User talk:Kateypup

Plymouth Church (Brooklyn)
Please stop removing information from this article. Adding new stuff is great, but leave the previous information there as well, Also, each paragraph should deal with a separate thought, combining disparate things together into one paragraph is, generally speaking, not a good idea. Thanks. BMK (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, do not remove references, as you did in this edit, which I reverted. Those refs were put there deliberately, for a reason. BMK (talk) 20:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * JFYI, if you look carefully at the text of the article before and after my edit here -- which you commented on in your edit summary here, taking me to task for removing a Wikilink to The Colored American-- you will note that "Colored American" was not linked before my edit. I was unaware there was an article on the newspaper, and all I did in my edit was to italicize it as a proper name. You introduced the name of the newspaper in this edit, and you will notice that you did not Wikilink it at that time, nor at any subsequent time that I can determine. (Possibly you meant to link it, but forgot to do so, and then thought that you had.) It's easy to misread a diff - I've done it many times myself - but it's worthwhile double-checking your facts before you criticize another editor, especially in an edit summary, which are, except for rare circumstances, permanent. BMK (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take note of the way references are formatted in this article, and format yours to match. It is confusing to the reader to have several different formats going on at the same time.  You can also use the templates  and  .  The major points: Author's names are given "library style" (last name first), the date follows the name, the title of an article comes inside the linking URL, as in  "This is the name of the article" . I'm sure you'll see what I mean just by looking at other references. BMK (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi Kateypup, I wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia. Thanks for all your contributions so far, I look forward to seeing more! If you live near the Brooklyn area, consider going to the NYC Wikipedia events! Cheers, ɱ  (talk · vbm  · coi) 00:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plymouth Church (Brooklyn), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Federal Building and Post Office. 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) 16:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Please remember...

 * Author's names in refs should be "library style", first name last, last name first
 * Please avoid words like "renowned". See WP:Peacock for guidance
 * Put the name of an article in the hyperlink, not the publication
 * We generally Wikilink the name of the publication if we have an article on it
 * Please don't put periods at the ends of things which are not sentences, such as most image captions

You'll note that I'm spending a fair amount of time cleaning up your refs, and it would be so much better if they were correctly done to begin with. Your refs are considerably better than when you first started editing here, but you need to continue improving.

Thanks, BMK (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Stop
Just... stop. My next step is to report you for edit warring, and neither of us wants that. Youir layous really screws up the article, it makes it lookk very bad. The image does not physically fit where you want to put it, whereas it does where I have it, as well as being an historical image in the "History" section.

You've done some very fine work on the article, but this is not good, it is very, very bad. Please trust me on this, a large part of my editing is to make articles look good to the reader, I know what I;m doing. Don;t make me take to to the noticeboards, where you will possibly be blocked from editing. BMK (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you really wish to collaborate:
 * Read WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.
 * Stop reverting


 * Your placement of the article adds a large block of white space at the end of the architecture section., This is very bad, we work hard to try and avoid blocks of white space, which are unseemly, visually awkward, and bad for the reader.  If it weren't for the "clear left" there would be no whitespace, but your two oicture (which are already pushing the boundaries of good layout design by cruinching the text between them) would invade the "References" section. The 1866 picture just will not fit there, nor is it an appropriate place.


 * I can only think that you are looking at the article with a non-standard set-up on which you do not see the problem. I assure youthatmine is standard, and it is a problem. BMK (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, here's the problem caused by your placement, as I see it on my very vanilla standrad set-up:




 * You can see the block of whitespace I talked about. Without the "clear left", it's even more messy:




 * Note that images invade the "See also" and "References" section, and that a single line of text snakes in between two images. Very messy.  Both options are very messy, as opposed to the current layout:




 * I'm sure you can see what I'm talking about, that the 1866 image causes serious problems with the article';s visual aspect when you attempt to squeeze it into a place it does not fit into. As the image is an historical image, it's appropriate for the history section, and fits there. BMK (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * If you're interested, I can try to build a gallery of images, which will not only allow you to re-add the ring picture, but will accomodate additional images as well in the future. If you agree, I'll do it, but I don't wish to do so without your agreement, due to the edit warring report filed by a third party. BMK (talk) 19:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For an example of how the article might look with a gallery, please go to User:Beyond My Ken/temp1. BMK (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * This is so much more constructive. The gallery may a great idea - as it would allow for more images in the future and would not clutter the main text. I also like the drawing of the original organ, as I was thinking of expanding the organ section a bit. Maybe one should also put the image of the ring in here. I felt the image of the ring was too large. It has poor resolution and shows a small artifect that does not have much detail. In any case - if you want - please go ahead and generate the gallery. Would you put all the photos and images there? Or would some remain in the main text? Kateypup (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I did try the ring in the gallery, but it rather overwhelmed the other images. Let me try putting the drawing of the original organ in. BMK (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, maybe I misunderstood, when you wrote "drawing of the original organ", are you referring to an image already in my proposed gallery, or another one from Commons, such as this one: [[File:Plymouth Church organ, from Robert N. Dennis collection of stereoscopic views.jpg|thumb|center|300px|Stereoscope image of organ]]? BMK (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I meant the earlier image (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/24356/24356-h/24356-h.htm) that shows the organ in the church - you had labeled it "The church's interior". I have a photo of the new organ in the same setting. If one would put them next to each other one could nicely see the difference in size, as well as the changes in interior of the sanctuary. On the other hand, putting to many images, just overwhelms the page. If I had a choice, I probably would chose the organ over the ring. The ring is just an interesting story, but it does not really speak to the Church as a building. Kateypup (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can take or leave the ring picture - it's just a ring, after all -- and I have no objection to putting two organ pix - one historical and one current -- side by side.The value of having a gellery as opposed to images embedded in the text is just what you point out, that too many images in the text overwhelm it. When they're in a separate section, below the text, they're a lot easier for the reader to look at or not, as they choose.If you want to upload your contemporary organ picture to Commons, I'll put it in the testbed gallery and see what you think. BMK (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes to the test article, including removing the ring picture, showing where the modern picture of the organ can go, and displaying the telegram at a size at which it can be read. See what you think: User:Beyond My Ken/temp1 BMK (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll be out of town for a week and won't be able to work on this in the coming days. I think the status quo as displayed publically on the web is OK, and we can discuss further improvements next week. Best wishes, Kateypup (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I agree that the article as it is right now is fine, and look forward to further discussions after you return. BMK (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Plymouth Church (Brooklyn)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AldezD (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
You are invited to join the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. AldezD (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In case you aren't monitoring this discussion, it is now closed, and you and I were both taken to task. The closing admin wrote: "BMK and Kateypup, think of this as a warning. Don't get carried away. Spend more time talking to each other, and better to do it on the article talk page than user talk pages (already noted I know). I'm not going to be watching either of you, but you risk being blocked if someone reports you or another administrator sees this sort of disruptive conduct recommencing."  He also noted that we were working out our differences, which I think is why he warned us instead of blocking either of us.  (BTW, this admin, Bbb23, is, in my opinion, a very good one, and I intend to try my best to follow his recommendations.)  You can read his full remarks at the link above.Please let me know when you upload the contemporary picture of the organ, so I can add it to the test article and see what you think. BMK (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plymouth Church (Brooklyn), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Hale. 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) 09:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Kateypup, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Plymouth Church (Brooklyn) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kateypup: I hope you take Diannaa's advice seriously, I would hate to see you unable to continue to edit the article because you've been blocked for copyright violations.  I do want to point out that same basic points Diannaa gave here you also imply to images on Commons.  I note that you uploaded these images as your "own work", but that can only be the case if you took the picture, or otherwise own the copyright to it.  If, for instance, the photograph is owned by the church, someone official from the church would have to contact the Commons OTRS team and show that the upload was done with permission.  The same goes for any other copyrighted pictures.  Common does not accept non-free pictures unl;ess the copyright holder has consented to the upload and licensing.  Some non-free images can be uploaded here on Wikipedia (see WP:NFCC) under the proper circumstances, which may or may not apply to the images you uploaded.Please take this issues seriously and take care of any outstanding issues.  The article has been considerably improved by your editing and the photographs you added, and I would regret losing your contributions because of policy problems. BMK (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Diannaa, Beyond My Ken, Thanks for letting me know about the copyright issues. I thought I was careful in not outright copying material from the Plymouth Church webpag or any other source. If you still find material where I did this - please feel free to remove it. Concerning photos, I indeed took most of these myself, e.g. the window, or statue of Beecher. It's simple enough to do so, as these places and objects are publically aproachable and visible - including the plaque on Lincoln's pew. In any case, I believe that the large majority of the material I added over the last months was not blindly copied from any other source, unless it is clearly identified with "" as for example in {...the anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) that "helped lay the groundwork for the Civil War."[8] }   Again, thanks a lot for your help in this matter. Kateypup (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've looked over your uploads on Commons and agree that for almost all of them there's no reason to doubt that they are your own work. The only when I had questions about was the Charlemagne Palestine one. BMK (talk) 13:44, 23 May 2016 (UTC)