User talk:ColFergStod
Welcome
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
August 2016
[edit]
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Mods and rockers, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Help me!
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Firstly I am 72 and not very computer literate, and I am having extreme difficulty in inserting 2 chapters on the page headed Mods & Rockers, so please can you help me? I have transferred the 2 chapters successfully,or I think so, and I have also completed the citation, which relates to my book and the story, but errors come up that I need to insert a ref field, and I just don't know how to correct this. Also the details I have entered for the cite do not appear anywhere. What am I doing wrong?
Please help me with...
ColFergStod (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! You did get everything correctly, except for the <ref> tags. The error message you saw was because there was a <ref> that didn't have a </ref> tag to close it. It's like a sandwich: if you remove the bottom piece of bread, everything falls out and makes a big mess.
- Wikipedia uses footnotes for the citations. As such, the citation information is hidden from view unless you click the footnote. Right now, your citation is represented by [3], and it is right at the end of the paragraph you wrote.
- On a similar note, Wikipedia requires that information be cited by a WP:Reliable source. I don't have the book you cited in front of me, but it is probably reliable. Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you edit some more! If you have any questions, you can ask them the same way you did this one, or contact me directly. Happy editing! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Mods and rockers. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -Primetime (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Conflict of Interest and citing yourself on Wikipedia
[edit]I have noticed you have self-identified (at User talk:Jim1138#Mods & RockersColFergStod (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)) as Colin Stoddart, author of the book you have cited when changing content on Mods and Rockers.
Please refrain from making any further alterations. Wikipedia has strict policies about involved-individuals writing content which they themselves have written and published, and have a financial interest in. This is covered at WP:COI and also can be considered under WP:PROMOTION (of your recent book}. This is to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, which requires un-involved, impartial editors to make such changes. I am not sufficiently-knowledgeable in self-published books (and what appears to be an auto-biography) and I don't have the time to research these aspects, but it is possible that this will not be considered as a reliable source. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have now read-through your personal commentary submitted as prose. I acknowledge that this is very difficult for a new editor to understand and come to terms with, but I have tried to be cautious and respectful, adhering to Wikipedia's requirements when dealing with new editors. Your observations and tone (style of writing) seriously breach Wilkipedia's policy on synthesis, that is you are trying to cite what did not exist - by your own admission the term Mods and Rockers did not appear in local stories. If you genuinely had the term 'Mods / Rockers' quoted in hard-published, historic (contemporaneous with the events) material regarding physical conflicts that would be different, but it appears you are just trying to re-write history by three years.
I surmise you are a member of the public and not a noted author who has been reported upon by independent reviewers. There is a lot of this on self-published works - anecdotal reminiscences which are indistinguishable from conjecture and speculation and which can often be too-near the writer's own sentiments for objectivity. Retro-application of other more-recent terms also can be involved, again re-writing history.
Unfortunately, it also encumbers other editors by hours in trying to sort out what is admissable, causing down-time when editors should be involved with other things. If your personal comments (known as Original Research) were allowed to stand, others could copy it to their sites; I could add [citation needed] and/or [better source needed], and a future-editor may keyword search the internet, find what has been copied from your contributions, then add URLs from the other place(s) as a source. This is known as WP:Circular.
