User talk:NYScholar/Archive 14

Thanks for the Barton Gellman article update

I followed your "contribs" link and saw your extensive authorship of the Joseph C. Wilson article, and added an external link to it. I am very impressed with your contributions; a lot of Wikipedia authors don't adhere to very rigid research or ethical standards, so it is nice to discover someone who does. Apparent public relationship 23:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. (Just happened upon the Barton Gellman article via the Wikified link to his name in Joseph C. Wilson and noticed it needed some work. Just finished adding notes sec. etc.) --NYScholar 00:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 08:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)]

[... obsolete material removed and archived in archive page 13.]

Assistance requested

Administrators: Please assist with removing an anon. IP user's insertion from the lead to Harold Pinter: it is misleading; "Harold has also died, as reported recently by Sky News to millions of viewers." That is an intentional misleading insertion.

The matter is mentioned already in the main body of the article. When Harold Pinter won the Nobel Prize in Oct. 2005, a Sky News reader mistakenly announced that he had died and then immediately corrected the error. There is a quotation from Harold Pinter himself later joking about that: see Harold Pinter#The Nobel Prize in Literature 2005. The misleading and erroneous statement inserted in the lead with the link to YouTube does not belong in the lead to the article. Such an insertion in the lead to the article appears to me to be intentional vandalism and it should be immediately deleted from it. The statement itself (as quoted above) is entirely misleading, as Harold Pinter has not actually "died." --NYScholar 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I got it. YouTube is also not supposed to be linked on WP, for copyvio reasons. - Crockspot 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Crockspot: I know that you and I have not agreed about matters involving another article in the past, but I regard those as really a difference of perspective in interpreting WP:BLP#Public figures pertaining to WP:BLP#Categories, and I do appreciate your assistance here. I hope that you and other Wikipedians understand that I really am concerned about avoiding violations of WP:BLP and I really am concerned about following Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in the articles that I am editing and am maintaining the integrity of citations as per Wikipedia:Attribution. (Please scroll up to the information that has been posted on my talk page for quite a long time re: my concerns.) --NYScholar 18:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: YouTube: until now I was not aware that YouTube is not supposed to be linked in Wikipedia articles (although I have wondered about that). There are a lot of articles in which there are links to YouTube. If I find other links to YouTube clips, particularly any which I myself may have added, I may try to correct that problem in the future. --NYScholar 18:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Not a problem. With very few exceptions, I try not to carry grudges from one issue to the next. Try to confirm exactly where the YouTube rule is stated before you start zapping them wholesale. It used to be in WP:EL, but things get reworded all the time. I would think it would be mentioned in one of the copyvio related pages, or a related talk page. - Crockspot 18:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• Found Wikipedia:External links/YouTube, which states it was rejected as a guideline. But unless a video is clearly NOT violating a copyright, (ie., video of Fred Thompson clearly posted by the user Fred Thompson, who has been verified to be him) it can usually be removed. - Crockspot 18:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was in the midst of checking this all out too. (I have to go to an appointment away and am logging off for some time now.) Thanks again. --NYScholar 18:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a short blurb in WP:EL#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites, no blanket ban, but infrequently will qualify for inclusion. - Crockspot 18:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was going to add that my original objection to the material in the lead to Harold Pinter was not the YouTube link itself, but the misleading false statement that it was inserted in. That needed to be removed and I appreciate your removing it. Re: YouTube, that is another matter, which I'll look into again later. Right now I have to log off. Perhaps you can continue this discussion on the talk page re: YouTube if it interests you further. Thanks. --NYScholar 18:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Harold Pinter nominated for "good article" consideration

Thanks to the ongoing vigilance and collaborative efforts of a number of editors, Harold Pinter is now nominated for good article consideration in Wikipedia. I have spent over a year working on that article, and (in its current version) I believe that it is worthy of at least that status. In fact, I think that (perhaps eventually) it could be considered for "featured article" status. See the differing criteria at: Wikipedia:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured. Thanks to any editors who may have helped to achieve this result and to those who might be willing to aid in improving the article further. Recently, the infobox image of Harold Pinter was removed by an editor who said that he would be attempting to replace it, even though he thought that it was not a copyright violation. So far there has been no replacement of that image. I have received permission to post the image in websites, as I stated in my rationale for the image when I uploaded it. I suggest that administrators in Wikipedia try to do so. See Talk:Harold Pinter for related information; perhaps his assistant or agent will supply an appropriate image for the Wikipedia article in the future. Thank you.--NYScholar 21:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)