User talk:Salander44

Nomination of Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Salander44, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Salander44! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Self-aggrandizement?

Hello, Salander44. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

No Self-aggrandizement

Thank you for your comment, User:Orangemike. I could agree with the premise that I have a COI if I had created a page for myself, but the page I did create was for a film that has been exhibited three times, including once in the Richfield Branch of the Akron-Summit County Public Library and twice on two different occasions at The Nightlight Cinema in Akron, Ohio , and the film is scheduled for exhibition again at Cleveland Comic Con in October. It is included on IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. I included seven reviews. Of those seven, I knew the author of one from being in the same movie in 2011 in Detroit, MI, but we have had no working relationship since that time inasmuch as he resides near Toronto, Canada and I reside in Cleveland. I do know a second author locally from Cleveland. I have absolutely no connection with any other of the remaining five reviewers. With respect to the film directly, I expect to have further reviews and screenings. Moreover, I have added no self-laudatory comments about myself or the film. I have not sought to add pictures of myself or stills from the film. I have in no way urged wikipedia users to see the film. The page is absolutely neutral, although I did try to find a way to add a poster as is shown in every other entry on wikipedia for a film. I readily acknowledge my own role in the creation of the film, but have not sought to conceal that relationship, as should be very apparent in the comments I have posted on the "Deletion Page." Indeed, if I understand the username creation guidelines, users are strongly advised against using their own name as a username to avoid harassment. I have no fear of transparency, and if there is any way for me to say that I created the page on the very face of the page, and if this met wikipedia standards, I would gladly do it. Salander44 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Hello, I'm Hayman30. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Gimme Head: the Tale of the Cuyahoga Valley Bigfoot— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Hayman30 (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Confused

Hello, Hayman30. I'm confused because when I went to your talk page, I could not find your comment. Right now I'm subject to a deletion procedure, so I'm reluctant to make further changes to the page, so I have no idea what change you are referring to. All I can think of is my addition that I was the author of the page, which I added to address a COI concern from a different wikipedia editor. The only == July 2017 == comment that I could find on your talk page was for a different user altogether.

Got it!

Thanks for your edit, Hayman30. I'm still learning my way around wikipedia but now see your reversion as I review history. As you look at my user history, you can see quite a few early edits that I made to try to address specific issues that had been raised. I have tried to avoid major revisions since then, although I did add a <ref> to the Akron Beacon Journal article. My last revision was to make clear that I was the author of the article. I did that to address COI issues raised earlier on this talk page. I wanted to be absolutely transparent, but if the revision was inappropriate, thank you for the reversion. I want to do this right and I don't want to be confrontational. I'm new at this and any help I get is welcome. Salander44 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources for films

Hi there. I saw your edits to Schlock (film); thanks for your efforts to improve the sourcing. Unfortunately, IMDb is not considered a reliable source, because it can be user-edited - just like Wikipedia. See WP:USERGENERATED on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you're dead wrong, User:Cordless Larry. IMDb might be an unreliable source for certain types of information, but lead actor and director are not among them; nor do I believe that Rick Baker went on IMDb to add a bogus credit for himself. Wikipedia may be the Bible of all Noteworthy Human Knowledge, but IMDb is about as accurate as you can get with respect to Film, particularly with respect to lead actors and director, but other information as well (see below). Like Wikipedia, people who abuse IMDb are corrected. Having said that, I'm curious why you didn't edit out the other IMDb reference on Schlock (film). I certainly saw it. Do you really want to be the man who edits out all the IMDb references on Wikipedia? What would my fate be if I traversed the realm of film on Wikipedia, and reverted and deleted every IMDb reference? A lot to cover, but I think I'll start with James Cameron, Tom Cruise, George A. Romero, Titanic (1997 film), Sleeping Beauty (1959 film)... Oh heck, you know I'm right. You made a bad call on Schlock (film). Salander44 (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't edit out the other reference because I was only focused on checking your edits, having seen this comment, which suggested that you were a bit unsure. I certainly don't have the time or desire to remove all IMDb references, but I agree with what the guidelines says about it. Mistakes might get corrected, but if they get into Wikipedia articles in the meantime, then there is the risk of circular referencing. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Before your response above, User:Cordless Larry, I was going to reference Richard Attenborough, Steve McQueen (director), Christopher Nolan, Christian Bale, Kate Beckinsale, Russell Brand, Sacha Baron Cohen, Minnie Driver, and many, many more, as well. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother doesn't get IMDb references on her page. So while I may have been uncertain before, I think I have a little better footing now; that is, while IMDb can be a troublesome source, especially when it is the sole sourcing of an article, it can add richness and depth to a Wikipedia page when used correctly. I think that is to be desired. I am also certain at this point that IMDb can almost always be a valid reference in External links. That's also good to know. So do you want to take all of the IMDb references off the pages I've given you above, or do you want to revert your deletion of my IMDb references on Schlock (film)? At least in those cases where there is another supporting reference, which might be a good compromise. Salander44 (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine to include a link in an external links section. It's using IMDb as a source for article content that is a problem. I'm not going to remove IMDb references from all of the articles you mention, but neither will I revert my deletion, as one mistake shouldn't be used to justify another. It is probably impossible for one editor to remove all IMDb references from Wikipedia, but that shouldn't stop anyone from trying to fix the problem where they see it. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Ensuring that each IMDb reference is accompanied by a reference to a reliable source could be one solution (although if another source is found, I would question the need to reference IMDb at all). See WP:RS/IMDB for more on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Finally, see Wikipedia:Citing IMDb for the limited number of acceptable uses of this source, and a list of unacceptable uses. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll be adding further references to Schlock (film), so please look out for them. This is a film of such notability, that it will not be difficult to find them. One further question, with respect to the Plot section, does that need references if it is a straight recitation of the plot? Again referring to Titanic (1997 film), there is only one reference in Plot, and that instance seemed to require a special reference. The rest is straight-out narrative, as I read it. Salander44 (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Films are considered reliable primary sources about themselves, so plot summaries often don't cite other sources. This is apparently acceptable per WP:FILMPLOT, although I've always thought it a bit questionable myself, as one person's interpretation of the film might differ from another's (though note the comments at that link about the plot summary being descriptive, not interpretive). That's just a personal view, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)