User talk:Millstonelane
Hi Millstonelane, I see you've deleted quite a bit of the work I did on Alice Starmore, including cited materials and their references, as well as the fair-use book image. The Library Journal source for example is quiet, serious and reliable, so I am not sure of the grounds for removal?
I'd point out that without sources independent of the author, the article will fail Wikipedia's WP:Notability test; the function of a 'Reception' section is not only to inform readers but to demonstrate the range of reliable sources that have noted and in effect established the subject. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thank-you for your comments and questions. I removed materials and references that are untruthful and which violate Wikipedia rules concerning entries for living persons. I note that you have reinstated them.
"The Library Journal source for example is quiet, serious and reliable, so I am not sure of the grounds for removal?"
This source states that Alice Starmore (AS) is "withdrawn": an adjective meaning a detached, introverted and uncommunicative persona. This statement is false, defamatory and possibly libellous, given that a significant proportion of the subject's career involves, and always has involved, engaging with the public, locally, nationally and internationally. This can be easily verified as AS makes frequent public appearances in person and on radio and television, to textile and environmental audiences. At the time when the Library Journal statement was published, AS was employed by RSPB (the UK's largest charity with over 2 million members) as their public face in the north-west of Scotland. The Library Journal statement is demonstrably false and the source is therefore seriously unreliable, which is the reason why I removed it.
The source of the Library Journal's false statement is the book by A. Martini, which is being cynically advertised on the AS Wikipedia page. This book is an unreliable source on many levels. It states, both in the text and on the cover, that AS is "reclusive". The author states in a promotional video that AS is "some kinda recluse" and cites the fact that AS lives on a Scottish island as proof of this. These statements display a profound lack of knowledge of both AS and Scottish geography, and prove that no meaningful research was done by the author. AS does indeed still reside on the island she was born on, along with 22,000 other people, and that island is just one hour by plane away from Glasgow and two hours away from London. If Martini had even done a bare minimum of research then she would have known of AS's above-mentioned employment by RSPB, which took place from 2005 to 2010 and involved numerous public speaking engagements and a highly-publicised Public Enquiry instigated by the Scottish Government. Martini's statement is demonstrably false (and, as with the Library Journal statement, also defamatory and possibly libellous), which is one of the reasons why I removed the reference to her book. Another compelling reason is Martini's constant theme, based on no offered evidence, that AS is dangerously fond of taking legal action. As a highly successful designer, it is probable that AS has had to have C & D notices issued on her behalf, but I believe I am correct in saying that she has never instigated actual court proceedings against anyone, anywhere. Martini does not cite any such court cases. References to AS in her book are based on hearsay, gossip and speculation rather than any real research. The book has no place in a serious reference that purports to be factual, and I do wonder why you are such a champion of it.
"as well as the fair-use book image"
I deleted this as it directly links to an advert for a commercial yarn company, unrelated to AS. This is cynical advertising in violation of Wikipedia rules. The image could have been requested from the publisher.
I note that you changed a statement "she markets her yarns" to "she marketed her yarns". Why this change of tense? Why do you wish to imply that AS is no longer in business when she demonstrably and publicly is in business? Do you have a commercial agendum here? I look forward to your explanation for reinstating the references containing falsehoods as described above. With regards and thanks for your attention Millstonelane (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed replies. Let me try to respond briefly to your main concerns, and my apologies if I miss anything.
Firstly, please note that Wikipedia articles do not belong to me, you, or anyone but to the whole community, and we are all bound by the same policies, summarized at WP:PILLARS. I have no axe to grind on this matter, and in the awful Wikipedia jargon I hope you also will "assume good faith" about both me (only recently involved in this article) and all other editors. In particular may I remind you that any implication of bad faith on the part of any other editor is to be avoided scrupulously (WP:CIVIL). I am however happy to assure you that I am no champion of any particular cause here, and have no conflict of interest or links with any of the parties or sources named in the article. Sorry to mention so many policies, it isn't my preferred approach.
