User talk:Olivesue

Deletion discussion about Cooper Giloth

Hello, Olivesue,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Cooper Giloth should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cooper Giloth .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, Olivesue and welcome to Wikipedia! It appears you are participating in a class project. If you haven't done so already, we encourage you to go through our training for students. Go through our online training for students

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. Please also read this helpful advice for students.

Before you create an article, make sure you understand what kind of articles are accepted here. Remember: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while many topics are encyclopedic, some things are not.

Your instructor or professor may wish to set up a course page, and if your class doesn't already have one please tell your instructor about that. It is highly recommended that you place this text: {{Educational assignment}} on the talk page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and aid your communication with them.

We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished! The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Olivesue, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Cooper Giloth have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi! I didn't know if you'd be back or not - I wanted to explain the changes I made to the article. I ended up reverting the most recent changes along with The Mighty Glen for a few reasons:

1. The first is that the edit removed a lot of sourcing that was necessary to establish how Giloth is notable enough for an article - this sourcing is direly necessary for Wikipedia, as all articles need to establish notability.
2. The article had some issues with tone, as it was written in a fairly informal style. It contained some opinion type statements, such as "No doubt, this art game played an impressive role in the field of 3d digital art in 2014". The problem with statements like this is that they're seen as the opinion of the writer and can be subjective to the reader - you want to avoid making blanket statements unless there is a lot of sourcing that states the same thing (ie, that Giloth is a pioneer) and even then, it should not contain POV terms like impressive unless you're directly quoting someone.
3. Another thing to note is that we should only highlight specific works if there is a lot of coverage that cites it as a highlight. Offhand I didn't really find enough to really justify stating that this is her best known work. It looks like it's one of her most recent works, but this doesn't always mean that it's her most well known work. It may have more easily found coverage, but we need a source that mentions that it's her best known work.

I hope this explains the changes! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)