Kaptaan OP[edit]

Dear Colin, Re: Kaptaan OP. Thank you so much for your reply and suggestions. I am glad that you guided me in the right direction. I have changed my mind about creating a page of my company. Since I am not a professional editor, I will be deleting this account too. Wikipedia needs editors like you and not me. I am good to be a businessman and try be stick with that only, also I will work hard to find my company's page on this site someday. Thanks & Regards, Kaptaan OP


Kitty Gordon[edit]

Dear Colin, Re: Kitty Gordon I've been researching her stage appearances, not her personal life - which is why the "gun accident" on a Chicago stage caught my eye. (Shooting a stagehand during a performance is a real eye-opener to a performing arts archivist!!!) Thanks, DBY



Happy holidays[edit]


Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding ((subst:Happy holidays)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

My page.[edit]

Hello. I see you have marked my own page as a hoax. I do not understand this, and I am not trying to make a hoax. I have worked hard on the page and do not mean any harm. I wish to buy property in the future and make this dream into a reality. Please consider taking it off. Also, I did not notice you gave me advice, so I will read that now,

Thanks, Kaleb.catiko

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - January 2024[edit]

Delivered January 2024 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.

13:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Tea house question about citability of campaign websites[edit]

 Courtesy link: WP:Tea house#Personal website[perma]

Hi Colin, I appreciate your consistently fine advice at the Tea house and your willingness to aid new users, but I have a quibble about your response to a user asking about citing a campaign website for statements about a politician. You said:

Wikipedia is not interested in his views, except as they have been discussed in independent reliable sources ... You may use his website for limited uncontroversial factual information

but that seems unduly limiting to me. I would say we are interested in a politician's views, even if they are only reported on his campaign website, as long as he is independently notable as a politician as reported in independent RSes. I'm inclined to follow up and add a comment to that user to the effect that, "Yes, you may use Singh's campaign website to source statements about Singh's political positions or platform, per WP:ABOUTSELF", but you came to a different conclusion having read the same policy I did, and I wanted to discuss it with you before replying to the user. As I see it, you may also use a campaign website, which I assume would be self-published by the politician (or self-published by a campaign committee under his control) because ABOUTSELF says:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: [followed by 5 numbered points]

I read "about themselves" as meaning "about Singh" including "about Singh's platform" and "about Singh's opinions", as laid out by Singh or his campaign committee, and there's nothing in the numbered points that negates that. Even a tweet by Singh laying out a campaign position is citable without independent secondary coverage, per ABOUTSELF and WP:RSOPINION, which explicitly allows self-published websites and social media statements about the person who published the material. I didn't want to confuse the user by getting into a policy content disagreement at the Tea house, so I thought it better to discuss this with you here first. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Mathglot. I can see where you're coming from. I accept that if that material is appropriate to the article, then the self-published source is good enough (from WP:ABOUTSELF; I don't think WP:RSOPINION is relevant).
My thought is not about sourcing, but about what belongs in an article. By your argument, a company's "mission", or "vision statement", if published on its website, could be included in the article about the company. But we don't accept these.
Having said all this, I'm not going to insist on my position, but neither am I going to abandon it. I will continue to hold to it unless somebody persuades me otherwise. But I recognise that others may not agree, and if you give different advice, I will not argue with you. Like many other places in Wikipedia, there's editorial discretion. ColinFine (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More