User talk:Kathleencaroline

photos
Hi, I tried to add some color photos, but someone didn't like them, perhaps you, accidentally editing without logging in....do you have any photos to add? Not replace main photo, just add. The main one is very stylish, but you can't really see any detail. Smm201`0 (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

photos again
Hi, All of the album covers were deleted from Wikimedia (but not by me) because of WP rules about photos. Until someone posts a better, legal photo, I am putting the earlier one back up. Just wanted to let you know it wasn't me deleting your photos just to post the other. Smm201`0 (talk) 11:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

- the photos are 100% legal and were posted by and owned by the band. it is strange that the album covers were deleted as well. i know that greg a lot of time to update all of those photos and covers. i hope this doesn't continue to happen. do you have any suggestions about how to address this issue? thanks.


 * WP has rules about copyrights, etc. I don't know them all. I avoid the issue by taking my own pictures. The copyright laws are complicated, so Wikimedia developed this page about licensing/copyrights: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing . Wish I could be more help, but maybe the link will give you the info you need. Wikimedia and Wikipedia have been criticized and were nearly shut down due to accusations of copyright violations. Administrators actively patrol pages for such material - there are notifications posted regarding new images to check. I know that anytime I post a picture about 100 or so other editors will view the page to screen for copyright violations. Some administrator probably came through and took everything down. Make sure that the "permissions" are specified correctly when you upload anything. I know that when I publish an article in a journal, I no longer own the copyright, even though I wrote the piece. It could be that kind of thing. Good luck! Smm201`0 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

content
Hi again...the other thing you should do is back up any accolades with published reviews or newspaper articles. I added a couple sources, but there are more available. If you don't add RS (reliable sources), the page may be labeled "promotional" and someone may try to delete the content or even the whole page at some point. Be sure to include both positive and negative material (be neutral). There are a lot of promotional sounding band pages, but that doesn't mean that it is ok to do that, or that they will stick forever. Or that they are seen as credible. My first work on WP was to help prevent The Stone Pony article from being deleted as promotional and poorly sourced. Hard to believe that someone would want to delete that article. Smm201`0 (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

i understand what you are saying about adding sources, i do not know how to do that and will learn --- but why are you constantly editing my work on this page? who are you? do you know the band? i work for them, and all of the material i post is 100% fact and approved by the band. i am trying to keep the page updated for the fans, yet it is constantly being deleted - the fans want to see the updates.


 * WP pages get edited and rewritten constantly. There are several different people editing this page in different ways for different reasons. (here's the list: ) Yes, it can be annoying to be edited, but WP is collaborative, so nobody "owns" any of the pages. I haven't read all the edits, but noticed some have removed promotional comments for which no source was provided, and material that is likely copyrighted. None appear to be vandalism - all appear to be working towards bringing the page into compliance with WP rules. It could be worse - someone could have nominated the page for deletion. I am just a random, music loving Wikipedian. Most of my edits were just suggestions regarding where to add your sources, and I added pictures, some text, and some sources myself to show the band was notable enough to include in WP.


 * Wikipedia is different from a fan site in that editors are required to provide verifiable, reliable sources for any and all information they add (WP:RS). It is more like a series of term or research papers. By WP standards, the band doesn't count as a reliable source because of the conflict of interest. There are also rules regarding paid editors (currently under debate) and what they can do because of the conflict of interest. That said, there are a lot of reviews of this band, many positive, and some from credible music sources online and in print. Please help to add those, and be sure to include sources to show where any "news" is published. Smm201`0 (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are a few links on this page that you could use as sources:
 * Dayton Daily News
 * Smm201`0 (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sample reference format
Here's a sample reference format - just fill in the info: (but leave out the hidden "nowiki" part.)

  Smm201`0 (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Scott Terry (musician)
Hi, I'm Lwarrenwiki. Kathleencaroline, thanks for creating Scott Terry (musician)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Good start - keep improving the article.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)