Jump to content

User talk:OA17151104

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello, OA17151104, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, visit the Teahouse, 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! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jim. Please understand that I am brand new to this. Also please understand that the references are not the way I wanted--I wanted them to be more granular--but I don't know (being new) how to do references in this system. Help would be welcome. Right now, I am a bit baffled by how to do things here. As for COI, I am a volunteer at the museum at Camp Manatoc. I am not sure how that is a conflict. I am trying to learn more of the local history having relocated to the Akron area a year ago. I hoped there would be a Wiki page that would help. When there wasn't one, I thought I would try to make one. Being retired, it seemed like a good activity. I have written thousands of pages (really!) of technical documentation during my software career. This first step was me trying to figure out what I was doing in a new system. I had developed a first draft outside of Wikipedia, which I pasted in. I see there are reservations about the Weyrick books. He actually wrote 5 volumes. They are the primary source of info on the camp, council, and Karl Butler. Thanks for any help! Warren OA17151104 (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that you don't have a significant COI. Please have a look at the discussion on my talk page regarding this topic. I'm minded to restore the draft for improvement, but I'll post some guidance here later today before I do that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Jim, for the helpful and constructive feedback! I will work on it today. Your feedback is much appreciated! Warren OA17151104 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More

[edit]

When you write about a person,

  • you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
  • Everything you write should have an in-line reference to verify it. The Weyrick books will do, but you need to give the books' isbns, the relevant page number(s) to confirm your claims, and format as publications. As per the discussion on my talk, it will help if you can find other sources such as newspaper coverage.
  • You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
  • Your text isn't dreadful, but claims like He was a successful businessman... are opinions.
  • There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
  • You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
  • Your text contains unreferenced quotations, which are copyright violations, you must give the attribution.

Have a look at Emma Louisa Turner. You don't need anything as extensive or detailed as that, but it will show how references should appear in the text, the "References" section, and the "Cited texts".

