Roxanne-snowden
This is my talk page. Roxanne-snowden (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Welcome edit
|
CommanderWaterford, Thank you for these references and the welcome. Roxanne-snowden (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages edit
Please note that disambiguation pages like Big Tuna and Richard Rivers are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:
- Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
- Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
- Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
- Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
- Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
- Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory
- Do not add articles to acronym or initials disambiguation pages unless the person or entity is widely known by that name (in which case it should be stated in the linked article).
Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Leschnei, thank you for these guidelines. Much appreciated. Roxanne-snowden (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Daily Mail reference at Shana Dowdeswell edit
Hi. The Daily Mail reference you added at Simon James Stevens needs to be replaced or removed. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
——————————————————————————————————
@Robby.is.on: Response and questions for:Robby.is.on
Hi Robby. I guess its taken me about a year to figure out how to ask several questions regarding what was the edit above. Even when I was new to Wikipedia, I did read up information regarding Wikipedia opinion on The Daily Mail and other contested news/sites being used as a citation. I believe the following situation is an exception for multiple reasons.
I had not assumed there would be a complete blackout on The Daily Mail as there will be times when a website will be a primary source about itself; especially with old content. As it is, The Daily Mail is the remaining official source for the Enterprising Young Brits awards, an award program it coordinated and sponsored for multiple years in the 2000s.
While editing Simon James Stevens I gathered historical info regarding the former U.K government sponsored EYB award program, and was considering creating a wiki page for it as information and its winners is becoming scarce. It was not an insignificant event, its ceremony was attended by UK officials, such as the Prime Minister.
Details about the Enterprising Young Brits awards is mostly lost and sporadically found pages need to be located using archive.org. The Daily Mail coordinated the award program in conjunction with the UK Government through a separate (now defunct) charity created for the purpose. The Daily Mail was THE main news coverage for the Enterprising Young Brits awards that Simon James Stevens had won. The event hasn't been in the news for a long while and other news sources have purged most of the coverage they did have. The Daily Mail assisted in the applications/nominations process and providing official announcements as part of its coordination.
The Daily Mail website remains the official legacy source regarding the defunct award program. The Daily Mail was the main sponsor and coordinator for the awards and assisted in the events, ceremonies, nominations and promotion.
Can you advise on what should be done instead of using The Daily Mail for topics related to the EYB awards? *
Could you provide guidance on what to do if a prohibited site is the primary website or source regarding its own statements, activities and associations? (i.e. press release, contest, job announcement, etc.)
There's an active website w/ ties to The Daily Mail called "thisismoney/co/uk" that promoted the Enterprising Young Brits. It is a commercial business blog, and appears more controversial to use instead.
The life story of Simon James Stevens becomes publicly significant with his involvement in the award program and he is a notable people to win an award.
The award program was coordinated with the U.K. Government / Dept BERR (merged agency) & The Daily Mail, done via a (now-defunct) charity called Make Your Mark. The award program no longer operates and hasn't been active in about a decade.
The U.K. government overhauled the BERR department and later ended funding the award program. The Daily Mail did not continue the awards much long after. The UK government did not maintain documentation regarding operational information. It appears they sent inquires to The Daily Mail and the charity to get info when operational.
There are other sources validating Simon James Stevens won an award but they do not detail what the award significance is or how someone can win one. There has been speculation by other sources, whereas The Daily Mail provides an overview and description.
The charity's website is now unassociated and The Wayback Machine didn't index all the active years/pages. There was no existing wiki about the awards.
Personal websites and private blogs (indexed or active), that may discuss the award Simon James Stevens won, are found incomplete, incorrect or insignificant. Overall, sources tended to include a lot of opinions, speculation and dead links. Ultimately, a lot of the original source material is to The Daily Mail - or - each other.
There is scarce news coverage - other than one Daily Mail affiliated- focuses on Simon James Stevens, or other the individual winners, or the ceremony attendees. There's little info on the award program and award types in much detail. Simon James Stevens is controversial and information about him tends to be either provided by himself in self-promotion or his detractors. Its for this reason I believed it necessary to provide access to an official overview about what the EYB award program was.
Is there a contingency in place for using The Daily Mail - or any other boycotted news sources or websites?
What if The Daily Mail has a press release they will professionally translate all archives into 20 languages? or
What if The Daily Mail editor-in-chief announces a restructuring and will add a co-editor-in-chief? or
What if The Daily Mail hosts a vacation raffle for subscribers?
The above could be probable additions for The Daily Mail wiki.
Are editors dependent on finding only non-Daily Mail sources in order to provide a reference?
