User talk:Sharon Dahlonega

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Sharondahlonegaraifordbush.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sharondahlonegaraifordbush.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Msbush.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Msbush.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Grandbush.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grandbush.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow, a message from a human

Hey Sharon, welcome. I wanted to mention that you can create a redirect by putting #Redirect [[The page you want to redirect to]] at the top of the page. A redirect takes you directly to page B if you type in the name of page A (the page with the redirect on it). Also, are you aware of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline? I'm guessing that this applies to you and the Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush article, I guess I'm just psychic or something ;) If you want to make changes to the article, you can suggest them on the article's talk page. If no one reviews the suggestions within a couple days, you can leave a message on my talk page and I will look at them. (the guideline doesn't prevent you from making minor edits like spelling corrections, just large edits like adding or removing info). Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot talk 05:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.

Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. MKoltnow 05:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:LEAPYEARBABIES.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:LEAPYEARBABIES.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush

Hi, sorry for not responding sooner, I guess I had gone to bed by the time I got your messages. You are allowed to remove the "proposed deletion" notice yourself if you disagree with the deletion of the article. However, the person who placed the notice (User:Gillyweed) or someone else may then list the article at the deletion discussions for the community to discuss whether or not it should be deleted. It looks to me like you meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, so an article about you is merited. However, there are several problems with the article as it is. First, the article is largely unsourced, and thereby is in violation of Wikipedia's very fundamental verifiability policy. Secondly, it may not conform to the also very fundamental neutral point of view policy, in that it may be too sympathetic to the subject and fail to offer neutral or negative info to balance it out (though to be honest I read it and didn't find that many NPOV problems). Did you read and understand the conflict of interest guideline? (the blue links in this and the above messages take you to pages the writers want to direct your attention to). Basically it says you're strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself, because it is difficult if not impossible to do so in a neutral way. If there's something specific you need further explanation of, don't hesitate to ask. You mentioned that several articles have been written about you. This is good, since it will do a lot for the claim that the article should stay, and it's important that all assertions be sourced. But you need to actually provide references to the articles, with author, title, date, name of publication, and, if possible, a link to it (if it's online). Since Wikipedia aims for verifiability, not truth, anything published in a reliable source can be stated in an article. See WP:RS and WP:CITE for the guidelines/policies on that. I think that if you provide multiple, reliable, third party sources that write about you with more than just a trivial mention, your article will be a definite keeper. As I mentioned above, you should not edit an article about yourself, but you can suggest changes on the talk page and I or another editor can make them. One more thing (sorry this is getting so long): do you understand the license tagging messages above? You can't upload images without copyright information, anything without copyright info after 7 days will be deleted. If you own the copyrights to the images and want to release them into the public domain so that Wikipedia can use them, you should go back to the images and add {{pd-self}}. If you don't own the copyright, you need the copyright holder's permission before we can use them, which I can help you with. Leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or want to discuss anything. Peace, delldot talk 16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you so very much for your support. I am taking heed to everything you've stated. When you re-visit the article, you'll see that I've omitted a lot of stuff and kept with historical information. Please let me know if the edits suffice. You've already published an article about WGPR and much was left out, especially the history-making news team. Shortly thereafter, ABC News decided to break the color barrier. I'm glad I'm able to share what is (I believe) the only remaining photo of the three of us taken on the day that WGPR hit the airwaves in 1975, becoming the first black-owned-and-operated television in America. That was more than 30 years ago! I don't know what has happened to Doug, though. I'm continuing to research his whereabouts, if he is still living.

Everything that is mentioned in the article is attributable.

Best,

Sharon Dahlonega 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sharon Dahlonega 04:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice work

