Talk:Marshall W. Mason

Comment
than before, at least. Jammy simpson 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Mr. Mason,


 * First of all, thanks for your kind message. I was happy to improve your article, specifically the references, as many of them were poorly formatted and others were technically missing, so I had to search for them using Google and also archive.org; however, there is still more work to be done. Anyway, I'm sorry that the picture of you was removed. This is what happened: a very experienced Wikipedia editor named SuperHamster, who does a lot of patrolling as part of his work, found that the picture seemed to fail to comply with a certain criterion for fair use. You can find that editor's message HERE. He gave an opportunity to the editor (who uploaded the picture) to contest the decision, but the decision was either not contested, or the arguments provided were invalid. Then the Wikipedia Administrator Diannaa proceeded to delete the file, as can be seen HERE.


 * Keep in mind that this is standard procedure on Wikipedia. It is very difficult to succeed at getting a picture kept when a fair use rationale is used for non-free images. In such cases, 10 criteria must be met, which are listed HERE. The picture of you does not belong to you, and therefore it almost certainly belongs to whoever took the picture. It is not a free image. In theory, you can get that picture back on your article but you would need a declaration of consent from the owner of the picture, in which he or she agrees to release the picture under a free license. The standard template for a declaration of consent can be found HERE. If you can work that out, then the main hurdle has been cleared, but uploading a picture correctly is a tricky process, and therefore several Wikipedia pages with pertinent information should be examined carefully, or else the effort will almost certainly result in failure.


 * Nevertheless, if you cannot get permission to publish that picture, you can ask someone else to take a picture of you, and that process is a very easy one compared with declarations of consent. In fact, the picture of you was deleted because since you are alive, it is assumed that a picture can be taken of you and released under a free license, instead of relying on a fair use rationale for a non-free picture. So, if you prefer this option, the person who takes the picture of you has to follow this very simple step, HERE.


 * I must let you know, unfortunately, that the image of your book cover will probably be deleted as well. Criterion #8 stipulates:


 * 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.


 * You are the article topic, not your book, so it's virtually impossible to defend the presence of a non-free image of your book in your article. You do not own the image, I must assume; instead, it is most likely owned by the publisher of the book or by whoever designed the cover. Now, if the book was being discussed in the article, using independent sources, then its inclusion could perhaps be defended, but all that I see is a statement claiming that you wrote the book. In its current form, the image of the book in the article seems to have purely promotional purposes, which is a tactic highly frowned upon by the Wikipedia community.


 * My advice, Mr. Mason, is for you to focus on getting someone to take a picture of you, and to then upload it to Wikimedia Commons, not to Wikipedia. Then your article will have a picture of you again that will not be taken down. That's what really matters, not the image of the book cover. Or of course you could try to find a way to contact the owner of the picture that was taken down, and hope that he or she would be willing to release it under a free license, but trust me, that entire process is very complicated. All the best, Dontreader (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

ext link
I disagree with the deletion of the external link that leads to a CBS-TV video report on the marriage of the subject of the article. The external link reports on what is a significant event to the subject, it is an event that is mentioned in the article. It is an external link that (in the words found at WP:EXT) “contain[s] further research that is accurate and on-topic.” It leads to a site (again in the words found at WP:EXT) “that contain[s] neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject.”  The reason given for deletion was not detailed. Having read WP:EXT up and down, I can’t find support there for deleting this external link. I think the deletion needs to be reconsidered, and if there are still reasons to delete it, they need to be expressed precisely and supported by WP:EXT. I reverted the deletion, and of course would welcome any discussion. Ashenderflickin (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ashenderflickin, first of all, keep in mind that I have spent a considerable amount of time improving this article, specifically the references, which are crucial. If this article means so much to you, you could have had the courtesy to thank me for my efforts. Anyway, regarding that external link, it takes the reader to a video about the legalization of same-sex marriages in New York, which has nothing to do with this biography of a living person. The video is not about Mr. Mason, even though he is featured in it. Also, as you wrote, Mr. Mason's marriage is mentioned in the article, and is properly sourced. There are many biographies about living persons (BLPs) on Wikipedia, and many of those people have gotten married, and in each case their wedding is "a significant event to the subject", yet you will not find any external links on BLPs on Wikipedia to their wedding videos. That is not encyclopedic at all, and as I said, the video is a report about the legalization of same-sex marriages in the state of New York, not a "report on the marriage of the subject of the article." I did not elaborate because the edit summary box doesn't have much space, and I gave a link to WP:EXT to explain why I took out that reference. But even here there's not much more that I can add about external references guidelines. It's enough to quote "This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." That external link does not help to further understand the subject of the article. That is not "further research", as you put it. Dontreader (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , hello again.  asked me to give my opinion on the external link.  Personally, I don't think the link should be in the external links section for reasons Dontreader mentioned.   However, I would use the video link to replace static link that sources he got married.  The video link is a better overall reference.
 * Speaking of references, there really needs to be references about his Obie wins.
 * Thank you both for taking it to the talk page. Bgwhite (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Bgwhite, for your advice. I fully agree with the solution you've come up with, and if has any difficulty placing the reference inside the article properly, I would be glad to do that. All the best... Dontreader (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Questioning the removal of a source
User:David Gerard, I can’t find anywhere on Wikipedia your suggestion that Biographies of living persons must only use reliable sources, or that the New York Post cannot be used on Biographies of living persons. I don’t find it on WP:RS, or WP:BLP, or the article you mentioned, WP:RSP. I do find the suggestion that material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source. (The material we’re discussing doesn’t appear to be challenged or likely to be.) Also the article you cited is not absolute — for example, it says that the Post may be unreliable especially with regard to politics. In this case, if the Post is removed as a source, then the content may be completely unsourced. That would introduce a serious flaw to this article. (The only other source is apparently subject to link rot.) Also the Post offers photographic content and support that no other sources has. I suggest that the Post should remain — the content it supports is unlikely to be challenged. And it needs to remain to give at least some support, until a better source can be found and the only other source can be fixed. A tag could perhaps be added to encourage someone to find a better source. - Åüñîçńøł (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Then evidently it should be removed. The NY Post is Generally Unreliable and given to fabrication. It was close to being fully deprecated as a source. The PageSix column in particuar is literally the gossip section. I really don't see how PageSix is a safe source to use for anything to do with BLPs. It can't be trusted to be a reliable source, because it isn't one.
 * Also the Post offers photographic content and support that no other sources has Then the material is not in any RS and should not be in Wikipedia. WP:V starts: In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. If we don't have an RS for something, then that doesn't mean we should use tawdry nonsense sources - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What I said is misconstrued here — I didn't mean "no other source" in the context of the whole world (as is being suggested), but instead in the context of the sources within the article. The CNN source is reliable, but the link needs to be fixed, as internet links sometimes do.  Before removing sources editors should pay attention to what they’re leaving behind, and should consider making such a repair, if needed.  It would be a misrepresentation of WP:V to suggest that the first line there isn’t followed by qualifications and exceptions, just as it misrepresents WP:RSP to say that that article claims only RSes can be used on a BLP.  Åüñîçńøł (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If you think PageSix is usable as a source on a BLP in the normal course of editing, I think you have greatly misunderstood BLP - David Gerard (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)