User talk:Billnewt
Welcome
[edit]
|
I've gone ahead and removed significant content from the above noted article pertaining to individuals associated with the organization. If you wish to create separate articles about these individuals, you may do so, making sure to follow the guidelines for notability. In essence, we need to establish notability through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. In any case, the Burnett and Reid article needs to present the organization, rather than biographies of individuals grafted into the prose. If you have questions or need assistance, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 16:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
February 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm Cindamuse. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Burnett and Reid, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Cindy(talk) 17:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Burnett and Reid. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cindy(talk) 17:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Burnett and Reid, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Cindy(talk) 19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Your addition to Burnett and Reid has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Cindy(talk) 20:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Billnewt, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Cindy(talk) 21:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Conflict of interest and copyright violations
[edit]We need you to communicate with us. I've made several comments here and tried to help out with editing the Burnett and Reid article to bring it into compliance. However, you have not yet chosen to communicate or respond to concerns with this article. I placed a notice above pertaining to addition of content to this article which violations US Copyright law. Not sure what you are thinking, since you have yet to communicate, outside of continuing to remove maintenance templates and restore content in violation of policy. Please take the time to review the notability guidelines, as well as the conflict of interest behavioral guideline and the guideline pertaining to original research. At this point, this article has already been previously deleted due to lack of notability. I have chosen not to delete it due to lack of notability, since there is implied significance based on the claim that the firm was established in 1754 and is "the oldest legal practice in the city and one of the longest established legal practices in the United Kingdom." However, the firm is the only entity making this claim. None of the sources provided can be verified. At this point, this article's content is unverifiable and/or cited using unreliable sources. In addition, this article merely serves to promote this law firm, rather than present neutral, encyclopedic content. I have hoped that you could work within the policies and guidelines which govern the project, so have chosen not to delete this article as yet. If you are unable to provide verifiable sources to support this article, it will be nominated for deletion. We need you to communicate with us. What are your intentions? Do you have plans to create or edit articles other than those that promote this law firm? Most importantly, do not restore the content protected by copyright. Further action in this regard will result in a blocking of your editing privileges. Cindy(talk) 22:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Re your comments on the above article:
- Which items do you believe are copied from copyright material? Most of the information from the article is from this source http://archive.org/stream/historyofsociety00hendrich/historyofsociety00hendrich_djvu.txt being a publication from Aberdeen University and from the archives of the Society of Advocates in Aberdeen. The content is however written in the words of the contributor. This also deals with your comments on original research
- In terms of notability, the foregoing source also confirms the history of the firm as do these articles http://www.webdesignaberdeen.com/completed-projects/#.UwPuqo7rwVg http://www.agcc.co.uk/news-main/item/19424-new-appointments-at-citys-oldest-law-firm/ http://www.companybooknetworking.com/burnett-reid
- With regards your comments on undue weight, can you confirm which parts of the text you have issue with?
-With regards your comments on advertisement, the majority of the article is historical in nature and I cannot see how this would be deemed advertising. Comments on Chambers rankings are common on wiki articles relating to law firms. The firm has played a significant role in the HISTORY OF nORTH eAST OF sCOTLAND.
- I HAVE A COPY OF THE ABERDEEN JOURNAL ARTICLE REFERENCED, WHAT FURTHER INFORMATION DO YOU NEED TO MAKE IT MORE SPECIFIC?
- WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER IS MISSING FROM THE OTHER TEXT CITATIONS REFERENCED?
- I BElieve all your comments have been addressed, hence the earlier reinstatements and per the comments i made on those edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billnewt (talk • contribs) 23:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly, thank you for responding. I have moved your remarks back here for continuity. Beyond the copyright violations, we are concerned with the unverifiable content in this article. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed by anyone at anytime. Restoring content is considered disruptive, which may lead to a block of your editing privileges. Nobody wants that. You've mentioned a couple of sources used in your comments here, but have failed to indicate how they support content in the article. We need to know "specifically" from where you sourced the material for the article. Looking through the "History of the Society of Advocates in Aberdeen ", it is unclear what content was used to write the article. There is very little content in the archived article that refers to this law firm. All content from Burnett and Reid requires identifying the source, using inline citations.
- We cannot use http://www.webdesignaberdeen.com/completed-projects/#.UwPuqo7rwVg, because it lacks reliability and independence. It is simply the website of the organization that developed your website.
- We cannot use http://www.agcc.co.uk/news-main/item/19424-new-appointments-at-citys-oldest-law-firm/, since it is simply a press release, lacking reliability and independence.
- We cannot use http://www.companybooknetworking.com/burnett-reid, since it is a self-published, user-generated website, lacking reliability and independence.
- The burnett-reid.co.uk website is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability.
- The Chambers website is not an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability.
- The ASPC website is not an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability.
- Undue weight pertains to the biographies of individuals added to this article contravening guidelines for encyclopedic content about corporations and organizations. This article is about the organization. We do not retain biographical information in articles about companies. If you wish to create separate articles about the individuals, you may do so, if you can establish notability independent of the organization. (I don't doubt that independent notability can be established.) For THIS article, we need content about the ORGANIZATION. Lacking this, the article may be deleted. Please refer to WP:COATRACK.
- Advertising is oftentimes equated to promotional content. Promotional content in this article is identified through tone, rather than marketing. The promotional tone is inappropriate in this article. I realize that it can be tempting to write about yourself or the projects and organizations with which you are affiliated or have a personal involvement. However, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which can be difficult when you have a conflict of interest. You have stated that the firm has "played a significant role in the history of northeast Scotland. Says who? We can't just take your word for it. We need to verify this claim through reliable and independent sources. Take another look at the Services section. A bit promotional, don't you think? Save it for your website. "Noted for their expertise..." "Well known in the local area..." Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources. Articles failing to follow these guidelines are unacceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they identify notable organizations which are the topic of the article. We have yet to show reliable and independent sources in this article about the organization. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability.