I had a look at the article, and I think there are no longer any neutrality problems. I still strongly suggest providing as many sources as you can, this will help the artilce in a deletion discussion if someone decides to nominate it (attributable is not enough; it must be actually attributed). Since you shouldn't edit an article about yourself, you can suggest the changes on the talk page and I or another editor can make them. Thanks for the hard work on the article and for being so willing to work with the policies and guidelines! Again, drop me a message on my talk page if you need anything. Peace, delldot talk 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You're doing great. Sorry to bombard you with just about every rule in the book when you're still brand new! I think adding sources yourself to the article is probably ok, but if you want to be on the safe side, you can suggest them on the talk page and I or someone else will put them in (as you can probably tell, I'm almost always around, so it won't take long!). Anyway, thanks again for being so understanding about all of this. About your question "how much time do I have", I don't think the article's in any imminent danger. The prod notice has been removed, so it won't be deleted without discussion. Someone may nominate it to be discussed, but I don't think it's that likely now, with the clear assertion of notability that the article makes. I can put a note on the article's talk page mentioning that it's a work in progress and asking folks to consider giving us like a week to clean it up before nominating it, if you think that would be a good idea. But once we get those sources up there, I think it's highly likely that it would survive a deletion discussion anyway. Peace, delldot talk 16:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

Hey, I've added some of the references. The blog type ones I wasn't so crazy about, since they're not that great under the standards set forth at WP:RS, which encourages fact-checked publications like news sources. Which you've provided a ton of (some of which I saw at the damngoodwriter site). I'm not sure how to proceed with the news articles I can't see. I'm not comfortable just putting them in as references since I don't know what they say. If at all possible, it would be great if you could provide links to any that are online, but obviously most of these won't be. I realize this puts you in kind of a catch-22. I'll have to consult with other editors about how to proceed here and get back to you.

The best would be if we could use the refs to serve as citations for particular facts, rather than just having them in the list of refs. If I could see them, I could put in the specific facts myself, as I did with the IMDB one you provided.

I was looking at the older version of the article before you stubbed it down, and I thought some of the stuff was actually worthy of inclusion. For example:

She has worked as a news anchor, field reporter and producer for CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX affiliates.

Recruited by FOX8 in High Point, North Carolina, Bush anchored early morning news and weekend weathercasts. She was later appointed bureau chief of its Triad Satellite District.

She worked side-by-side with former President Jimmy Carter in establishing the Carolinas’ first Habitat for Humanity initiative.

And other things that are clearly notable (Read: were covered by independent publications/news sources). I'd like to add some or all of these sentences back in (possibly with editing), but I rarely add info in without sourcing it (unless it's really obvious). If you can provide reliable sources for any of this info, I can add it in. Sorry to put you to more work, it's up to you how much you want to do though. Peace, delldot talk 06:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sounds good

OK, I made the change to African-American, sorry about that, nonwhite implies that whiteness is the standard, doesn't it. I just changed it to that since I wanted to change the wording, which I thought was too similar to the damngoodwriter site (Wikipedia can't use any copyrighted material, which is most everything, without explicit permission by the copyright holder to release it under the GFDL. This applies to very similarly worded stuff as well as verbatim stuff).

I don't think it would be terrible to include the Children's hospital activities, but I'm not that excited about it either. Really more or less whatever there's a published source for is OK by me. But if we include too much positive info, some other editors may object that the article lacks NPOV because the positive isn't balanced out. You know what I mean? e.g., if the article is mostly a long list of all the awards you've won, it's going to lack neutrality even if it's well-sourced. Not that I'm saying the article has this problem in its current state.

I also fear I may have misled you into thinking that I have authority here; I have no more authority than you or any other user, I'm just familiar with the policies. The COI thing was the only reason I asked you not to edit the article directly. But you shouldn't feel like you have to ask me for permission for edits and that kind of thing. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression.

That would be excellent if you wouldn't mind scanning the articles and sending them to me. Peace, delldot talk 07:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, by the way, I have an idea: let's move discussion about the article itself (e.g. proposals for references, bits to add, and so on) to the article's talk page so other editors can be involved in the writing. You can of course still leave whatever you want on my talk page, but anything directly pertinent to the article should be copied to the talk page (starting now, we dont' have to go back and do it). I have the page on my watchlist, but if I miss something you leave there you can give me the heads up on my talk page. Peace, delldot talk 17:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: Is it OK if I delete one of the duplicate pictures Image:Sharondahlonegaraifordbush.jpg or Image:Msbush.jpg? If so, does it matter which one I delete, or are they identical? delldot talk 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)



THE PHOTOS ARE IDENTICAL.

