User talk:Wjenning

Welcome!

Hello, Wjenning, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 07:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Shoup

Hi, I was reviewing your submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paul Shoup, and I noticed your edit summary to the effect that you had paid someone to write notes about a house, and that you were starting the article from those notes. The article looks good, and I would have approved it, but I am concerned about the copyright status of the notes you used to start the article with. Without additional information, it is hard to judge who holds the legal copyright on the notes. What I would suggest, is that you send a letter to the Volunteer Response Team, as outlined at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries, and provide enough information that it is clear you either are the owner of the copyright for the notes, or that you have the authority to license them to Wikipedia as the basis of your submission. Your correspondence will be private, (only members of the team will be able to see it, which is a very small subset of the community, and does not include me) and if it satisfies the reviewer, they will provide a notice that the the copyright issue is resolved. I don't think we can approve your submission until the issue is worked out. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for help to insure no issues with copyright

I appreciate Monte's comments above: this is my first article for Wikipedia, so I am really at a loss how to quickly engage and drive the above concerns to an appropriate conclusion : whatever is fair, right, and legal. Let me give you more information on the starting point for the article. I hired a historical architectural firm to apply for Paul Shoup's house in Los Altos to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The starting point for the article came from that application. I have a email letter out to the architectural firm asking for them to confirm that they release the copyright under a "work-for-hire" concept. I can also point to the application on the california state historic preservation office that has the content within it http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/1067/files/shoup%20house%20nr%20nomination%20draft.pdf ... Does the fact that it's a government form in the public domain mean the work isn't copyrighted anyway?

Also, as an administrative question: what's the best way to ask these kind of questions: do I just post this on my talk page?

Thanks in advance for all the help and support,

Wjenning (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a email letter" granting permission is not good enough; we need explicit permission from the copyright-holder themselves; see WP:DCM.

If you do not understand anything about the process, please use another {{helpme}}. Chzz ► 21:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have email and verbal permission for using Becky Urbano's text: what proof do I need for Wikipedia standards

{{help me}} I have read about copyright for hours now, I have spoken with the original author, I know I have permission for using content: how do I validate that to the standards that Wikipedia rightfully requires?

It's my first article, so I appreciate your patience Wjenning (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Rose-Wilson-Shoup-Plaque.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rose-Wilson-Shoup-Plaque.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Paul Shoup, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Monty ₈₄₅ 16:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I rated it as a B-class as that is the highest rating available without going through the Wikipedia:Good articles process. You may want to consider nominating it there. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Paul Shoup Signature.tiff

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Paul Shoup Signature.tiff. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. mabdul 17:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mabdul, I believe I have corrected the issue - if you see this, and confirm it - would appreciate it. Best Wjenning (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shoup

I saw your question at WP:MCQ; I'm sorry for the confusion, but you're not the only one to be confused by the copyright status of National Register applications. They're definitely a tricky issue — they're hosted on the National Park Service website, and they're produced for governmental purposes, but because they're created by private individuals, they're copyrighted. By getting permission from the copyright holder, you've done the best possible thing, but you'll always need to get permission before copying any wording or images from these applications.

That being said, thank you for helping with the Shoup house article! Maybe you've heard of wikiprojects; they're groups of editors that work together on various topics. I'm a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, where we always appreciate work like you've done with Shoup; if you're interested in doing more work related to the National Register, we'll be happy to have you participate. If you have any questions, be sure to let me know — I'll do my best to help you. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on the article somewhat. Most of my changes were minor style issues; for example, our manual of style says that section headers (the big text that is coded by putting it between equals signs) should be capitalised as if they're at the start of a sentence, and we try to write articles in the past tense. Don't worry — you didn't do anything that will get you in trouble :-) One thing that does need work is the citation formatting: bare links aren't a good idea, since they don't provide enough information; it's best to format a link like I've done with the Shoup Centennial brochure. I can help with the other links, but you'll have to be the one to improve the invitation and Time citations. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, there's a special infobox for National Register-listed places; I've added one to this article. As you may know, Wikipedia has somewhat-strict inclusion criteria, but everything that's listed on the Register qualifies for a Wikipedia article, since the amount of documentation required for Register listing is significantly more than what's required for an article here. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you found what the nrhp_type line in the infobox doesn't do — unfortunately, there's nowhere in the infobox to indicate that the property qualified under Criterion B. I wish that we had such a feature, since it might be useful to be able to mention there why a property is important; however, at the present time you'll have to stick with the bits in the text that identify the Shoup connection as significant. When I write articles for Register-listed places, I'll generally mention something quick in the text about the criterion/criteria: you've definitely done the right thing to remark about it. FYI, the nrhp_type line is to indicate things such as historic district or National Historic Landmark status; you can see ways that it's used by looking at similar infoboxes at Beginning Point of the U.S. Public Land Survey, Bridgewater Historic District (Bridgewater, Pennsylvania), and William B. Dunlap Mansion. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've sorted out what happened just right - I miaread what the infobox meant, and undid it once I researched why it looked wrong when I typed it in. There is a lot to this wikipedia stuff... thank goodness the community is understanding and supportive. Wjenning (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a bit of work on putting the references in the somewhat odd format that WIkipedia uses. One good rule to use is to include all the information you can (title, date, author) so that another editor can verify the information in the source. The article caught my eye because we once lived nearby. The "description" paragraph still seems like almost verbatim from the form, and we are supposed to paraphrase into these articles. I am running out of time this afternoon but it should give you an idea if you havetime to work on it some more. The Paul Shoup article itself needs similar work. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed later today that the "Criteria B" reference was deleted on the house by another editor. I don't know the proper etiquette about this : should I let the edit go, contact the editor that deleted it, or what? You're recommending that we include it (and I thought it made sense: as the key part about the houses NRHP application was about Paul Shoup, not the architecture: especially since all I can not yet confirm who the original architect was on the house). Your advice appreciated. Wjenning (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say perhaps best to restore it but to put it at the end of the article: in general, it's not a good idea to include significant chunks of text in the intro if they're not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Of course, you can ask for input from the other editor (and it would be a good idea if you're wary of causing problems), but it's not absolutely required. Intros are supposed to be short summaries of the rest of the article, so something about its status should be mentioned. As you can see from articles such as Blair-Dunning House, I generally try to say something like "It has been named a historic site" in the intro without giving any details until farther down. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Actually, it likely wouldn't be tedious — templates can have lots of lines that aren't shown every time. Go to Template:Infobox NRHP and look under the "Blank Template With ALL Possible Parameters" header: you'll see lines that aren't on the Shoup House page, including one to designate who the sculptor is. By "adding a line to the template", I meant the idea of adding something to the code, which wouldn't necessarily be reflected on every page — indeed, probably for a long time the only pages affected would be ones created after the infobox was modified. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I conceptually used your referred page as the structure for the new lead in the article. Thank you for that suggestion Wjenning (talk) 22:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your article has been moved to AfC space

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Wjenning/Carl Shoup has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carl Shoup, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

Carl Shoup, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see what needs to be done to bring it to the next level.
Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Mangoe (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ruth Conerly concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ruth Conerly, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]