User talk:Kevon kevono/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your unilateral declaration[edit]

You need to reconsider actions like this. You cannot just declare yourself an administrator, unofficial or otherwise.

  1. "Administrator" has a specific meaning here on Wikipedia, and unless you're going to properly submit yourself for that role, you can't claim it.
  2. All articles are open to anyone to edit unless they're specifically protected. You can't restrict that on your own.

It's fine that you have all of them on your watchlist; I have all of Michigan's highway articles on mine. However, I would never make such a statement as you did. Please reconsider immediately. Imzadi 1979 → 23:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being a drama queen about it, you could just do it and not tell anyone while you brush up on WP:OWN. –Fredddie™ 23:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I won't. Kevon kevono (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 17:16 (PDT)[reply]

WP:SPS[edit]

Hi Kevon. I'm a bit concerned with this edit that you made here, regarding self-published sources. I don't think that this edit agrees with WP:SPS, which says: "For that reason, self-published media... are largely not acceptable as sources." What do you think? --Rschen7754 06:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, SPSs aren't prohibited as citations, they're just not recommended. As being a discouragement of improving an article, you won't be accused of vandalism of using SPSs. For example, deleting an entire article with unconsturctive characters or simply nothing is prohibited; you'll be accused of vandalism. Kevon kevono (talk) 21:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 14:13 (PDT)[reply]
You are confusing behavioral guidelines and content guidelines here. Sure, adding self-published sources generally won't get you blocked, but it doesn't help build the encyclopedia either. Self-published sources are not accepted at the GA or FA stage, which you seem to be really interested in getting articles to. Please read WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA if you don't believe me. Adding self-published sources to articles is like filling in a pothole with sand. It will do the job, but not for long. --Rschen7754 00:18, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any source is better than no source, however, content cited only to a SPS could be removed at any time because the source isn't reliable. Of course, a diligent editor could/should attempt to replace the SPS first.
There are various exceptions to that though. One is to allow an SPS written by an expert in that field. For example, LeRoy Barnett is the retired chief archivist of the State of Michigan. He wrote a thorough book called A Drive Down Memory Lane: The Named State and Federal Highways of Michigan that was published by The Priscilla Press. I haven't been able to ascertain if that publisher is a vanity press or not, but even if it were, he is an expert (former chief archivist and published author in Michigan History) in his field (Michigan history), and thus his book is an RS for our purposes. The other exception is for sources published by the subject, meaning we can use MDOT-published sources for MDOT-maintained highways (although government-published stuff is generally considered an RS anyway) or citing non-controversial stuff from a company's press release about themselves. Imzadi 1979 → 05:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus re Interstate 8[edit]

If you ask for consensus, you should get it before splitting an article like that. –Fredddie™ 22:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And for the second time, please fix your signature. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:What signature? Kevon kevono (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC) 16:15 (PDT)[reply]
The one that changes the font of any comments that appear after it on pages that aren't your talk page? Everything on here has been switched to Gill Sans, but your defective signature also makes stuff appear in that typeface elsewhere. Imzadi 1979 → 23:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 80 in California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interstate 580. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Interstate 8 into Interstate 8 in California. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as California State Route 84. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. I will be removing this text from the article shortly. Please note that plagiarism can result in a block, so this is something to be taken seriously. Rschen7754 00:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that you plagiarized from cahighways.org, which is a copyrighted source, as well. This is taken very seriously on Wikipedia (and in school, too), so you need to be very careful about this. --Rschen7754 00:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel discouraged. :) Kevon kevono (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 21:33 (PDT)[reply]
What should I do for rewriting this section of the article, because I liked the info I wrote both legit and plagiarized? Rewriting the text still counts as plagiarism, as I'm copying an entire source and just rephrasing and adding some stuff from other sources and my own intelligence. I know WP:OR is discouraged; you don't have to remind me that, or you don't have to ask why I'm saying this. Kevon kevono (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 21:39 (PDT)[reply]

The particular issue here was that the text was not rewritten enough, and I could look at the text and the source and see a lot of the same phrases in both. Paraphrasing would help, but restructuring the content would be better (for example, the bulleted text could have been condensed and some of the details left out). The reason copyright and plagiarism is taken so seriously is because unlike self-published sources, it has to be removed right away, or Wikipedia could be sued.

As far as being discouraged: I realize that you've received a lot of negative feedback lately. I will say that I did start editing Wikipedia when I was 14 years old (and I know of many road editors who did too), so it certainly is possible to be a productive editor when you are younger, which I'm guessing you are (please don't say your age here though, to protect your privacy). It was hard, and I made many mistakes, but there were three things that I did that eventually caused things to work out:

  1. I sat down and read all the core policies. There are dozens of policies and guidelines, but the really important ones are WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. The core road ones like WP:USRD/STDS, WP:RJL, and WP:USSH might be good too.
  2. I paid attention in English class, especially to stuff like grammar and analytical writing.
  3. I was humble and listened to feedback from other editors. That doesn't mean that more experienced editors are always right; in fact, new ideas are essential to the future of Wikipedia. But it does mean at least hearing out what those more experienced have to say, because there might be a really good reason why things are done a certain way.

There's definitely a need for more road editors, even in California (unlike Michigan, where one editor was able to write all the articles). The size of the state combined with having so many urban areas, and the older road system means that California is one of the most difficult states and will require a lot of effort by a lot of people. But... all those people have to get along, and follow Wikipedia policies, or we will wind up with a strange mess that shouldn't be part of an encyclopedia. Anyway, hope this helps. --Rschen7754 06:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't exactly an encyclopedia. It's more of a peer-edited heavily-elaborated one. There are articles that may be closer to nonfiction short stories than an encyclopedia entry. Take California State Route 52, or I. M. Pei, two subjects that I've heard of but aren't popular around the average person. If these articles were put into an encyclopedia, they'll be significantly shortened and SR 52 will probably be deleted and moved to "State routes in California", and I.M. Pei would be moved to probably something broad as "China." Since its creation, Wikipedia probably received over a million edits. I think the objection of Wikipedia has changed greatly over time. The Wiki rules, instructions, and guidelines of editing Wikipedia. In fact, the links that have helped me in editing have been written around a decade ago, which is about half a decade ago. Kevon kevono (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC) 16:26 (PDT)[reply]
Your perceptions don't quite matter. You're thinking of generalist encyclopedias, like Encyclopædia Britannica, yet we also incorporate elements of specialist works more like Jane's All the World's Aircraft. We are not limited in size, like Britannica, so we can cover these more specialized topics at greater depth like we do.
An yet, even that doesn't matter. We still have the same requirements for general or specialized articles: include information that can be verified, cite your sources, write with a neutral point of view, include information that others have written and respect copyright/don't plagiarize. If you can't do those basic things, even if you were writing articles for a state as the only editor, you wouldn't belong here at all. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 June 2016[edit]

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kevon_kevono/Archive_4&oldid=1087849927"