User talk:Oueeza
Welcome Oueeza!
I'm Nøkkenbuer, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Although your account was created in December 2007, it appears that you were never given a proper welcome. Hopefully this belated one will do. I noticed that you edited an article about your mother to add and correct some information. Thank you very much! There are conflict of interest concerns here, though, which I will be addressing in a new section below. Regardless, hopefully the following information will prove useful.
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own personal sandbox for use any time. It's perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.
Please remember to:
- Always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to your talk page, and a timestamp. - Leave descriptive edit summaries for your edits. Doing so helps other editors understand what changes you have made and why you made them.
Sincerely, —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
On your mother's article
[edit]Hello Oueeza! I understand this is lengthy, but it's important that you read it all. It's very relevant to both you and your mother's article, and to the futures of both on Wikipedia. I hope you understand why by the end of it.
Like I stated above, I noticed that you edited the biographic article of Rosamund Stanhope, who you claim is your mother (and you her daughter) in the edit summary of your first edit on Wikipedia. I will assume in good faith that you are being honest and have no reason to doubt that you are. In your edits to her article, you added some information and corrected her photograph, the original of which you claimed was of you. First, I want to say thank you for uploading that excellent photograph of your mother. It dramatically improves the article, especially since the previous one was incorrectly one of you and the current one is of such high quality that I doubt any editor who was not related to her would have been able to find and provide it.
Given your edit history and the fact that the article of her was created on 10 December 2007 by Graeme Bartlett, only four days before you created your account, I suspect that this is largely a single-purpose account for addressing the problems on your mother's article, such as the erroneous photograph. That's okay, but because you are her daughter, you have a clear conflict of interest (COI) with that article. That doesn't mean your contributions are bad or unhelpful; in fact, they have thus far been very helpful and you are an invaluable asset to the project, given that you are probably an expert on everything related to your mother! Nonetheless, it does mean that you will inevitably edit with a bias that likely favors your mother. Moreover, you may want to ensure the article is favorable to the subject due to that subject being your mother. This is to be expected and I doubt anyone would blame you if that is the case.
Because of these concerns, however, it is important that you follow certain policies and guidelines which help you manage that conflict of interest. In particular, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Among the advice given there is that you should not edit the article directly outside of uncontroversial and reliably sourced additions and corrections. Instead, you should request edits on the article's talk page, preferably using the {{Request edit}} template, and allow another, unconflicted editor to assess the request and add it (or explain why not). This helps protect everyone involved:
- it protects the encyclopedia from conflict-of-interest editing, which is often problematic and easily violates Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neutral point-of-view and, if nothing else, looks bad to outsiders;
- it protects the article from being slanted in any favorable or unfavorable direction, which would provide a distorted account of the subject and that subject's legacy; and
- it protects you from being accused of distorting the account and legacy of the subject while also providing you with a means of productively contributing to the article and project.
Due to the circumstances, namely that the article is a rather obscure one with not a lot of traffic or page watchers and that you are very much a newbie here, it is unsurprising that you directly edited the article. If you had not, and had followed the advice above without knowing how to notify anyone about your edit request, it might have languished for days or even years without any change! Now that I have noticed all this and notified Graeme Bartlett by pinging them above, however, the concern about a potential lack of response should be wholly addressed. Both of us are probably watching the page now, if Graeme Bartlett wasn't already (and they probably were), and you can directly contact either of us on our talk pages if you have any issue with the article.
On the matter of the article directly, it is currently a start-class article because it is lacking in numerous areas. Most importantly, it is lacking citations to verifiable and reliable sources. In that first edit of yours, which you made to your mother's article, you contributed a lot of information—likely from your own memory—but cited zero sources. On Wikipedia, we cannot rely on you or your memory because Wikipedia does not allow original research or anything else which is not verifiable. Indeed, even if your mother herself were here to edit her own article, that is still not acceptable because there must be reliable sources to support all the claims in an article cited in that article so that readers can verify the information themselves. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, nor are readers going to be able to verify information you add from your knowledge of your family's history unless published in one.
