Thank, Carole. You are correct that I added that sentence from personal knowledge, which I realize is a violation of Wiki style (although I can assure you from being in that building since it opened that what I wrote is true). I will poke around and try to find a source. My expertise in more in federal courts than in art, whereas I see that your focus is on women artists, so if you find an acceptable cite for my addition that would be great. My objective was to justify the link to the article on the courthouse building, so that more people who entered from that direction might come to know of Nevelson and her work. PDGPA (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm CaroleHenson. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Louise Nevelson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There was a sentence added within a block of text in this article, but without a citation or reference: "Also in 1975, she created and installed a large wood sculpture titled Bicentennial Dawn at the new James A. Byrne United States Courthouse in Philadelphia."
Since it appears as if the block is within the following sentence citation I've moved it here to get it resolved. Please let me know if you have any questions about formatting a citation, I would be happy to help if you identify the source.
- Great! I just ran Reflinks tool to have it formatted:
- 1. after entering the url http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks in your browser, click on "Interactive" tab at the top left
- 2. enter the article name in the "Page title or url" box
- 3. click on "Run reflinks"
- When it's formatted the link(s). Select "Show preview" and then "Save".--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hi. Thank you for your recent contribution to Bwatue. After consideration, I thought it was best to remove it, but I wanted to explain why, and to tell you that if you disagree and want to revert me, that's okay.
Wikipedia doesn't allow links to websites that include material in violation of copyright. See WP:LINKVIO. Including such a link may be considered contributory copyright violation, that is, Wikipedia may be seen as contributing to others' violating the copyright law. Had you added an external link to YouTube, I would have removed it per WP:ELNEVER. But you didn't add a link to YouTube, you merely told readers that they could find an audio recording of "Bwatue" and its b-side on YouTube. That's why I spent some time thinking about what to do.
I would prefer to err on the side of caution, so I removed your addition. If you think I'm being too cautious, we can discuss the issue, here or at Talk:Bwatue, or you can feel free to revert my edit without discussion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of whether the YouTube posts of Phil Ochs' "Bwatue" and its B-side are in violation of anyone's copyright. I would have to assume that if the copyright holder objected to the posts, they would have complained to Google/YouTube, which of course would have resulted in the posts' being blocked or taken down. But I also am not a Wikipedia expert, just an occasional contributor of edits to articles on subjects that interest me. (I am not even the principal author of any articles.) If Wikipedia's copyright policy is stricter and more cautious or conservative than Google/YouTube's, then I would not want to violate it. Personally, as a lawyer (but not a copyright lawyer), I don't see how a factual statement that a YouTube copy exists, without even linking to it, could be held to be a contributory violation, but as I say, I respect Wikipedia's right to have a more conservative policy if it so chooses. Obviously, anyone who reads the Wikipedia article and is curious to hear the cut, is probably bright and energetic enough to find where it is posted and listen to it, without my telling them that they can do so. -- PDGPA (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)