User talk:Ivankinsman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ivankinsman 09:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines and did not give any context. Jimfbleak. Talk to me.12:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juneau

Ivan, you're clearly someone who's very interested in participating in Wikipedia. That's why I'm going to the trouble of giving you a detailed explanation as to what you did wrong with your recent contribution about Passage to Juneau (which I have just deleted).

What you wrote was not an encyclopedia article. It was a book review, an analysis. I strongly suggest that you read more of our articles about novels, so as to get a proper feel for what an article should be.

Good luck; I look forward to reading more of your contributions. DS 15:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coasting (book)

Welcome, I've moved the article you created and added a reference, so hopefully it does not get deleted. Still you may want to add more sources and rewrite the plot section. If you need help let me know. --Tikiwont 08:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabia: A Journey Through the Labyrinth

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Arabia: A Journey Through the Labyrinth, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 17:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Please delete this page! Ivankinsman 07:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Matrixism: a Religion Based on the Writings of Aldous Huxley

There is an article on a entheogenic new religious movement called Matrixism being created at User:Xoloz/Matrixism. There are numerous sources for this article yet it has because contentious because it deals with the subject of entheogens. Thought you might like to look at it and perhaps contribute. 206.124.144.3 05:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books by Jonathan Raban

Hello, Ivankinsman ... FYI, I am currently doing WikiGnome cosmetics on the following articles:

  1. Arabia Through the Looking Glass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. Coasting (book) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. Hunting Mister Heartbreak: A Discovery of America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. Passage to Juneau: A Sea and Its Meanings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. Soft City (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. Surveillance (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  7. Waxwings (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

OTOH, I have Serious Concerns about some of these satisfying the criteria of WP:Notability (books) ... without WP:Attribution (i.e., references to published reviews of the books), some of them may get tagged for speedy deletion ... the ones with links to (for example) The Guardian, Daily Herald, or The New York Times seem safe enough, but links to reviews on the publisher's site or places like Amazon.com are strictly forbidden as WP:RS citations to meet these criteria.

An additional comment: when creating new articles about books, please begin each one with the following templates on the Main and Talk pages (fill in the blanks):

{{Infobox Book 
 |author= [[Jonathan Raban]] 
 |name= 
 |isbn= 
 |release_date= 
 |publisher= 
 }}

{{NovelsWikiProject
 |class= Stub
 |importance= Low
 |needs-infobox= no
 }}

In conclusion, please see the WP:MOS article Wikipedia:Lead section ... I've tried to fix some of them, e.g.,

Waxwings is a 2003 novel by Jonathan Raban.

Note the use of "[[2003 in literature|2003]]" as the anchor for the year (you may not have been aware that such articles exist) ... to be quite honest, when I first encountered that article on new pages patrol, I had absolutely no idea that it was about a novel ... I nearly tagged it with {{db-nocontext}}, but I looked at your edit history, and realizing that you were a nugget, I decided to cut you some slack, so I added this new "project" to my Cleanups List. :-)

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other articles I'm tweaking

Hello, again ... after reviewing your User page, I have made this (alphabetical) list of additional articles to be tweaked when I get a round tuit:

  1. A Good Man in Africa (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  2. An Ice-Cream War (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  3. Any Human Heart (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  4. Armadillo (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  5. As I Walked Out One Midsummer Morning (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  6. Brazzaville Beach (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  7. Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928-1960 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  8. Restless (novel) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  9. The Blue Afternoon (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  10. The New Confessions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

You can click the Talk and History links on each article to see which ones I've updated with the templates as I suggested above ... feel free to update any that still need to be. :-) —68.239.79.82 19:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928-1960

[edit] Message posted on Saturday, May 19, 2007

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928-1960. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.bookbrowse.com/biographies/index.cfm?author_number=851 in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928-1960 with a link to where we can find that note;
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928-1960 with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Nat Tate: An American Artist 1928-1960 saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

