User talk:Mablerose
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, Mablerose, 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
- 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Darkspots 03:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome!
|
[edit] Guide to referencing
Click on "show" to open contents.
Using references (citations) |
---|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can removed unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. [edit] Good referencesA reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use Reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is Original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research. [edit] Simple referencingThe first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section. This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference. [edit] Test it outCopy the following text, open the edit box for this page, paste it at the bottom (inserting your own text) and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) [edit] Information to includeYou need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For a book it might look like this:
An online newspaper source would be:
Note the square brackets around the URL. The format is [URL Title] with a space between the URL and the Title. If you do this the URL is hidden and the Title shows as the link. Use double apostrophes for the article title, and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead. Wikilinks (double square brackets which create an internal link to a wikipedia article) function inside the ref tags. Dates are wikilinked so that they work with user preference settings. [edit] Citation templatesYou may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference [edit] Same ref used twice or moreThe first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! A short cut will only pick up from higher up the page, so make sure the first ref is the full one. Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. [edit] ExampleYou can see refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is. [edit] Next stepWhen you become familiar with the process, the next step is to have one section, "Footnotes", with links embedded in the text, and another, "References", which lists all of your references alphabetically with full details, e.g. for a book:
If you're ready to go into it further, these pages have detailed information:
I hope this helps. If you need any assistance, let me know. Tyrenius 00:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC) |
[edit] Image:Womenreading.jpg
Please note that as well as template, you also have to write out a specific fair use rationale for the image. Possible wording can be found at User:Tyrenius/Image FU under "Fair use rationale artwork" (leave off the template from the end as you've already used it). You also need to specify who is the copyright holder. Fair use images should be restricted in number in an article and not used liberally. See WP:FU. Tyrenius 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use
I recommend getting advice about these images and the fair use rationale. I don't know image copyright policy here well, but I have a strong feeling that it's not OK to grab images from commercial websites (eg Image:Ignoti.jpg, Image:Birthdaytanning.jpg, Image:Nerdbaby.jpg, Image:Odddrifting.jpg, Image:Theamateur.jpg) and then claim fair use. I'm pretty sure, though, that using so many in one article as in Dorothea Tanning is defintely out. Tearlach 11:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright
I'd also be cautious about general copyright. I've removed the material you added to Dorothea Tanning that comes verbatim (or minimally paraphrased) from copyrighted material at Frey Norris Gallery and Tate Magazine articles. To avoid copyright violation, it's important to thoroughly rewrite material in your own words. If the source is easily recognisable, as was the case here, it's insufficiently rewritten. Tearlach 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also removed material from Odd Nerdrum that was verbatim from www.myspace.com/nerdrum. Tearlach 18:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Odd Nerdrum
courtesy copy from User talk:Tearlach
Just to let you know that the passage you removed an article on Odd Nerdrum was actually written by myself and nor copied from my space! The author on my space copied the article from the piece I ad written, so its not as you say and I would be grateful if you at least had the courtesey to consult with me first. Copyright works both ways! As for the other articles, in my opinion they were written in my own words with reference to other sources and I did not feel that they had just been copied. Also the images such as "Birthday" were shown because it is an important work and was talked about in the article. If people such as yourself are going to delete articles that people have researched its hardly worthwhile going to the trouble and in any case what gives you the right? I would respect you more if you had consulted with me first instead of jumping to conclusions. Mablerose 01:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Understood - but we've no way of knowing which direction copying happened. As to the other articles, I stand by the deletion of material. If the source is highly recognisable - verbatim chunks, or with trivial paraphrasing - you haven't rewritten it sufficiently to avoid copyright issues. Example:
- Frey Norris Gallery
- In 1955, Tanning began to abandon this somewhat controlled, representational style in favor of a freer technique marked by raw energy, vibrant hues, and luminosity. This new period in her work was originally called her "prismatic" period, perhaps because these images appear distorted and fractured, as if looking at them through a glass prism. A few years later, Tanning herself began to refer to these works as "Insomnias," a name taken from a painting she created in 1957 while living in Sedona. She explains:
- Your version:
- In 1955, Tanning’s work developed in a new direction, moving away from a controlled, figurative style towards a use of a freer painterly technique demonstrated by energetic brushstrokes and luminous brilliant colours. This new period in her work was referred to as her "prismatic" period, perhaps because these images appeared to be more fractured and distorted as if one was looking at the works through a glass prism. Nor long after this Tanning herself started to refer to these paintings as "Insomnias," a name taken from a painting she created in 1957 while living in Sedona. She explains:
- what gives you the right?
