wikipedia content. The easiest way for an individual to make an image available is to upload to their own website, or say Flickr and label with a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licence. Also as you have indicated a link to them I need to point you to our policy Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, please read. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jack Patrick Lewis ‎

Hello KylieTastic, Thank you for editing my page "Jack Patrick Lewis" to make the election results work! I really appreciate it! Would you be able to move the photo I included to the infobox? I couldn't get it to look good - it was always off-center and wonky! I would really appreciate it. Best, HB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry.breault (talk • contribs) 17:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2

Hello KylieTastic,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

AfD: South Texas Family Planning & Health Corporation

Since you had originally PROD-ed this article and the PROD was subsequently removed by another editor, I'm letting you know that I have now taken it to AfD. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Texas Family Planning & Health Corporation. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

so sorry bout that. Meant to change it back but i forgot what it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:4300:7A90:3CBC:6AAF:4438:D466 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Mitchell

Hi. Do you know what happened to the pic from the Joanne Mitchell page. It's really weird. I think it was something to do with the fact there were TWO identical pictures. The first had a corrupted filename with a [..jpg] at the end, which was of course unusable. I then uploaded a replacement with just [.jpg] which I did use on the page, But this simple mistake - entirely mine! -seems to have led to real comedy of errors! Someone rightly suggested deleting the [..jpg] but they didn't mean the [.jpg] one too. I hope all this can be fixed.Picknick99 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo programming language

Hello! We are attempting to improve the article at Hugo (programming language). If you could refrain from reverting it back to the redirect while we add sources, that would be greatly appreciated! Thank you. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisatordis1981 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kamahl Santamaria

Hi Kylie, I've just made a number of changes to the page 'Kamahl Santamaria'... including adding third-party sources, and uploading a new photo.

(by the way, I'm not sure why my previous image was deleted - it was taken with my own camera!!)

So yes, obviously I AM Kamahl Santamaria, and I understand the Wikipedia position on conflicts of interest. Is there a way to get around this? Do I really need someone else to make the edits for me?

Many thanks, Kamahl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwimedia (talk • contribs) 08:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kiwimedia, thanks for adding some 3rd patry sources. I cannot view deleted images or the file page so I can't see what was wrong with the image(s). If your talking about File:Kamahl Santamaria CTC.jpg it says it was deleted for "F9: Media file copyright violation without credible claim of fair use or permission)" - if you think this was in error you could ask the deleting admin Diannaa. However, copyright is an odd thing (that I'm no expert on) but I think that if someone else takes a picture of you on your phone then they as the photographer actual own the copyright not you as the camra owner or subject. The simplest way to allow images to be used on Wikipedia would be to have some or all of your images on your website labeled for 'free' use with say a CC-BY or CC-BY-SA licence.
As for WP:COI the basic answer is "you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly" and getting "someone else to make the edits for me" still fails for the same reason - they would not be able to be neutral. See Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you want more advise, and maybe differnt opinions I would suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The photo was deleted because it was copied from Al Jazeera or elsewhere online and thus was a copyright violation. We can't accept such photos without express written permission and release under license by the copyright holder. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tigers Are Bad For Horses

Hi Kylie. I got your message regarding the edit made on the Tigers Are Bad For Horses page. Currently, MusicBrainz is listed as an authorized external site, and the website Weave is listed on Musicbrainz.org (http://musicbrainz.org/artist/cb18691e-315b-4f4d-8448-59060f5b7bb1/relationships). Weave doesn't have any adverts or promotional parts on its website. It is an information site which gives you everything you need about an artist. Compare the Weave of Beyonce: http://weave.me/app/weave.html?Beyoncé versus her Discogs page: https://www.discogs.com/artist/52835-Beyonc%C3%A9 . They both contain discography, official links and general information about Beyonce. What is the difference between listing Musicbrainz or Discogs and listing Weave? Thanks again for your message, I just would like more information as to why Weave shouldn't be considered a reliable resource and external link for TABFH. Thank you! Kaufmanlm (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Kaufmanlm, although it is generally applied to articles rather than links Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is almost always a bad argument. I don't know if MusicBrainz is a reliable source, but as it looks like it's user driven content then probably not (the same for Wikipedia, IMDB, etc.). However MusicBrainz is a collection of set information where Weave appears to just scrape information from other sites, so the Beyoncé link you sent appears to just take the text from Wikipedia. It does not matter that Weave "doesn't have any adverts or promotional parts on its website" its a business that it appeared you were trying to promote by linking from one of the webs top sites. Instead of averts it appears the intent to be used as a way to promote brands (per this). Also they have dubious licensing claims as they take Wikipedia text shared under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike but Weave T&C claim a level of ownership. Your actions are covered by the policy WP:LINKSPAM, and as it just appears to gather info from other sources it's more like someone adding Google search links articles. If you would like to clarify this I suggest asking at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, or you could ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:Help desk. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi KylieTastic, Thanks for the detailed response. I understand how you might think that Weave is “merely a collection of Google search links articles” but I did some research into the site and found the opposite to be true. As you would notice from the Beyoncé link there is a ton of content that isn’t scraped from anywhere on the Web. Apart from Getty Images photos, videos and reviews, many of the sections on the page have information you can’t find (or infer) from anywhere on the Web – such as all her album influencers, all her collaborators, events that she has featured in, etc. There is no Google search that can pull all this information together and a lot of the information isn’t even available on the open Web. Here is the guide on Pop music to take an example of curated information not just scraped from Google: Best of Pop Music. I guarantee you that a vast majority of the organized content isn’t freely or easily available on the Web. I hope you will reconsider your decision. I will also post on the forums you mentioned to make sure I understand what is acceptable going forward. Thanks again!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KylieTastic&oldid=755220068"