User talk:Tola73

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Katie profile.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Katie profile.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 19:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Tola73, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Tola73/Katie Harwood. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Katie Harwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Beck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Katie Harwood for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katie Harwood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Harwood until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. tutterMouse (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Harwood

I just want to let you know that if you are using the {{cite book}} template, you can include a page number or numbers (such as |page=27 or |pages=27-29) and it will automatically show up in the citation (as p. 27 or pp. 27-29). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Yeah, It can be tricky. In general, if a source says "this dove was a symbol for peace" you can say the same thing. OR if some reliable source makes the same claim, you can quote them. But just because there is a dove, doesn't mean it was indented as a peace symbol, to claim otherwise is original research (as Wikipedia defines it). The biggest problem you're going to hit isn't really WP:OR, it's that there may not be enough independent reliable sources to meet our requirements for having an article (WP:N). That will likely result in the article being deleted. Basically: the type of article you wrote is really neat (and well written) but it isn't what Wikipedia is looking for. The two problems are that A) it's not clear that the topic is one our guidelines say we should cover (and no, I'm not a big fan of some of those guidelines) and B) the amount of original research (conclusions drawn based on facts rather than cited facts or opinions) is not what we want in an article in any case... Hobit (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Rationale

Since I am new to article creating I am grateful for all the useful feedback. I will list the rationale I had in mind when I began the process of writing the article. You are welcome to tell me what looks good about my process and what you think needs to be improved.

1. I began by choosing a topic I was very knowledgeable about Katie Harwood which had direct connections to these established articles: Ghost Ship movie, plus Emily_Browning (living persons/notable actors) and modeled it after another article regarding an Emily Browning character; Violet_Baudelaire.

2. I viewed other articles on fictitious characters portrayed in film and tried to follow their example (there are too many to list).

3. I assembled all my resources and checked them to be sure they could be verified: The production notes, websites, Ghost Ship DVD special edition movie with cast and crew interviews, extra scenes and behind the production, and finally, actual texts to support the statements and examples made by the cast and crew via the production notes and personal interviews. The goal was to create a trail of resources so that anyone could view them and see the article statements I made were substantiated by relevant sources other than myself.

4. I began to write and tried to make every effort to keep the article inside my understanding of WP guidelines and using existing pages as an example.

5. I had someone familiar with WP look it over and I made alterations.

6. I posted the Katie article following "the advise for new users" so that I could get feedback on how to make it better. Tola73 00:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Further Thoughts

I appreciate everyone’s input and suggestions. Upon receiving your feedback, I have come to the realization that the Katie article was perhaps approached from too much of an academic standpoint. Conceivably, such a complex subject might have been a little too ambitious for my first attempt at an article. I did not fully comprehend that sources are not required in articles to "assert notability" - there is no policy to that effect that I can see.

No matter who writes the article on Katie, however, I believe the basis and rational for having a Katie article is sound. Just because I have seen numerous articles on WP concerning characters I would definitely consider "minor", obscure and unimportant doesn’t mean that the articles shouldn’t be there do to my lack of understanding.

Below is the rationale behind my reasoning:

1. Those involved with the Ghost Ship film’s creation stated that the character of Katie was unusual and complex.
2. Katie is the only character from Ghost Ship to have her own special movie trailer. See part of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJK8PIfySOQ
3. The notable following Katie as a character has had, even after nearly a decade (as demonstrated online).
4. Reviewers citing Emily Browning’s portrayal of Katie as the standout character in the film.
5. Katie’s unique connection bridging the fictional world to the non-fictional world, such as through the symbolic Gustave Dore murals as related with Dante’s Divine Comedy, the The Inferno, and the storyline.
6. Katie’s unusual fit (or lack there of) in the story coincides with the statements made by the cast and crew that the film was not originally intended to be a “slasher” horror production. This is already cited on the Ghost Ship article page.
7. The plot hinges on Katie, and without her, the storyline collapses. It stands to reason if no story, then no Ghost Ship movie. If no movie, then no WP article. Furthermore, if no Katie then no international role for actress Emily Browning and possibly no nomination for an acting award which she later won.
8. Katie marked the international Hollywood debut of actress Emily Browning and marked a turning point in her career.
9. I began by choosing a topic I was very knowledgeable about Katie Harwood which had direct connections to these established WP articles: Ghost Ship movie, plus Emily_Browning (living persons/notable actors) and modeled it after another article regarding an Emily Browning character; Violet_Baudelaire.
10. Notoriety by nature is subjective. Only the inertia of time and history will reveal the true significance of a character and is dependent upon numerous extraneous variables such as; sequels, the future of the actress, and other stories which find their influence in the Ghost Ship film and Katie as a character.
11. Some things that may be considered unique or unusual to some actually have greater significance and merit, because they are different.

These are my thoughts. In light of WP guidelines, I welcome any ideas from more experienced WP writers about what I wrote well and what I can do to improve.

Orphaned non-free image File:Katie Harwood Mural.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Katie Harwood Mural.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Katie Harwood.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Katie Harwood.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 22:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]