User talk:Hananekosan

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hananekosan, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Project Chanology. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Cirt (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I really appreciate the barnstar -- thank you! Happy editing... Johnfos (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. Thanks. It's on my user page now. Xanthoxyl ^< 05:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wow, I am truly impressed by your prompt assistance and pointers. I have begun learning the formatting for the needed changes and hope to have them in before another editor comes along. I agree about American Classical Guitarist, although he did just receive his green card he is not American. I am working to find solid sources. Couple questions...can I reference sources outside of the internet? For example magazine articles. On the reviews, even quoted and referenced won't work? I understand if they won't and will reword them without quotes. Agree on the Spanish, will have it translated. Proper references for the biography would be news/magazine articles, his bio appears on a few sites but are not official. Should I move the page back to User: Joshuadfisher/Marco_Sartor to keep it safe until I can make the changes? May be 24 -48 hours. Thanks again for your help, I look forward to my continued involvement on Wikipedia. Joshuadfisher (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I'm glad to help. (It wasn't any magical thing that made me prompt, BTW, I was just keeping an eye on recent changes. If you ever want to do the same or help out by "patrolling" recent changes, just click Recent changes under interaction in the left frame of your browser window. If you ever want to read about patrolling changes, see Recent changes patrol.

You've done a great job with the formatting, providing enough information that the article wasn't tagged for deletion because the subject is not notable enough (he definitely seems to be), and even knew to draft the article in a separate page from that which it would be published.

To answer your questions:

I placed a tag on the page which should keep other editors from tagging it for deletion or whatever while you're working on it. I think it's fine to keep the article where it is and don't think you need to move it a sandbox/your user page in the meanwhile.
I hadn't realized he lives in the US (versus merely studying or performing), which was an oversight on my part. I'd just add that he lives in whichever city/state (whatever you want to say) in the US, and I see no reason why the "American" category can't stay as is.
You absolutely can cite sources of information that aren't on the internet. If you can find the same sources online (as many newspapers and magazines tend to publish their article online, even if it's quite a bit later than the hardcopy version is published), that's great, but they absolutely are still valid even if not online, and you could (and definitely should!) use them.
I'm not sure either way about the quoted phrases as much of what can be determined to be copyright infringement (which would be the issue) is somewhat open to interpretation. It's absolutely fine to mention the reviews and to quote parts of them while paraphrasing the rest, and of course it's fine to just paraphrase. I am just not sure if the text that's currently there, particularly the first one, goes too far with the quotes. In general, it's best to not copy directly, but I can see how copying most of such favorable reviews would be desired. (And I do see reviews quoted in whole or in part on promotional material for all sorts of artists/musicians/works of art.) I will ask an administrator for advice in this particular case, so we know what's best. (The other thing we need to be sure about is that folks won't take the inclusion of a lot of detail about the reviews as unnecessary and, perhaps, boastful. I don't think it's a problem in this case, but it's just something to be aware of. Many times, in articles about living artists, once awards have been won, their wikipedia pages are changed to emphasize the awards more than the reviews. The reviews are a good way to help establish that the subject of the article is notable enough to warrant an article, which Marco most definitely is. Since he's won awards as well and they are proof of his being notable, perhaps we could say less about the reviews, which will still covey that the performances were great, and let the awards carry home the point? Just a thought, and we can figure it out once I get an administrator to weigh in for us.
I can take a stab at translating the Spanish review for you.

Let me know if you have any other questions or need any other help. It will be nice to have another editor around, and I think you'll like doing it. I do.

-Hanane (Hananekosan (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi again, Joshuadfisher! This is a follow up to the comment I made on your user talk page. I took a stab at translating the text in the Spanish review and have posted what I came up with directly in the article (I overwrote the Spanish text with the English). I thnk the translation is pretty accurate, but I am most familiar with Spanish spoken in Mexico, Argentina, and Spain, so there could be some minor variations that caused me to get things not quite right. In some cases, I opted for what would not normally be the most common translation of a word because a less common translation seemed more accurate given the context. You might want to ask Marco to review the translation to see if it makes sense to him. We still have the issue of how much "paraphrasing"/direct quoting is too much to resolve for all the reviews. I still plan to ask an admin for guidance. Please remind me if I haven't gotten back to you about it within a few days. I'm usually good at remembering but, like most everyone, can stand to be reminded now and again. Thanks Hananekosan (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great, will get Marco to look at translation and will spend some time on the article tonight. Thank you so much! Joshuadfisher (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so far I have added 8 citations. If you get the chance to take a look that would be great. Comment added at references about inline citations, and that sources are unclear. What do you think I need in addition to the references there to fix this problem? I am considering removal of the last two reviews, I can't seem to find the third review and don't want to attract more problems. Getting closer and thanks again for your assistance and guidance through this process. Joshuadfisher (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re Help regarding how to proceed with an article with multiple issues

Best to address things piecemeal. If disruption from IPs is an issue, you can request semi-protection at WP:RFPP, and the proceed from there. Might be best if there are lots of issues, to do a draft workup in your own userspace, at User:Hanekosan/Sandbox. Cirt (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your advice on the Black Boy Inn page, most useful!! Studdymx (talk) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overtagging

I've declined a couple of proposed deletions because of your overzealous tagging. Please refrain from putting more than a few tags on an article--I can think of no reason why any article would need more than six banner tags. Six tags should be plenty to give readers or other editors a pretty good picture of a problem. For example, COI is probably entirely unnecessary in light of an autobiography tag. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Nice Work

		The Resilient Barnstar
		For learning and improving from critiques with good humor and genuine appreciation of the critique. ShoesssS ^Talk 13:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with multiple related issues, please

{{adminhelp}} There are several related issues that could use your attention and I wasn't sure if it's best to notify you piecemeal or if it would be more cohesive to read about them at once. I opted for the latter and am summarizing here. If that was the wrong thing to do, please let me know.

I made some edits to Tubifex_tubifex, which I described on Talk:Tubifex_tubifex as well as letting the editor know User_talk:StudioMacleod, though I did so by leaving a message rather than a formal warning. You can read about it at the given pages, but the gist is peacocking, COI, and NNPOV. However, a few times, the same editor has also edited over (not undone) changes to external links that were undone by XLinkBot and other editors (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubifex_tubifex&action=history). Not sure if anything needs to be done about that. As you can see in the same history, another editor pointed out that we don't usually link to YouTube, so I'm not sure if anyone needs to do anything regarding that either.

Because the user (Special:Contributions/Studiomacleod) hadn't done anything (outright vandalism, etc.) that made me certain notifying you via ARV was the right thing to do, I didn't, but it still seemed an admin ought to know of this editor.

Finally, the same user's article Ryan Morris, which seems to be an autobiography, was tagged for speedy.

Thank you, Hananekosan (talk) 01:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm canceling the template. Please remember to assume good faith and not bite the newbies. I see no patterns of behaviorial problems here, and I'm fairly confident that any admin will agree with my assessment. Tim Song (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: Jane Fonda

When you're editing an article, please be careful not to make accusations of plagiarism in edit summaries, such as in this one. Accusations of plagiarism are quite serious and should never be made without clear proof, moreso when making an edit summary. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]