User talk:Shuttleone

Hello, Shuttleone, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Shuttleone, good luck, and have fun. PamD 19:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PamD 19:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mercian Regiment

Please read our guidelines about how to make edits to wikipedia. Embedded links to youtube etc are not allowed (see WP:ELNO) and any new prose should be properly cited (see WP:CITE and WP:RS). Please also note WP:YOUTUBE which says "Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern". In any case they should be inserted at the foot of the article under external links rather than being embedded into the article. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Videos not needed as refs

I reverted your addition of videos as references in Sarah Edwards (politician) because they were unnecessary. The two videos are already listed as "External links". I note that you seem to be connected with JAMedia (you uploaded a photo with its watermark as "own work"), so adding these links repeatedly might appear to be promotional of your company: please stop. Thanks. PamD 11:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam, yes I am JAmedia but I am not a company, it's just me and I own the photo.I have the RAW file. However, if I don't watermark them, the local newspaper often "borrows" my stuff, usually without any credit or byline. As I live in Tamworth, I do local videos, which includes the political stuff.

I didn't notice that the videos were listed as external references, my mistake. The external references work. There is a 3rd one of the swearing in which is edited from Parliament TV that I have access to for clips.

I don't do a lot of editing on Wikipedia, so it will take me time to get used to it.

Regards

Chris Shuttleone (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Chris, welcome to Wikipedia. There's a lot to learn about editing, as you've noticed. One good rule is to look carefully at an article you've edited, to make sure you haven't broken anything! You put the new image in the wrong place and broke the infobox. I've fixed it. But it's always good to check for typos, and make sure any links go where you intended, as well as for muddles like this one.

Within a couple of weeks Sarah's official Parliament photo will be available and the article will use it. But I'm pleased to see that we have now got an image of her, both for her article and the one on the by-election. I didn't like seeing the by-election article dominated by the losing Tory. Thanks for uploading your image, which may now turn up in all sorts of places as it's available for re-use.

I feel relaxed about the 3 videos as External Links (but 3 is enough), though some other editor might delete them as excessive. PamD 18:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more points:

I've added the new pic to 2023 Tamworth by-election: have you got a pic of the Reform UK candidate you could upload, for balance?
If you do upload any more pics, please give them informative names rather than your own file reference number. It just makes life easier for other editors.

Thanks. PamD 19:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam, I was manly doing video. Though, we do have some photos.I can probably get one of the Reform UK person as we both live locally. It is a pity Wikipedia can not embed video. There are lots of references to documents talking about the By-election, in particular Sarah's speech, but we can't embed the actual video of the speech. Actually, we have the video of the entire count as well as the results. People like video. I would have thought more video the better. What is the problem with having video?

Regards

Chris Shuttleone (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shuttleone I guess it's that Wikipedia is fundamentally a text-based encyclopedia, with images and a few video and audio clips, rather than a video-based resource. There would be no limit to the potential amount of videos which could be added, and we'd be into interesting questions of verifiability: we are wary of self-published texts (blogs etc), and will usually only add them as External links, if at all, not use them as references or to support "notability" (the argument whether or not someone/something should have an article). A video from a private individual is unverifable, could be a deep fake or an AI construct. Lots of issues there. It won't surprise me if someone comes along and removes those three as "unreliable": for all we know you might have doctored them to produce a totally false version of events. PamD 20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo again Chris, I see that the photo of Sarah Edwards has been deleted from Commons because someone believes it to be a copyright violation. You might like to try uploading it again, clarifying even more clearly that you are the actual photographer: there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to dispute its removal, so trying again is the only option. I seem to remember that there was some data from the camera which included a copyright statement which made it look a bit dubious, so perhaps that's what they went on. PamD 23:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam, I was going to reply to your first reply but life.....

Your comments on deep fake video are amusing, I can’t go into details, but I have been involved with fuzzy logic and linguistic variables for about 30 years. It is not the video fakes you need to worry about as much as the photographic ones, which almost anyone can do. However, there is no need when text is even easier to manipulate. This is why Wikipedia has such a bad reputation. I am the Editor of a magazine involved with history/heritage. The editorial board will not accept any article that uses citations and references from Wikipedia because of the inaccuracies.

