User talk:Aleskr

Welcome

Hello, Aleskr! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Courcelles 10:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Michael

I have already put the new discussion section. I believe there should be discussion first before just seemed like arbitrarily removing everything Someone edited, I put it back explaining why with factual info each time but no one really discussed. All I got were value judgments/opinions (not the wikipedia info) like that below, which seems more like "warring" mentality to me. My last edit was to correct a url, in case that made a difference. Aleskr (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT the Seattle Times, this is Wikipedia if you forgot it. Twitter is not and won't be a reliable source. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 19:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michael (album). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And before you want your account blocked for edit warring, read WP:RS. Furthermore we do NOT need copyright violations for plagarize their twitter comments. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 20:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." And like I said, it the cases I used, it was just like quoting from the official website of the artist of which I have never seen any "copyright violations" Aleskr (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Non-free content #3a. MINIMAL USE Tbhotch^Talk ^C.+

Like I said, I think it is similar to quoting from an artist's official website. I think that there are different ways to look at this.

Also see WP:UNDUE (give 11kb of what Randy said is a NPOV violation). And stop moving this to many talkpages, involving users than haven't be involved. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was welcome to reducing the number of quotes. I contacted Courcelle who said I could ask for help, the etiquette page to deal with the etiquette issue, and started a discussion section as advised by another user as there was a need for discussion on the Twitter issue. These are all good and reasonable sources of feedback.Aleskr (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please look at WP:RS. Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, AboutUs and the subject's own site(s) are all not considered reliable (for reasons I would have thought obvious...). If this isn't obvious, they can all be edited by the subject or other persons connected to the subject. They are not independent sources. Equally, anyone else's twitter etc is unreliable. Blogs are only accepted if the blogger has an established article here on Wikipedia - and the blog is known to be genuine. (Because it can be edited, Wikipedia itself can't be used as a source on Wikipedia when establishing notability. Reference can be made to some of these as additional info, but not as the primary references to establish that there should be an article, and they are best avoided even then. Peridon (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much the 'secure' aspect as the non-independence. Whose twitter is it? (I doubt it's Michael's - unless he took over Elvis's job at Macdonalds when he retired for the second time...) Wikipedia's policies have evolved by consensus largely, and there are procedures for suggesting changes. How far you'd get is another matter. I don't think you'd get much support amongst the regular editors - the ones who do the work that's not seen by most users. I've no idea what the problem here is - I just stepped in to explain what was and wasn't considered reliable. If you're trying to use 'unreliable' sources to add something, then I'm afraid that (right or wrong) you are on a hiding to nothing. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated, the accounts were verifiable to the nephews and brothers (through Twitter verification & listing on their official sites) of Michael and what THEY were saying, not Michael. I was careful in putting this in my references and in my comments on the edits and talk pages. Yes I understand that there is a general feeling about twitter but I have explained why they may consider changing it.

So it's not a verifiability problem the way you described it. It is very much like just part of one's official website the way it was set up in these cases.

Aleskr (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it IS a Verifiability problem, because WP:TWITTER redirect there. Tbhotch^Talk ^C Happy Thanksgiving. 23:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the verifiability issue being discussed is about the identity of the person the twitter account belongs to, not whether their tweeted opinions are valid. As I've explained above, this was verified in my references. Aleskr (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the problems, regardless if they intended to say what the say or they "control" their accounts, are:

Give to a "Controversy" section (with a header that is unneutral at first place) more WP:WEIGHT of what MJ's family said and not what other people commented. This would not be a problem if a) the sources were reliable (see WP:RS, self-published sources are not reliables as stated before) and b) copyrighted text would not be involved (and having 5-11KB of it is a serious problem). Those are the maojr problems independently if it's a WP:V issue. Tbhotch^Talk ^C Happy Thanksgiving. 23:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, a self-published source can be used if you are getting quotes from the person, for them to share their opinions and information. You are getting these quotes from the source directly, like from their official website. You are getting exactly what they said, NOT evaluating what they said. As I said before, I was open to reducing the number of quotes. But as I was posting, I did not get a chance as it was just deleted. (Even if it was just one quote from one person). It is also a matter of the technology that currently you cannot link to more than one twitter post, so quotes get broken up in a few different links. And search and archiving may not be as well-developed for twitter, yet. (Those were my concerns). But the issue is not that is "self-published", as long as you identify that this is a quote from a person and that it is from their personal website/twitter/blog/emails, etc., it is fair (and I was able to link to the posts too). You can then add other info to support or question what they say, especially as other users come across the article with more info and time.Aleskr (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I see, you are choosing to WP:IGNORE the WP:SPS rule, in which you have a point, but you are not ignoring the ruleWP:WEIGHT. Their commentaries would be added while they are really short like "RJ said that "x x x x x", and later added "x x x x x"", meawhile TJ commented "x x x x" (all sourced with a reliable source, not Twitter (e.g. The Seattle Times used their tweets, TST is reliable, it can be used as refs 3 and 4 in this article) and that's all no more. Left the negative views to upcoming music critiques instead. Tbhotch^Talk ^C Happy Thanksgiving. 00:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Hillel of Greater Toronto

The article Hillel of Greater Toronto has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable campus organization, see Northeastern University Hillel

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]