Chi-Li Wong

Welcome!

Hello, Chi-Li Wong, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Terry Stanfill, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Animalparty! (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Terry Stanfill

The article Terry Stanfill has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Carothers Stanfill

Your addition to Dennis Carothers Stanfill has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

Additionally, the material that you included on the page that was not a copyright violation was not present in the sources that you cited. Per WP:V, all material in an article, particularly one relating to the biography of a living person, must be verifiable in reliable sources or else it cannot be allowed to remain on the page. Per WP:BLPNAME, this is particularly true of personal information concerning non-notable family members; if their information has not been published in reliable sources, then it cannot be included on the subject's Wikipedia page and will be removed. Canadian Paul 12:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Dennis Carothers Stanfill. Per WP:BLP, we cannot include the names of non-notable family members without a direction citation to a reliable source. Please do not add this content again unless it is a) sourced b) written in your own words. Canadian Paul 12:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Carothers Stanfill

Thank you Canadian Paul for your input. I am trying to do this correctly and consult the help pages making sense of as best I can. Regarding the non-notable family members. They are listed in this article which I've now linked via archive pdf since it seems the original link didn't work properly. Family members are listed below his picture.

I have subscribed to a Newspaper (https://www.newspapers.com) archive service. Have found needed additional sources. Wondering if link works on Wiki Page for the general public without a subscribption. Otherwise should I use pdf link to my google docs.? For example: https://www.newspapers.com/image/390486083/?terms=Francesca+Stanfill Chi-Li Wong (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No, links to newspapers.com do not work for non-subscribers.

When you cite a newspaper, the citation template should be filled out with the full bibliographical information of the original publication. This should allow someone to find the newspaper article via a number of methods: microfilm, other archives, etc. You may include the newspapers.com courtesy link using the parameters

url= https://www.newspapers.com/image/390486083/?terms=Francesca+Stanfill | url-access-subscription= yes | via= newspapers.com

If the ?terms= part of the url is not really needed, it should be omitted. The url given in a citation should not be a search url, if at all possible.

Links to your Google Docs are never acceptable as references and should not be offered as courtesy links. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@jmcgnh Thank you. I used the parameters

|url= https://www.newspapers.com/image/390486083/?terms=Francesca+Stanfill | via= newspapers.com |title= Musical Preview to Benefit Associates, Jody Jacobs pg 59 |publisher= The Los Angeles Times|date= May 24, 1983|accessdate= May 11, 2018

this part of parameter was not accepted/ignored

| url-access-subscription= yes |

Chi-Li Wong (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC))

Looks like I mixed something up. Template:cite news says |url-access=subscription should work. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@jmcgnh Thank you so much... got it!

   |url-access=registration- I used your adjustment - all good! 

Chi-Li Wong (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that the difference between "subscription" and "registration" is that registration just requires giving some information to get access to the resource, but "subscription" describes a situation where payment (perhaps by a sponsoring institution) is needed. If you think registration more properly applies to newspapers.com, then that's fine. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@jmcgnh It's the latter. Free archives on line only go to 1985. Prior years require a paid subscription. Thank you!

I see all the information now, thank you. I have a newspapers account and can verify the information, so I withdraw my objection. Canadian Paul 13:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Carothers Stanfill

I have an oral history made by Dennis Stanfill for Caltech. What is required for copyright permission to use content on his wikipedia page? Chi-Li Wong (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:Requesting copyright permission. The copyright holder would need to release the content under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license or a compatible free license, and we need evidence of that licensing. You can find a standard release form at WP:Declaration of consent for all enquiries; the copyright holder can fill out that form and email it to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

That said, you may want to consider whether that content is helpful for Wikipedia's purposes even if the copyright issue can be resolved. Using content created by Dennis Stanfill in the article on Dennis Carothers Stanfill would be problematic; an encyclopedia should not just reproduce what the subject says about themselves. Would Stanfill's oral history be considered a reliable source on any other topic? And even if so, why do we need to use his oral history directly? Why can't we summarize the relevant facts in our own words to avoid copyright issues altogether? Huon (talk) 22:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Huon ... ahhh... understood. Thank you so much. @Huon Can I use the oral history to confirm specific dates? For instance, when the Stanfills moved to Los Angeles.

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Chi-Li Wong. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with identify the incorrect content on Kenneth Atchity Page. I'm just not able to identify what it is that reads like an advertisement. It reads neutral to me. What needs to be removed?

Chi-Li Wong (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)Chi- Li Wong

There are a fair number of problems with this page. I wouldn't have accepted it in its current form because of these problems, some of which I will enumerate here:

• There are several paragraphs with no apparent references. In an article such as this, we require in-line citations for all substantial facts about the person.
• There do not seem to be sufficient notability references, that is, independent, in-depth coverage published in reliable sources. (This is often a problem for producers, who are often neglected by the press; but Atchity has other aspects of his career that perhaps have not been so neglected.]
• When describing a person's profession, it's best not to give an exhaustive list of all the things they have done. Aim for at most three, based on which ones they are most notable for. You can also subsume similar jobs into broader categories, so someone who writes books, edits screenplays, and is a noted film critic as well, might be described as a writer generally. There is plenty of space in the body of the article to go into details, but the lead paragraph and the infobox should aim for brevity, even extreme brevity. Every extra word in the lead paragraph pushes out other words that might be more useful when, say, Google digests the lead paragraph down to the first 10 words, or whatever it's summarization algorithm chooses to do. The long laundry list also gives the impression of hagiography, hence the tag for promotional tone.
• Do not include external links in the body of the article. A subject that has its own Wikipedia page (or which you thing should have a page) can use an internal or wiki-link. External links in the bottom matter (or in the official website field of the infobox) are allowed and, of course, every reference that can be found on the web, we'd like to see a URL for it.
• IMDB is not considered a reliable source, so should be avoided as a reference. If the IMDB link for a person is the best available social-media-like link for a person, it can appear in the External links section.

I'm sure that will give you some things that should be improved in the article. Some of these issues are more cosmetic than substantive. The lack of good independent references is probably the one you need to be most concerned about. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

One more thing about the lede: once the list of professions has been shortened, it should include a phrase along the lines of notable for ... with at most two of the achievements which establish their status as notable. The details and the references that support these as the most notable achievements should come later in the body - we don't get to choose our own most notable items, this should come from the writing of an independent reporter. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@jmcgnh OKay, a lot to digest. :-) Thank you.

Nomination of Terry Stanfill for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Terry Stanfill is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Stanfill until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edwardx (talk) 10:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)