User talk:Mshafb

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia, ! I hope you like the place and decide to keep contributing. Since I see you've already been active here, let me just give you a few links that are always useful as a handy reference guide: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question at the village pump or feel free to ask me on my Talk page. Oh, and just in case you don't already know: to sign your name on a Talk page like I did below, the easiest way is just to type four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;). To customize your signature, look here. And remember:Be Bold!
 * How to write a great article
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikiquette
 * Wikipedia's NPOV policies
 * Current polls
 * &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  22:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Re: my articles -- writing, editing others, and submitting photos
Hi - you sent me a note in the midst of my writing an article == about asking you questions, if I had any, or discuss stuff. I have an addictive LOVE of writing and I have a lot of history to write about, some of which I know first-hand. (1.) I have perused the Wiki outlines about styles, etc. and have tried to gear my writing to be encyclopedic but not dull (history shouldn't have to be) -- but probably still "ain't perfect" by Wiki standards. (2.) I have a problem not being able to understand alot of the jargon and communication techniques laid out in Wiki -- even in writing this. (3.) I saw mentioned that some articles are actually "protected" from editing, which surprises me, as Wiki is advertised as being info that ANYONE can edit...gee...shouldn't it really say, "anyone can edit SOME info..."? (4.) I have been an anonymous editor on some articles. I only registered because I thought it was required to contribute photos. Do I have to go back to old articles I wrote or edited and put my user name on them somehow? If so, HELP!! (5.) Also, I tried to follow the instructions on how to get pictures inserted because I have photos ready to go, but the directions are too much, and too frustrating for me to follow. They lead to too many questions without another person to initially walk me through it. I seem to be clueless...thank you! IS THAT BOLD ENOUGH?

Mshafb 00:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Mshafb &mdash;
 * Plenty bold enough! Let me try to answer your questions as best I can.
 * (1) I'm sure what you contribute will be great. The thing about a wiki is that, if you add something to an article and someone wants to try to improve your writing, they can do so and leave your facts intact, and hopefully the article will be all the better for your combined efforts. Our benchmark for good encyclopedic style can normally be sussed out by purusing the Featured articles of which one is always on the main page.
 * (2) That's the case for most people &mdash; a bit off-putting to newcommers, unfortunately, but it's something that eventually occurs in all large internet communities (probably all non-internet communities as well). If you stay here long enough you'll quickly get the hang of it, but always feel free to ask anyone questions in the mean time.
 * (3) Unfortunately it's sometimes necessary to protect an article. This may occur if someone has targeted an article for repeated vandalism over a short period, but more commonly it's in response to a n edit war, which is typically when two users keep reverting each other point blank with no discussion. A protection may be put in place to get the warriors to take a breath and start talking on the talk page. It's not a perfect solution, since, as you say, anyone ought to be able to edit articles, so it's normally done over short periods.
 * (4) There shouldn't be any need. There is a way to do it, and if you have any edits that you really want to put in your name, or want to get credit for a large number of edits, I can find out for you how it's done. However, like I say, it shouldn't really matter.
 * (5) Easiest way: Upload an image and give it a name, say picture.jpg. Stick it where you want it in an article with this code: frame|some caption here. Done.
 * If the picture is too big, change the line to say to thumb|200px|some caption here, changing 200px as appropriate. Don't worry too much about making it look perfect &mdash; once it's in place, someone might come around to re-size it or whatever if necessary. For more in depth ways you can manipulate an image, see Picture tutorial.
 * (6) If you want to let anyone know about you, or want to get rid of the red link that shows up when you ign your name, you can fill out your user page, User:Mshafb.
 * (7) Anything else?
 * &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  03:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Asbestos: Thank you for your response. (1.) Regarding the input of photos, I notice you did not include the most puzzling part about choosing the license. Do I ignore that? Or do I have to do that on each one? How do I do that? What do I choose, if necessary, and where do I put that information? For the most part, the pictures are photos of people I know, either taken by me or by other non-professionals, and some of vintage years, as well as maybe artwork painted by my deceased parents who were professional artists, and whose copyrights for reproduction I am assuming to hold since I own the original art. Should I worry if they go public that they may be copied by other artists? (2.) In doing geneaology and historical work in other legitimate websites, I found that my name and inquiries were used as a title in a pornography site, OF COURSE WITHOUT MY PERMISSION. I am very angry and embarrassed about that. What can be done to make sure anything I include in this site will not be co-opted by porn sites? (3.) The particular site I wanted to add more info into was for "Ted Neeley." It is pitifully poor, only a sentence or so in the initial bio. It seems to remain protected, so I wonder about the timeline for that one? Or can't the original writer build it up with more quality info?

Thank you...

Mshafb 14:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)mshafb


 * (1) Copyright is a little confusing. First, do make sure that your photos are encyclopedic &mdash; while it's fine to have a personal photo or two on your user page, most photos you upload ought to be directly for an article. For creation of articles on friends, note this guideline page, and related links. That aside, if you hold the copyright, either from being the photographer or by having the copyright passed to you from your parents, the applicable licenses are those listed under "Free Licenses", GFDL and Creative Commons, or the "No Rights Reserved". The latter releases all copyrights, the former allows you to retain some rights, such as requiring that you be attributed when someone copies the image (you'd pick one of the Creative Commons lisences if you want that). Note that none of the lisences allow you to prevent anyone else from taking the image and using it however they wish &mdash; this is part of Wikpedia's philosophy, and the entire encyclopedia can be copied by anyone and used however they want. If you'd prefer that people didn't take your images and use them around the internet, don't upload them.
 * (2) I can't help you here. Try finding out contact info for the webmaster/site owner and emailing them. If it's important enough, you could contact a lawyer. As for co-opting stuff on this site, like I said, anything that's written on this encyclopedia can (and will) be copied and spread all over the internet. Don't write personal information data or biographies if you'd prefer this didn't happen.
 * (3) When I look at the Ted Neeley article, I don't see that it's protected, and I can't find it on the protection log either. If you don't see the "edit" link above the article, try clicking this link to edit it. You should see the "edit" link at the top of the article, however.
 * &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  15:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

