User talk:Carsie100

May 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page HMS Penelope (97) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. ^LeaveSleaves 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Carsie100. You have new messages at LeaveSleaves's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

File:Penelope-pepperpot-quarter-1-.jpg[edit]

The upload is looking fine now. However you haven't provided the source of the image and it appears that it is a scanned image of a book page. Such scans are subject to copyright and are subject to deletion. Can you tell me where you received this scan? ^LeaveSleaves 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing[edit]

Could you please make a stronger effort to write in complete sentences with capital letters and punctuation where appropriate? - Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Carsie100, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Your enthusiasm is appreciated, but there are a lot of things you need to understand to be a productive contributor to Wikipedia. Please read the information linked above, so that you can do that. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still fact its where the name HMS Pepperpot comes from every last thing in that article happened and it wasnt a rambling story it was about what the men on that ship went through and the five pillars asks for facts im putting information on as it is rare and hard to come by and if you cant take that its your problem i have seen other pages that have not got facts on them and as i put the source in it should have stayed if not then wikipedia is a joke not putting the facts on the pages

Carsie100, please take on aboard what other users say. Also the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is not truth, it is verifiability. If a source cannot be provided, the information cannot generally be included, no matter how true you know it to be. Furthermore we have to be selective about what goes into articles, giving information in proportion to its significance, rather than adding every possible snippet that can be added. Finally you say you have been doing a lot of research on Penelope. Please be aware that wikipedia is not the place to publish this research. Benea (talk) 12:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed your comment on your user page. Please do not engage in an edit war, but be prepared to discuss and take on board comments and suggestions. Saying you know the facts more than someone else does not give you any more right to edit articles than any other user, and does not absolve you of the need to contribute in line with all of wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not just the ones you feel supports your current editing styles, such as calling for facts. Benea (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:HMS Peneolpe.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:HMS Peneolpe.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 23:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Carsie100. You have new messages at Drilnoth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Penelope-pepperpot-quarter-1-.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Penelope-pepperpot-quarter-1-.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Shem (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an orphan and I suspect it's also a WP:COPYVIO.

wiki editing[edit]

hi carsie. Sorry youve had a bad experience trying to edit wiki articles. wiki is in reality a war zone with different editors shooting bits off other peoples articles which for all sorts of reasons they don't like. wiki has some basic rules which it plays by. Trying to understand these gets more difficult practically every day because people keep rewriting them and making them more complicated. But first, it has to respect the law, which means it can't use anything where the copyright belongs to someone. Copyright generally lasts for 70 years after the person who created it dies, so that is everything from at least 70 years ago. It applies to pictures, but it also applies to text, for example a newspaper article. Its perfectly fine to use all the information in something, just so long as it is completely rewritten.

Next, wiki tries to police its content for accuracy. In my opinion this frequently is pretty pathetically done, but it is normally done by applying the blunt club of demanding a published source for any material someone does not like. Accuracy is beside the point. If someone can find a published source for a load of rubbish and no one can find a source saying different, then the rubbish goes in. Next people will argue with you about what counts as a good source. Obviously, if someone finds a source for what they want to include and someone else doesn't like it, then he will claim the source is rubbish and its author not respected. You have to bear in mind that wiki rules have to apply generally, and there are quite a few people out there who want to include stuff which is just plain false: think of any fanatic group you like, or political parties, or companies, or anyone wanting to sell something to the public. So the rules have to try to be general but still keep out nutters and liars.

In this situation about penelope, I'm not quite sure what has been going on. It is not reasonable for people to discard a description of the events in Malta just because it is long. It might be disproportionately large compared to the rest of the article, but if that is because the rest of the article has too little information, then that is no good reason to discard what someone has added. I was a bit bothered that what you added might be taken directly from a newspaper word for word, which would make it a copyright violation. Assuming it is a rewrite, then the original newspaper description is itself a source which can be used to validate including the information. (needs to say where it comes from using a 'ref' tag) Of course, if it was a wartime description then the writers may have hyped it up a bit for propaganda reasons. But as I said, the rules cut both ways and if someone published it, then it is fair game for inclusion. Sandpiper (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]