User talk:ManicalCritic

Regarding Reddogsix

I found reading and trying to abide by this WP:AGF to be the most challenging and rewarding part of my experience at Wikipedia, even taking it off Wiki in other real and virtual worlds. I still have not got it down right. (Incidentally, I started and wrote most of the Bad faith article, for better or for worse. This use of "bad faith" is not necessarily what the Wikipedia AGF guideline means. AGF generally means to assume other editors are trying to improve Wikipedia, but might have a different opinion on how to best accomplish this than you do.) You can see who contributed to an article by clicking on the "view history" tab, then get more by clicking on the "next 500 pages" link, "last 500 pages" link, etc.) PPdd (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Peterson-Perez

If you take a look at the arguments for keep and delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Peterson-Perez, you will see that they are basically discussing passages of WP:BIO back and forth (or should be). The subject, "Mark Petersen-Perez", is not really part of the discussion. Quoting from WP:BIO, it boils down to -

"whether or not "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability."

You voted "keep", but gave reasons from outside of the guidelines, which means (for better or for worse), that your "keep" vote might not count for much in the end when the discussion is reviewed by an administrator. You might want to carefully read the relevant parts of WP:BIO, (only the very beginning is relevant in this article, since Petersen-Perez is not in any of the categories below). Then modify your keep argument based on what is in that guideline, and only on that. If you argue from the guideline, then even as a new editor, your vote will count as much as anyone else's. PPdd (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:PPdd Thanks for responding and I'm very appreciative for everyone's direction and feedback even through I'm a new user. It will be the Wikipedia's team of experienced and polished editors like yourselves which will serve and guide me to excellence. Humility is often a human trait overlooked and seldom recognized.ManicalCritic (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

You put a link to New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), but it is a dead link that does not go to a Wikipedia article. When a link is blue, that means it is live and goes to a Wikipedia article. When it is red, that means no one has written that article. Since it is red, and it seems to be a notable case, if you have knowledge about it, my suggestion is to write an article for the rest of us to be able to find out about it. The best way to start is to write a three or foud sentence article describing the case, and stating why it is notable. PPdd (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Earl Gideon

Per your keep argument on MPP, if you have knowledge of Clarence Earl Gideon from a news source or directly from another reliable source, you might want to try add it to that Wiki article. PPdd (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content temporarily removed

I removed content because other editors were arguing to delete the article because it did not meet Wikipedia standards of having a footnote at the end of each sentence with a reliable and neutral source in each footnote.

Everything ever done at Wikipedia is preserved in the hitory tab of that article, e.g. - go here then click on the date and time next to your own name to see any edit you made. That way if someone undoes your work, it is never lost.

The best first thing to read at WIkipedia is WP:AGF. The next best things are WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. WP:RS is about how every sentence must come from a specified completely neutral, and also reliable, source, listed as a footnote for that sentence. The way I make sure is to quote the newspaper in the reference, so it can be checked by others against the source. The objection WP:Soapbox means that no article can state an opinion in any way. PPdd (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPdd I appreciate the lessons and directions. I did notice references are listed twice. Will this self correct or is someone assigned to monitor and correct these changes? ManicalCritic (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content temporarily removed

PPdd Right! I see said the blind man....I understand the content removal now. This way it should narrow the focus and arguments....excellent.ManicalCritic (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo upload

I have rare family photo's of the former president of Nicaragua José María Moncada Tapia and they would make an excellent historical addition. Since I'm a new user I would appreciate assistance on how to upload. Ive reviewed the help info but this just lead to further confusion. 03:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)ManicalCritic (talk)

Great. Wikipedia policy is to urge users uploading images on Commons [1]. Then they can be used across all wikis. However, in some cases (rare images with unclear copyright status), it is better to upload them on a local wiki, such as this one. Can you provide details on the images: who created them, when and where? Were they published/printed? If yes, when and where? Materialscientist (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To: Materialscientist, Thanks so much for your reply....The photos were taken by one of the presidents photographers in Managua 1930. The photo pictured includes US military personnel and future president to be Somoza. These photos belong to our family. My mother is related to the Moncada's through family lineage. Since their are no photo's in the article on José María Moncada Tapia, we beleive it will serve as a great historical interest. ManicalCritic (talk) 02:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try uploading them on Commons here (I'll assist if problems). Parameters:

Click "entirely my own work"
Original source: "own" (no change in template)
Author(s): something like this (amend as appropriate). "XXX, a photographer for President Moncada (replace XXX with "unknown" if name is not known).
Date of the work: 1930
Description: provide details as appropriate.
License: select one, perhaps the one marked as recommended.
Permission: this is important. Do add there what you have mentioned above - that the copyrights of the photos belong to your family, which is directly related to President Moncada
Categories: Presidents of Nicaragua. Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you outline the problem occurring when you upload the photo(s)? Materialscientist (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) success is on the far side of failure. Im going to try a different approach. But to answer your question the error message was it didn't like the source information in the small dialog box.. My problem too is that I don't understand HTML code. its not a simple up load.

Materialscientist I was successful this time around. Thanks for your help. The one thing I was unable to do, was ad that it is a family photo....ManicalCritic (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ManicalCritic, if you figure out your way through the maze of copyright regulations at Wikipedia Commons, Please teach me. PPdd (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk It would be a pleasure. Next we get togetherManicalCritic (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your edit

Hi ManiacalCritic,

Just a heads-up that I moved your recent addition to Citizen journalism to the "Criticisms" section and made it into a proper reference. External links to blogs tend to be discouraged around here, but it's obviously appropriate for the article, so I thought I'd rescue it before some persnickety Wikipedian came along and reverted it :)

Anyway, thanks for your contribution, and I hope you'll keep working on that article, because it's kind of a mess. And if you ever have any questions or need any help with anything, feel free to leave me a note on my talk page. Happy editing! Accedie^{talk to me} 23:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your deleted section

I notice a section you wrote in a citizen journalism article was deleted.

When someone at Wikipedia does something I do not like, I try to go back and review WP:AGF as a first step.

As to the deleted content, each sentence you put into Wikipedia should have a footnote to a reference, called an "inline citation". See WP:V. You can see how easy it is to make reference footnotes by looking at those in the MPP article you first edited on. I usually try to put a quotation from the reference cited in the footnote so a reader can quickly verify that the sentence in the article really came from the cited source. This is especially important in offline sources. The idea of being an encyclopedia means that each sentence in it comes from some 1. reliable 2. verifiable 3. secondary source, and not out of the head of an editor, even if it is true. This is summed up as No original research. You can write an article out of your head, but if you don't go back and put in a footnote on each line, someone will delete it sooner or later.

If you click on the blue links of what I just wrote, the first paragraph in the reference articles is called the "lead", and sum things up pretty well.PPdd (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]