User talk:Kjohns33
|
July 2009
[edit]
Your recent addition to Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Katr67 (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit]Thank you for your attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, you were copying and pasting material into the existing article. Although I believe material from the FWS is not subject to copyright, it is preferred that you rewrite it in your own words, especially because it does not always adhere to our neutral point-of-view policy and more importantly, because you copied and pasted over the existing article, in the process removing the existing interwiki links, references, etc. Please work with the material that is already in the article, and rewrite info from the FWS in your own words. If you need help, ask on the article's talk page. Thanks! Katr67 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Katr67. This change to Three Arch Rocks National Wildlife Refuge I'm about to revert because it destroyed the most basic of article formatting: begin by telling what the article is about in the most general terms briefly, then working down to details. Your flowery opening (massive silhouette encircled by ocean, which transports your imagination to times past) is the stuff of marketing brochures, not an encyclopedia. See the Your first article link above. —EncMstr (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Again, please stop copying and pasting material into NWR articles as you did with Three Arch Rocks National Wildlife Refuge from http://www.fws.gov/oregoncoast/3archrocks/. Katr67 (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please do not use styles that are unusual or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. There is a Manual of Style that should be followed. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Oregon Islands National Wildlife Refuge, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Katr67 (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Please respond!
[edit]Hi -- I'm just noticing your additions, and the repeated attempts by other Wikipedia editors to engage with you. Please respond! We'd love to help you get accustomed to contributing here, but as it is, you're violating too many policies and guidelines -- what you're currently doing will lead to you getting blocked from editing, which is not what anybody wants.
In this edit, you added a lot of information, but only one citation. This is not exactly a violation of policy, but it would be a whole lot better if you included more citations. (Don't worry too much about the formatting, we can help you with that.)
But please -- we're here to help, but we can only help if you respond to our messages! -Pete (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi
[edit]Hi KJohns -- glad to hear from you, and it's great to know the Fish & Wildlife Service is devoting some resources to helping build Wikipedia! There is lots to learn about our editing process, and I know it can be a bit intimidating for new contributors. In your case, you're fortunate -- the FWS has you adding its own work to Wikipedia. With most employers, this would be a very thorny area, because Wikipedia cannot republish copyrighted material; but as a Federal agency, the material FWS produces is in the public domain, which will save you some frustration.
The one thing that I'd say is most important for you to read up on is our approach to citations. You don't necessarily have to read that whole page, but you should at least skim over it. As you're editing, be sure to add citations to your contributions, and be careful not to delete existing content -- especially content that is already cited, as that is generally considered the most valuable content on our site.
Of course there are exceptions where it's good to remove content, but as a basic rule of thumb, that ought to get you started. Feel free let me know if you have more questions as you go along!
Oh, and one other thing...you might enjoy poking through the archives of our blog -- it's oriented mostly at first-time Wikipedia contributors, and may have some helpful information.
Happy editing! -Pete (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
p.s. This "talk page" is yours to do as you see fit. So if you'd like to delete all the warnings and such above, feel free -- you've read them, they've served their purpose :)
- Yes, hello and thanks for communicating with us. As far as copying material from your agency's website without "getting in trouble", I'd also like to add that I would really urge you to try to rewrite the material in your own words. At least the parts that do not show a neutral point-of-view. That is to say, any adjectives that describe a site as "beautiful", or, as mentioned above, that reads like a travel and tourism brochure. You might want to read What Wikipedia is Not--Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and should not simply be a mirror of the FWS' website, nor is it a travel and tourism brochure, nor should it be used to "promote" wildlife areas (it should merely describe them). Sorry for all the warnings, but we really did need you to stop and think about what you were doing. Although you are getting "paid" (I assume your internship is unpaid) by the FWS, you can't simply ignore Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It would help if you would clue your supervisors in to this discussion, so future interns don't run into the same problem. Please also check out the below template for more information about conflict of interest. You might also urge your higher-ups to read our business FAQ. Good luck! (Oh and P.S. Though you're free to delete the warnings, sometimes it's a good idea to archive your pages instead.)
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)