Talk:Marguerite Young

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Marguerite Young, Our Darling: Tributes and Essays by Miriam Fuchs. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Marguerite Young with manuscript.jpg removed from infobox
Wikipedia's rules for images are stricter than free use. See WP:NFCI and WP:NFCCP.

First, an aesthetic comment. The image of Young with her manuscript (which, by the way, I scanned and added to the List of longest novels article) is certainly the wrong image for the infobox. There are better head shots and upper body shots out there. In contrast, the image was absolutely perfect for illustrating a humongously long novel.

Each use on WP requires a justification. If you click on the image file name above, you'll see the one I provided for the initial use. Somebody later added a second use of the image, but did not provide a justification. I raised a complaint, but merely moved the image to the bottom of the page, amongst Reception, since I believe it can be easily justified. (As I linked to on the original justification page, the photograph was used for publicity purposes, so that's a natural spot for it anyway.) And yes, it still needs a separate justification.

The question about illustrating dead people on WP while claiming fair use is whether it's possible to find free alternatives. Many of the published Young pictures are taken by known, living people. It seems likely such people have more pictures. Also, a number of pictures are probably with Dalkey Archive. She had a verbal contract with them (she couldn't bother signing the papers they kept wanting her to sign) so I don't know what's up with them, but nobody has asked. Choor monster (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Subcategories only, if possible
I see there is a slow motion edit war concerning whether this page should be listed in Category:American novelists. The answer is no: whenever possible, an author should be listed in as many subcategories as possible, but not in the top category. See the instructions on the category page itself. Choor monster (talk) 16:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I slept through the argument as it was happening, but we have a new consensus, as mentioned in the history: Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 24. I have taken the liberty of adding in Category:American poets, and I have indicated the wrongness of the big bold section title by striking it out. Choor monster (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Please document claims (from reliable sources!)
I feel the tone of the additions is way too fannish. Moreover, some of the detail doesn't seem really encyclopedic enough.

I will wait a week or two before getting grumpy and editing. Choor monster (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)