how to literally answer and resolve pending deletions
Thank you for helping. I am having a hard time understanding directions on how to answer people who have deemed my article worth deleting and to show my side as to why it should not be deleted. I pulled up my article and saw a box saying the article is up for deletion and I clicked into that box and found all the comments. The directions said to respond, go to the "Talk" page and I clicked into the top tab that said "discussion" but it was empty. I didn't see any "Talk" page. I copied out "What Wikipedia is not" and I still think I deserve consideration. I tried clicking directly into one of the comment people, but their pages were of archived comments. How do I technically answer each commenter? The dispute box and "asking for advocacy assistance" didn't give me specific directions either to help me understand the techniques to actualy ask an advocate a question, and I could find no advocate that would have understood the sensitivity of my article. So I have 3 questions: 1) in that what I wrote about is permitted in other similar circumstances, 2) the comments were by all men (I beleive) and some of the comments were extremely rude by my standards, and 3) the advocates I tried to find were also all men whose comments in their other advocacies I feel would not be sensitive in understanding my article, which is an article about a Christian woman.  The only good concensus was that the article was well-written.  I am not a technical person and need help!

mshafbMshafb 15:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The article in question is undergoing the "articles for deletion" or AFD process. The system works by placing a notification on the article, and then discussing reasons for its deletion on a separate AFD page. The page for the article you wrote is here Articles for deletion/Rebecca H. Davis. The first line is the reason why the original nominator thinks it should be deleted followed by people either agreeing or disagreeing with comments. At the end of 5 days the discussion will be looked at and if there is a consensus it will be acted upon. If you want to contest the deletion the page to do so is that one. It's not usually appropriate to talk to each person individually because a better place to do so with more context already exists. Articles for deletion/Rebecca H. Davis


 * Sometimes people on AFD use shorthand for their reasons which makes it difficult for newcomers to understand exactly why people even think their article deserves being deleted. I will try and summarize the reasons given and give you what they actually said so you can understand the sometimes difficult shorthand. One of the reasons people are giving is WP:BIO, they might say "notability", "WP:BIO" etc. What they are saying is that they don't think the article fulfills the requirements on the page about inclusion of people Notability (people). This is a guideline. Another reason given is that "wikipedia isn't a memorial" and similar statements, This is in reference to What Wikipedia is not and is official policy. The third contention is that the article is not in line with the "neutral point of view" policy. This is just a criticism in general of the article and alone would not be grounds for deletion. If you want to learn more about AFD you can read Articles for deletion.


 * To answer your questions 2 and 3 the genders and religious views of the people involved are not really appropriate subjects in the debate. Unless you have strong reasons to believe otherwise it's always best to Assume good faith. The wording people use in AFD can sometimes seem somewhat robotic and uncaring, but the people that do it usually vote on a large number a day and sometimes fall into using shorthand. I can assure you that in an extreme majority of cases they don't have any bad feelings towards you or the article.


 * Hope that clears up your question, if not feel free to contact me on my talk page or ask on Newcomers help page :D - cohesion &#9733; talk 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response in answers to my questions. I have some concerns about all this which I hope you can give me direction. Right after I asked the initial question regarding Rebecca H. Davis page for deletion, I went back into the comment box and figured out a way to put in my support of why it should NOT be deleted. The answers you gave, although WIKI in explanation, don't seem to cover some these concerns in depth nor my technical difficulties. Specifically, regarding a commentator's motives, you said that I have to use "good faith." Normally, I would agree, but when a specific commentator's personal talk page has in his bio a listing that he is an "atheist" and also boldly a "WIKI atheist" -- what am I to think when I am writing about a Christian woman -- and he adds to the negative comments? Are you telling me I am supposed to use good faith that there is NO underlying bias in his comment? If he didn't boast on his bio, then yes, I would have more reason to grant good faith. If my writing is to be encyclopedic and neutral and yet anyone can say anything they want about it, then so should I have the same freedoms to WRITE and KEEP my article, within good taste and with responsibility. ALSO, though I want to better my writing on this story for inclusion, if it is going to be deleted anyway, WHY BOTHER? I can't even further my research in FIVE DAYS. No one else but me has spoken in support, so it comes down to being outnumbered and with BIAS. And don't get me started that there are no sensitive WOMEN commentators or advocates on the lists! The advocates I found had all macho or rude entries. Thanks for your help in addressing these issues.

mshafbMshafb 18:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some people may be atheists, but they still should be acting in a neutral unbiased way. I can't answer your question about the nominator's motives other than to tell you at Wikipedia we try and assume good faith. Also we try and reach consensus about decisions, such as this article's possible deletion. The article has been deleted now, and the discussion is archived at Articles for deletion/Rebecca H. Davis. If you feel strongly that the article should not have been deleted the process you are looking for is Deletion review although I should warn you, unless you have new information about why the subject is notable the review process will likely make a similiar decision. - cohesion &#9733; talk 06:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jacob Conrad Shafer
An article that you have been involved in editing, Jacob Conrad Shafer, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Jacob Conrad Shafer. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? B. Wolterding (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)