Talk:Barbara Zecchi

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Women in Red: #1day1woman (2020)

This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2020. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Hello,

First off, let me thank all Wikipedians who, in one way or another, helped me with this first article.

I read all Barbara Zecchi's books and found them very inspiring. Surprisingly, when I checked Wikipedia to learn more about this feminist film scholar, I saw that her name was in red. So I decided to create my first article about her. On Aug 29, I became a member of Women in Red Project. I'm planning to continue contributing to this field.

On Sept. 4, my article was flagged for Copyright concerns. It is now listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems: https://www.umass.edu/film/member/barbara-zecchi-fs https://www.umass.edu/spanport/member/barbara-zecchi (Duplication Detector report · Copyvios report). I hereby supply evidence of non-infringement of copyright. In order to draft this article, I used over 20 references. As I clearly indicated in my footnotes, my major source of information comes from the two websites that were flagged. However, both websites state that the information about Barbara Zecchi can be freely used: https://www.umass.edu/film/member/barbara-zecchi-fs: "Open Access Resources: In 2011 she launched the Digital Humanities Project Gynocine: Feminism, Women Filmmakers and Film Studies that she is currently directing. Through open access resources (biographies, filmographies, interviews, sillabi, etc.), the goal of the project is to give visibility to women in cinema and provide students of cinema with useful tools for their research. This Faculty Profile is also open access and can be freely used." https://www.umass.edu/spanport/member/barbara-zecchi "the goal of the project is to give visibility to women in cinema. This UMass faculty profile is also open access." Furthermore, I did not simply "copy" the open access information I found on these websites. As per Wikipedia rules: "Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting, so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...", together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph. Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." This is exactly the case with my article.

Thank you! All the best, Lunaandmaya (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)lunaandmayaLunaandmaya (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to get this to the foks who axed you. Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carptrash!! Thank you for yet another tip!! Will do!!Lunaandmaya (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)LunaandmayaLunaandmaya (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio - NOT[edit]

Needs to be a record of this here. A couple of unfortunate edits have been corrected. The first was tagging the article for copyvio, for issues that were not copyvios. diff: job titles, fields of study, academic departments, etc. The second was a complete blanking of the article by a different editor within 10 minutes of the tagging: diff. Neither of those should have happened, and caused a lot of stress to a first-time editor struggling to get everything correct. Wikipedia can do better than this. If we are to avoid job titles, fields of study, academic departments, etc. as copyvios in every article, Wikipedia as a whole cannot survive. — Maile (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find anything while comparing with the two listed urls, but did find some content copied from other sources and have cleaned the article. Please see the article history to review what I found.— Diannaa (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Yes I see what you did. It looks like you removed two sentences, and did some minor editing. Thank you for checking on this. The two listed urls, however, were what was used as the basis for that panic attack of blanking the article - complete over-reaction and over-kill. — Maile (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody made a mistake, that's all. Human error.— Diannaa (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile and Diannaa, thank you both! It was a great learning experience. I'm ready for my next article! Lunaandmaya (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC) LunaandmayaLunaandmaya (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]