User talk:Sgetmanenko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pine Glenn Cove

Greetings! I have reverted your edits because, regardless of the sourcing, the anecdotes/poetry about the resort is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Likewise, "beautiful" and similar adjectives from the intro have been deleted, since they were unsourced (and vague anyway). —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Without looking at the article, my more severe concern is that the wording comes from a newspaper. Newspapers, etc. are meant to be used as secondary sources to support articles, but the articles themselves should be written in the editors' own words. The concern there is infringing about copyright or plagiarizing another work. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The comment I was referring to is "Much of the wording now used in the article comes from Deseret News" (emphasis added). Had you said that much of the information in the article came from it, there would be no problem. My concern was the implication that the article text was copied from the article--which, since it's offline, I had no way to verify whether it was or not. —C.Fred (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, at this point, the only things deleted are the memoirs (which I don't see how they're relevant to an encyclopedia article), the adjective "beautiful" in the intro (now reworded to standard "(subject) is..." format for intros), and this sentence: "Beautiful geographic setting and significant landscape features -- outdoor fireplaces, a pond, retaining walls and steps -- made Pine Glenn Cove a welcome place for these families and their friends who wished to escape exhausting heat and buzz of the cities." It just reads too much like ad copy, and I haven't figured out how to reword it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's make a note that I did post to your talk page regarding the edits. I would have been within normal policy--though not courtesy--to just make the changes with "rv - peacock terms, firsthand accounts" in the edit summary, nary a word here or on the article talk page, and no other explanation. Standard procedure is to be bold in editing, and that includes making drastic changes like that first and discussing later. Again, but for some content being clearly outside of guidelines (the anecdotes) and the concerns I noted above about copyright violations, I would not have reverted back so quickly without intervening discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...sigh...

We'll see what happens... Alliedhealth 21:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied to him (or her, or it). I started, and I am now done contributing to WP - all in about 24 hours. Apparently, he must have thought that good contributors would risk contributing huge amounts of material on their first edit. Instead, I contributed a link, and if I did it properly, and it was acceptable, I was ready to contribute more. Instead, done and done. We all have better things to do with our time. I'll leave the twiddling to the tiddlywinks. Alliedhealth 22:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Directly from WP's policy page User_pages: "You are welcome to include a link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language." Which I did. And it was deleted. Thanks WP. I'm gone for good. You either lie about the policies, or wield the sword in disregard of the policies. One or the other. Alliedhealth 17:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I'm confused...C.Fred

C.Fred couldn't have said it better. OOT. Out Of Touch.