- Every time you submit anything to Wikipedia, you buy into the agreement at the foot of the edit screen - If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. That's what gives other editors the right.
- I suggest you read the Wikipedia guidelines on Fair Use, and take advice. There is no blanket ban on fair use images, but generally images with completely free use are preferred, and it's also preferred that fair use images are kept to a minimum (The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose). On those grounds, you don't need five paintings by Dorothea Tanning and eight by Odd Nerdrum. Tearlach 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a way of knowing whether something is copied. The dates on the article I wrote on Odd Nerdrum occurr before the one on my space, hence showing clearly who copied whom. I would be grateful if you would reinstate my article. It took me many hours to write this piece. As regards the images I feel that the use of the pictures helped to a greater understanding of the artists's work. Also I was not aware there was a limit on the number of images! The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose: In my opinion the use of images did exactly that. I take your point that anybody can alter or change articles, but deleting passages without first checking with the author is bound to cause friction and is approaching vandaliism. It may be the policy of Wikipedia to allow people to change for little or no reason but from what I can see it merely gets people's backs up and makes them wonder whether it it worthwhile writing articles. Mablerose 02:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK re the Nerdrum piece, but it was an understandable mistake given the other material. Bear in mind, though, that it needs source attribution: on what published source was it based?
- Also I was not aware there was a limit on the number of images!
- Yes: it is policy to use as few as possible Fair Use images. Check out Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy. It's quite lengthy, but the simple test at the end covers it: "Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?". If the answer's yes, it's viewed unnecessary. I've asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Fair use of images, and so far this view has been confirmed.
- On that basis, it doesn't take seven images to convey the flavour of Nerdrum's art - gloomy paintings in a rather classical style of naked people doing weird things in an apocalyptic landscape. I'd recommend just one - Dawn - in that it's a typical work in style and content, and also has the specific informative value in relation to The Cell.
- I think a good example of the expected level of image use is the H. R. Giger article. Only three images: one with a Creative Commons license as a self-taken photo, the other two Fair Use but used to illustrate distinctive and important topics. Tearlach 11:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Addendum: on further searching, I find this Gallery Channel page for an 07 Apr 01 - 27 May 01 Nerdrum exhibition. The last three paragraphs are an obvious source for the bulk of your Art section. Tearlach 20:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's reasonable that artists are given a depth of coverage that reflects their fame and career. I think Nerdrum is brilliant, but he hardly has the track record of Picasso, one of the most iconic artists of the 20th century, who had a long career in radically varying styles. That aside, check the image attributions: Picasso lived far enough back that many of his images are in the public domain in the USA, and so are unproblematic.
- Perhaps they copied mine?
- It's a dated and copyrighted blurb for a 2001 exhibition, and your version didn't appear here until 2007.
- I see little point in writing for this site if this happens everytime I make a contribution.
- It won't, if you take a little time to understand the conventions here, particularly in the area of copyright. Tearlach 00:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Braids2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Braids2.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Dawn2.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Dawn2.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Neworld.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Neworld.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Whitehorse1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Whitehorse1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fuchs.altar.cu.360.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Fuchs.altar.cu.360.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Viewoflagoon.jpg
Hi Mablerose!
We thank you for uploading Image:Viewoflagoon.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)