—68.239.79.82 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Following these guidelines, I changed this article on the 19th May. I would like to point out that, as an editor, I was obliged to make use of the very limited information available on this novel. If there is very little information out there in the public domain, one has to do the best one can with what is available. Ivankinsman 09:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was putting some lipstick on this pig when I noticed (a) the link for the NYT book review violates Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (requires registration to view), and (b) the article is a WP:COPYVIO of the other link provided. Sorry, dude, but I have to follow my draft protocol Warn-copyvio on this one, and it will probably have been speedy deleted by the time you see this warning. :-( —68.239.79.82 20:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I have edited the general content of the Nat Tate article - it is pretty much a basic factual summary of the hoax played by the author and his co-horts in whatever way one chooses to put it... Ivankinsman 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Thnx! I think that it looks Much Better now, so I have removed the CSD G12, and finished the tweaking I was going to do before I decided to save my energy and tag it instead. —68.239.79.82 00:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad it now meets the criteria Ivankinsman 06:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's still questionable if this one satisfies WP:BK, but at least it's no longer a WP:COPYVIO ... the BBC piece is an good WP:RS, and the one from The Indian Express is "credible", although at least one entire paragraph of what you added (destroying his work and jumping from the ferry) was lifted from that piece ... changing one or two words and some punctuation is not how articles should be written.
The one from The New York Times, however, may have to be removed, because right now it violates WP:EL#Sites requiring registration, i.e., you have to be registered at the website to view it, so there is no Verifiability associated with it for most readers, such as myself, unless we go to the local library and look at microfiche ... actually, what I should have said is that the citation can remain (it has a date for locating it), but the EL should be dropped ... I'll take care of that right now. —68.239.79.82 11:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA category

Do you mind if I delete your query regarding GA nomination categories below your article on the GA nomination page? I have just made a Literature category and it seems to have stuck. I think you could have made one yourself - be bold!. It was a sad oversight. Awadewit Talk

Not sure what a GA category is? Can you explain more? Ivankinsman 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You nominated William Boyd (writer) for GA nomination under "Other," mentioning that there was no literature category. I just created a "Literature" category to rectify that problem. I was wondering if I could remove your comment about that since now you state "why isn't there a literature category?" in the literature category itself. Also, I wanted to point out that since this is a wiki, you can do those sorts of things yourself. Awadewit Talk 07:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup fine to remove it - now I understand. Yes, its good that there is now a literature category. Ivankinsman 14:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Books and Bookmen

A tag has been placed on Books and Bookmen, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 06:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Engleby

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Engleby) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. NeoNerd 10:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do NOT remove speedy delete tags on articles you have created yourself. This is considered vandalism.--NeoNerd 10:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, I am merely pointing out Wikipedia rules to you. The rules state that you must not remove speedy delte tags from articles you create yourself. This is not anything personal, but is a rule. Secondly, leave all messgages to me on my talk page, not my userpage. Also, please try to be civil when you leave me a message. Thank you.--NeoNerd 10:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newbie information

You're new here, and probably wondering what "edit any page, any time" means.

These links may be helpful:

Learn how to write and edit articles: Wikipedia:Tutorial
Learn about the policies and guidelines: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
Ask questions if you need help: Wikipedia:Help Desk

OK, I've been going around like a good little WikiGnome and cleaning up after you for the past fortnight or so, but you really need to read these before you create any more articles or perform any more edits:

Here are some more tips:

  1. Learn how to create and use a sandbox instead of posting uncompleted, work-in-progress articles ... see WP:User page#How do I create a user subpage? and use the name of the article you intend to create instead of /Sandbox
  2. Never put something in External links when it should properly be a citation ... see my edit to Brazzaville Beach for an example of the kind of cleanups I have been doing in your wake
  3. WP:MOS says that the section should be titled References, not Sources
    1. That section should only have a <references/> tag in it ... put anything else under External link(s) ... singular if there is only one
    2. Use <ref></ref> to bracket citations
    3. Use {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} inside of the "ref" brackets instead of just a URL (click them to learn how to use them)

Also, please stop linking to www.nytimes.com/books/ because that violates WP:EL#Sites requiring registration, i.e., for readers who are not registered there (like myself) the referenced article cannot be read ... I usually convert such links to a {{cite news}} and fill in the |date= field with the date gleaned from the URL, e.g.,

  • [http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/boyd-afternoon.htm]

would be changed to:

  • {{cite news |title= Review: The Blue Afternoon |publisher= ''[[The New York Times]]'' |date= 1998-11-22}}

which produces:

Note that in the case of a publisher like The New York Times, one must explicitly provide the square-brackets to make a wikilink, as well as the single quotes to make it italicized ... if they do not have an article in Wikipedia, one should use something like |publisher= www.nytimes.com (as an example.)