Secondly, deleted text reappeared because recent deletions were reverted. We are entirely free to discuss and if need be to modify the text. I've reinstated the present tense "markets" for now, though I'd caution that anything in Wikipedia with an implied "now" is generally deprecated as it can go out of date, making the encyclopedia even harder to keep in an accurate state. What we usually do is to name a date when possible and then to use the past tense, as in "In 2001 Bloggs started her ink marketing business." If you know the date that Starmore started to market yarn, that would be a useful fact to add to the article.
The quote from the Library Journal does not and did not include the negative claims that you mention above; nor does the use of a thumbnail image of the book cover imply that Wikipedia has studied or endorsed the book's contents. I simply found a review of the book while searching (quite hard) for materials that could be used to establish the notability of the subject, with which I was not familiar. The use of a brief cited quotation from a published book review does not imply that any editor endorses the review, and a fortiori does not say anything about the reviewed book. Wikipedia simply requires editors to cite their sources, which must themselves be considered generally reliable, and when quoting reviews to make it clear what is being quoted, where it came from and if possible who wrote it. The three items that are listed in 'Reception' show different, nuanced positions on Starmore's work and I'd say are not at all unfavourable, actually.
On the question of fair use (sorry, another policy) Wikipedia is extremely strict, believe me. We've all had materials we much wanted to use denied for various reasons. I can assure you we try really hard to find free images. In the case of a living person such as Starmore, we have to be even more careful than usual - essentially I could only use a photo of her if I'd taken one myself in a public place, or if a photographer had posted one on Flickr or Wikimedia Commons with a free license. In this case the book's cover gives a lively idea of Starmore's creativity and work, and the image size used is no more than is routinely used by booksellers and websites to market the book. By the way, getting a limited permission (rather than a free license) from a publisher wouldn't help as far as Wikipedia is concerned, as the image would remain non-free.
I hope this helps a little. If you know of published sources that we could use to improve the article, or of relevant free images, I'd be pleased to hear of them. all the best Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Chiswick Chap. Thank-you for your reply.
“... my apologies if I miss anything.”
Your apologies are accepted, although you failed to address the detailed central point I made regarding the demonstrable untruths in the Martini book.
“... I hope you also will “assume good faith” ...”
I assume good faith until I observe facts that prove the contrary.
“... may I remind you that any implication of bad faith on the part of any other editor is to be avoided scrupulously ...”
I note and respect your comment but the asking of reasonable questions cannot be construed as an implication of bad faith, and your actions have raised questions in my mind. You state in your reply above that you were not familiar with the subject of AS. In which case, why your sudden interest in her in July 2012? It raises the legitimate questions of what sparked this interest and was it on your own behalf or on behalf of any other party? I ask this as a diligent seeker after knowledge and not by way of any implication. Speaking personally I would not have the hubris to edit or comment on a subject with which I am not familiar. My interest in this particular subject is backed by direct knowledge of it, as I have seen, heard and enjoyed AS speaking on five occasions:
(1) 13th May 2008, Stornoway. Scottish Government Public Enquiry Reference Number IEC/3/134 into the proposed Muaitheabhal Windfarm. She eloquently delivered evidence to a packed enquiry room on the likely social and environmental effects of the proposed scheme.
(2) 11th September 2009, Royal Horticultural Halls, London. I-Knit event. A very lively knitting lecture.
(3) October 2009, Strathpeffer Pavilion, Ross & Cromarty, RSPB event. An inspiring talk on reconnecting people with the natural world.
(4) 10th September 2010, Royal Horticultural Halls, London. I-Knit event. Another lively lecture and Q&A session.
(5) 3rd July 2011, BBC Television’s “Coast” programme, broadcast nationally on BBC2. Interviewed by Nick Crane on the subject of natural dyeing.
These are the occasions on which I have personally witnessed AS’s skills as a witty, passionate and engaging public speaker with a deep knowledge of her subject matter. There are many more such occasions that I have not attended but have read reports of. Most recently for example, Vogue Knitting Live, New York City, last January; Interweave Knitting Lab, San Mateo CA November 2011. Over the course of the past 30 years, thousands of people in lectures and workshops across the world must have shared my experience of AS as an expert communicator, and not the social inadequate that Martini portrays. What Martini and the Library Journal state about AS’s reclusive and withdrawn character is the diametric opposite of the truth and constitutes a direct, unfounded attack on what the woman actually is and does. Such attacks have no place on Wikipedia, or any other pages.
