User talk:James W. Turner

Welcome!

Hello, James W. Turner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Smilemeans (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Copyright violation in Eirin Jansen
Hi James. I moved the article for you and made a number of tweaks but then realized the article was a copyright violation when I followed the external links. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition was deleted under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text—which means allowing other people to modify it—then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You may also e-mail or mail the Foundation to release the content. See Donating copyrighted materials for more.

While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright concerns very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Copyright violation in Eirin Jansen
Very sorry about that! I will say it in my own words from now. And I will remember this while writing future articles, thanks for your help. --James W. Turner (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)--James W. Turner (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you can write the article again in your own words. Regarding permission, it would have to be her sending an email to the wikimedia foundation releasing the content under a free license, or posting a free license on the external website—not just you claiming that she had told you she had released. Anyone can claim by asssertion someone has released some content, so we require verifiable release under either of these methods. See Donating copyrighted materials. However, please note that the article's text even if it was not a copyright violation, was a problem. It did not cite any reliable sources that verified its content. Note also that a Résumé like list of what she has appeared in is not proper encyclopedia content. Can a full article in prose be written about her from verifiable reliable sources discussing her in detail? Note also our general notability guideline, as well as well as the subject specific sub-guideline covering actors at Notability (people). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Info
I'm not saying the Manky Monkey links are unreliable - most of them look like very good places to reference from (the Post and Echo are reputable newspapers), except that the mentions of the subject tend to be trivial or invisible to me in one case. I'm saying there are no References given as such. External Links can include things that don't indicate notability or back-up for info given. I am saying there are too many monkeys, and that the links for the acting side are non-reliable sources as they rely on info supplied by the subject (or fans if the subject is deceased...). Biographies of living persons MUST be referenced. I know you're fairly new here and there is a heck of a lot to learn about how this place works. I'm always willing to change my mind - if convincing evidence appears. (I changed three times in one discussion...)

My point about spam was that a vast amount of links about something could be seen as trying to promote it. All you need are a couple of the better links - ones that don't just give her name in passing and which give enough info so that people can see what's what. I don't think you are spamming - but it's best to avoid possible suspicion, especially when you are new. (A large part of my editing here is dealing with spam - you can't see that in my contribs list as they tend to vanish, unlike the AfDs which represent the other main area I'm found in. (I also shoot down aberrant apostrophe's...) As to roles - obviously her earlier work will be less noteworthy. Parts like Helen, I mean. (Helen isn't named in the Dramatis Personae, has a couple of lines, pops in and out and is told to hide a Christmas tree.) I can find nothing about Heather Clarke at the Young Vic except that the play was put on. Many of the other items are performances at colleges or schools - including the leading role Juliet which was performed at a secondary school. (Admittedly, she was too old to be a student there at the time...) More info about truly leading roles and performances is needed. It may take more time than is available. Articles can always be re-presented when improved, so keep a copy just in case (or request userfying by an admin - that means moving it into your space so it can be edited out of the main area).

Believe me, I'd rather keep an article than lose it - if it is worth it. You've made quite a good job of it - it just needs the notability establishing and Referencing (WP:CITE (and a few monkeys eliminating - but that can wait). Good luck. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Errrr...
Apart from userboxes, which some users have rather in excess, the only coloured stuff I can think of is the 'talkback' box (to let someone know there is a message for them somewhere else), which is blue, and the overall background colour for archived discussions in AfD (and possibly SPI - sockpuppet investigations). Userboxes come in various colours, and can be stolen copied from anywhere you find them. There are lists of them somewhere. They can be created by anyone, too, but are subject to a deletion progress if considered highly offensive. Those things at the bottom of my page are userboxes which I've acquired. The big one is an indicator of length/amount of editing. Click on 'Tutnum' and you'll find a list of the different grades. (They can be shown as stars, or rather boring userboxes instead.) All in all, this place bears resemblances to Hogwarts and Gormenghast in that there is always something not known about around a corner, and also in that things aren't always where you thought they were. Sudden thought: There might be something green in the new format for Wikipedia pages, which I turned off almost as soon as it appeared. I think the old one will be retained as an alternative for some time, as a lot of us thought it was crap. (Ta for the compliments, by the way. I seem to be getting insulted more at the moment, but the main offender has been blocked for 55 hours now. Didn't bother me anyway - just made him look silly.) Peridon (talk) 10:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, this was the page I was looking for! --James W. Turner (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

A word of Caution
I see that you have put your real name as your username (or are cleverly masquerading as somebody else)-but a word of caution, I've seen and heard of many people experiencing problems with other Wikipedia editors and having those problems spill over into real life, because they've used their real names. If you're going to be creating or adding anything controversial, I would strongly suggest inquiring a Bureaucrat on the Project to change your username for your own protection.

(Note: My name is not Caulder)

Cheers! - Dr. Caulder (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)