When the site is not blocked by requiring registration, include the URL in a {{cite web}} template instead, and it will link the |title automagically, e.g.,

  • {{cite web |url= http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/11/22/specials/boyd-afternoon.htm |title= Review: The Blue Afternoon |publisher= ''[[The New York Times]]'' |date= 1998-11-22}}

will produce:

BTW, my attempts to "raise your consciousness" about how things are done in Wikipedia are motivated by enlightened self-interest, i.e., I'm trying to save myself energy in the future by not having to make these improvements after you've made your contributions. :-)

Happy Editing! —68.239.79.82 07:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

O.K. will try my best! Now I get the format, I will attempt to follow the rules ref. citations. Please remember that it takes a lot of time and effort ref. the content - in fact hours of time - so have been mostly concentrating on getting this right and putting in the research Ivankinsman 14:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it only takes a few seconds to use the templates; the trick is to create a text file on your PC with Notepad (or your favorite simple editor that doesn't hog memory or otherwise slow down performance) containing the template stencils/boilerplates so that you can just open it in another window to do copy&paste edits, and not have to find them again on Wikipedia, or switch back and forth between tabs in your browser window ... my apologies for assuming that you were experienced enough to figure that out for yourself, or else I would have included the suggestion when I originally left the comment. :-) —72.75.70.147 09:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Boyd (writer) - Failed GA

Hi, I have reviewed this article that you nominated for GA Review, and am afraid that I have failed it since it falls short of the standard required. Some extensive work may be required to bring this article up to standard - please see my notes on the talk page, and drop any questions you have to my talk page. Regards --Fritzpoll 19:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007

The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page blanking

Your recent edit to Good-Bye to All That (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 15:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good-[bB]ye to All That

Dude, you need to learn a little bit more about the technical side of how things are done here... AnonMoos 00:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Not sure what you mean by this cryptic comment? Anyway, can someone delete the Good-Bye to All That article (so that the correct article Good-bye to All That remains the only one? An Editor perhaps???Ivankinsman 09:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicated article

There are currently two articles ...

Apparently, both you and AnonMoos (talk · contribs) have recently made extensive edits to the first one, and then you "cloned" it with a different spelling ... since neither of you bothered to link the articles to the discussions, I just became aware of the fact that the second one exists, and I have left comments on the talk page of the older one.

Nothing is going to happen as the result of leaving a request for deletion of an article on your own user talk page (Administrators have better things to do than monitor every single user talk page) ... see Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention for how to seek their intervention ... that is where AnonMoos should have pointed you in their comment ... the only reason I'm monitoring this page is because of my previous involvement under the IP address 68.239.79.82 (talk · contribs).

You need to request a Redirect or a Merge, but by creating a second article, all that you have done is create confusion in Wikipedia ... there are already several redirects to the older article, to which beau coup articles are already linked (including Ernest Hemingway as Goodbye to All That), and there is a five year history of edits that needs to be retained.

This is what AnonMoos meant by, "you need to learn a little bit more about the technical side of how things are done here" ... you should have done a Move, which would have preserved the edit history and taken care of the redirects ... I could have done that for you, but now you've created such a mess that it's best that a knowledgeable administrator deal with it instead of me trying to clean up after you.

You also need to learn how to use the "What links here" link in the menu on the left of every article/page, and please don't do anything like this again without first asking a more experienced editor for assistance. —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 11:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK apologies - was not sure of the procedure but this now makes everything clear for any future event of a similar nature.Ivankinsman 08:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem ... Wikipedia is one place where "ignorance of the law" is assumed as a matter of course, which is why I keep leaving these long-winded messages here on your talk page ... "They'll never know unless someone tells them!" ... BTW, proper etiquette on talk pages is to indent your replies by using a colon for each level, like in this one. :-) —72.75.70.147 09:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you haven't done anything about the problem after three days, I have placed {{merge}} tags on both articles. —72.75.70.147 10:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I feel this should be done to prevent any further confusion. Ivankinsman 18:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello. i am an admin who had untangled several cut&paste moves. Can I be of assitance in this situation? DES (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thnx, DES ... I was hoping that someone with more time and expertise than myself would step up to the plate! —72.75.85.234 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aubrey-Maturin Series