@Tavantius: has made constructive comments on my talk page too. I've restored the draft at Draft:H Karl Butler Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Jim! I have entered a new draft. I think you will agree that it is better than the first draft. Again, I appreciate your help, and thanks in advance for any more constructive feedback. Regards, Warren OA17151104 (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are up to. I restored the draft at Draft:H Karl Butler, but you seem to have created a new on at the bizzare title Template:EngvarB/sandbox. It will have to be deleted, but I'll hold off for a bit so you can transfer your references to the coreectly named page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I am not "up to" anything. I am trying to figure out how to work in this system. It was not obvious to me how to edit the old version. I went into the playpen, started using the article you referred me to as a model, and tried to adapt my draft. I don't know how to set the name. I think I have references figured out now. You can correct me if I am wrong. Then I hit publish. I will see if I can figure out how to access and update the old one later today. Thanks, and sorry if I am not doing this right. It's my first time. Warren OA17151104 (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry if I was a bit brusque. The article must be at Draft:H Karl Butler. All you need to do is to copy your references, which look OK, across to the equivalent place in that version, I have't changed the text much. When you have done that, let me know, and if it hasn't been reviewed by then, it will have a decent chance of being accepted. I'll then deleted the Template version, since it's not a template. Incidentally, I won't necessarily know you have posted here unless you start the message with my user name User:Jimfbleak and sign your post in the same edit. I'm only seeing these messages because I'm interested in the topic and keep comong back to check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I'll just move your version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, your book refs need to be formatted as such and include isbns. Your other refs need the publisher of the page added eg Scouting America Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jimfbleak Thanks, Jim! I appreciate your help and guidance. I have lots of experience with markup languages and systems, just not this markup language and system. I will work on it a bit later. Those Weyrick books are self-published. Unfortunately, there are no ISBNs. The author is the local authority on the history, and he has done a ton of research, but his work being so esoteric would likely not be of interest to a "real" publisher. Thanks again for helping me with this! Karl Butler was an amazing man who accomplished a lot overcoming severe handicaps. I am happy to get his story in a prominent place like Wikipedia. 204.156.199.194 (talk) 12:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jimfbleak
Thanks again, Jim, for your help. Please see if the references are correctly formatted now.
Warren
OA17151104 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better now, just need to wait for a reviewer to pick it up now. If you were trying to ping me, you need to link to my username, User:Jimfbleak or ping me with {{ping|Jimfbleak}} (as you see it now}}, either way you should see a link, not just text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks, Jim! Sorry I was so slow in figuring some of this out. I also keep forgetting to thank you for adding the picture of the stone memorial in the camp. I assumed (incorrectly I see now) that you are a reviewer. Out of curiosity--you mentioned being interested in my post--what is it about this post that piqued your interest? Whatever the reason, I appreciate your help and guidance! Regards, Warren OA17151104 (talk) 11:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I could, I rarely review drafts, and my involvement in this would make it problematic anyway. I've never been a scout, but my girls were both involved when younger in the UK female equivalent, and I have some awareness of the origins of scouting here, just interested in seeing some of the early days of scouting in the US. If you could find a decent photograph of him, it might well be out of copyright and usable here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks, Jim. I am recovering from covid, so I can't go to the museum this weekend, but I will eventually get a picture of him from there or from Weyrick. There is at least one good head shot, but I think I would prefer a photo that more clearly shows the handicaps with which that poor man had to contend. Regards, Warren OA17151104 (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Hi Jim, David Weyrick sent me a good image of a picture of Karl Butler that we have in the museum along with two other individuals. This image is not in his books. I need to go to the museum tomorrow to ensure I get the caption right. Given that Butler died in 1926 and is much younger in the picture than he was when he died, should I use the tag {{PD-old-100}}? Weyrick has assured me that there are no copyright issues with the image, but I need to ensure that I designate that properly. Thanks again for all of your help! Warren OA17151104 (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright belongs to the photographer, but if the date it was published in the US is more than 100 years ago, that should be OK, obviously it would help if you can pin down the actual date of his age Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Hi Jim, I added the file:
File:Merrill Butler (l), H. Karl Butler (c), and David Atwater (r) (circa 1923).jpg - Wikipedia
(which for some reason does not paste as a url). I added it to the article with a reference. I could not figure out a tag-based reference, so I just put in words. Maybe I don't need that at all? As usual, I am struggling when I try to do new things.
Thanks!
Warren OA17151104 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you don't need a ref, but the image page needs the original source added, book, photograph or whatever, your phote of the image clearly isn't the actual source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks, Jim. Is it better now? File:Merrill Butler (l), H. Karl Butler (c), and David Atwater (r) (circa 1923).jpg - Wikipedia Regards, Warren OA17151104 (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
it looks as if your out of copyright hasn't been accepted, but the fair-use posted instead serves the same purpose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: Thanks again, Jim. I find these instructions difficult to follow. I created a license tag and put it in with the image. The instructions say what to do but not where to do it. At any rate, did, did I do this remotely right? It does not link to the article. Perhaps because it is still a draft? I noticed the photo was removed from the article. Can I put it back in? As always, I am grateful for your help. Regards, Warren OA17151104 (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

[edit]

Fair use images can only be used in the actual article, not the draft, so you can't put it back yet, and you may have to upload again when you do, since unused FU images are usually deleted. I'm surprised that out-of-copyright was rejected, I assume it's because the date can't be verified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: H Karl Butler (October 26)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Memer15151 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The only in-depth source is a series of self-published books. Wikipedia needs multiple in-depth reliable sources to establish notability.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
UserMemer (chat) Tribs 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, OA17151104! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! UserMemer (chat) Tribs 15:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: H. Karl Butler has been accepted

[edit]
H. Karl Butler, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More on Butler

[edit]

I've moved this here as it's little to do with media copyright. You can't ignore the existence of a public domain photo when trying to compile a rationale for a non-public domain item. You can try and rewrite the rationale as I explained previously but it has to be accepted that sometimes we can't write an acceptable rationale and the image can't stay. Wikipedia has a deliberately, very strict policy on minimising the amount of non-free content that is used, which is why rationales can be onerous to construct. The image I found is from here [1]. If you don't like it then feel free to remove it, however, please remember Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and anyone is entitle to edit any article. That means someone could come along and reinsert the image because they do like it or more likely because they think its relevant (personally I think having an image of the subject is relevant and doesn't need to highlight his disability). If that happens, you're expected to discuss and come to some sort of consensus about what does and doesn't go in the article.

