Talk:Cheryl Kaye Tardif/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Info box

Cheryl Kaye Tardif
Image:Image here
Occupation novelist, short story writer, poet
Genres Fiction
Official website

From the author:

  • I have amended this page numerous times, read the policies, deleted the movie treatment available statement, looked at other author listings...incidentally, one of you pointed out that unpublished work is not to be listed, then directed me to Stephen King's website where he lists his unpublished works...so I request that you ask him to remove his listings as well then, or allow us BOTH to list them. Regarding Victoriagirl's post, it really doesn't matter where the material came from or if it was copied from another source that I have the right to use, as long as it states fact and does not violate copyright or plagiarism policies. I've amended and sourced all quotes and am now feeling rather frustrated by this process. My post is not a blatant advertsisement. It is no different from most other author bios/listings on here. I admit, I am new here, as is Victoriagirl, according to her page.Cherylktardif 12:45, 5 August 2006
Copying material straight from another website does, in fact, matter. It is not to be done, period. Even if the source you are copying from is your own website. Reword it, Wikipedia is covering itself when it comes to this as the items in it's database are freely available to anybody or corporation in the world to reprint, redistribute, whatever. By not having text from another site copypasted into its database there can be no future time where it, as an organization, is charged with plagerism. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 19:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In my own defence, it certainly does matter from where the material for an entry comes. I maintain that, prior to changes made after the AfD nomination, the entry appeared to be nothing more than text copied from the author's website. While I acknowledge that there was some rewording, shuffling and deleting, there was no attempt to bring it into line with WP:BIO - this despite Ecophreek's numerous attempts to assist. As content lifted from another webpage, the entry was in violation of WP:5P and, for all any of us knew, copyright. After all, how were we to know that it was the subject herself who posted the entry? Now that I have this knowledge, the source of the problem is clear to me. For a variety of reasons, not the least being objectivity, the submission of autobiographies is strongly discouraged (see WP:AUTO). On a related topic, there appears to be some misunderstanding concerning ownership. This is reflected in the comment concerning Stephen King's Wikipedia page in which it is requested that someone (I know not whom) contact Mr. King to ask him to remove selected listings. The fact is Stephen King doesn't own his entry (see WP:OWN - I for one would be extremely surprosed to learn that he had been a contributor. A final comment: I may be new here - four months to your seven - and, as such, am extremely aware that there are Wikipedia policies about which I know nothing. That said, I'm a firm believer that problems and issues can be avoided through a bit of research.--Victoriagirl 23:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Please check my bio page on my website at www.cherylktardif.com/bio.htm. You will see that although some of the factual information is the same (as it must be), that it is NOT copied verbatim from my site. The original listing with Wiki may have been, but I have edited it since then and it is not the same, nor is it copypasted, as what is on my site. It's not even in the same order.(Cherylktardif 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
In addition, it does not therefore violate any copyright, nor is it plagiarism, and should be allowed.(Cherylktardif 19:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
This bio page has once again been re-edited to comply with Wiki standards. (Cherylktardif 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
Looks a lot better Cheryl :) ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that you meant you changed the tense to present tense on the army brat/army wife. This is incorrect. I am no longer either. Although if you want to argue on semantics, I could do that. :) I'm sorry but I have changed it back because otherwise it is misleading and false information. Thanks. (Cherylktardif 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

Oh, and thanks for the comment on how it looks. I hope you will recommend it NOT be deleted now. Especially seeing as I've been working on this and trying to get it up to par. Thank you for your help. (Cherylktardif 20:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC))

I'm already trying to figure out how to drop an AFD, as soon as I know how I'll be pursuing it. ←ΣcoPhreek→ 20:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd appreciate that. Have a great day. I'm off to work on my next novel now.(Cherylktardif 20:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
Regarding Victoriagirl's last post, I apologize for not making myself clear regarding the article on Stephen King. I meant the author of the actual article or post, not Mr. King himself. And I believe that my user name made it was very obvious who was posting the article, especially as others figured that out. And contrary to Victoriagirl's opinion, every attempt has been made to make it a factual biography on the author, WITH the assistance of Ecophreek who has been very supportive and helpful. There is no violation of any copyright on any of my pages. I wrote the initial material; I have the right to re-word it and amend it. Problems can also be avoided by using constructive criticism. I will always appreciate constructive criticism, such as Ecophreek's, but others have much to learn on that craft and could use a few lessons.(Cherylktardif 23:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
I will no longer engage in exchanges with Victoriagirl as it seems her intent is to bash and argue as opposed to be of any assistance to me with this issue. I have tried to be patient with her and to look at her posts objectively, but I find them more harrassing than helpful. I would suggest she read the policy Assume Good Faith, including the sections on NPOV. I have tried to keep these in mind as well and have made my goal simply to re-write and/or defend my article, which I believe should now be satisfactory. I have no time for edit wars.(Cherylktardif 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC))
First, please allow me to express my sadness that Ms Tardif has chosen not to engage in further exchanges. I am most surprised as the only exchange we have had to date is the one above. My comments, I had thought, were constructive in nature. It was never my intention to "bash and argue as opposed to be of any assistance" - and I do wish Ms Tardif would provide examples. I have always assumed good faith, as indicated by my request that the article be cleaned up as it read like an advertisement. I hasten to add that the placement of the advert tag was the only edit I made in the article's eight month history. Why the issue of edit wars was ever raised is a mystery. Again, I regret that Ms Tardif feels as she does.--Victoriagirl 00:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
On August 6, the first three entries on this discussion page were deleted. As the exchange is refered to in the three posts above I feel the deletion incorrect, particularly as my sole participation in this exchange (23:02, 5 August 2006), led to an accusation thatt I had behaved in an inappropriate manner. Furthermore, as this article is still under consideration for deletion, I believe it is doubly important that the discussion page accurately reflect the exchanges between those who have chosen to participate. With this in mind, I have restored the first three entries.--Victoriagirl 16:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My thanks to Ecophreek for going easy on this newbie. It took me awhile to figure out how to communicate here, and even longer to find someone willing to guide me. It would take months to wade through all the Wiki policies, so I have appreciated Eco's patience and assistance on cleaning up my pages. I hope that we've laid to rest everyone's concerns. We've certainly tried to address each one. Thanks, Eco. (Cherylktardif 15:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