As you may know, I did the merge when the sepearate articles were still only stubs. i haven'ty looked at the articvle recently, but I am inclied to think that a single long article on the whole series is the better way to go. But I am only one editor, adn i have no veto over this. if discussion on the talk page domes to a consensu for a split, the separate articles are still there (any that haven't alredy been re-expandanded would be redirects) and any one can expand them at any time. DES (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be very clear -- I think it would be a large mistake to try to create "a new page for each one of Patrick O'Brian's novels that don't have one already" just for the same of having separate pages. i think the reader gets a better sense of the series as a whole -- and it is a whole -- with the single artilce on the series. indeed i listed merging the previously separate small articels into this large one as one of the editing tasks I was proudest of when i was up for administrator. Please do not split unless a) you have thought about the virtues of a merged article, and b) you have enough content to make for a solid article on the individual book. That said, there is no need to "create a new page" all the required pages alredy exist and can be edited by anyone -- they are now redirects. for HMS Suprise, go here and edit if you choose. DES (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sonia Melchett

This article was deleted because it didn't assert Ms. Melchett's notability; see WP:BIO. Please don't repost without explaining why Ms. Melchett is notable in her own right (being the wife of an industrialist doesn't do it). NawlinWiki 12:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK - I was writing the article and was in mid-flow. I have now fleshed it out with all the information I wanted to put into it. Ivankinsman 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Surprise (novel)

I saw your question about this article all you need to is replace the text of the redirect with the new article text or have I misunderstood. It will also be good if there is someone else enthusiastic about augmenting these article. Most of the basis for the individual articles are mine . :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also have an article "in progress" for that one you might like to work up. User:Kevinalewis/OBrianNovel this is for HMS Surprise. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desolation Island (novel)

All your assumptions are correct, and yes I do have one more started (but not very far) and that is in in my sandbox (at User:Kevinalewis/Sandbox). you might like to take a look. I only mentioned one of the two as not to dilute any input you might have. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect page edits

Your questions imply you are struggling to know how to change a redirect into an normal article page. If you know, please excuse this explanation. What you can do is follow the link to the redirect page (e.g. for the novel from the Aubrey series article) and this will then take you on to the redirects "target" location. However what you really want to do is get to the redirect page itself. One way to do this is after arriving at the "target" page, scroll up to the top of the page and just under the page title you will see a small statement that this is "(redirected from "The Redirect page") where the "The Redirect page" is the title of the page you need to convert to normal article page. Click on this link and it will take you direct to the redirect page itself, without taking you on. Once there you can hit edit and change the page as you need. Also don't forget the talk page which itself may be redirected, this may need fixing too. Hope that helps. If we can work up the content of the "HMS Surprise (novel)" page we can copy and paste its content in fairly soon. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your edits to Talk:Aubrey-Maturin series

Hello, I noticed your edits to Talk:Aubrey-Maturin series. I understand that you want to write an article on the novel The Hundred Days. I suggest clicking this link: The Hundred Days (novel) and create your article there. When you create the article, the associated talk page Talk:The Hundred Days (novel) will automatically be created. I hope you find this helpful. Happy editing! --Kyoko 20:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have just create The Hundred Days (Novel). Part of the confusion seems to stem from the fact that there are two different pages, Aubrey–Maturin series and Aubrey-Maturin series (if you cannot see the difference: The dashes are typographically different). I now have made the one a redirect to the other. I hope this is what you all want. --Stephan Schulz 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
OK cheers - the page seems to be OK now and the links all working well. Thanks for restoring the discussion page - it has put my mind at rest!!!Ivankinsman 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revised / New Aubrey-Maturin series articles

Wow, I wasn't expecting to get them all created in such an avalance. We do have our work cut out for us, I'm up for it but we should probably focus on one thing at a time and work it up quickly and efficiently. As it is the article are not that dissimilar from those that were merged first time round. We need "lots" more to make them clearly viable. Cheers :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. They should all, hopefully, end up looking like Master and Commander, Post Captain and Des. Isl. i.e. the ones that have been filled-out already. Ivankinsman 09:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Brown

This is your last warning.
You have now violated Wikipedia's copyright policy, by adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, after being told not to do so. Copyright violations are unacceptable and persistent violators will be blocked. Original contributions are welcome, however any further copyright violations may result in your account being blocked.

