User talk:Leea25

Hi Leea25, I've been following the BLP noticeboard, which includes the conversation you've been having, and saw your most recent reply. You've probably seen that your comments were reverted and may be confused as to why. On wikipedia, you should put your reply to someone else below their comment, preferably indented (by adding a colon at the beginning of your comment). This allows other readers to clearly see who wrote what. When you "interupt" someone else's comment to put your comments within theirs, it's impossible for others to know who said what. So, the etiquette is: don't do that. Hope that helps! Schazjmd  (talk)  23:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Btw, I've pulled out your comments to Nat, removing his paragraphs, should you want to repost it as a whole (you can delete it from your talk page, of course):

Thanks Nat. I do understand the goals and ethics of the site, and very much agree with them, but it seems, perhaps, I should have just gone ahead and done it rather than asked for guidance - I doubt anyone would have noticed! Thoughts below. The bold is just differentiating, not emphasising! '''You guys as editors face an impossible task, but I strongly disagree that a whole chuck of Wikipedia disappearing over night would be a good thing. Although the 'fringes', as I call them, are rife with innacuracy, a fair chunk of what people write, unreferenced, or linking to dead sites, is correct. For example, I have in my book collection, an old catalogue (in English translation) of Ukrianian composers. It was written on a type writer and bound, and I have never come across another - the title is written on the front in pen! However, a lot of what I have found on Wikipedia about those weird and wonderful composers detailed in it, is correct - I can only assume someone has a copy and has not referenced it, or people from that part of the world who know, are writing the entries. Another, less good example might be the fact that several Wikipedia entries on Soviet composers used to reference a site called RussianComposers. I wrote and ran that site and, in the end, despite it being a work of some years of scouring through music dictionaries like Grove and MGG, I took it down, as there were so many contradictory sources, I couldn't be sure very much of it was factually correct and lost heart. Also, a lot of this potential source material will likely never be available from reliable sources... Soviet books, for example, definitely cannot be regarded as reliable sources!'''

'''And yet, it has become so much more... Wikipedia is often the only place you can find obscure information from long-out-of-print books or dead websites.'''

'''At the same time, were I to write a horribly biased and grandiose article for my Company's website (which I help administer) and somehow got it published, it would be considered a suitable source, just because it is elsewhere? Show reports that detail when David, for example, made his debut in a certain role, are the only record of those facts available (I know because I have asked), and were written immediately after or during the show in question. We have them going back to the 1950s, yet they are not admissable as sources because they aren't available for public viewing... historically speaking, they are primary sources. This seems rather odd to me!'''

'''Forgive me for saying so, but this would seem in part a little pointless as nobody else would be able to verify some of it... would showing it to the man himself help in any way? Surely he could verify facts about his own life? Surely dates that are a matter of public record like the premier of a particular ballet, which would be recorded in numerous publically available places, are not things that can be biased by an editor with an alleged conflict of interest? Are those with an alleged conflict of interest banned from all editing? Would the correction or addition of a date be conflicted if done by that person? What about the correction of a spelling? I do find this all rather contradictory. Take for example the author of a book about a living person. That author would very likely have had a lot of contact with the subject of the book, got to know them well, yet (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the author himself would not be allowed to edit a Wikipedia article about the subject because of a conflict of interest. A third party would be allowed to do this, yet the information would be coming from the same source, and the author himself would have a far more detailed knowledge of the subject that anyone who had simply read the book (a bit like, well, me, for example!).''' '''I agree, but those sources are not available to the public. An editor could ask for permission to come and check them, and it would be granted, but nobody would take be willing to come to Birmingham and spend many, many hours trawling through cast slips and show reports to check the information.'''


 * I understand completely. What I meant was that so-called ballet or theatre experts write reviews and articles about work and choreographers on their blogs and these are referenced, but sometimes include inaccuracies. Even papers like the Guardian or The Times occasionally print things that I know to be factually incorrect, perhaps because the writer has made a mistake in haste, but the editor who has the final say doesn't know enough to change it. The number of times I have seen him refered to as David Bentley (doubtless thanks to autocorrect)!

'''That's a relief. I also do completely understand this policy, but it has huge limitations. Information about famous events and people that are well documented will easily find itself in numerous places online or in print. The problem comes at the 'fringes'. So much information, particularly sitting in that grey area you might refer to as 'recent history', will not make it's way onto the net for a long time, if ever. There are simply more sources about, say turn of the 19th/20th century composers than there are of weird composers from the 1950s. These are only likely referenced briefly, if at all, in print, and likely out of print.'''

'''There are four of us who help maintain the website, though I find it a little odd that someone sat next to me at work apparently has less of a conflict of interest than I do... and they would certainly not be knowledgable enough to fact check anything I wrote, meaning it would in all likelihood just go up as I wrote it.'''

'''I haven't, but will. Thank you.''' '''I would say better to be fully informative and correct! Oh, wait, I'm not allowed to... yes, I know...''' '''Yet, as I mentioned above, it has become so much more. There is so much unverifiable information on the stubs and articles for obscure people in history, I think Wikipedia would be doing itself a great diservice in removing it all without knowing whether it is correct or not.'''

'''I do find this inefficient, to be honest, and contradictory, in that unquestionable primary sources that are not publically available are rejected, whilst 'fan sites' (which is what a great deal of sites about obscure subjects in effect are - my RussianComposers site, for example) are allowed, even though the writers of those sites probably don't reference their own sources (a horrible sweeping generalisation, I know). Although I do understand, it does seem a shame that these policies (and the time available to to editors) means that a lot of rubbish is floating around Wikipedia, whilst people like me, who have access to unique sources - the horse's mouth, so to speak - are disuaded from including their information.''' '''Yes, it does. I disagree with the policies, but understand that they are the best that can be made of a complex situation and perhaps overwhelming amount of information. I think what I might do is leave the 'story' of his career unedited (except for things like "he has created ballets for blah blah blah companies", which can be verified with a Google search and should be a matter of public record. I'll then make requests for changes to errors, and then add in what basically amount to lists of works and dates, composers, designers etc. They are almost entirely verifiable through Google or, if not, through old programmes. You, or a fellow editor will be able to see that I am only including facts and figures, not opinions. I suspect you will ask me to put it all in the Talk, box, but I see little point as anyone coming to review it would have no idea if it is correct or not and, I believe, is very unlikely to put in the necessary hours and travel to verify it all. Better a job half done than one complete that might get deleted soon after because I have done the right thing and asked how I should proceed :) Does that sound ok to you? I can even e-mail you photos of some of the show reports, or programmes and cast slips from the archive if you like, just to show that they exist? I am, I have to say, mildly put out that that the book I wrote and created is not admissable as a source (although only 4 copies exist), but I guess that would fall under the same conflict of interest rules we have already discussed.

Sorry to keep wandering off topic a little, too. As well as frustrating, I am finding this very interesting and appreciate your time and patience.'''


 * Thanks Schazjmd - apologies I had no idea. I had assumed from what he wrote that he had intended for me to answer as I did. I'll make sure I follow the guidelines in future. Leea25 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, how could you be expected to know? The way things are done on Wikipedia is often very different from other places on the internet, and we usually don't know what those differences are until we make a mistake (or see someone else make one). It can be very frustrating at first, I know.  Schazjmd   (talk)  15:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)