Also, there appears to be a built-in bias to Wikipedia. I know several people, companies and organizations (a technical one in particular) where their Wikipedia pages are very incorrect, and they can’t get them corrected. There seems to be an Open Source/anti-commercial anything zeal that overrides accuracy and facts.

Looking at the page for the Tamworth By-Election, it gives an inaccurate picture of the whole by-election and the result. I know this because I have legitimate access to the voting numbers at a polling station level and the demographics of each area. However, all my comments have been removed. As for my photo, that was removed several times without anyone talking to me. Ho one asked, it was just removed. Also, the videos have been removed by someone arbitrarily. Apparently video of the actual events does not add anything over someone's interpretation of someone else’s document which in itself is second hand. The information in some of the citations indirectly came from me. I was working all night at the count, at the position (with the video camera) between the two major TV channels that were putting out the information we were giving them, which is used in the referred documents. So a 4th hand interpretation (that is inaccurate) is preferred to a first-hand witness that is accurate.

It is unlikely that I will be adding to Wikipedia again. Shuttleone (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Chris, I'm sorry you've had a bad experience with Wikipedia. I see that as of today Sarah's official portrait is available, so there's no longer the same need for another photo, but thank you for trying to make one available. You'll understand that Wikipedia has to be very careful about potential copyvio as there as so many editors who will happily nick an image and upload it as "own work".

Yes, I'm not surprised that the magazine you edit won't accept Wikipedia as a reference (unless perhaps it's to source a statement like "has been referred to as ..."?) but the authors who are trying to cite it should be encouraged to follow the links to the sources being used for the content they want to support.

I'm sorry that you find that corrections aren't been made, if they are reliably sourced: some editors are far too trigger-happy about ignoring inaccessible (eg paywalled) sources, despite the fact that something sourced to a printed book may be just as inaccessible to those who can't access a research library. Adding cited content to the talk page of an article should get the corrections made, with an appeal to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies if need be.

Please don't be discouraged from trying to improve the encyclopedia! PamD 12:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A pic of the Reform candidate Ian Cooper would still be a useful addtion to the by-election article! PamD 12:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam, I have pictures of all the candidates, we have video interviews with many of them. However, after the recent interactions with Wikipedia re the by-election, it is not worth my while to fight the idiosyncrasies of Wikipedia editors.

It is not just me, I know a lot of people who have similar experiences (in my day job before retiring). Most of who are internationally acknowledged experts in their field. It is just that most of them work for a commercial company. Then they get unqualified people with an axe to grind removing their stuff just because the experts work for a commercial company. This is in a technical field that overlaps into so called “AI”.

I have even had technical things removed for pages on various ISO (international) standards I work on as an ISO standard working group member because they don’t fit someone’s narrative. That is someone not on any of the standards working groups. That was again an Open Source zealot putting his "religious" view over facts. BTW Just because things are in books that are not on line does not make them any less valid just because some people can’t get to the library. Some of the seminal works on some things are not on-line and not likely to be in the next 50 years.

The stuff I had removed on the by-election was accurate because I was there and have the live time stamped video evidence. The documents I used for the analysis are publicly available if you go and ask the right TBC person. The public generally don't know who to ask. The documents are not online. I would say that the version on Wikipedia is politically motivated rather than being accurate.

So you can see why I now have no faith in Wikipedia and I understand why the others on the Editorial board won’t accept Wikipedia as a source. For me this was the final straw and it is unlikely I will be contributing to Wikipedia again. Shuttleone (talk) 16:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because things are in books that are not on line does not make them any less valid just because some people can’t get to the library. Absolutely, and apologies if my comment seemed to suggest otherwise. I was saying that some editors (wrongly) are unwilling to accept sources they can't personally access, such as paywalled journals or, perhaps, printed books. It may be a generational thing, in that some of us grew up with books and some people, from a combination of parental attitudes and availability of tech, have hardly opened a book in their lives. PamD 08:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like books. I have a small library myself, but the wife limits the number I can have.

Also, with my bibliographic SW (Endnote) I can do remote searches of most of the world's major libraries.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to like anything that is not on-line and free. Most of the world's accurate information is neither.

Perhaps this discussion might be better via email? JAmedia is on both linked in and Facebook. Shuttleone (talk) 10:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]