User talk:Vweston3554
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello Vweston3554, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 18:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC) ==AfD Nomination: An editor has nominated the article for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria lynn Weston. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 13:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Article deletion
Hi Vweston3554, to avoid having your article deleted you should go to the deletion discussion (by clicking here) and state your arguments why the article should be kept. It's recommended that you first read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines on articles, such as the general notability guidelines, the guidelines for biography articles, the verifiability guideline and the conflict of interest guideline. Good luck, and if you have anymore questions feel free to ask me. Jayden54 14:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the comment by JuJube was out of order, and somewhat of a personal attack but let's assume good faith and consider it a "light-hearted" joke. The biggest problem with your article are notability and verifiability. The article must somehow show that the person in question (you in this case) is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, and the guidelines to determine notability are found at Wikipedia:Notability (people). As I can see, the article already makes several claims to notability, so that's covered, but none of these claims are backed up by reliable sources. Wikipedia has a guideline on reliable sources as well, which can be found under Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
- If you want to avoid having the article deleted some reliable sources will definitely have to be added. The article says there are hundreds of interviews, by some very reliable sources (e.g. CNN, Newsweek) so if you could add a link to those interviews it would certainly help.
- Because you are editing your own article you should also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. It's generally not recommended to edit an article about yourself or anything that you have a personal interest in. The best course of action would be to step back, and just wait and see what happens.
- Also keep in mind that Wikipedia should not be used for personal promotion. You've said that your editor is currently making revisions, but this sounds very much like self-promotion and might even be considered spam.
- I hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, please feel free to ask me. Note though that I'm not a Wikipedia administrator; just an experienced user. I can't delete or undelete an article, only administrators can do that.
- Regards, Jayden54 22:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you're offended by the joke, I'll remove it. JuJube 00:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- 1. You didn't give an answer to my suggestion, 2. While my comment could be interpreted as a personal attack instead of a joke, there is no humor in your response and I have reason to be offended. Just answer my request, please, and don't engage in any more mudslinging. JuJube 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- If you're offended by the joke, I'll remove it. JuJube 00:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] your edits at Victoria Woodhull
Sorry, but your edits there are a violation of our conflict of interest policy, at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You are engaging in self-promotion, and I won't hesitate to continue reverting your attempts to do this. Read the conflict of interest policy. If you want your content used here, you should bring it to the talk page, Talk:Victoria Woodhull, and open a request for comment at WP:RFC to ask other editors to come in and take a look at your proposed changes. Until you use these routes, and until the wider community clears your proposed content, I'm calling it like I see it: self-promotion. — coelacan talk — 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- In addition...
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. — coelacan talk — 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if it was a mistake or not, but your recent edit at Talk:Victoria Woodhull removed my comments from the page. Please do not remove comments from talk pages. You're welcome to respond if you wish, but not to remove my legitimate attempts to begin a discussion on the issue. janejellyroll 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I was equally certain there was a mistake made by you deleting my addition of a documentary that included Gloria Steinem.
- I'm not the only editor who believes that your additions to that article violate WP:COI. Deleting my comments on the talk page isn't going to help you make your case that you're simply trying to improve Wikipedia. janejellyroll 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If you're an editor, you would do the required research to validate any deletions. Furthermore, I have NOT deleted your comments, therefore, stop deleting mine. Nothing that is posted violates the guidelines. Your comments are not valid.
You just deleted comments from my talk page. Your actions seem very close to vandalism. Please stop deleting my comments. janejellyroll 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
If anyone is deleting comments, it is yourself. To suggest otherwise is an attempt to create hositility. Vweston3554 04:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Vweston, I recommend you read WP:3RR#I.27ve_violated_3RR._What_do_I_do.3F and take it seriously. — coelacan talk — 04:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not threaten me. I usually work with professionals and have contacted the admin's in order to "stop the bleeding".
[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block
[edit] Some (friendly) advice
Hi, Victoria. I see that you have been having some difficulties here, and I thought I'd drop by and offer you some hints about how to proceed based on my own experience. First off, you may be used to a more rough and tumble style of discourse elsewhere online. Wikipedia is a "catch more flies with honey" kind of place, so I would recommend a mellow approach even when (especially when) the issues at hand are near and dear to your heart.
I'm assuming by now you have read WP:COI. It may seem unfair, but people here really do look askance at editors promoting themselves or their works. I think you can see why that might be. In your defense, try to muster up any reviews of your multiple projects, and cite them (e.g., "Weston's a genius, this is the best documentary ever." -Roger Ebert). I don't know if that will be enough, but it will be better than what you have.
As a bit of a Woodhull fan myself, I can see how you would be proud to have made a documentary about her. However, what you are inserting into the Victoria Woodhull article is, at very best, way too much information about your doc. The best thing for you to do is, politely, ask people involved how much of what you've put in they think can stay, and get a rough consensus. You might find people are willing to let some info about your doc in (but the more you give those folks a hard time, the less flexible they may become).
Anyway, I hope all this helps and isn't annoying. Feel free to leave a comment here or on my talk page if you like. Cheers. IronDuke 16:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- V, Great to hear from you. After reading your note, a few more thoughts occur to me about ways you can make this process work for, rather than against, you.
-
- Check out, if you haven't already, WP:CONSENSUS. It's a fantastic policy article, and can give you an idea of how this process works.
- Put up a version of your article in your own userspace. It works like this: click on this redlink User:Vweston3554/Victoria lynn Weston. Then place your article there, in whatever shape you like, and start editing merrily away.
- File an RfC about your article, asking users to come to your rough draft page and edit with you and/or make comments about how and if it can be put into a shape that wil met WP standards. (I can help you file the RfC if you'd like.)
- I can't guarantee this process will lead to your article being restored, but I can almost guarantee it won't be without it. Oh, and one other thing: I'd urge caution in terms of your "editor friend" helpng you. Not that it's out of bounds, but your friend should understand wiki policies and style. Also, if your friend gets an account here solely for the purposes of reinstating your article, you open yourself up to charges of meatpuppetry, something almost all Wikipedians are very much against. (PS: I think it'd be great if you branched out and edited parapsy articles... hope to see your work soon.) Cheers.
- IronDuke 18:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks again IronDuke!
Greetings,
Thank you for your generous and valuable guidance along with great ideas on pursuing the journey here! It'll be an interesting project to embark in the coming weeks.
My real passion is Victoria Woodhull and wanting the world to know as much about this amazing woman as possible. So, I'll likely post a revised version of my brief documentary summary to you before I post anything on her page.
I appreciate your help!
Cheers! Victoria Vweston3554 22:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:C180.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:C180.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you know where this image is? I am unable to find it.
