User talk:LexLife
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Nuremberg: The Nazis Facing their Crimes (film) has been accepted
[edit]
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
FeatherPluma (talk) 22:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Proposed deletion of Nuremberg: The Nazis Facing their Crimes
[edit]
The article Nuremberg: The Nazis Facing their Crimes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Insufficient claim to notability from third-party RELIABLE sources; youtube and frwiki aren't reliable or third party at all
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — kikichugirl speak up! 21:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"wikipedia" accepted
[edit]Hi LexLife - a note on AfC: Wikipedia does not accept afc submissions. A reviewer does. You seem to have misunderstood the AfC process; it is one person who accepts, not the Wikipedia community. While this article does have its merits, I (and likely fellow reviewer User:Primefac who has been looking at a series of accepts by the person who reviewed yours) would have declined it as adding more sources. So, I'd encourage you to continue adding more sources at this point, and keep looking at what's considered a third-party reliable source. Deprodding keeps it from deletion, but it doesn't keep it from going to AfD, and it doesn't solve all the problems. Thanks! — kikichugirl speak up! 22:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Given the state the article was in when you applied the PROD tag, I don't think your PROD tag had much chance of success. The article had the Variety review as a very strong WP:RS, which the deletion rationale seemed to ignore, and a Google search for the original title in French turns up some more sources. There may not be a written guideline to this effect, but when dealing a subject matter as historically significant as the Nuremberg Trials, I think a less hasty approach to PRODing is advisable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
This has been an interesting initiation: Nuremberg: The Nazis Facing their Crimes is my first attempt at writing, as opposed to merely editing, a Wikipedia article. It's a steep learning curve, but I will keep at it, including trying to improve this article. I thank both of you for your input, for different reasons. The YouTube references, by the way, are just there so that people can view two of the historical films-within-the-film. They happen to have been posted there in full. - LexLife
- I hope you won't be discouraged by this. Judging by what I see on User talk pages, I believe your article may have gotten caught in the crossfire of a dispute between this editor and the one who had accepted it at Afc. At any rate, Delage seems to be a prolific writer and documentarian in the area of war crimes tribunals, based on what I've found at Google Books. If Kikichugirl takes it to Afd, I'll vote keep based on what I've found. But if I can give you a word of advice: I work quite a lot in the documentary film field and my "rule of thumb" for creating an article is three reliable sources about the film -- and unconnected to it or its creator/distributor (i.e. not WP:PRIMARY sources). And keep in mind that non-English sources are fine, particularly for a non-English film. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help you. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Shawn in Montreal: I won't be taking it to AfD because of AfD is not cleanup (and that variety source is pretty good per various people on IRC anyway), although LexLife - please feel free to continue improving the article. — kikichugirl speak up! 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Great. Yes, and I'll continue to help, as well. I'll add that Le Monde source right now, in fact. Not huge, but it's WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Shawn, I attempted to email you through User:Shawn in Montreal but got a message saying "This user has not specified a valid email address." I'd be interested in corresponding. Among other things, I wanted to upload an image of the DVD cover into the Infobox, but I see that there are some Wikihoops to jump through.
- LexLife, I'm one of the editors who prefers not to use email Any image uploads should be done first, I believe, at our media database Wikimedia Commons. I'm not as well versed about that site or image policy, but if you click on "Upload file" under "Participate" you'll see a step-by-step guide to uploading, as well as a place to go for help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Shawn, I attempted to email you through User:Shawn in Montreal but got a message saying "This user has not specified a valid email address." I'd be interested in corresponding. Among other things, I wanted to upload an image of the DVD cover into the Infobox, but I see that there are some Wikihoops to jump through.
