Jump to content

User talk:Skyerise

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheFireTones (talk | contribs) at 14:08, 2 June 2011 (→‎Trivia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Archives:
2010 · 2011

Advices

Hi Yworo, how are you? You have helped me with several issues (few time ago), now recently I had an unexpected problem, may ask you for some help again, guidance and advice in this list of doubts?

1- An article in Wikipedia can be written using famous paintings (under public domain) as essential and most part of it? I mean the subject it is not directly about painting but they have implicated relations. So, may I use them not only for article’s illustration but also as a massive and important part of it? If yes, an editor can immediately (without any discussion) remove these images (and esthetically wrecking the article) if he has another point of view? (vandalism?)

Images in the public domain may be used anywhere. However, that usage must conform to our image use policies. In short, typically only the lead image and images with details such as maps or writing may be enlarged. In general, images should not be manually-sized, even art. The reader can always click on the image to see more detail. Other violations of the image use policy include excessive use of images in an article (we are an encyclopedia, not a coffee-table book), placing images on both the right and the left such that the text is squeezed between them, using left-placed images such that they indent a major heading, etc.

2- An editor can immediately (without any previous discussion) remove parts (script) of an article if he has another point of view over some (referenced) sentence? (vandalism?)

If the editor is acting in good faith, yes. We only count obvious defacement as vandalism. Content disputes are not vandalism.

3- When an editor claims that didn’t find a reference (even if it near exists in the article), he can immediately remove the paragraph without first asking for it? (vandalism?)

All references should be in footnotes directly following the sentence or paragraph asserting the facts. Another editor should not have to hunt for them. And yes, any editor may remove material he believes in good faith are not supported by references. The burden of proof is on the editor adding the facts.

4- A text (supposed with neutral point of view) with a statement made in a valid reference can simply be removed because the editor has another personal interpretation for it? (vandalism?)

Not usually. If there are multiple interpretations for something, all major viewpoints should be included and supported by references. If a POV is supported, another editor should be adding the differing point-of-view, not replacing it.

5- A non-English reference is it a valid reference? If yes, an editor can immediately remove a paragraph if didn’t find an English reference? (vandalism?)

A non-English reference is valid, provided it is a reliable source, but the editor who adds it is expected to provide an English translation in the footnote of the pertinent text. If an editor cannot easily verify that a statement is support, they can remove text. They are not to be expected to read a foreign-language source to find and verify the supporting text.

6- Any editor can judge and decide (according to his personal believes and grade of knowledge) what is related (or not) to an article and immediately remove without first discussing the question? (vandalism?)

Again, content disputes are never vandalism. Yes, they can do this, but if you then restore the text, they should not be removing it a second time without discussion. See WP:BRD.

7- An editor can remove parts (with multiple references) of an article leaving other parts with orphaned references? (vandalism?)

Again, it the orphaning of references is not intentional, it's not vandalism. They made a mistake which should be pointed out to them. They should ensure that the orphaned references are fixed. There is a bot that sometimes fixes these things, eventually...

8- If a reference (of another part) was misplaced in a sentence, an editor can immediately erase the paragraph without first asking for a revision? (vandalism?)

An editor need not ask for anything. Anyone can remove any text at any time. However, if they do this repeatedly, it is considered tendentious editing.

9- Is it usual a steady Wikipedia’s article (constantly improved by numerous users and created many months or years ago) suddenly (in one only day, probably by same person with more than one username) be flooded with impolite demands and amputated like described here?

If an editor is using more than one username, they may be violating our policy against sock puppets.

Thanks Yworo, these are very important and determinant questions to me (and to many others editors, for sure). The affected article in question concerns the subject of ethereal entities (gods, spirits, angels, etc.), now seriously wrecked. Hour of Angels (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied interspersed above (which is technically considered bad form, but this is my talk page so.... ) Yworo (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I lack of experience in Wikipedia, so your answers were very useful and disappointed although expected. As long as I can manage some time perhaps I (try to) patch something of what left from that article, and next I am quitting Wikipedia forever (cheers). It is easy to see now that I do not belong here. I am old and certainly over past. I am from time when people had politeness, an outdated fashion (particularly inside Wikipedia). Honestly I believe Wikipedia it is finishing in bad way. Again Yworo, thanks for your time. Hour of Angels (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Yworo, I saw that you helped me in an article again; it was nice. Now, about your last answers, I researched them and I think this time I can help you to expand your possibilities:
If an article can or not make massive use of images; actually if there is a good reason, you can. Sometimes follow too many rules can wrap you and cause loss of perspective (give a look on that: wk: loss of perpective).
The good reason: the images of this article complete it, are part of its subject (but sure there is a limit too). So, follow some technical rule to remove or leave very short images harms the encyclopedia because degrade the information. Trust me, all this argumentation already exist, read this: wk:rules and this: wk:There_is_no_common_sense.
See, there is no point in placing an image in an article if it has not good visibility. And yes, in cases like that actually you are free to enlarge the images until certain limits (see Image policy - display). An image cannot be extremely small, it has to have a certain size to be able of interesting the reader. Usually the standard size (thumb) is enough for most images, but not every time.
And please don’t get me wrong; I regard Wikipedia an awesome idea. I hope the best for it, but right now I think it lost the way. Why? Because without mention the impoliteness, all these prime guidelines that I cited above (and others ones), simply, many times have been ignored, (this does not help to improve Wikipedia). Hour of Angels (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't understand the common sense that is being supplied does not mean the guidelines are arbitrary. Not everyone in the world has high-speed internet. Many are still on dial-up. Some get charged for bandwidth. The reasons behind many of the guidelines concerning images have to do with not destroying the ability for those with low-bandwidth to use and benefit from Wikipedia. In addition, some of the image rules have to do with optimizing the ability for the blind to efficiently use screen-readers (some uses of images confuse or garble the order the text is read in), for people with mobile devices to more easily use Wikipedia (typically so that the text comes first rather than the image), and finally, Wikipedia is not designed for the web alone, but is expected to properly format for print as well.In addition, users have the ability to set their own default size for images: whether they need them larger for visual disability or smaller for low-bandwidth; but this only works if the images are NOT manually-sized. Since you seem to be completely unaware of all the considerations which lead to the current guidelines, it's kind of hard to take your criticism seriously. Please try be considerate to differently-abled people by not manually-sizing images for cosmetic reasons only. What you LIKE better may make Wikipedia unusable for others. Yworo (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo I didn’t have intention, and never will think in make an edit war with anybody. And only now I saw your answer in your talk page. You should take my words positively, as new options; I’m sorry if that upset you, wasn’t that my intention. When I spend time writing to someone it is because I think I can say something constructively. Until here I thought I had made a point and obtained a compromise with you about images. Obviously not.
Actually I liked very much your last answer. I really didn’t know those technological problems (I thought all was about personal taste).
So, may I ask you a little more of tolerance with my mistakes? I mean, if I make some edition with wrong style, would be possible you fix only that? Please don’t assume personal attack. I don’t act like this, it is something absolutely useless in my opinion. Remember, I asked your help. Hour of Angels (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of formatting and image size and position edits I do take quite a bit of time. They are much more painstaking and detail-oriented than simply adding text and references. I won't redo them. Please edit from the live article, not a copy. Yworo (talk) 15:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yworo you did an excellent work re-formatting conspiracy section. I really loved the results (much better than I had made earlier). It was nice, I have appreciated. Hour of Angels (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am here to improve Wikipedia. :-) Yworo (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anxious about your editing

