User talk:Tmchale

Please do not copy and paste items from other sources into Wikipedia.

In particular this one:

http://static.hcrhs.k12.nj.us/gems/americanstudies/TWCwikimodelprocess.doc

Thank you.

--Stbalbach 03:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I wrote this in a word document. I'm just copying it from where my classroom blog where I uploaded it. I'm a teacher and I've been working for hours on this in preparation for class tomorrow. My students are putting together this site as a community of collaborative writers. Please don't make me do this all over again.—This unsigned comment was added by Tmchale (talk • contribs) .

Ok if you wrote it that is ok, I will restore the page. There are some things that need to be changed to conform to wikipedia standards. -- Stbalbach 03:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travels With Charley: In Search of America

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate your contributions to the Travels With Charley: In Search of America] article, but we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words. For more information, take a look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But these ARE my own words! Am I talking to someone or is this an automated message? I'm attempting to use this site for educational purposes and to build a page that others can edit and benefit from. This is all original content other than a couple of pictures. I will gladly remove those if you will let me continue to build the site. Thanks Tmchale

No, not automated. But it does not meet the WP:V and WP:NOT standards for inclusion in wikipedia. Sorry. Please do not add it in again. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought

Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses. Please leave the following out of Wikipedia:

1. Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. See Wikipedia:No original research. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in other venues such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, or respected online sites. Wikipedia will report about your work once it becomes part of accepted human knowledge. Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not merely the editor's opinion. 2. Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. 3. Critical reviews. Biographies and articles about art works are supposed to be encyclopedia articles. Of course, critical analysis of art is welcome, if grounded in direct observations of outside parties. See No 5 below. See also Writing guide: check your fiction. 4. Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge. See Wikipedia:No original research. In the unusual situation where the opinions of a single individual are important enough to discuss, it is preferable to let other people write about them. Personal essays on topics relating to Wikipedia are welcome at Meta. There is a Wikipedia fork at Wikinfo that encourages personal opinions in articles. 5. Opinions on current affairs is a particular case of the previous item. Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. 6. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate.

from WP:NOT ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I think what we are trying to do meets your criteria. Most of it is summaries of the book with links to researched articles (most of which is on Wikipedia). Would it help if I took out the Reading Discussion questions? I was going to use these for class tomorrow, but I can delete them and work with them in another way. The rest of the content is the observations of a community of readers (teachers and high school students). It is not literary analysis as this is a nonfiction piece, but a summary of Steinbeck's main points about America. Would it be alright if I continue?

In my opinion, this is a perfect text for Wikibooks. Wikibooks was set up specifically for study guides and teaching materials. I think what you've written is excellent, just not "encyclopedic". -- Stbalbach 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in here:

I also agree that the material, in its present form, is not really suitable for an encyclopedia: it looks like a glorified plot summary, and if there's one thing my 10th grade English teacher taught me, overly lengthy plot summary isn't a substitute for a real book report.

Bear in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, a digest of information, a presenter of the basic information on subjects. Don't mistake the map for the territory, as someone once said. --Calton | Talk 04:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of Mice and Men

Here is the Wikibooks entry for Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. --Stbalbach 04:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But are nonfiction books covered differently? Steinbeck's Travels with Charley is the account of his journey in search of how America has changed in the 25 years before 1960. I teach an American Studies course (history and English) and we are using it as an examination of the culture and attitude of the country in this time period. In this way the summary and links work well. Students and others can use the information to gain an understanding of the country and draw their own conclusions or use it to do more research. Isn't that presenting 'basic information'? -Tmchale

Wikibooks is for anything, I picked Mice because it's Steinbeck, but there are other examples including history. You can link to Wikipedia articles from Wikibooks (example [[:w:Of Mice and Men|Of Mice and Men]] would link to the Wikipedia Mice and Men article); and you can copy the Wikipedia summary into Wikibooks. So there's nothing different between the two in functionality. Wikibooks would give you a lot more room to expand and do whatever you want in terms of a classroom/educational setting (study questions, etc). If you then want to par it down, into a factual summary, and re-copy back to Wikipedia you could do that also. -- Stbalbach 04:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to copy what you've written before over to Wikibooks so you can see what it looks like to get started? --Stbalbach 04:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I just tried it, but all the links and images are gone. Maybe I'm missing something. Is there something we can get up and running quickly even if it's just left up for 24 hours? Please? -Tmchale

Ok see wikibooks:Travels With Charley: In Search of America - I edited the first paragraph (Summaries: Part 1 ) to show how the link syntax works, the rest will need to be edited. I can't guarantee all the images will work though, if the images are hosted on Wikicommons it will work, if they are hosted on Wikipedia, you'd need to download the image from wikipedia, then re-upload to Wikicommons before they would show up (the Donna 1960 image for example is on Wikicommons and so works). -- Stbalbach 05:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but all my research links are gone! My students spent hours researching (using Wikipedia). Why don't they transfer to Wikibooks? Is there an easy way to restore them?

You mean all the links are now red instead of blue? See the first section, "Summaries: Part 1" - edit that section and notice how the links are created. You'll need to go back through the rest of the article and do the same. -- Stbalbach 05:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Thanks (I think)[reply]

Wyndham Lewis article

Why have you replaced the photograph of Wyndham Lewis in 1916 with one of Sinclair Lewis? Please revert to the correct, previous photo. I'm afraid I don't have the technical knowledge to do so myself.195.137.62.56 20:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:NiagaraFalls.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NiagaraFalls.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigDT 01:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1950s toy.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:1950s toy.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Slewis.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Slewis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Lakeride.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lakeride.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Image:Muir-woods-redwood-tree-1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Muir-woods-redwood-tree-1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.