[edit] License tagging for Image:BUSH @ CBS AFF WX STATION.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:BUSH @ CBS AFF WX STATION.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:ANCHORING THE NEWS.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ANCHORING THE NEWS.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done

Ok, I've added content and sourced it using the refs you provided. I should have been more clear; I assumed you were going to email me the articles using the "email this user" function, but now that I think about it you would have had no way of knowing that's what I was thinking. Now that the refs have been used, I'll delete them, since they're copyrighted material, and Wikipedia can't use anything copyrighted without the permission of the copyright holder. That was my mistake for not being clear. One of the images was empty: Image:BUSH @ CBS AFF WX STATION.jpg. You can email it to me if you want to scan it again, but I do think we have enough now. I hope you'll review the article to make sure I haven't made any errors in the material I just added, and suggest any changes on the talk page. Peace, delldot talk 03:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about the empty image; I see it in the deletion history. By the way, you should always be sure that if you add the {{pd-self}} tag or other self tag to an article that you actually own the copyright to it; in this case I believe you don't, it belongs to the paper if I'm not mistaken. Now that I see this one, I can add more info to the article, so I'll do that shortly. Peace, delldot talk 04:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clearer, I'm so used to the wiki I forget others aren't! If you want to email me, you can go to my user page or my user talk page and click "email this user" in the lower left panel (to the left of the edit box). If you want to send an attachment I'll have to reply to your email. But yes, for almost all communication, using the user talk pages as we've been doing is perfect. Clicking on "my talk" takes you to your own talk page, which is not on my watchlist so I probably won't notice edits you make here. So keep leaving messages for me on my talk page as you've been doing (besides, I love getting that orange "you have new messages" box!). Peace, delldot talk 04:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Nah, it's not a secret, I'm editing from South Florida now, but I spent a few years in and right outside of Washington DC. What about you? Peace, delldot talk 05:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I was always afraid to edit and thought myself a bad writer until I started correcting typos on pages I was reading, and, like many folks, got thoroughly hooked. I've been doing this since October 2005, mainly copy editing and reverting vandalism, which you'd be amazed to see how much of there is. You should try hitting "recent changes" or "random article" in the left panel, your mind will be blown by how vast this encyclopedia is. And don't be shy about editing pages, there's tons of stuff your help is needed with, from copy editing, to categorizing, to adding content, to basically any task you can imagine. Peace, delldot talk 05:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conrad L. Raiford

I am currently building an article about one of the first African-American police officers in Greensboro, North Carolina. This man was also a goodwill ambassador. I am accessing archival information from the Greensboro Daily News & Record. Thank you. Sharon Dahlonega 07:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DISAMBIGUATION

I followed the warning that there may a Conrad L. Raiford disambiguation, but I could not find one. Why is the name flagged? Thanks. Sharon Dahlonega 08:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You put that bit of code in yourself. I strongly doubt there is another by that name, so I took it out. It's really cute how you're posting questions on your own talkpage expecting people to show up and answer.
I came here to tell you that I fixed up the article. The link in the 1st reference is broken, though, and I could not find it without further description. I did google "Conrad L. Raiford" and found out that you're his daughter. So I would like you to familiarize yourself with our Conflict of Interest policy and let me know if you think you dad was famous enough to be written up in an encyclopedia. Generally we require multiple non-trivial published secondary sources about all our subjects. An obituary of a non-famous person in a local paper is probably not such a source. So unless there are additional published sources about your dad, the article will probably be deleted.
A helpful first step would be for you to stop editing the article, as WP:COI directs. The next thing we should do is talk about the sufficiency of secondary coverage. Let me know on my talk page. Also, please rely on me to clarify any further technical questions you might have. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- Y not? 06:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, looks like you figured it out though. So you changed back user names? Peace, delldot talk 13:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, sorry once again for the delayed response. I don't know about your request, honestly I'm a little edgy about it. In truth, I really don't think people should be editing articles about subjects they're involved with, no matter how objective and professional they are. Therefore I'd be a little nervous about sort of sponsoring the project by saying you were doing it under my tutelage. On the other hand, I'm of course still willing to answer any questions you may have and continue interacting with you as we have been. I think the best person for you to work with would be Y if they're willing, or perhaps putting yourself up for adoption by an experienced Wikipedian. As always, the best thing you can do for the article is to provide many reliable sources showing notability, if that's still a concern. Sorry not to be more helpful :( Peace, delldot talk 04:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)