You said The key point is how much good he did in spite of his disabilities and "Oh, look at that poor disabled man." I want it to read "Wow! What a great and generous man who overcame disabilities, and what a great story about the start of Camp Manatoc." I don't want either of those, I want to see a neutrally written, factual, reliably sourced account of Butler, his life and achievements. If part of that is about him overcoming his disabilities then fine, but not to the extent that the article eulogises him. It's not the role of Wikipedia to say Butler was a good man, we report and summarise what has already been said about him. So, for example, if obituaries or books or newspaper reports say he was a "good man" then we can quote that. We don't say in our voice that he was a good man. If others haven't said it about him, then Wikipedia doesn't either. Nthep (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nthep:
Thanks for the feedback. We all want to do what is right here. Please understand that I have not done this before, and I am not an expert (or even minimally versed) on copyright issues. I am not ignoring the existence of a public domain photo since I have no earthly idea why that image from the newspaper is public domain and an old photograph is not. I am not doubting it, but I don't understand much of what has been said to me, in part because of my own ignorance and in part because the message has changed from reviewer to reviewer. Initially, I was led to believe that the issue was solely that I could use the photo I want if it was 100 years old. Our expert curator states (without concrete proof) that it is. I was also told that might not matter because I could claim fair use. I would also like to clarify that those two quotes were in response to a suggestion that I might emphasize his disability more in the article. They do not refer to anything directly stated in the article. Yes, my enthusiasm for Karl Butler came through in those statements, but I tried to take pains to write the actual article in a neutral tone. Now all that said, I will take the advice to remove the current photo. If someone else edits it, well I can't control that. My preference would be for someone who understands these issues and their nuances to help me use either the image I provided or the other image I have (another old photo) from the museum, both of which I would prefer over the newspaper article photo. Again, I thank you for the diligence in finishing this article properly. OA17151104 (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the article is very neutrally written and with your enthusiasm for Butler, I congratulate you on making it so. Everyone starts on Wikipedia editing about something that interests them (why would you do anything else). Unfortunately, most people, and I was no exception, have no understanding of the unconscious bias their interest in the subject puts on the way they edit. We want to show the subject in its best light, so we tend to promote the positive and hide the negative. You've managed to avoid that with this article and I'm impressed by that achievement. I just don't want you to overegg the pudding by putting your own opinions in, rather than those of others. I have no doubt that Butler was a good man but it's not our job to say so. As Joe Friday used to say "Just the facts".
Copyright 101. The US is wonderfully out of step with virtually all of the rest of the world. Most countries use death plus X years of the copyright holder (70 is the commonest, but there are shorter and longer periods), you often see this written as pma+70 where pma is post-mortem author. The US goes on years since publication AND compliance with copyright registration but is moving over to pma+70 but only for works created since 2003. For anything older the basic term is 95 years since publication (thank Disney and Sonny Bono for the strange number). So the image I uploaded is public domain because it was published more than 95 years ago. The snapshot that you uploaded can't be established as public domain because it's anonymous and unpublished (as far as we know) and US copyright law says that anonymous, unpublished images stay in copyright for 120 years from creation. Ascertain either ownership or prior publication and its very likely that the image goes straight into the public domain, but that has to be proved, not assumed. Now, your museum curator is entitled to interpret the rules however they wish, and if the museum want assume/assert the image as public domain, that's their choice. I have a great deal of empathy with the curator's line as there's a good chance that a) they're right and b) if they aren't, what damage is done to the rights of the copyright holder? Wikipedia takes a stricter line, a) it's proof, not assumption and b) A copyright violation is a copyright violation, whether it does any harm or not isn't relevant. Sounds puritanical I know but Wikipedia has to protect itself against copyright violation claims.
