Timothy Good
|
Currently trying to maintain the African American history to the Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site page. Some users continue to remove that history.
- Take your concerns to the talk page of the articles. We can address them there. Before you do, please read WP:AGF. Montanabw(talk) 01:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- Follow up: I have explained the problems with your edits at the article's talk page. Please also read WP:COI because it appears you have a close affiliation with the entity you are writing about. I am willing to help you get the material you want in there, but it has to be in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines. Montanabw(talk) 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Montanabw - who would you consider as a subject matter expert on Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site?
- Please discuss this at the article's talk page, not mine. Montanabw(talk) 03:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Your recent edits
edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Belated greetings
editHello, Timothy Good. It looks like you've managed to edit for a while without somebody dropping you an official welcome on your talk page. :) I've remedied that, with my favorite "welcome mat" on the top of your talk page. It includes links to all kinds of useful policies and guidelines.
I was alerted to the confusion regarding the copyright status of the content in the article Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site and just wanted to explain a little bit more about our use of sources on the English Wikipedia.
First, you may already know this, but because you wrote that the source "is written for the web and is in the public domain", I just wanted to be absolutely sure that you realize that being written for public display is not the same as being in the public domain. I know you may simply have failed to explain there that the reason it's in the public domain is that it was written by a US Federal employee in the scope of his or her duties, but to help avoid confusion down the road will explain anyway that most of the content you encounter on the web is copyrighted, whether it has an obvious author or bears a copyright notice or not. We have an information page at Wikipedia:Public domain that can help determine whether or not content is public domain and usable verbatim on Wikipedia. We also accept content that is compatibly licensed, as long as we are able to verify that the license is compatible (for instance, if they post it in the "about" page of their site or the bottom of their page). When using compatibly licensed or public domain information, we are currently required to put a specific note that we are copying on the page. Wikipedia:Plagiarism explains where and how this is done.
If we cannot prove that the content is public domain or compatibly licensed, we can take information from it, but cannot copy sentences or creative structure, except that we may use properly attributed and marked quotations in accordance with WP:NFC.
All that aside, I appreciate the way you are engaging with others in discussing the issue. Work on Wikipedia can become tense, as contributors care very much about the accuracy of content and the conformity to our core content policies (verifiability, neutrality and "no original research" - I've always hated the name of that one, as it defies easy reduction. :P) We recommend handling disputes through discussion, precisely as you have been doing.
I see that the question of COI has been raised as well. Wikipedia's guideline on conflict of interest indicates, basically, that if people have a close connection to article subjects (personally or professionally), they may have a COI. A COI exists when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia - to produce a well-balanced, well-sourced, free source of information. A big help there is transparency; if you are connected with a subject (or antagonistic to it), we ask that you disclose. If you receive pay for editing, you are required by our Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. (Your employer and client could conceivably be the same person - the distinction is useful when press companies may edit multiple articles on behalf of their clients.) If you do have any kind of connection with this subject, I'd recommend reading WP:COI and deciding how best to proceed to make sure you are well within those core content policies. :) Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide is also helpful.
If you encounter any issues or concerns, I'd recommend a visit to the Wikipedia:Teahouse. It was created to be a friendly environment for newcomers as they learn their way around. If you have questions about any of the above, you are more than welcome to stop by my talk page or to summon me here by responding and adding {{u|Moonriddengirl}} in your note (curly brackets and all). This will "ping" me so that I don't miss it.
Thanks for helping out! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)