- Great. Yes, and I'll continue to help, as well. I'll add that Le Monde source right now, in fact. Not huge, but it's WP:RS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Shawn in Montreal: I won't be taking it to AfD because of AfD is not cleanup (and that variety source is pretty good per various people on IRC anyway), although LexLife - please feel free to continue improving the article. — kikichugirl speak up! 23:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, LexLife. I am sorry you got caught in the cross fire, that I am responsible for (sort of - completely unintentional on my part I assure you.) I just wanted to reach out in appreciation of your work. This is a very important topic, with some sources saying it's the FIRST documentary with lengthy footage and improved better sound from an independent sound track rather than the video reel. I found out that the work was by an eminent French professor, assisted by many historians and museum people, who have put much effort into making this material back for future review and consideration. The removal of the YouTube references is NOT wikipedia policy as I read it - there is a technical issue that youtube isn't a so-called reliable source for establishing notability, and it would usually be something to "quote" - but that wasn't its purpose. The wp:prod may have been improper, but it doesn't really matter - what matters is that this content is interesting and it looks like it will survive attempts to remove it. Maybe many people will enjoy reading it, and maybe chose to go on to seeing the documentary. Sorry about all the kerfuffle. 03:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, FeatherPluma. I teach law and dispute resolution, so the process of collaboration and resolving differences that is Wikipedia fascinates me. In a course this term, I have for the first time suggested that students can make well-documented contributions to Wikipedia articles and have them count for course credit. I didn't want to ask them to do something that I couldn't do myself; hence my wading in with this article after I saw the film. One thing I've just found is that there is another source for the two films that might be judged as more reliable than YouTube. It is the Internet Archive. The first film, "Nazi Concentration Camps" (it goes mostly by this shorter name) is available at https://archive.org/details/nazi_concentration_camps. There is a WP article by this name, but it's not about the film per se. The second film, "The Nazi Plan," which is the subject of a WP article, is available at https://archive.org/details/TheNaziPlan. Perhaps the thing to do is put these two references under External links. LexLife (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the point that kikichugirl was raising with her prod is not simply that it exists. Some might argue that simply being found in an archive of Holocaust films does not mean this film is worthy of its own article. Maybe it's more useful as a reliable source for the article on the trial itself, for example. Wikipedia has very specific guidelines -- some might say arcane, but if you know the project well enough they do make sense -- for film articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Getting there. Have added a reference to a review in the New York Times (though only the review summary is available on the Web). Fixing some citations too, as I learn to use the markup language. LexLife (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- There's no need to manually format citations. Most active editors use a tool that makes citation creation much easier. Do you have Wikipedia:RefToolbar enabled in your preferences? If not, just click on Preferences at the top of your page, then Gadgets, then Reftoolbar can be found at the bottom of the list in the Editing section. Click on the little box, then click on Save at bottom. You now have a toolbar that includes a citation button, and a lot of other great features. Experiment with it: it's quite intuitive. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Getting there. Have added a reference to a review in the New York Times (though only the review summary is available on the Web). Fixing some citations too, as I learn to use the markup language. LexLife (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- But the point that kikichugirl was raising with her prod is not simply that it exists. Some might argue that simply being found in an archive of Holocaust films does not mean this film is worthy of its own article. Maybe it's more useful as a reliable source for the article on the trial itself, for example. Wikipedia has very specific guidelines -- some might say arcane, but if you know the project well enough they do make sense -- for film articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, FeatherPluma. I teach law and dispute resolution, so the process of collaboration and resolving differences that is Wikipedia fascinates me. In a course this term, I have for the first time suggested that students can make well-documented contributions to Wikipedia articles and have them count for course credit. I didn't want to ask them to do something that I couldn't do myself; hence my wading in with this article after I saw the film. One thing I've just found is that there is another source for the two films that might be judged as more reliable than YouTube. It is the Internet Archive. The first film, "Nazi Concentration Camps" (it goes mostly by this shorter name) is available at https://archive.org/details/nazi_concentration_camps. There is a WP article by this name, but it's not about the film per se. The second film, "The Nazi Plan," which is the subject of a WP article, is available at https://archive.org/details/TheNaziPlan. Perhaps the thing to do is put these two references under External links. LexLife (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Beaverbrook Art Gallery Dispute—Appeal Decision (2009.08.27).pdf
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Beaverbrook Art Gallery Dispute—Appeal Decision (2009.08.27).pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Beaverbrook Art Gallery Dispute—Arbitral Award (2007.03.20).pdf
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Beaverbrook Art Gallery Dispute—Arbitral Award (2007.03.20).pdf. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Judgment (law)
[edit]
Message added 12:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.