Regarding [1] it is clear that this is largely copied from this Telegraph article. Please do not place copyrighted material in Wikipedia again. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response to these comments on your talk page Ivankinsman 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, any editor can advise another editor if they think they are breaching policy. You were actually warned about posting copyrighted material above User_talk:Ivankinsman#Your_edit_to_Nat_Tate:_An_American_Artist_1928-1960. I don't know what you mean when you say what you posted to Gordon Brown was "pretty much factual"- it may be "factual" but it is basically a complete lift from the Telegraph article with a few words moved around. Wikipedia content has to be free to use by anyone, including commercial providers so we must not put those providers at risk of prosecution for copyright infringement by posting copyrighted material without permission to publish it under a free license. If you think what I am saying is wrong you may post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
'...it is basically a complete life from the Telegraph article with a few words moved around' is as much a generalisation as, I admit, my own statement 'pretty much factual'. The point seems to be here is what is the dividing line between can be used so long as it is appropriately sourced, and what can be deemed 'lifting'. As neither you or I are copywright lawyers, this is difficult to determine. Taking information from a newspaper article is exactly the same - in my opinion - as taking information from an authorized or unauthorized biography, so long as source references are made where required. As I stated previously, I believe I made enough source references for this personal biography information to be used. If I had made no source references had been made at all, then naturally this would be deemed a copyright infringement.Ivankinsman 07:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but I think was a clear violation - you lifted entire paragraphs and sentences. It is still copyright violation whether you put a link to the original article or not. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue. Your interpretation of copyright is questionable, and 'lifting entire paragraphs' is, quite frankly, untrue. Also, I suggest you look at the exact wording ref. Wikipedia's policy on copyright, particularly ref. citing the original which, as stated previously, I did more than once:
It's not untrue at all. I will post examples here later. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference."Ivankinsman 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

But you didn't "reformulate the concepts in your own words". Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Writing about someone's life - i.e. factual information - and using quotes from friends/work colleagues as cited in an article to make it more interesting ... this is difficult to reformulate i.e. how can you reformulate a direct quote or information about where a person is born, his school days etc., his university career etc. etc. I suggest you try writing a few articles of your own Ivankinsman 10:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Please stop the pretence you just copied the article and deliberately moved sentences around or started paragraphs in different places in order to try and disguise it. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 20:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Eh?!?!? What is this, is a kind of secret conspiracy that I am out to 'disguise' what I contribute to Wikipedia ... all sounds very cloak and dagger. Get a life ... I think you're spending too much time in front of your computer. Anyway, looks like we're both trying to have the last word on this so I think that's it from me Ivankinsman 07:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You still don't seem to take seriously the fact that Wikipedia content has to be free- see the logo in the top left corner. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clear copyright infringement

Sorry, but this is an obvious copyright violation and breach of Wikipedia policies. The infringing material must be removed. This kind of blatant copying would not be permitted in any context, whether academic, professional, or as in the case of Wikipedia, user generated free content. Neither copyright law, nor encyclopedic standards, allow word-for-word copies of long passages of other people's work, with or without attribution. Admitting that you copied it does not make it legitimate. Although the material is factual in nature, it reflects many choices and much creative contribution of the original journalist, who chose which facts to present in which order, using colorful evocative language and telling details. Certainly you must know that in English there are many ways to relate a given piece of information and the exact expression of that information belongs to the the journalist and his employer. It is not yours or ours to appropriate. That is what copyright is all about. I don't know the exact procedure but this is a very serious rule on Wikipedia, and if you want to be stubborn about it you will likely at some point be blocked from further participation. Wikidemo 01:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
O.K. Working on my own project now so do not expect to be doing much on Wikipedia unless something interesting crops up. Ivankinsman 10:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007

The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William Boyd

I wondered whether you could help me with a point about William Boyd (writer). I'm trying to get List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford up to Featured List status and what's holding me back at the moment is that I'm missing some dates of degrees. I know that Boyd was at Jesus College from 1975, but I don't know (and can't find a source that tells me) when he got his doctorate. I presume he had it before starting at St Hilda's in 1980, but possibly not depending on how leisurely his research was! If you have a source with the answer, please let me known. Many thanks. BencherliteTalk 07:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. In fact, I found something where he said that he'd had to move out of college accommodation and start work in 1978 after 3 years when college turfed him out and his grant ran out; he also said that he never really left college, he just "drifted away"... so I picked the 1978 date for the list and no-one's complained yet! Thanks for responding. Yours, BencherliteTalk 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007

The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.


