User talk:Kodakblues

June 2023

Hello, I'm Actualcpscm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - could you please help me rewrite it as someone keeps on vandalising the facts - all the citations are from newspapers. I've tried to add proper links for some of the people who had no citations as well and added local groups. Kodakblues (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your interest in contributing in a helpful way; it is very much appreciated. I'd be happy to help you with this article. I would suggest you start by reading some of the material for newcomers: HELP:PG is an introduction to the policies and guidelines, and WP:REFB has some more detailed information about referencing for beginners. If you're looking for a more interactive way to learn about editing Wikipedia, WP:TWA is also great.

Wikipedia really only has 5 super-strict rules, the five pillars.

You can ask questions at the teahouse (WP:TH), or just reply to this and I should see it relatively quickly. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - will try again - I understand so I've removed the promotional material and lweb inks to the private Harrow School and the other individuals being promoted. Kodakblues (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want, you can write a draft in your sandbox (go ahead and create that page, it exists for testing stuff), and I'll look over it and provide some feedback. That might make it easier for you to understand what I'm referring to with my comments and replies :) Actualcpscm (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - in the meantime we should remove the church and school as well as there are no verifiable citations for them. The problem here is that all the citations that directly linked to the loving person were removed, such as the BBC link. How are people supposed to find out about a small community choir or a park charity that only has it's own website - most people look at Wikipedia about local areas to find out more if all links are removed. Kodakblues (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This is wrong - you have removed all the citations and facts for all the poets like Tim Dooley and removed all the British Asian artists added. Not ok. You have removed the charity that exists in West Harrow that pioneered work and has had independent newspaper articles. You have removed all the park information! Does this mean we should all remove any mention of people on generic borough information such as the famous people born in London? thanks Kodakblues (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

One of the most important policies on Wikipedia is verifiability. All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, which usually means attributing it to reliable sources. You can read more about reliable sources at WP:RS.

Yes, I removed a lot of information from that article, primarily due to a lack of verifiability. For example, the information about the park(s) was completely unsourced.

Regarding information about artists, some of which you had added, none of it was sufficiently well-sourced. Wikipedia has high standards for what constitutes a reliable source; personal blogs don't count, for example. Information about living persons needs to follow a higher-yet standard of sourcing, found at WP:BLP. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Logically then, the church should be removed and the school as they do not have citations or verifiable sources - no links whatsoever. All the artist links were citations from verifiable newspaper articles, the BBC, The Tate Gallery, publishing houses etc, and local groups had links to their own websites not personal blogs. I would suggest then all details of all arts groups and 'famous people' mentioned in generic "area pages" be removed. Kodakblues (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll address these concerns one by one.

First, yes, since the article has almost no sources, almost all of it could be removed. If you want, you can go ahead and do that; it wouldn't be wrong. Good catch!

The reason I didn't is twofold: I have less doubt in those claims, because they don't serve anyone's interests, and I would expect to find sources about basic features like a church. That's part of my experience: with localities (be it villages, comunes, etc), there is usually sourcing for very basic claims available out there.

Sometimes, when content isn't problematic for any specific reason (like promotion), it can be better to tag it with a notice that lets readers and editors know about the problem, rather than outright removing it. You'll see I added multiple inline tags stating "Citation needed", as well as an article tag that advised readers and editors that more sources are needed. Which of these is the better option depends a lot on the situation, and you'll get a feel for it as you edit more.

