Talk:Stephens City, Virginia/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Initial review

Resolved.

I think this article has GA potential, but there are a number of things that need doing. On the plus side, there's a lot of good content, a couple of nice pictures (thanks Homer), and a solid set of sources. In terms of what needs doing, I would say the first thing would be to move to inline citation. Homer - do you want to tackle this since you have the books? It's a bit tedious, but I don't believe an article will get passed as a good article without inline citation.--Kubigula (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I can give it a shot, if you would show me how to add one correctly. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The basic idea is to tie as much article text as possible to the specific source or reference that it came from. Ideally, each paragraph would be cited to the appropriate reference; if different sentences of text in a paragraph came from different sources, then each sentence may be tagged. There are several ways to do inline citations, but I will show you the way I know.

I'm anticipating that each one of your sources will be used multiple times, so you can give them reference nicknames to make it easier. Specifically, the first time a particular sources is used, you place the source's info after the text and surround it with ref markup. For example, <ref name="Bivens"> Bivins, John. “Isaac Zane and the Products of Marlboro Furnace.” Journal of Early Southern Decorative Arts 11:1 (May 1985): 14-65.</ref> at the end of the first paragraph that uses Bivens as a source. "Bivens" then becomes the reference nickname for this source. The next time you want to cite Bivens as a reference, you just type <ref name="Bivens"/> at the end of the paragraph (or sentence).

Finally, you add a new section at the end of the article:

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

And it will automatically generate a list of references. I suggest experimenting with a few references first, to get the hang of it. However, keep in mind that the reference list wont show up unless you create the new section. Make sense?--Kubigula (talk) 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've busted this article down to Start class due to a necessary large revert. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Resolved.

The reason I reverted massive amounts of this article is because they were lifted directly from http://www.newtownhistorycenter.org. They notified me of this and I have taken the necessary action (rewriting it was not an option right now). Contact me with questions. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Contacting you is not necessary as I have written permission to use that information. - NeutralHomer T:C 19:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Did we really rely on the long list of "Sources", or did we use just one source? It would dishonest to list these as sources unless we have consulted them ourselves. We could list them as "further reading". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've attributed the text and chnaged the "Sources" section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are the sources that the Newtown History Center lists as their sources. If we are going to include the text, then the sources should come with. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
They weren't represented as such. They should be moved into the history section and marked as the sources for their material. We only have one source - the website. I dont' know what the Communications Committee will decide to do with this material. But if it's copied verbatim we need to attribute it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
If need be, I will rewrite it. I don't want to, since the Network History Center allowed me to use the info on this article, but if I have to, I will.
Now, I do count the Newtown History Center as a source (which you have changed to History Sources), so do we still need the attribution at the top? - NeutralHomer T:C 04:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand your question. Do you mean if you rewrite it, what's your source? If you simply re-word the History Center's text then they are the one and only source. If you actually consult other materials then those are also sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I didn'ty write that very well. There were two seperate points. One, if I have to rewrite it (if ComComm says no to the permission from Newtown History Center) then I will. Two, and my question to you, since I added the Newtown History Center as a source (which you have renamed "History Sources") do you we still need the attribution at the top? It would be like sourcing something twice. - NeutralHomer T:C 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The History Center is not "a source". It is "the source". The list of sources that they used is informatiive, but it's not our source. Until someone re-writes the material, we need to note its attribution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Any news? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I had checked the status of the confirmation on Sunday and I was told that the confirmation as submitted was not formatted properly. NeutralHomer should have gotten a note from them telling him to try again. I will be checking in again on Sunday/Monday to see what the status is. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I haven't gotten anything. How was it not formatted properly? - NeutralHomer T:C 22:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know the answer to that. He just said that it was not formatted properly and that he'd send a note to the sender. I'd poke at it some more today, but I don't have the time. I'll check in and get more detail after the weekend. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I would appericate it, cause at the moment, I have put everything on hold til I get that approval. Don't want to add anything the article that might be removed if the submission of permission is not approved. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no permission has been noted on the talk page, I am removing the copied text. Please do not replace it unless permission is received; thank you. --NE2 23:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated on your talk page, I submitted permission, it was obviously recieved, because I was told by User:Mufka that is was "not formatted correctly", but was given no further information and recieved nothing from ComComm. User:Mufka was supposed to find out more, but again never got back to me. I held up my end. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Our last discussion was that you were going to Newtown History Center to get the proper permission. Remember this and this? I just don't want it to seem like I dropped the ball or something. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I never said you dropped the ball. I was waiting for something from ComComm, a more detailed message from them, but never recieved it. Also, I had some problems in offline-world that needed taken care of and were more important as well. But I was waiting for ComComm. - NeutralHomer T:C 00:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem. When we receive the proper permission we can add the material back again. In the meantime, anyone can write a history of the subject using their own words. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

Resolved.