“The quote from the Library Journal does not and did not include the negative claims that you mention above ...”
Yes it does. It is there in print on the screen, in the first sentence, accessible via the AS Wikipedia page. Are you asking me to deny the evidence of my own eyes?
In view of the foregoing, I believe I have full justification in removing from the AS page any references to, or involving, untruths, gossip or speculation.
Finally, the company from which you have obtained the book image has no ownership of, or rights to, the image and therefore cannot give any permission regarding its use. Regarding “fair use”, this can only take place if the reproduction is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage. Permission is required when the material is used for commercial purpose. The direct link through the image to a commercial yarn company is in breach of fair use, and therefore an infringement of copyright. I believe there may be further implications, in that the business advertised through the link is in direct competition with the subject’s own business.
With thanks once more for your attention, Millstonelane (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. By "quote" I mean simply "that which appeared in the WP article", which is the two words "famously difficult", which are correctly cited. Did any other words from Library Journal appear in earlier versions of the article? We can check but I haven't found any, and that is all meant.
The image is included with absolutely no commercial intention - I inserted it, and I have precisely no commercial or other advantage to gain from its insertion.
I have tried to cast my mind back to how I came across the article in July. It may actually have been at random; the point is simply that any editor may edit any article, and I have tried to do nothing more than make the article clear, informative and accurate, which I believe it now is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Millstonelane, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Millstonelane! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Image on Alice Starmore
[edit]Millstonelane, the image is absolutely not being used as an advertisement. I am not an employee of a publishing house and the image has a proper fair use rationale. Please do not edit the article without agreement. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Click on the image and you are immediately directed to the URL of a commercial yarn company in Shetland, UK. This is expressly forbidden in the very strict limitations of "fair use" in US copyright law. The company is also a competitor in the business sphere in which AS is engaged, and in which her name is a registered trademark (Class 23 Yarns & threads for textile use). This is not a matter of your employment, about which I raise no issues or implications; it is a matter of what you are facilitating through Wikipedia. Have you not thought to contact the copyright owner (AS, whose contact details are available on her own commercial website) in order to request permission for a book cover image? Regards Millstonelane (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Millstonelane, the source of the image is required as part of the non-free use rationale for every image. An NFUR summary is not an advertisement. Clicking on the image shows the "File:" page, which contains the summary, so it isn't even true that clicking on the image takes you straight to any external site.
We have already discussed the possible value of contacting AS. Since the book's cover is copyright (for 100 years after AS's death) as an already-published item, whether it belongs to her or as would be usual to her publisher, it would not be possible for her to provide a genuinely free license with no restrictions. If you visit Commons you'll see that partially-free licenses are not permitted there (it has to be CC-by-SA). That brings us back to the alternative which is a small image with a proper non-free usage rationale, which is what we have here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
- The current copyright status on the file (as seen at the file's page) is copyrighted, however it may be used on the English Wikipedia to illustrate the subject in question, as well as if there is no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Assuming she wrote the book, and as long as this is the only available image, and the file keeps the same licensing status, it may be used in the article. — JJJ (say hello) 14:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Many thanks to you both for the information, which I unfortunately do not completely understand. Can you explain more clearly why the commercial yarn company in Shetland, J&S, are (according to you) the sole possible source of the image? The results of my enquiries show that J&S own no rights to the image whatsoever and are not in any position to grant any licence for its use. They simply retail the book, in common with many other vendors around the world. Thanks for your time. Millstonelane (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- No assertion of ownership has been made, simply that that was the place where the image was downloaded from. We have been talking at cross purposes because you have been assuming that the image/NFUR page does anything at all to endorse, agree with, disagree with, or otherwise say anything other than describe how the image came to be on Wikipedia. We are simply not concerned with whatever naughty things people may have got up to on the Internet or elsewhere in the world. We are not asserting that the image could be found nowhere else, just that we actually happened to find a usable copy in that place. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)