User talk:Iainfisher
September 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Steven Berkoff do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Also removed the link added to this self-published discussion board/website from Harold Pinter for same reasons given above, as per WP:EL and WP:Spam. User pages are also not for such self-promotional purposes. --NYScholar (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. I started the original page way back in 2004 as I have seen many of his plays and your site was one of the ones I used as reference. It's a pleasure to see you correcting some of the stuff I got wrong. Unfortunately, NYScholar has removed a number of my "refs" (which resulted in the "citations needed" entry now on the page) and also disrupting the flow so the categories no longer make any sense. There is no intro. anymore. I've placed on entry on his talk page asking him to clarify so hopefully I can reinstate them.
If you have the time, I'd greatly appreciate you going through the pages about the individual plays and checking them.
--Nzpcmad (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Since beginning editing Wikipedia, Iain Fisher has been adding links to his own self-published Website and its message boards throughout Wikipedia articles, violating Wikipedia's core editing policies, such as WP:BLP, WP:V#Sources, and WP:CITE, and guidelines such as WP:EL, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Those links are to fansites. He is not a recognized third-party published authority on the subjects. All statements and information in these articles, including Athol Fugard must have reliable and verifiable third-party (not self-published) sources. If there are primary sources, these sources need to be used in the source citations directly. The "refs" removed are removed due to their violations of Wikipedia's own editing policies and guidelines. The discussion of the article belongs on the talk page of the article, not on my user talk page. Please deal with the templates posted by others as well. The article is not up to Wikipedia quality standards: I did not place the other templates on the article; I place the "citations missing" template due to the lack of verifiable reliable third-party source citations. This is not a fansite; it is an encyclopedia, and the article needs to be encyclopedic, according to Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines. In Wikipedia articles on living persons, unsourced statements may be removed on sight. The templates indicate the problems. People editing the article need to provide proper sources for the material that they are adding to it. They also need to avoid violating Wikipedia:Plagiarism by providing sources for material being taken from reliable verifiable third-party published Websites as well. --NYScholar (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Nzpcmad: thanks for the comments. I was happy for material from my site to be used on Wikipedia and I appreciated the reference acknowledging this. I congratulate you on providing the contribution on one of the most important living playwrights and, in true Wiki style, it is a good basis for other to work on. I would be happy to contribute further including adding references to the biographies and other writings where appropriate- assuming this will not be automatically deleted by others.
NYScholar: Sorry but I do find the tone of your messages a bit derogatory. I realise Wikipedia must be spammed continually, but is this the case here? I have no problem if you do not want to accept my contributions, but I do object to references to spamming, "fan sites" and plagiarism.
On credentials:
The Fugard site:
- Athol Fugard was kind enough to praise the site to me in person. He later emailed me.
- Two of Fugard’s biographers have been in contact with me
- Encyclopædia Britannica name the site as the best site on Fugard
- A large number of universities cite the pages on their African studies or literature courses
You also make disparaging remarks on my other sites:
On Ken Russell see the last few biographies or see Ken Russell’s autobiography for my involvement.
On Steven Berkoff again a large number of universities cite the pages on their literature courses. I could also mention the official Steven Berkoff site (mentioned in Wikipedia) but that would be unfair as I also run that site for Steven.
On Sarah Kane please see Graham Saunder’s biography (“in-depth treatment of her work, ongoing scolarly interest”) as well as the contributors on the discussion group.
My “fan sites” as you call them contain a large number of Masters theses available on line (with permission of the authors). They also contain a large number of interviews (some by me, some by others included with permission). The “spamming” generally consists of links that I think add value for the reader, such as the article on Huw Wheldon, which mentions his son Wynn. My "spam" consists of an interview with the son about Huw with some good insights into his way of working. Is it spam to direct readers to this, or to significant theses on Berkoff. Is it spam to direct readers to the only comprehensive site on Fugard?
I don't want to get into a Wiki-fight (a term I think I just invented), I respect that you have acted in good faith, I just think that you are mistaken.
Kind regards Iain Iainfisher (talk) 23:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)iainfisher
Wikipedia policies and guidelines pertaining to removing self-published, unofficial Websites, message boards, etc.
[edit]The fact is that your site (a fansite) is self-published (not an official Website of any of the playwrights that you discuss on it) and that you are not a recognized third-party published authority on the playwrights.
You are welcome to cite as source citations and references any of the verifiable reliable third-party publications that may list your work, but not to your own site as a source citation or as an external link in these articles in Wikipedia in which you have been adding it.
Wikipedia has strict editing policies pertaining to its content and especially to articles about living persons: see WP:BLP#Sources. Your site is self-published and not considered a "reliable source" according to Wikipedia.
None of the points you make above negates this fact. (Your actual professional "credentials" are not in the field of literature or dramatic literature or dramatic criticism; you are an amateur critic, not a professional critic. Your "credentials" are in computer technology, apparently, according to your Website version of your Curriculum vitae.)
Good faith editing involves following core Wikipedia policies. If you are a relatively new editor in Wikipedia, you need to familiarize yourself with them. These comments are not "personal"; they are related to Wikipedia policy. There is a policy also in Wikipedia against adding links to advertise one's own Website. If your site takes material from third-party published sites, then you know what the sources are and you can use them properly in Wikipedia articles without referring to your self-published Website and message boards. Message boards and blogs are not permissible sources or external links in biographies of living persons except in articles about the subjects whose official sites and blogs they are. If you are not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia, which I do not believe you are in the field of literature (playwrights and drama, etc.), then there is no article in which your own personal self-published Website is pertinent enough to include (according to WP:BLP. If you are not notable enough for an article in Wikipedia in the field of computer technology (e.g.), then you would not warrant an article in Wikipedia in your fields of expertise.
If professional peer-reviewed third-party publications (book publishers and journal publications; e.g., University and trade publishers) have not actually published your comments on Athol Fugard and other playwrights in articles and books authored by you, your work is not considered a "reliable" and "verifiable" third-party published source, and links to your Website and message board posts are not permissible.
Please read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia editors are directed to remove such links from Wikipedia articles, especially from those about living persons or which mention living persons. --NYScholar (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
See the first post on this page posted by another Wikipedia editor. Please consult: WP:NOR, WP:V#Sources, and WP:BLP#Sources, as well as other core Wikipedia editing policies and editing guidelines in the talkpage header. I've already explained the problems, I won't be doing so again after this comment. The policies and guidelines are easily accessible to everyone. --NYScholar (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you do "run" the official Website for Steven Berkoff, that is the Website which is permissible in the Wikipedia article on Berkoff (the other way around from your assumption above); it is not only "fair" to list it, it is pertinent to list it (it is already listed). If you are the administrator of the website, you can list your actual full name as its administrator. But the self-published message boards and your own self-published Website are not official sites of that playwright/actor nor of the others. They are your personal sites as a fan of these living persons' work. --NYScholar (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Visiting the Berkoff official website, I do see that you are listed in the "Website" "contact" address (though not identified otherwise); anyone who logs onto that official website can find your address via "contact" link; but that does not make your own personal website an official publication of Berkoff or the others. The official website in the Berkoff article is already properly listed as such. --NYScholar (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is quite common for actors and other celebrities [including well-known writers], to enlist their fans as "contacts" for their official Websites to do the work of keeping them up to date; but the official site still belongs to the subject (Steven Berkoff, e.g.), not to you. I think that people can easily find you via a Google search; not all sites accessible via Google searches are permissible as sources and/or external links in Wikipedia. People are not going to miss your site if they use Google or other search engines. --NYScholar (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Due to the misinterpretations below (which totally miss my point), I added in brackets "including well-known writers" to "actors and other celebrities" (who do also include famous writers--who may also be "well-known public figures" ("celebrities") according to Wikipedia): See WP:BLP#Well known public figures. [I in no way was "dismissing" Fugard.] Often such famous living persons depend on their fans for help with keeping their official Websites up to date; they or their agents on their behalf enlist such assistance from their fans; use of self-published unofficial fansites (such as iainfisher.com), however, creates difficulties relating to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and lack of verifiability and reliability; fans who have their own websites on these subjects may edit articles in Wikipedia about these subjects but the sources used must not violate Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines pertaining to WP:BLP, WP:V, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Statements made about living persons require specific kinds of documentation of sources in Wikipedia, in keeping with its core editing policies, for which I have already provided Wikipedia policy and guideline links. There are no "personal" comments being made by me in my comments above or on the talk pages of the articles edited by this user. My comments relate specifically to editing policies and guidelines. See WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 21:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)]
- It is quite common for actors and other celebrities [including well-known writers], to enlist their fans as "contacts" for their official Websites to do the work of keeping them up to date; but the official site still belongs to the subject (Steven Berkoff, e.g.), not to you. I think that people can easily find you via a Google search; not all sites accessible via Google searches are permissible as sources and/or external links in Wikipedia. People are not going to miss your site if they use Google or other search engines. --NYScholar (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This is becoming silly (dismissing the author of East as an "actor or celebrity") and personal (your detective work is wrong). Wikipedia mentions "Be polite, Assume good faith, No personal attacks , Be welcoming". But I retreat. Having contributed to Wikipedia for a number of years (I can't remember how many) it will be a loss to stop contributing (a loss for me, not Wikipedia) but I will enjoy reading Wikipedia entries.
Nzpcmad: Sorry that I seem to have brought some of this onto you. Please continue with your site, otherwise a major playwright would have no presence. I know how much work it is, I was going to publish on the Spanish playwright Fermin Cabal, another playwright ignored by Wikipedia and Internet. But can you do me a favour please. The Wikipedia Fugard entry includes my categorisation of Fugard's plays. This used to be attributed to me, but no longer is. It now looks as if my own site has copied Wikipedia, whereas Wikipedia makes use of mine. Could you either add the credit or (and I suspect this will be easier) remove the entry (the plays part of the bibliography page). I don't mind which you do, and you may also continue using other stuff from my site. If you remove it, you could substitute Stephen Gray's equally good categorisation- the site already references him. I have added a farewell contribution, I saw there was discussion on Fugard's middle name- I have added references to this, assuming it hasn't been removed. I won't be back on this talk page but I will check the Fugard page and look forward to see how it develops. Iainfisher (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)iainfisher
Please see comments there re: updated resolution, via citing faculty profile at University of California, San Diego (would have been helpful to have this source to document the ref. to the website listed earlier; I provided documentation and updated the article. :-) --NYScholar (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)