About the links you provided re. the artists: I'm going to go through them in detail, something called a source evaluation ("source eval", "ref eval", etc.); that way, we can figure out what these sources provide and what might be some problems with them. Again, the basic reference for this evaluation is WP:RS. I'll be back with the eval momentarily. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The source evaluation is here, in my sandbox: User:Actualcpscm/sandbox. Feel free to ask any questions! Actualcpscm (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to explain - that makes sense about schools etc. but it would be still be good to prove they exist there with proper citations as anyone could write anything otherwise - it's no different to claiming a building like a gallery or studio is there. I am not even sure that pic of the church should be there as it doesn't look like the actual one. In any case, Harrow School had to be removed as it was just self promotion and a link to their site only. It would be nice to inform people of the diverse history of this little NW London suburb in zone 5 which is much maligned for not have any culture etc. Checking out the sandbox now. Kodakblues (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Any time! I understand that Wikipedia's jungle of policies and guidelines can be hard to navigate, and I'm always happy to help :)

I'll take a look at the rest of the article and try to find some reliable sources on this matter.

Note that my sandbox is full of random stuff (below the table); you can just ignore that. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Just replying back to the link: https://fortnightlyreview.co.uk/2019/03/boy/ It does seem to be an online literary journal with many different writers and editors rather than just a self published site. Kodakblues (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick note: it calls itself an "independent publishing venture" and an "editorial experiment" here. Although it does list "editors" here, it makes no mention of editorial practices or fact-checking standards. Their submission guidelines here state "readability trumps [citing sources]". There is no mention of fact-checking. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Got it - thanks Kodakblues (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This makes sense - thanks, but it means that it's going to be difficult to update and share information about people, groups, histories etc. I suppose I am trying to promote this forgotten place as somewhere that does have an interesting community and exciting things rather than just the way it's portrayed as somewhere that is just the private school and rich people! Kodakblues (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that this can be frustrating. These policies are in place to ensure that information on Wikipedia is accurate and verifiable, which unfortunately means a lot of true but unverifiable information cannot be on Wikipedia.

You mention that you are "here to promote this place"; please be aware that this is likely the wrong approach to editing, and it might not get you very far. I wrote an essay about editing workflows which might apply to this situation. You can find it at WP:RTW, but be aware that this is just my personal opinion / advice and not an official policy or guideline.

If you have a conflict of interest, or you're being paid to edit, you are subject to additional policies and guidelines: WP:COI and WP:PAID, respectively. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Promote was the wrong word to use. Trying to share information that is relevant to the place. Not being paid, and new to all of this, just an unhappy local that wants to celebrate the people that make the effort in the area to make a better place. Had plans to include all the local groups and charities that work hard here but it looks unlikely that I will be able to if their own websites can't be used to highlight their work not newspaper articles. Thanks for your time. Kodakblues (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries! It's great that you're trying to improve coverage of this place; almost all editors start with a topic that they are already closely familiar with. Maybe there is something else you're passionate about that you could write about on Wikipedia? Actualcpscm (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Will practice rewriting and using more factual language. So for example, if I was to write: Tim Dooley had a poetry recital at the Harrow studio in 2013 and could give a link to a newspaper article about it that had a review, would this be ok? Kodakblues (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but it depends on the newspaper. For many of the bigger ones, there is an established consensus regarding reliability; you can find a list at WP:RSPSS. Don't worry if your source is not on that list, it is by no means comprehensive or intended to one day be comprehensive. Could you point me to that article? Actualcpscm (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That was just hypothetical as there is a event coming up. But It's local papers online, such as The Watford Observer, The Harrow Times, Harrow Online. Such as this and then to highlight the local artist: https://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/15323007.harrow-open-studios-marks-10-years-with-displays-in-harrow-on-the-hill-stanmore-kenton-and-hatch-end/ Kodakblues (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

That looks good. You can read more about this kind of source at WP:NEWSORG.

When you're writing article content, make sure to focus on facts, reporting them neutrally (WP:NPOV). Opinions or judgements will need to be attributed and should not outweigh factual content.

Also, if you have any questions or concerns relating to editing on Wikipedia, feel free to reach out to me. If I don't respond, try mentioning me by including "[[User:Actualcpscm|Actualcpscm]]" in your message. Happy editing! Actualcpscm (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help and advice, and the offer of asking questions. Kodakblues (talk) 19:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)