There must be some occasions where a prohibited source is suitable for being used when the intent is citation. I understand an outright ban on linking illegal websites and using secondary sources in order to avoid direct users to something prohibitive. I do not understand an outright block of a URL or resource name otherwise.
There seems to be some a bot that can check edits for the use of dailymail/com, so why not place a warning tag that are plentiful on numerous wikis proceed with caution? Or just delink? Or other review? The edit removed preexisting and substantiated facts just because it shared a sentence with a link going to a site not well-regarded as a news source.
The Wiki rules prohibited The Daily Mail in use as a cited reference but the removed link (and sentence) was not used to substantiate any facts on the wiki - it was in the role as an outside link providing an official description and overview of the defunct award program behind the award Simon James Stevens received in-lieu of there being no existing Wikipedia page for it.
The Simon James Stevens page did not need a detailed description of the award program in order to understand his history. Had I added a section about the award on The Daily Mail wiki to an internal link to instead, it wouldn't be possible to cite the EYB awards properly without including links involving The Daily Mail. The same if it had its own page.
Maybe its already been voted on that it is okay to have incomplete and/or missing historical records for some matters in order to maintain a censorship block on some sites: A throw the baby out with the bathwater decision.
You seem informed about these matters. Has a problem like this come up before and how was the resolution? If you don't know, where would I go to find an answer?
I appreciate your time and response. I'm not yet comfortable with the Wikipedian lexicon, and I've tried what hopefully was sufficient to illustrate the issue and avoid confusion or misunderstandings. Thank you. (BTW: I am not Shana Dowdeswell)
Roxanne-snowden (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
———————————————————————
(This was added to Robby's talk page, including copy here as an archive) Original: Roxanne-snowden (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
When The Daily Mail Sponsors & Govt Award Program for Youth & Other Tales edit
User_talk:Robby.is.on#When_The_Daily_Mail_Sponsors_&_Govt_Award_Program_for_Youth_&_Other_Tales
I'm not sure the notification within my Talk page reply was done correctly. Per your message on my Talk page/edits, there remains some questions. Its detailed, as to avoid misunderstandings. It seemed too long to put onto your talk page. User_talk:Roxanne-snowden#Daily_Mail_reference_at_Shana_Dowdeswell
Short Summary:
The Daily Mail co-sponsored with the UK Govt a youth business awards program for several years in the 2000s. The Daily Mail was one of the main resources for the award program, the other websites no longer exist. The Daily Mail retains some of the last details about the awards, such as its history, what the awards are for, and participation. The Daily Mail is the only active, official resource (along with a subsidary that has kept some promotional pages).
While I was editing the wiki of an award recipient, I externally linked The Daily Mail's summary page for an award year, as there was no wiki for the award program. External linking in lieu of using a red internal link is rather common to ensure readers can access details without clutter an associated page.
The external link was removed along with the removal of key information regarding the recipient; facts with preexisting citations from non-Daily Mail resources. These facts seem to suffer from guilt by association with the offending link or maybe any association with The Daily Mail.
As The Daily Mail cannot be used in Wikipedia citations, or any other reference, then no informative section or page can be made for the UK's Enterprising Young Brits awards.
This raises questions about when a primary source comes from a website being censored by Wikipedia. Does Wikipedia need a secondary news source to republish the same information provided by a censored website in order for it to be used as a reference?
Examples:
The Daily Mail puts out a press release it is launching a talk show formatted show, can Wikipedia cite the press release or anything else The Daily Mail writes about their new talk show? Or does a source have to come via a non-censored website disseminating the same information?
If a celebrity published their autobiography on The Daily Mail, would editors be barred from citing the original publication page?
If reputable sources report on The Daily Mail while using information provided by The Daily Mail regarding itself, does that affect the reliability of the reputable source? If not, then how can The Daily Mail be prohibited to being a source for at least its own activities?
Do you know what the answers are to these sorts of scenarios, or the exceptions, or how to find out if you do not?
The above is not the same as my Talk page reply to you User_talk:Roxanne-snowden#Daily_Mail_reference_at_Shana_Dowdeswell but highlights parts of the broader inquiry. (there is no connection to a 'Shana' and uncertain why you used this name).
Your time is valuable, thank you in advance for reviewing and assisting with the answers.
Original : Roxanne-snowden (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC) User_talk:Robby.is.on#When_The_Daily_Mail_Sponsors_&_Govt_Award_Program_for_Youth_&_Other_Tales Roxanne-snowden (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Roxanne, thanks for your reply. As you rightly say, we can, in rare cases, use a deprecated source as a source for information about itself – per WP:ABOUTSELF. While the Daily Mail seems to have been involved with the "Enterprising Young Brits" award, ABOUTSELF does not apply here. So, yes, we need to use reliable sources instead. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)