User talk:Jason47a
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Jason47a, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Elonka 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Website
Hi Jason, glad to have you aboard! We'd love to have you join Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas, where we try to centralize some of the work on the soap articles of Wikipedia. Feel free to add your name to the participants list there. Also, you might want to mention your site on your userpage. What's the URL, I'd love to take a look? --Elonka 02:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link! I can tell you put a lot of work into it, and I look forward to reading it. :)
- I see you're posting a couple messages to people who you feel have been less than kind in their comments about your site. Could you please point me to where these comments are? I am an administrator, and if there's something around that violates our policies on civility, I can look into getting the information removed. But I have to see it first to make a determination. So, any hints? :) --Elonka 03:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll review the comments. Also, just generally speaking, sometimes when Wikipedia editors say a website is "unreliable", it's sort of a shorthand. It doesn't necessarily mean that the site is wrong, it just means that it may not pass what we call our reliable source standard. Sometimes there's superb information out there on fansites and message boards, but we're not allowed to use it because it came from a fan rather than an official source. I'm sure you know how that goes! Sometimes you hear really interesting information, but you're not sure whether to trust it or not. So on Wikipedia, our rules are that we have to stick with "trusted" sources. Your site looks like a great resource, but unfortunately we can't use it, if that makes sense? --Elonka 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I agree that some of the comments were inappropriate, and for what it's worth, I apologize. Those comments were not in accordance with the Wikipedia policy on no personal attacks, and I have deleted them from the page. If there are any other problems I should take a look at, please don't hesitate to get in touch. --Elonka 05:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll review the comments. Also, just generally speaking, sometimes when Wikipedia editors say a website is "unreliable", it's sort of a shorthand. It doesn't necessarily mean that the site is wrong, it just means that it may not pass what we call our reliable source standard. Sometimes there's superb information out there on fansites and message boards, but we're not allowed to use it because it came from a fan rather than an official source. I'm sure you know how that goes! Sometimes you hear really interesting information, but you're not sure whether to trust it or not. So on Wikipedia, our rules are that we have to stick with "trusted" sources. Your site looks like a great resource, but unfortunately we can't use it, if that makes sense? --Elonka 03:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wrapup
If you have any other comments that are directly relevant to Wikipedia articles, I encourage you to participate in the project, as we can definitely use all the help we can get. I think you would be a good editor to have onboard with the Soap Operas WikiProject, if you would like to join. You are not intimidated by wiki syntax, and your writing ability is very good. --Elonka 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Wrapping things up
Hi Elonka. Just try to make sure no negative comments are directed towards me personally. You can say what you want about my site, but I don't think personal attacks are welcome, as you have stated previously. I'm busy enough with my own site, so I will have to refrain from joining in on the SoapOperas WikiProject. Thanks for the complement about my writing ability. It's much appreciated. All the best on your future endeavors. Jason Jason47a (talk) 19:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will keep an eye out, and if you notice anything else which you feel is a personal attack, please don't hesitate to bring it to my attention. --Elonka 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] April 2008
Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:List of Days of our Lives cast members, is considered as a bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. As for your concern about other information being used from your site (and I agree, Wikipedia can be terribly inconsistent sometimes), if you would like, simply add [<the url>] next to the relevant information. Ideally this should be a reliable source, but in the absence of any other source, a fansite is sometimes acceptable for non-contentious information. You can also add the {{fact}} tag next to anything which you feel should have a source, but doesn't yet. This will tag it as needing a citation.Thank you. Elonka 19:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Days
Wikipedia policy (WP:V) is very clear that unsourced information can be removed on the spot, by any editor. Feel free to delete it from the Wikipedia article. You may also wish to add {{fact}} tags to request citations. Either option is acceptable. Be cautious about edit-warring about it (see WP:3RR), but a one-time deletion is usually fine. --Elonka 21:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- It's not really relevant whether the information was taken from your website or not. The key is whether someone is adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. If you remove it, then they add it back without sources, that is them being disruptive. If they do it repeatedly, they may be blocked. --Elonka 22:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can't copyright the facts in the article, even if you developed the resource that makes accessing them possible. Credit isn't required - the citation isn't credit, its a reference. If your original work (i.e. your text, in this case) is copied directly, then it should be removed whether a citation is provided or not. On the other hand, the information can be removed as unsourced by anyone who disputes its factual basis. Copyright issues wouldn't enter into that action. Avruch T 22:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The dates were copied from my website (they have been on there since 2005...the page here wasn't created until 2007). I've removed my material from the page, since it constitutes "original research", which I've been told is not allowed on here. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