- It doesn't matter if you have a copy of the Aberdeen Journal. You have not provided enough details about the source that would allow others to know where to find the information and verify the accuracy of the article's content. We need the name of the publication, publisher, title of article, author, page numbers, etc. You need to essentially draw a road map so that others may go directly to the source from where you found the information used in this article. Please see WP:Verifiability.
- When it comes right down to it, you have not established notability for this organization. We are wholly lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the law firm, their partners, and affiliated entities. The sources that you have provided are (at this point) unverifiable. I am more than willing to work with you. However, I need to know that you intend to work in accordance with the established policies and guidelines that govern the project. I look forward to your response. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 01:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I THINK A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING EXISTS AS TO THE NATURE OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE FIRM IN THE LOCAL AREA AND THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ROLES TO WHICH INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AND THE FUNCTION OF THE FIRM. THE BOOK ON THE HISTORY OF THE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES VERLY CLEARLY INDICATES THE ROLES FULFILLED BY THE FIRST THREE INDIVIDUALS BEARING THE NAME "BURNETT", ALL OF WHICH WORK WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM, WHICH SIMPLY TRADED UNDER THEIR OWN NAMES AT THE TIME. THE WORDING OF THE ARTICLE HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE VARIOUS CHANGES IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM PER THE SAID BOOK, AND TO REMOVE INFORMATION UNCONNECTED WITH THEIR LEGAL ROLES. GIVEN THE FIRM EFFECTIVELY RAN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT FOR WELL OVER 100 YEARS, THE NOTABILITY CANNOT BE DENIED, BUT FURTHER ARTICLES CAN, AND WILL BE SOURCE TO BACK UP THE FACT THAT IT IS THE OLDEST FIRM IN ABERDEEN, ALTHOUGH NOTABILITY IS ESTABLISHED REGARDLESS. THE INFORMATION GIVEN ON THE CITATIONS IS FULL, BUT PERHAPS CONFUSION IS ARISING DUE TO THE FACT THAT "ABERDEEN" WAS THE NAME OF A LOCAL PUBLISHER.
- You're getting there. That said, we still have:
- 1. The burnett-reid.co.uk website is a primary source and cannot be used to establish notability.
- 2. The Chambers website is not an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability.
- 3. The ASPC website is not an independent source and cannot be used to establish notability.
- 4. Keith, Alexander (1987). A Thousand Years of Aberdeen, Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press; We need a full citation (ISBN and page numbers); not enough information to verify content.
- 5. Boswell, James (1785). The Journal of a Tour to the Hebrides with Samual Johnson, LL.D. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6018/pg6018.html; This source supports the statement "William Burnett's elder brother, Lord Monboddo, took pride in the character of “Farmer Burnett” when entertaining Dr Samuel Johnson at Monboddo Estate, and was an enthusiastic improver of agriculture." This has nothing to with the subject of this article in any manner; it is irrelevant; it cannot be used to establish notability.
- and now, we also have:
- 6. Henderson, John Alexander (1929). "A History of the Society of Advocates in Aberdeen", Aberdeen: Aberdeen University; We need a full citation; not enough information to verify content.
- 7. "Act of the convention of estates of the kingdome of Scotland etc. for ane new and voluntar offer to his majestie of seventie two thousand pounds monethlie for the space of twelve moneths", records of the Parliaments of Scotland, University of St Andrews, 23 January 1667. "Act anent highways and bridges", records of the Parliaments of Scotland, University of St Andrews, 28 May 1686. "Highway (Scotland) Act 1718 (1718 c. 30)" Is this two different sources in one citation? We need some clarification here.
- 8. http://www.rgc.aberdeen.sch.uk/fortcumberland; does not mention the subject in any capacity. We cannot use it.
- 9. http://www.saa.gov.uk/resources/272882/RecruitmentInfo20110704.pdf; does not mention the subject in any capacity. We cannot use it.
- and finally, we have:
- 10. The Aberdeen Journal, Thursday 21 November 1878, pg 2 "The Late Mr Newell Burnett", The British Newspaper Archive; This is great! Do we have a byline? Can you provide a link to the online content, along with a note that indicates the text to which you are referring? the British Newspaper Archive is a subscriber database, while we can now verify that this article exists (I looked it up), we are unable to view the content. What does the article say about the law firm? Is it simply an obituary? Can yo provide an abstract on the article's discussion page?
- So, outside of the sourcing issues, we have:
- 11. Noncompliance with the Manual of Style. <--- Please review this link for more information.
- 12. You've removed inline maintenance templates, which is a violation of community guidelines. I've mentioned this in the past.
- Bill, you're headed in the right direction. At this point, I would recommend continuing to prune this article. I still maintain that creating separate articles for each individual is the best course of action. Understand that anyone could simply be bold and remove this content directly to create separate articles, but I'm trying to work with you. Another choice after pruning the content would be to reorganize this content from undue weight on biographical details and structure it according to an historical background of the firm. There is no confusion with the name of the local publisher. However, please understand that notability for this law firm is not yet established. Notability is not the same thing as asserted significance or importance. Yes, there is a credible assertion or claim of importance, due to the longevity of the firm. But again, this does not equate to notability. Notability in accordance with encyclopedic guidelines is established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, we have not yet met this threshold. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 18:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Billnewt, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Billnewt! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |