User talk:Mcadden
| This user is a student editor in Eckerd_College/Global_History_in_a_Modern_World_(Spring_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Mcadden, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Copyright and Wikipedia
[edit]Hi! I saw on this talk page that you wanted to add translated material from a published work. Even if you were to mark this with the source, it would still pose an issue with copyright. The copyright owners hold all rights to the material, which includes how and where it's used. In most cases the material is copyrighted in a way that prohibits it from being freely shared and adapted, which is necessary for it to be used on Wikipedia. You could probably use the book as a source, but the content would need to be written in your own words. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for your input. Is the content still problematic if it is translated and paraphrased? I translated the chapter first, and then wrote the summary based on my own interpretation of it. It is not a direct translation. Any insight would be helpful, thanks! Mcadden (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, that sounds much more promising. It's worth being precise when describing the source of information -- you wrote that
The text I suggested is the translated summary of the first chapter of the book
(which would not be OK) but actually it now sounds as though the text is actually your summary of your translation of the first chapter of the book (which should be OK). A few further points:- Flowery, vague or unnecessarily verbose language is to be avoided; instead focus on facts. For example "As he grew, Túpac Amaru II continued to live in the home where he was born. He enjoyed a playful childhood deeply influenced by his natural surroundings and outgoing persona" is largely fact-free and could be shortened a great deal.
- It's not clear if you intend your suggested addition to supplement the existing material based on U.S. sources, or to replace it. Replacing it would not be an improvement, as we would then be losing facts such as the school he attended and his age when his parents died. English-language sources are not necessarily inferior when covering topics concerning non-English-speaking countries -- one might sometimes find an English-language source managing more detached coverage than a Spanish-language source.
- "Shortly after his birth, Túpac Amaru II was baptized in his home and given the name José Gabriel — inspired by the male protector St. José and Archangel St. Gabriel" -- surely "Túpac Amaru II was baptized as José Gabriel, after Saint Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel" would suffice?
- "Fascinated by..." -- again this section seems to be ascribing thoughts and feelings to the person that may not be well justified by the source. The acceptance of his royal status is already covered in the existing article, although seemingly the assumption of his father's name is not yet explicitly mentioned.
- It's worth asking yourself, which specific facts from your summary of the source should be added to the existing article, and where (i.e. after which sentence?) should each be added? Once that is decided, each could then be added, each followed by an inline citation to the source.
- MPS1992 (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
[edit]
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Túpac Amaru II does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → 
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
That is my mistake. I forgot to fill out an edit summary. Thank you for reaching out! I'll be sure not to miss this step with any future edits. Mcadden (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I wanted to leave you feedback on your version of the article and how to improve it, expanding somewhat more on what MPS1992 left. Sorry that this is all coming a bit after the fact, I was out sick over the weekend and on Monday. I've moved a copy of your work to User:Mcadden/sandbox2 so you can work on this and also so I can give you some overall notes.
- When you moved your work over you ended up deleting content from the page. Always be careful when you add material, as you don't want to remove content accidentally. This can lead to broken sourcing, as well as other formatting errors, among other issues. If you do remove large amounts of content, always explain the reason for removal on the article's talk page. You can leave notes in the edit summary, but a talk page conversation is always best.
- If you're removing content because of a lack of sourcing, use caution when removing material and try to first find sourcing to back up the claims. If you're re-writing all of the content, this is something you can explain in the talk page.
- Be careful of terminology, as there are some words that are OK to use elsewhere that aren't here. You want to avoid using anything that can come across as a personal opinion (unless it's directly attributed to a specific person), as well as anything that could be seen as us interpreting how the person felt about something. The following sentence is an example of this. You used the term "enjoyed" to describe Amaru II's childhood, however we have no way of actually knowing if he enjoyed his childhood or not.
- Túpac Amaru II grew up in the Vilcamayu Valley where he enjoyed a childhood deeply influenced by his natural surroundings and outgoing persona.
- A different way to phrase this would be as follows:
- Túpac Amaru II grew up in the Vilcamayu Valley and frequently accompanied his father to temple and community events such as markets and parades. Historian José Antonio del Busto Duthurburu has stated that as a child Tupac had an outgoing persona and was deeply influenced by his natural surroundings.
- The gist here is that we're putting the emphasis on the historian making the claim. However keep in mind that we should be conscious of how the historians know this. Is this something that is based on written records, oral histories passed down, or is this their own theory? If they're theorizing this, then it's important to take that into perspective when determining what to include and what not to include, as well as how it should be represented. Theories on how a person lived and acted should be added sparingly unless they're widely believed to be true - even then, it's important to specify that this is speculation from historians.
My recommendations would be to work on the draft and then selectively and carefully move edits. Since there is some concern about the additions, I'd definitely bring this up on the article's talk page as well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi! Thank you for your recommendations. I'll be sure to review them and improve my previous work before making any more edits. Mcadden (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)