US law does allow fair use and Wikipedia has a fair use policy but you really have to make the case to use non free images. So looking at the snapshot what are the barriers to overcome? Every use of a non free image has to pass all 10 of the criteria laid down at WP:NFCC. Eight are fairly easy and the snapshot passes those with no problem.
The two that are more difficult are #1 and #8. #1 says No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The last clause is the get out but the rationale has to say why the snapshot serves an encyclopedic purpose more than the newspaper image. A lot of people are going to say that knowing what Butler looked like is the encyclopedic purpose, period. If you want to say the snapshot serves another purpose e.g. the effects of his disability upon his physical stature then you need to say that and be able to counter the rejoinder of "why do readers need to see an image of Butler to understand that his disability had an effect on his stature?"
Criterion #8 says Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. There are debates about this criterion going back all the way to the beginning of Wikipedia. The best guideline is that if there is sourced, critical commentary of the point the image depicts then the image probably passes the criterion. So, the snapshot shows Butler, a man of diminutive stature, leaning against a fence due to balance, both of these being visible effects of Pott's disease. To meet criterion #8 tha article needs sourced material that talks about Butler's disabilities, and that material is critical i.e. more than passing mention. What is needed is more than "Butler suffered from Pott's disease" but a lot more on the challenges he faced (or not) and now he rose to meet them (or not). This content needs to be linked back to the rationale.
Meeting both of these criteria is a stiff task and nobody is going to blame you if you dont think it's worth the effort. Personally I wouldn't as I don't think the snapshot is that great a photo, that I think "I really need to get this image into the article". You may think differently.
I'm sorry this is a long message so the TL:DR version is
  • you're doing a great job on the article on Butler
  • copyright is difficult to understand at first
  • fair use is even harder
Nthep (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep:
Thank you for taking so much time to help me with the copyright issues. Also, thanks for the kind words on the article. I agree that I can't prove that a full-body shot of Karl Butler that makes his disabilities obvious is critical to the article beyond the words already there about his disability. Still, if there were no barriers to use, I think a picture of him at camp that shows his disability better tells the story of his life "A disabled businessman donated the land for Camp Manatoc, which is still in use almost 100 years after his death." than a head shot does. So that brings me to my second photograph, a 1924 photo of Karl Butler standing at camp holding (and hence partially supported by) a patrol flag. You state: "Ascertain either ownership or prior publication and its very likely that the image goes straight into the public domain, but that has to be proved, not assumed." The display at the museum states: "Newly discovered photograph of H. Karl Butler taken in 1924 by Walter Featherstun." A genealogy search on Walter Featherstun ( www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q2ZQ-F4RW ) reveals Walter Marion Featherstun, born 1879, registered for the WW I draft in 1917-1918 in Akron Ohio, and died in 1949 (75 years ago). The page also shows he had two sons who would have been Scouting age in 1924 when the picture was taken. Given that the picture is not a winter picture, it is just over 100 years old (in case that is relevant). Would that photo be okay? How can I prove much of anything about 100-year-old photos? I can unequivocally state what is documented at the museum. Thanks again! OA17151104 (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unpublished with a known author is a lot easier. That's a case where pma+70 applies even though it's an old US photo. As Walter Featherstun died in 1949, this image is now public domain and can be uploaded to Commons with the licence tag {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Nthep (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep:
Thank you so much! I will try to get it uploaded this morning. While this process is frustrating at times, I really appreciate the efforts of you and others to maintain high standards. OA17151104 (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that's a great photo of him. Nthep (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nthep:
Agreed. While it was initially my second-choice photograph, now that it is in place, I think it is the best choice. I'm glad it could work out. Thanks again to you and the other editors and reviewers! OA17151104 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OA17151104&oldid=1258467965"