- You can remove them, but if someone cites them to a reliable source they can be added back whether you are the original source of the research or not. Dates can't be "your material" and facts you've made available don't belong to you - neither is your permission required to post them. If you are interested in protecting your copyrights to your material, you might visit the copyright article and the fair use doctrine article as well, among others. You'll find there that the fact that your work is pre-existing does not necessarily mean that future similar work is a copy or derivative. Avruch T 22:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Okay, that sounds good. From Elonka's comment above: "The key is whether someone is adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. If you remove it, then they add it back without sources, that is them being disruptive. If they do it repeatedly, they may be blocked." It seems anyone re-adding the information that I remove without backing it up could be blocked. And from Avruch's comment above: "You can remove them, but if someone cites them to a reliable source they can be added back whether you are the original source of the research or not." So until someone cites a reliable source (and to my knowledge the only reliable sources would be either videotapes of the episodes or the scripts themselves), that information can not be added back to the page again. Thanks, Jason Jason47a (talk) 23:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Email
Email received, thank you. And for what it's worth, I'm sorry that you have to deal with this. No one should have to put up with this kind of abuse. Her block has also been extended to 48 hours. If you get any other emails of this type, please let us know. --Elonka 00:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Days producer article
Oh, I simply copied and pasted that information into a new article to make the main Days article slimmer for a GA shot last year. I didn't even realize I had created that article until now. I simply moved the information, I didn't add anything of my own. If there is stuff that isn't compliant, by all means, please remove it. Mike H. Fierce! 01:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Mike. Since Mike created that "Days" head writer page and could not supply the source for the exact writing tenure dates, I guess they can not be added back to that page. I never knew Wikipedia had such high standards, but now that I see they do, I can understand why my website is considered "unreliable." I understand it's just a term that is used on Wikipedia for any fan sites and/or original research, and that it's not a slight towards myself, my research, or my knowledge about "Days." When I first joined Wikipedia last week, I was surprised to see "unrealible" and my website in the same sentence, but now I can see why that fits for Wikipedia's standards. No harm done for me. Thanks to everyone for helping explain things. I'm glad we were finally able to work things out. Jason47a (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Since Mike created that "Days" head writer page and could not supply the source for the exact writing tenure dates, I guess they can not be added back to that page.
- I just moved an article to a new article. This implies that I wrote it originally and made up dates. I simply moved information to a new article. Please understand that. Mike H. Fierce! 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for fixing that vandalism on the Days cast page. I sent that user a message about constructive edits. Britney Spears? HA! You and I were fixing it at the same time :) Rm994 (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I check in on those pages a few times a week just to see that things are in order. I just got the word on Higley & the new staff writers, so after I added the info to my website, then I updated the writing pages here on Wikipedia, and noticed the cast page vandalism. Just was wondering how to fix it, and finally figured out how to put just Joe Penny back in, since the vandal had erased the entire "comings & goings" section. :) Jason47a (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] William Morgan Sheppard
Hello again, Do you have any information about William Morgan Sheppard being in the cast of Days of Our Lives? He played Charles (the man who shot Greta at the coronation) from 2000-2001. Imdb.com lists him as only appearing in 3 episodes, but I know he was in many more than that. When I added him to the castlist, someone told me he was only a guest star, and the list is not for guest stars (Although Shirley Jones' most recent stint was WAY shorter than W. Morgan Sheppard's and she is on the list). Any advice? Rm994 (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Recently, I updated the entire former cast list of "Days" and included all of the major roles from 1965-1985, and anyone who has appeared in at least 50 episodes since 1986 (Shirley Jones was already on the Wikipedia list, so I did not remove her, although I did find an actor who played "Orderly # 2" that I never heard of, so I did remove him). I thought the 50+ episode was a good cut-off point. Mr. Sheppard was only on 18 episodes of "Days", so that is well below the 50 episode cut-off. But if you want to add him, I don't have a problem with it. It's just that then there'd be about 100 or so other guest stars who were on more than him (between 20-49 episodes) and who would not yet be in the cast list. I keep track of all the episode appearances at my website, http://members.aol.com/jason47b so if you ever have a question about how many episodes someone has appeared in, you can check there. The overall rankings haven't been updated since 2006, but in the near future, I hope to have the newest list available for everyone who has been in at least 5 episodes since 1985. Jason47a (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok then. Thanks for clearing that up :) Rm994 (talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)