This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007

The September 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 09:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007

The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tina Brown

Hi Ivankinsman- Thanks for fixing/improving the Tina Brown article!

I have neither the time nor the interest to police articles generally, and policing biographies of living persons is a difficult task; if you've a special interest I'd suggest you watch the page. (At some point I may police articles in my expertise, such as math, but I've not even the time for that now.)

Some links that I turned up that may be helpful in patrolling biographies would be:

Good luck, and thanks again! Nbarth 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIX - December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 11:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly Note

Just thought I'd mention it: some of your contributions to Fast Food Nation have been a bit POV. Certainly not dreadful, but perhaps you could take care not to use emotive adjecives such as 'insightful'? Thanks!--NeoNerd 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see where you are coming from. If you can take time out to read this book, you'll find that the author had very little positive to say about the fast food industry (based on the factual evidence he collated), so it was quite difficult to avoid being a bit POV in this context. However, I appreciate your work on this Ivankinsman 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Goldman Sachs

I have again removed the section you added to this article. Before you go there and blanket-revert, let me again explain why I removed it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and we cannot use it as a forum for attacking the company. What we can do is to cite external reliable sources that criticize Goldman Sachs. The section you added did not do this: your sources consisted of a copy of an anonymous email, which is not a reliable source, and three news pieces that did not actually criticize the company. I fully support the addition of a criticism section, but it must be properly sourced and not simply your own personal grudge.

Please do not add back the section unless you remove the email and find sources that actually criticize the company. You had said something about arbitration. That is very much overkill and ArbCom would throw it back in your face. If you want third-party opinions, wait a day or so before doing anything and another editor will most likely comment. Michaelbusch (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, as a good Wikipedian, I take your point here. I admit that I rather acted on the 'spur of the moment' and have now written a much more considered piece backed up by solid references/reliable sources that actually do criticise the company for first selling subprime loans and then shorting them. I would like to state here that I have no 'personal grudge' here against GS (why should I?). I just want to state the facts regarding the recent subprime crisis that has hit both the US and UK hard (as well as major banks in other countries). Ivankinsman (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] League of Copyeditors roll call

Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

Melon‑Bot (STOP!) 18:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008

The January 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot -- 13:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, copyvio on Dick Cheney

Please do not copy the work of other people and paste it into our articles. This presents problems with copyright and neutrality. - auburnpilot talk 16:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you are getting at here. I am looking to present a factual account, mainly referenced from leading newspaper sources, regarding the Vice President's stance on environmental issues and policies that he has implemented that have a pro-industry bias. Anything presented will be fully backed up by examples which can be independently verified Ivankinsman (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
What I'm getting at is that your edit was nothing more than a copy/paste job from the Washington Post's June 27, 2007 blog entry, Leaving No Tracks. That is a copyright violation, and we cannot accept such text being inserted into articles. To present a factual account, use your own words and back them up with reliable sources, rather than simply using the words of other people (and apologies if any of that sounds condescending, but that's the nicest way I could word it). Because Dick Cheney is currently a good article nominee, there are several editors actively updating the article. Your comment on the talk page shouldn't go too long without receiving a response. - auburnpilot talk 16:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
O.K. - what I am proposing as an insert is on the discussion page of the Cheney article. I will await editors' response. I cannot see how you can have this as a 'good article nominee' if is does not cover this aspect of his Vice Presidential administration and political viewpoint. I see you know The Washington Post 'Leave No Tracks' article - having conducted an extensive review of sources for this topic, this is almost the only - and by far the best - source on this topic and so I have quoted from it extensively (I suggest you try a search yourself to validate what I am saying here). Ivankinsman (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Cheney article

Dear Ivankinsman,

I'm glad to be in touch with a fellow Patrick O'Brian fan! You asked my advice on how to approach contributing to the Dick Cheney page. I've found that in dealing with polarizing topics, (e.g. Dick Cheney and Joseph McCarthy, that there are strongly held views on either side of the issue and it's difficult to contribute something that is Wiki:NPOV, even if one's intentions are good.

In your attempt to contribute, so far, you were trying to highlight the substance of an issue, but created the opportunity for people to criticize you for plagiarism, rather than realize, "that's an important point, how can we incorporate it according to the Wiki:MOS?" I tried to do the latter in my two-paragraph extension to Policy formulation.