If the information you added to the article is unverifiable, it will probably be removed eventually. It may all be true, but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This is partly why the conflict of interest policies and guidelines exist: it protects against the addition of potentially true but unfortunately unverifiable information by those connected to the subject. If you do have reliable sources for those claims, though, then please add them!
If an article lacks sufficient reliable sourcing to verify their notability (as defined by the linked Wikipedia policy), that article is at risk of being deleted. This may very well be the case for the article about your mother, which may or may not be seen as a good thing by you. Regardless, if you wish to demonstrate the Wikipedia-defined notability of your mother to ensure the article is not deleted, please provide some reliable sources for the article. You, being her daughter, will probably know where to find it better than a random editor who never heard of her before today (such as myself).
Lastly, on the matter of the misnamed pictures of you that were uploaded on Wikimedia Commons, there are two that I found, namely File:Rosamund Stanhope.jpg and File:Rosamund stanhope1.jpg. If these are of you, and your name is not also "Rosamund Stanhope", then those files need to be renamed. If you don't even want them up on Wikipedia, and especially if you doubt you will ever qualify as Wikipedia-notable enough to have an article (don't feel bad, 99.99% of people don't, myself included!), then perhaps we can get them deleted. Graeme Bartlett, who has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia, may be able to help out with this.
Both images were uploaded by UT Nanaiah, who claims to be the creator of both images in the file description pages. Is this your account? If not, and especially if those images are copyrighted by someone other than them, then they should definitely be deleted as copyright violations. This is especially important since that is a legal concern for Wikipedia and both files are currently being used in a user page created by Nayana2310 over at the Hindi Wikipedia, which seems to be an attempt at a biography article (and which probably should be deleted there, too).
I know this is a lot to take in and is probably overwhelming, but I want to ensure I address this matter completely with full consideration for your situation and interests. Most of what I said above is just some introductory explanation that is relevant to you and your mother's article. If you wish to respond, what would help is for you to please let me know whether:
- UT Nanaiah or Nayana2310 are accounts of yours;
- those photographs I linked above (this one and this one) are of you;
- you are the copyright holder for those images; and
- you want those files either renamed or deleted.
If you have any other questions or comments, including about anything I said above, feel free to state them here and I'll do my best to help out. The welcome box above this section also provides a bunch of information that may help you generally as a Wikipedia editor, but it is not immediately relevant right now.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to any response you may have. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:53, 23 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 19:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, actually this page was dropped off my watchlist years ago when it got to big, so I was not watching for any changes. I created Rosamund Stanhope about 11 years ago when the standards were a lot lower. But at least it had a claim of importance and a reference. Only a few users are watching the Rosamund Stanhope page. Anyway that Hindi draft did have an extra reference that I added to the English language version. Also the images are used here: kn:ಸದಸ್ಯ:UT Nanaiah/ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಯೋಗಪುಟ/1. I suspect these images have just been copied off the internet based on their small size. If you know they are copyright infringements or where they came from, they can be tagged for deletion. Although because I am not an administrator on commons I cannot delete, I can request deletion for you. Alternatively I can rename the files, if they are good to keep but have the wrong names. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the reply and additional information, Graeme Bartlett. I am in the process of significantly expanding the article (perhaps enough for a DYK nomination?) and will continue to work on it when I have the time. The Guardian obituary that was originally in the article is an excellent in-depth source rich with information to expand the biography and verify its claims, including many (but not all) of the ones added by Oueeza. Hopefully, she is still around and sees this, since I have a number of questions I'd love to ask about her mother to help verify some of the finer details she added to the article. Relatedly, I have also found Stanhope's name mentioned in some archive records at the University of London, though it's only a name and a reference to some esoteric archive code at this time. Once I figure out how to find the page it's referencing, perhaps I can cite that information, too.With that said, after reviewing the obituary alone but also some other sources, I can confidently say that I think Stanhope is definitely Wikipedia-notable enough to satisfy any and all of our general and specific notability policies and guidelines. In fact, I think this is so much so the case that I wouldn't be surprised if any deletion discussion were to be snow-closed with a "speedy keep", if only based on the fact that sufficient sources exist regardless of whether they're cited in the article yet. So, I'm not really concerned about the article being at risk of deletion anymore and that part of my response above is inapplicable now. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)