I removed the information again that was copied from http://www.newtownhistorycenter.org/Default.asp?page=504. No rewrite was attempted, simply copy/paste. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you actually took the time to read it, you would see I did my best to rewrite it. Since you failed to get ComComm to re-email me (or post anything to my talk page) I don't think you have room to debate this. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The material is clearly copied. Some sentences are verbatim:
  • It had all started over a week earlier on the evening of May 23, when partisan Confederate sympathizers from Maryland fired on a Federal wagon train from horseback as they rode away, shot one Union soldier and escaped.
  • It had all started over a week earlier on the evening of the 23rd of May, when partisan Confederate sympathizers from Maryland fired on a Federal wagon train from horseback as they rode away, shot one Union soldier and escaped.
Changing "23rd of May" to "May 23" is not re-writing. Until proper permission is filed this is a copyright violation. The burden of proof is on the person adding the material. I'm going to remove it again. Please don't restore it until the matter has been resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Permission

Resolved.

This is the email that was sent to ComComm, permission directly from the Newtown History Center allowing this to be used on this page:

[retracted]

"Tybois Uphold" and "Dayton T. Uphold" are one and the same and the name of this user. This the permission I was given from the Newtown History Center. It was sent previously to ComComm and no information was given in return. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the pages about requesting permission, including the one I posted on your talk page? This gives one person permission to use the material, not Wikipedia and any commerical or non-commercial websites that want to re-write it. This isn't a valid permission. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but I, Tybois Uphold, am a editor of Wikipedia? Full permission has been sent to the OTRS inbox. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you actually read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission? Do you understand it? Who is sending the permission to the OTRS - you or the copyright holder? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
OTRS has it, but it's not valid. Please see the policy and follow it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Resolved.

Please do not archive this talk page. There is no reason to do so. I am certainly open to discussion if someone disagrees. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All of these issues have bene resolved, so there is no reason for them to clutter the talk page. After a certain amount of time, they are archived. If you MiszaBot to do it, that's fine too. - NeutralHomer T:C 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
From your comments elsewhere I understand that you are still pursuing permission. Once it's obtained, or efforts to obtain it are dropped, then it will be resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Will, read your talk page. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you say you've asked for the permission and that the copyright holder told you he'd send it. That's about where we were some months ago. Once the permission is actually received, is in an acceptable format, and has been properly noted then I think we can say the matter is resolved. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Oy Vey! Three months ago, I forwarded the permission sent to me. Not them sending it, I forwarded the permission they sent me. I think we discussed this. Since you never told me the "acceptable format", I had to get someone else to help me. If it doesn't work this time, I am laying blame squarely on you for this one my friend. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. When the matter is resolved we can archive the discussions of it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
See, this is that lack of patience I was talking about. The matter is resolved as of about 1:30pm EST this afternoon, hence it can be archived. If you want to clutter a page, that is up to you. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
What part of "Once the permission is actually received, is in an acceptable format, and has been properly noted then I think we can say the matter is resolved" was unclear? (my emphasis) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Since I am on the "sending-in" side of this, I call it resolved. I have done my part, it's up to you now. You go to ComComm and sit on them until they accept it this time. I've done my part, you do yours. If you'll excuse me, I have a Vicodin to take...another migraine again. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
You are correct that your part is done. Now we wait. When you say "you" I assume you don't mean me. As far as ComComm is concerned, I ain't doin' squat. You can sit on them all you want. If I try to help, you'll just poop in my potatoes. I'm just an observer now - unless the copyrighted material gets posted again without the stamp of approval. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
..."poop in my potatoes"? Ooook? - NeutralHomer T:C 00:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the OTRS received a message sent 11/04/2007 23:22:39. It is not from the NHC, and appears to just re-forward the (inadequate) email from the NHC from July. That may not be the new email message we're waiting for, but it if is it still doesn't give the proper permission. It'd be best if the copyright holder mails the OTRS directly. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Do me a favor, forward it to my email so, if it is, I can correct it tomorrow. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Let's not make this any harder. I got the guy's email off of the website and have sent him a request directly, CCing you. If he responds affirmatively I'll file it with the ComComm myself. Hopefully we can settle this matter once and for all. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Just got the CC, but I don't believe that I said anything about GFDL (hell, I had to look it up to see what it was). I didn't expect anything from this guy til probably tomorrow, if not Wednesday....and I really didn't want to annoy the crap out of him. He does have the power to say "No" to the whole thing. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, according to one of the people in WP:VA, he said last night it should be filed under "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 United States". - NeutralHomer T:C 03:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The email I sent included links to the full text of the GFDL and to other licenses. If you want to advise him on which license is best feel free to send a note of your own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Permission has now been granted by the copyright holder using the correct format. We are free to add it to the article and edit it as necessary. When we add it we should still give credit in the edit summary to the original author, as required by GFDL. We should also list the NHC as the source in the references section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While we are now permitted to add the material verbatim, Wikipedia guidelines suggest that we should edit the material to conform to internal standards, such as linking significant terms, formatting dates, and maintaining NPOV. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Verbatim version has been readded. This version is from the NHC website and last added in July. - NeutralHomer T:C 20:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)