My suggestion, for the time being, would be to wait a period—I would recommend a month—until heads cool and are thinking of other topics and in the meantime draft a subsection on a similar scale to what you see in the article now. After the cooling-off period, you could post it at Talk:Dick Cheney as a proposal. You can expect to draw flak, but if you have citations from multiple, credible sources, it would be difficult to deny the assimilation of your contribution.

I recommend that you work on your insertion in a sandbox until it's ready to discuss. I'd be happy to look at your work and critique it in the sandbox to help make it ready for proposing at the talk page. I hope that this helps. N.B. I'll be out of the country 25 January-13 February.

Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ivankinsman,

Your contribution was not turned down on ideological grounds by Anastrophe. He correctly pointed out formatting issues. The proposed title does not appear to satisfy WP:NPOV, as well.

I believe that you'll get further, in the long run, if you follow the advice that I left you above, especially now that you've pressed some buttons with your remarks at Talk:Dick Cheney.

Sincerely,--User:HopsonRoad 22:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ivankinsman, attempting to drum up covert support against another editor as you have at User talk:Drono is inappropriate. see WP:CANVAS. your characterizations continue to be personalized, rather than based upon content, which violates WP:CIVIL. if you would simply conform your edits up to proper standards for formatting, references, etc, and TEST your edits before committing them to the public encyclopedia, you'll find i won't revert you. your characterization of "this anastrophe bunch", by the way, is mistaken. i am one person. you are probably misunderstanding my userpage, which is meant to skewer the notion that one can trust a user's self-description in what is a totally anonymous medium. Anastrophe (talk) 01:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K. Wikinerd, I am going to take this dispute to independent arbitration. You state that 'my characterisations continue to be personalised rather than based upon content' - well, how should I react when, everytime I make an insert into an article, you put your Wikinerd shoes on and remove it based on your own, quite frankly rather anal criteria? We will see what independent arbitrators think of this issue - never before has this happened to me in the considerable number of articles I have contributed to on Wikipedia. Ivankinsman (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ivankinsman - thanks for contacting me (by the way, contacting me is, of course, clearly not Canvassing. As I have seen before, Anastrophe seems to have a habit of trying to twist reasonable rules so that they fit his unreasonable notions.)

I have frequently met on Wikipedia the phenomenon of self-appointed owners of certain entries. These people have a specific interest in an entry and see fit to impose their ideas on others by removing any edits that clash with their own notions of what the entry should say. Unfortunately, through their tenacity and single-mindedness, they are often able to prevail and dictate the content of the entry.

I am not sure exactly what should be done about this matter, but I would suggest something along the lines of limiting the number of edits a single user can make to a single entry within a fixed period of time. Maybe no more than one edit a week per entry. What do you think? --Drono (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be a good solution. I have also inserted an section at the bottom of the DC discussion page to get other editors' input/feedback on this issue so feel free to add your comments. Think what you have said here is very true.Ivankinsman (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 19th-century novels task force

Hi, Ivankinsman. I'm starting up a 19th-century novels task force for WP:NOVELS. This would cover the works of many well-known authors, including Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain, Victor Hugo and Leo Tolstoy. If you think you'd be interested in supporting or participating in the task force, please let me know. Cheers. – Liveste [talk • contrib] 12:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The 19th century task force on WikiProject Novels is now up and running! Feel free to add your name to the list of participants and check out the list of tasks. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --11:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Please do not add content without citing reliable sources, as you did to Dick Cheney. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references. Thank you. Anastrophe (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, everything was discussed on the article's talk page via the Rfcpol. I take you point about the references and, as explained, put these in but another editor changed them. They have now been fixed (see talk page). Ivankinsman (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] you are mistaken

i never modified your text. i'm not responsible for fixing the problems you're having. don't add material to the public article before fixing the problems. see talk. Anastrophe (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --16:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 12:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I suggest you write a blog about Mugabe if you feel so strongly, but don't use wikiepdia space to make incendiary comments about him. Thanks, SqueakBox 05:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mugabe

I refactored your comment - article talk pages need to respect WP:BLP. While plotting assassinations isn't specifically prohibited, it's not appropriate either. Please stick to discussing improvements to the article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed material that you lifted verbatim from articles in the Telegraph, because of copyright violation. See the article talk page. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIII - April 2008

The April 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXIV - May 2008

The May 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] God's Playground

Thanks for expanding the article; are you going to provide an overview of the remaining chapters? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)