I've received a notification that you've sent me an email, but there is nothing in my inbox (it's a dedicated email address) and it would be better to communicate here, in fairness to other editors who may have your talk page on their watchlist.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Mods and Rockers
[edit]When I set out to up-date the Wikipedia page Mods & Rockers, it was all done quite naively and innocently. After I had entered two paragraphs of information I was asked to complete a citation. Again quite innocently I entered details of my book together with the ISBN number. A new editor has established that I am not a noted author, and I am a member of the public - correct on both counts. My writing isn't so eloquently written as the author's writing, but in retirement I wanted to write a book about my experiences in the 60's, and I devoted the first three chapters to describing my personal involvement as a Mod, and the facts behind the first major confrontation between the Mods and Rockers in 1961. OK, I really had no idea that the way I had written the two paragraphs 'seroiusly breached Wikipedia's Policy on Synthesis' - that was my innocence not being a 'noted author'. I was accused of 'trying to cite what didn't exsist'. The detail given within my two chapters was not just based on hearsay, or extracted from a newspaper or book - I was actually there on the day when the conflict took place. The editor implied that what I had written was conjecture, and I have to disagree. My recollections of the events that took place, was also based on articles that appeared in the national newspapers, which I can supply copies of, and copies of my court summons. Also I have copies of the court hearing, which gives details of the events that took place, also available for viewing. In addition before writing my story I conferred with two friends who were also involved in the affray in 1961. I would be prepared to ask them both to provide affidavit's confirming the accuracy of my story, and also to confirm that they were Mods, and present this to Wikipedia. From what the editor has implied, 'anecdotal reminiscences which are indistinguishable from conecture and speculation can often be too-near the writer's own setiments for objectivity'. So when reading any personal exploits of people, or autobiographies, the accuracy of the stories should all be taken with a 'pinch of salt'. On the Wikipedia website page Mods and Rockers, references have been made to the author Prof.Stanley Cohen's definitive book on the subject, 'Folk Devils and Moral Panics: Creation of Mods and Rockers' I contacted Prof. Cohen having read his book, and contradicted his reference to 1964 being the first majoe conflict between these gangs. I pointed out that in fact the first confrontation took place in 1961, and supported my claim with documentary evidence. Prof. Cohen accepted this new information and stated that when he came to edit the fourth edition of his book, he would include this new evidence. Unfortunately Prof, Cohen died six months later. So, as the Mods and Rockers page now stands on Wikipedia, it isn't entirely accurate. I wonder how Prof. Cohen obtained the information required to write his book. He certainly wasn't there at the various conflicts, so he had to rely on first-hand accounts many years later!, newspaper reports, and TV news broadcasts of the time - how do we know that his information is totally accurate - it must be because he was a noted author!
- Again, you are taking this far too personally instead of objectively. Wikipedia works on the basis of citing published sources which are historically famous, or have been deemed to be reliable. In the traditional press, this meant cub reporters under the guidance of superiors, and under the auspices of the parent and/or publishing house. With the rise of internet, this has all changed, anyone can write anything, so sources have to be scrutinised. I have explained the policies applicable (there are policies, guidelines and essays in descending order). Wikipedia is not the vehicle to promote your own experiences and research, however thorough, although I actually admire your commitment and passion.
Wikipedia is not, and should not be, in itself, regarded as a reliable source, so there will be 'things missing' and plain wrong. It often comes under WP:Verifiability, not truth. If it makes you feel better, then I am 100% the bad guy for trying to help by explaining established Wikipedia protocols, whereas others may just press the button and send a warning by automated sequence, as seen above. As editors we have to make judgement calls; we all have to play by the same rules, and I don't participate seeking popularity. Normally, I don't object to a bit of extra-curricular research, as often serendipity realises other unexpected benefits and aspects, but it is not incumbent on other editors' input to justify shortcomings - editors are responsible for their own actions.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Mods and Rockers
[edit]I think I've got the gist of what you are saying, but its been a bit hard going trying to translate your eloquent prose! I won't carry on any longer about my issues. However, you say Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and then go on to say Wikipedia works on the basis of citing published sources - are you saying published sources are not reliable! Yes perhaps I have taken your criticism a lttle bit personally, but I'm not suicidal yet. I have tried to look at what you have said objectively, and I think I'm nearly there, but still a little battered and bruised. So after all this I didn't manage to get a little bit of social history up-dated with the truth (as told by me). I shall miss our cosy little chats, and perhaps we do have something in common after all, the full title of my book is 'Mods to Rockers - A 60s rock 'n' roll journey' Now with your name, perhaps you should give it a read - oops my apologies a bit of self promotion - a distinct lack of protocol on my part.