User talk:Crowish

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me or a helper Commander Keane on our talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you want to tell me something or if you just want to say hi, leave your message under the Talk Section of | My Talk Page

Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: &#39;&#39;Have A Nice Day&#39;&#39; 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Hi Jdybka!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking to material on Internet Archive
Hello! Thank you for adding valuable links to material on the Internet Archive! Please consider using the template template:Internet Archive film clip when the article subject is not a film. template:Internet Archive film is mainly used for full-length feature films. --Bensin (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Internet Archive film templates
I've been linking full TV episodes and full movies at Internet Archive. Some of these are short films, however.

What is the duration of the films that should be linked via template:Internet Archive film and what is the duration of the films that should be linked via template:Internet Archive short film ?

Also, Bensin changed a some of these links to template:Internet Archive film clip though the TV episodes linked are complete, so I am also confused about that template.

Please explain, thank you.

Jdybka (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a standard for those templates (yet). Generally, I would say the use should mirror the subject in question: If the subject is called a film, the film-template makes sense. If it's called a short film, the short film template fits. If the situation is not clear, just use the one you feel most appropriate and if someone disagrees, they'll usually voice their disagreement either by changing the template or raising the issue and then consensus can be found. As for Bensin's edits, your best bet is really to just ask them why they made those changes. Regards  So Why  19:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I agree with you, Jdybka, that it is somewhat unclear when to use the templates. As for the template:Internet Archive short film this is my fault, since I created that template. I have therefore now clarified on that template page that a short film is "usually 40 minutes or less including credits" as suggested by the article about short films. As for using template:Internet Archive film clip when linking to TV episodes, well, it's just something I've been doing because the TV episodes are not films. If you want to, I (or you) can create a "template:Internet Archive TV episode" for that purpose. Please don't be discouraged by my suggestions. You are doing great! And again: A big thank you for adding these links. --Bensin (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Media links in aircraft articles
Hello, I have raised your addition of links to internet archive on aircraft articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft with the suggestion they should all be removed, your comments are welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * OK I'll quit contributing; no prob. Crowish (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Old newsreels
Hello, Could I suggest that you please not add ancient newsreels as references you did here, here and here. Given the age of these newsreels they're not actually very useful references, particularly given the huge number of recent sources on these topics. If you really think that this footage is of value, I'd suggest adding it as external links. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding references to these old newsreels in the middle of material which was already referenced to a more recent and more reliable published source as you did here and here is particularly unhelpful. Please stop this, and take the time to consult WP:RS if you haven't already done so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a librarian and was taught that contemporary, primary sources are valuable. I'll stop editing here, thanks for the heads up. Could someone tell me how to delete my account please? Thanks.

Also, is there a "bulk revert" functionality?Crowish (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you need to stop editing, and I hope that you stay: I'm sure that some of those newsreels would be useful external links (a good criticism I saw of Wikipedia recently is that it lacks multimedia content, and this is a way to include some). We could always do with more qualified librarians participating as well! Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I was told not to use them as external links & had them reverted by another user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012_January_15

It's a shame - newsreels were the one of the most ubiquitous forms of informing the public, for decades.Crowish (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * What you could do is cut them into pieces and upload them directly to Commons, like another user did here. That way, they can be placed into an article like a photo, and played there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the people deleting these references because they're old are simply wrong. Please don't let them drive you off Wikipedia, or you'll become part of the reason why people trying to get involved encounter reactions like this. Wnt (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and as you probably know, the suggestion by Parsecboy should be considered cautiously, as 1944 films are often copyrighted. Wnt (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wnt, you should probably research the situation a bit better if you're going to be giving advice on copyright law. MCA turned all of the Universal Newsreels over to the US National Archives in 1976, placing them in the public domain. We are free to use the footage as we see fit, including chopping it into short clips and placing them directly into articles. Parsecboy (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've raised this at User_talk:Nick-D - I think a policy called "WP:WIKIHOUND" prohibits what he's been doing to you. Thanks for bearing with us. Wnt (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I noted the use of some of your citations from archival newsreels, and typically, although they are considered relevant, are not used as direct sources but would obviously fall into the category of useful external links. One of the problems that result in using this source material is in identifying the sources as credible and authoritative, which brings to mind the question of reliability, as some were obviously created for entertainment value while others definitely were used for propaganda purposes. Nonetheless, your efforts are credible and commendable and do add to the narrative and development of the articles. FWiW (I am also a librarian, or at least, a former librarian, but from the hinterlands of frozen Canuckworld) Bzuk (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

helpme

Thanks - there's conflicting info here but I've looked at a bunch of my edits and they were reverted so I guess that means that they aren't helpful so I'll stop. But thanks for the input anyway. Crowish (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I came here in response to the new helpme request, but it isn't followed by a question or request, so there doesn't seem to be anything to do. I'm disabling it for now, until you post an question or action item. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

helpme I need to know if I should continue editing Wikipedia in the manner I have been or if my edits, as I have been doing them, are not welcome. I am getting conflicting information. Thanks. Crowish (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding to an earlier point about using primary sources, those who taught you the value of primary sources were right, but they probably said it in the context of writing secondary material, research papers, articles for journals, articles for newspapers and other media. In any of those ubiquitous places, the use of contemporary, primary material is highly valuable. However, this is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. While we can use primary, secondary and tertiary sources, we prefer secondary sources. The use of primary and tertiary sources are not preferred, but may be used in some circumstances. However, when good secondary sources exist, they are preferred.


 * As for the immediate question, we have a process for that; please see WP:ER. It takes some time, as all here are volunteers, but that's the way to get feedback on your editing. Personally, I hope you take the comments to heart and stay; anyone with librarian training is going to be a good contributor.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you User:Sphilbrick for that info - I've started the I appreciate it. Crowish (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives & Museums)
I saw the helpme template on your page. Have you checked in with WP:GLAM--they might be of assistance. Valfontis (talk) 19:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 26 August 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)