I am User:Iapx86 the youngest son of Jerome Y Lettvin. Jerry just died on March 23rd, and I updated his wikipedia entry. He was far more influential than is currently shown in the article.

I have direct verifiable information that I inserted in this page. However, your edits have been so severe that I hardly trust trying again.

For instance, I had inserted the names of his doctoral_students and influences/influenced in the article. Your action then was to remove the entire list of names and say wikipedia is not a directory. So I reviewed the entry and inserted the names of his doctoral_students in the infobox:scientist. Your criticism was that URLs do not belong in this section. Your action was to remove the entire list of names rather than strip them of their links. If the infobox:scientist doctoral_students section is not the right place for the names of his doctoral students where should such a list be inserted? And if links are not given, how can the information be called verifiable? The dissertations of ALL of these students is now in the archives of the American Philosophical Society. Most of his doctoral students have gone on to substantial careers in the neurosciences.

The material I am inserting is first hand knowledge and verifiable by his students. I am entirely open to criticism and advice on improving my entries. But I am now uncertain that you will not simply remove everything I insert. Please help me improve my delivery to avoid these removals. iapx86 04:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iapx86 (talk • contribs)

Joseph Henry Sharp

Sorry about both elements. I know better. On the second - the surnames of his wives, I put a placeholder for his wives as a way of reminding myself while working on it, as I expected to be able to find their names. Have not been able to yet, and meant to delete the "xxxs". Parkwells (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Fuld

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I thank you for your contribution to one of wikipedia's latest WP:GA's

This user helped promote Sam Fuld to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taos

Sorry for the error on the first; was trying to distinguish Gorman and Martin, certainly, from the early 20th c. artists; should have indicated later 20th c. Parkwells (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heinlein

I have no opinion on this matter and I could not care less, I reverted the IP because a quick search showed that there were obvious links between the two, including links that were admitted by Heinlein himself. I you feel the information is questionable, fine. Asavaa (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taos Art Colony

Hi, Thanks for jumping on board with the expansion, ref documentation, etc. of the colony (one of my most favorite places on Earth). As an FYI, I'm going to be adding references - and there's the non-referenced template that I'll leave up until then - so you need not work that I'll catch them all, I will.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I have the window open for Millicent, I just haven't gotten to it yet. (I have four windows of info open.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on both articles, because of course the source informatoin overlaps. I'm going to put an "in use" on the Taos Society of Artists, too.
But if you have content that you'd like to write and would like to take control for awhile, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks! I hope this doesn't sound rude, I LOVE having you around. I'm just in a work-in-progress (that's why I put up the under construction templates). I'm actually not bad - if you don't mind giving me a chance to get a little further, it would be appreciated! (I forgot the stream that I was going to put in the TSA article).--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, most editors don't mind a little help with their work. I'll just go do something else for awhile. Don't forget the Taos Art Museum at the Nicolai Fechin House. Yworo (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind help with work - and thanks for the additional items to catch. It's just distracting to get edit conflicts and notes about something I'm going to do in the midst of writing. I will LOVE to see what you come back with - and can ping you when I get a bulk of info in, add the links, spell check, etc - so that you're working with better copy. Thanks so much for understanding!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I finished updates to the Taos Society of Artists - there's much more content but it starts getting specific by artist, and since there are articles for each of the six artists, I stopped the expansion here. Is there anything else that you think should be covered though? Would love to hear your thoughts.
I still have more to do on the Taos art colony. Any further direction there is appreciated, too! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 May 2011

Trivia

Fixed. Please feel free to edit or add a citation needed tag as needed. Thanks, TheFireTones 14:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Skyerise&oldid=432178886"