This page has been edited and re-worded so as not to violate any copyvios. The film company has now been named and I've included as many citations or links as I could think of to back up anything that someone may question. (Cherylktardif 18:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Edmonton Sun? The Edmonton Sun?

  • Concerning the most recent edit summary ("some people don't read..."), may I remiind the editor that it is expected of Wiki users to be civil (see WP:CIV).
As to the name of Edmonton's daily tabloid , I recommend consulting "Sun Newspapers" in the on-line edition of The Canadian Enyclopedia [1] and The Globe and Mail Style Book. Victoriagirl 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It was a civil comment and an observation. You obviously don't read the Edmonton Sun newspaper and have no idea how it is listed even though you claim to have visited the site. Since I get the paper myself and since the Edmonton Sun site quotes it as the (note: small 't') Edmonton Sun and not The Edmonton Sun, and since not all online encyclopedia's are correct or factual, it would be advisable to list the newspaper by its correct name, easily found on its site, in the Edmonton phone book or on the front page of the newspaper. As for civility, may I remind you that you are arguing with someone who actually reads that paper and has firsthand knowledge. I can also assure you that it is listed in my phone book (since, may I remind you, I actually live in Edmonton) as EDMONTON SUN. However, Vancouver's paper is listed as THE Vancouver Sun, so perhaps that's where you have gotten your facts wrong. Regardless, if you want to argue over this, then I guess you will. But perhaps, in light of your lack of knowledge on this subject, you should let it go. For some reason you have taken it upon yourself to 'correct' and edit everything I've worked on here...and as one person put it to me, it's like I'm being 'Wiki-stalked'. I would never proclaim to know more about a city (or its newspapers) than someone who lives there, unless I had concrete proof. If you still want to argue, and for the sake of any other poor soul following this thread, please see: [[2]](Cherylktardif 05:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
I thank you for clarifying the matter of the Edmonton Sun. Please understand that the edit was made in good faith, part of an effort to bring the article into line with WP:MOS-T and WP:BIO. In my defence, I think you will agree that there is some confusion on this issue. Tempted as I am to simply let matters drop, I must comment on your accusation that I have taken it upon yourself to correct and edit everything you've worked on. In the nine month history of this entry I have made only two edits: the aforementioned WP:MOS-T and WP:BIO alterations[3], and a minor one in which I attempted to replace the definite article before Edmonton Sun[4]. I can't help but note that the removal of "The" aside, you've not seen fit to revert my editing. Victoriagirl 06:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. As for my accusation about you editing everything I've worked on, it was an observation. I'll clarify it for you: Out of 4 articles I've worked on, you have edited 3, even when there are thousands of articles to edit. I'm sure you can understand my concern, as could 3 people from Wiki who emailed me privately. I am new here. I admit I don't know everything, I don't quote the policies or cite every statement and I have no idea how to revert someone else's edit. Thankfully, I now have a few people who are helping me learn the ropes...and I wish I could say one of them was you. But I honestly can't. In the interest of good faith and civility, it would be best for both of us if you found other articles to edit. And that suggestion is also made in good faith.(Cherylktardif 07:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
As I don't wish to flog a dead horse, I refer those interested to User talk:Victoriagirl, where this issue has already been addressed.Victoriagirl 16:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This issue has been resolved. :) (Cherylktardif 01:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC))

revision

Hi Cheryl Kaye Tardif, please do not place disconcerting messages at the top of my user page. I would not do the same to you. Place them as an entry in the userpage as I am doing now. Possibly you have nothing better to do than to vandalise my userpage. I suggest you desist and get on with your writing of novels. Lgh 23:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I placed the NPA warning at the top as that what was recommended on the PA, NPA pages. It's not a big deal where the warning goes. I should in fact post the next warning or simply delete your personal attack as it is recommended that ANY editor do when they see PA's, but I have chosen to give you an opportunity to cease your PA actions. I take offense at your accusation that I have "vandalized" your page...I have not. Please tell us all where exactly I have vandalized. By your own actions, you are proving my NPA violation charge against you. And to think I offered to help you with your writer's block.(Cherylktardif 00:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC))