User talk:Joseph Levi
|
Footnotes
[edit]If you use a <ref> tag for your footnotes, simply place {{reflist}} where you want them to be listed, as under a "Notes" or "References" section such as:
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
- Hope that helps. Mike P (wots all this, then?) 19:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Re: Moving a page
[edit]It's not a bother at all! In order to move a page, you must be an autoconfirmed user, meaning your account has existed for at least four days, and you have made at least 10 edits. Since you haven't made that many edits yet, that's why the move tab doesn't show up. However, as User:Gtstricky mentioned at your question at the New Contributors' Help Page, you can also just create the article (as described at Wikipedia:Your first article) and then copy and paste the text in, which you should be able to do now. I hope that helps, but if not, feel free to ask more questions! Also, As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. -- Natalya 00:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Canvassing
[edit]
Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on others' talk pages (or in this case, multiple article talk pages) to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. --Icarus (Hi!) 02:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction)
[edit]Dear Icarus:
Thank you for your interest. I have sent a message to others' talk pages to notify of people/editors trying to silence a message contained in a Wikipedia article. I was not doing canvassing, since I invited those interested in the topic, to visit the talk page and read the discussion, since I was afraid that if these people/editors succeeded, other articles that covered possible similar issues, might be censured. In no way did I invite people to join the talk page in order to support me and my views. What can an author do if his or her article is being attacked? I was professional, as you can see in the type of message that I have sent. These four Wikipedia editors (Dzied Bulbash, Andrew Lenahan, DGG, and Drmies), have distorted the facts, attacked/insulted me personally, and, in my opinion, are using personal biases in order to attack the merit/subject(s) matter(s) of the article Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction). If you know, could you kindly direct me to the Wikipedia page/subpage where it describes the protocol regarding censorship, personal attacks, and vandalism (including how to deal with any of these issues)? Thanks again. All my best, Joseph Levi (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
P.S. For example, editor Drmies said the Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) contained 6711 words. Actually, the article is 6570 words (including the notes). I have checked, there are many Wikipedia articles that far exceed 6711 words. Thank you. Joseph Levi (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dr. Levi, you don't understand what's going on here. There are a number of users who are trying, fairly patiently, to explain to you. Wikipedia is a community project, operating by consensus and generally accepted guidelines. One of these is that canvassing for support for an article under AfD, done as you did, apparently, is prohibited. There is no program to delete articles under way, no censorship. There are standards for inclusion and content which the article does not meet. Your charges of personal bias are known, by me, to be inaccurate with respect to at least one of the users you name above (and I simply never heard of the others). He's a librarian and would support the article if he possibly could. He's also a Wikipedia administrator and very knowledgable about policies and guidelines. You've asked a huge question when you ask to be directed to the "page" dealing with the topics you raise. There are dozens of pages. It will take you some time to read the material and to digest it. If you look at the top of your user page, you were provided a welcome message by a user who chose to do that. You might start with Wikipedia:Five_pillars, which was high on the list provided to you. Many users have pointed to specific policy pages which may help. I suspect that you may have some content, including some of the content of the article under AfD, which can be included in Wikipedia. But most of your work is clearly, as you've been told by quite a few people, original research, which is, to the surprise of some people, prohibited in articles. Now, when you see a statement like this, notice the blue link for "original research." That link points to the specific page on the topic. If you click on it, you'll see the policy page.
- "Your article" is not being attacked. Rather, it's as if you have submitted it to a publisher, and the publisher is saying, "Nice article (or not), but it's not the kind of article we publish." That isn't censorship. There are "publishers" who will accept your article. Citizendium comes to mind, particularly if you are an expert. (http://citizendium.org). Check it out. In fact, if you can establish notability for the topic, you could then link a Citizendium article on it from an article here, say on the artist if not the work, under the right conditions and in the right manner. Check it out. --Abd (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
image removed
[edit]Hello, I have removed an image from your userpage. This is because copyright images can only be used in articles and cannot be part of the user space (which is where your talkpage is). --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your messages, Dr. Levi. I will reply in English as is best practice in Wikipedia.
This article has several issues, including still-dubious notability (you'll find Wikipedia has few articles on works of visual art, even those that have been the subject of considerable scholarship) and inappropriate tone, although that alone would not be a reason to delete it. The most serious issues involve a lack of compliance with two of Wikipedia's core policies: verifiability and a prohibition on original research. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable, third-party sources about the subject itself. Although the article contains several references, few are actual references—most are long, explanatory footnotes—and even fewer, such as reference 2, are actually about the article's subject. See Three Studies for Figures at the Base of a Crucifixion, one of our best articles on a work of visual art, for some examples of good referencing practice. The current incarnation of the article is actually a textbook example of what Wikipedia considers a work of original research. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is, of course, a tertiary source; it can only synthesize information that has already been published elsewhere. If this article, exactly as it is, were published in, say, an art magazine or a social sciences journal, then we could draw upon it to write a Wikipedia article—provided we had strong evidence of notability. As a Wikipedia article, it currently has very little chance of being kept, and for a variety of reasons.
As for the flag, I could work on something of the sort. I'm not fond of hybrid/composite flags because the aspect ratios of one or more of the flags will invariably be distorted, but I'm happy to try. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Dr. Levi, I moved the extended comments that you made on the AfD for Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) to the Talk page for the AfD. The article, as it is, is, as has been very well explained by the user above, not appropriate for Wikipedia. There are other wikis where it would be appropriate and quite welcome, where original research is allowed. The extensive work that you did on the article, then, need not be wasted. You should copy the source for the article to your computer, I'd suggest; it would work on any Mediawiki installation (though there can be some differences). You may wish to work on adding some of the material to Wikipedia, in other articles. What might be appropriate on Wikipedia -- I haven't reviewed the sources -- is, if the art is sufficient notable -- a short article, a "stub," that simply says what can be verified from reliable sources about the work of art. And it might have the image of the art. The extended analysis by you is inappropriate for Wikipedia, as others have noted. (Note that if the article is deleted, as seems practically certain at this point, it could be closed as snowing Delete given what's there now, you can get a copy of it put in your user space by any admin who provides that service. I don't have the link handy, but ask me, on my Talk, if you need any assistance. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
I have posted a copy of the deleted article to User:Joseph Levi/Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction). --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 14:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)