User talk:Filmfounder

Re: Your note on OTRS

Filmfounder,

I saw your request on the OTRS board. Since no one really owns any article, your request won't be granted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, which literally means, anyone can edit any article. There are no articles where changes have to be approved by one certain person first. Please take a look at this policy as well as as well as this list of guidelines to assist you with Wikipedia. You can also visit our TeaHouse, which is an area dedicated to assisting New Wikipedia editors to how Wikipedia works, policies and all ! .

Hope to see you around. Kosh Vorlon 15:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KoshVorlon,

Thank you for your response. I'm aware of Wikipedia Guidelines. This does not address the problem I'm facing, as it appears that repeated "editing" by others has basically erased any documented history of the Sarasota Film Festival (SFF), thus making the Wikipedia Site useless with no significant information. Is there any way to create an "owned" article that can permanently establish & retain relevant information regarding SFF, thus making the Site a valuable source of information? Thank you, John D. Welch, Founder SFF

FilmsFounder,

No, there's no such thing as an owned article here. Articles are maintained and added to (and sometimes subtracted from) by all editors. If information is removed, the editor will usually give a reason for that removal, it's always best to ask that editor for a reason. If the editor refuses to respond, or you don't believe the reason is valid, talk it out on the talk page of that article. Never edit war, it will only serve to get you blocked. Kosh Vorlon 16:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) By the way, please sign your post by hitting the "tilde" "~" key four times in a row, i.e: ~~~~ Kosh Vorlon 16:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

KoshVorlon,

Again thanks. The editing that is taking place is an attempt to erase the history of SFF. There is apparently nothing to prevent this abuse, except re-enter the information each time it is erased. JDW, Founder SFF""""

Not quite, take a look at the removals and ask the editors why they're removing them. I looked and the reason I saw your information being removed was that it was either sourced or not sourced properly. (Example IMDB is considered an un-reliable reference so it can't be used ). You may also want to stop by Wikipedia:Teahouse for information for our newest contributors.

The TeaHouse will explain to you how to put references in, what constitutes a reliable source, and that if you use reliable sources your information has a better chance of staying in and being supported. Kosh Vorlon 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, but those editing SFF are presently running the festival & either do not know the history of the festival or more likely want to re-write the history. They have already tried this in other ways. Further sourcing will not prevent them from further sabotage. JDW""""

On "ownership"

I see that some removals were because the information violated copyright, Such as this edit. You can't copy and paste text from one website to Wikipedia. You may think you own the copyright and you can just copy it, but it doesn't work that way here. If we know it is copyrighted, and you haven't proven you own the copyright and have agreed to release under a different copyright, then it must be reverted out. WP:OTRS handles copyright releases. If you add a section of text and we Google that text and find the same wording (or the text is plagiarized from), it has to be reverted. We have zero tolerance for copyright infringement here.

Keep in mind that you have a conflict of interest here. Your duty is to your organization, while ours is to Wikipedia as a whole. We can't treat you differently than anyone else. That is a good thing really, because we want the best information on all articles, but it has to be unburdened with copyright and properly sourced, so the reader knows it is reliable. It is better to have NO information than unreliable information that violates copyright law.

But getting to the nut of matters: Wikipedia is crowd sourcing. This means that I have as much ability as you do when it comes to editing any article. Everyone has the same. This will never change, there are no exceptions, it is part of the actual foundation that Wikipedia is built on. See the WP:Five pillars. Not only do we NOT allow ownership of article, we have a policy called WP:OWN that says you are violating policy and might get sanctioned if you act like you "own" an article. We are clearly "anti-own" here. The best you can do is learn more about policy (such as copyright) or simply use the talk page of the article and ask for help to incorporate information. And yes, go to the WP:Teahouse. We can help you get the information in the article, but it has to be done in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filmfounder - please be aware that Dennis Brown is an administrator on Wikipedia. Not just a regular user like I am. Kosh Vorlon 19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, I am just a regular user like you, but the community stuck me with the title "admin" and gave me a few extra tools. Our words should carry the same weight if we both speak from experience and within policy ;) Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Brown, Thank you for your input. As founder of the SFF, my only desire is to provide accurate historical & current information regarding SFF, thus allowing the Wikipedia site to be relevant. I understand that I cannot "own" an article & I have no desire to copyright any material. My only wish is to make Wikipedia a great referral source. Best regards & signing off. JDW

JDW, if you control the copyright of stuff published by the SFF, and if you can release it under Creative Commons licensing compatible with Wikipedia's (see WP:C), it's possible that we can use some of it (though keep in mind that once licensed that way, it can get re-used, re-mixed, recycled into non-Wikipedia content, etc). I haven't looked at the article in question but the main other concern in situations like this is if the content comes out as too promotional. We try to write all articles from a neutral perspective rather than a promotional or critical one. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]