Talk:Paul Finch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Third party sources

Eye of Sauron

Unfortunately I made the mistake of drawing attention to my work and was critical of editors deleting stuff and just being critical. It's like the

Eye of Sauron - try not to draw to let Mordor notice you. My mistake. Now the deletions have started and the first critical banner has appeared.S.tollyfield (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@
owned
by any particular editor or group of editors. So, any editor may add a clean-up template if they feel it is needed. Such templates, however, are not automatically permanent. Once the problem has been corrected, or if it's determined the template was unnecessary in the first place, then it can be removed.
FWIW, I agree with Theroadislong. This article relies on too many
WP:BLP#Reliable sources
, because the what is written on such sites is typically not subject to sufficient editorial control.
It's OK to ask an editor why a template was added, but the
cannot be fixed - Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
So let's be clear - although it's not "my work" - it's still my problem. Do any of you have any interest in the actual subject of Paul Finch? Again another threat of deletion. I do not believe this page would have got any attention if I had not expressed a mildly critical view of Wikipedia. My concern is that you are more concerned with the rules than with content. I made the point that I was discouraged and get nothing but negative feedback. There is no assessment of the page. Is it still a stub - Start Class - what? You are all so keen to delete stuff that a basic heading has been deleted which I will put back.S.tollyfield (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:UNSOURCED, the burden of proof falls upon the person adding the information; they have to convince others that the information belongs in the article. Of course, you can skip all of this and simply re-add material that was deleted, but doing almost always leads to the information being removed again. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:TPG#Section headings since that seems to be what it is section is primarily discussing. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Bare URLs

This article has quite a number of

Bare URLs}} template to the article just to make others aware of the issue. It can be removed once the bare URLs have been fixed. Any comments or suggestions would be most appreciative. Thanks in advance - Marchjuly (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Children's animation I think it would be much better to write this section as straight prose per
WP:BLPSOURCES. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

None of the references in this section verify the content, they do not mention Finch? Theroadislong (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for double checking
WP:RSCONTEXT. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
The new source Paul Finch does make reference to Finch, but it seems like a primary source to me because it is from the agency which represents Finch, so I'm not sure if this is OK per
WP:BLPPRIMARY. - Marchjuly (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry - does this mean you don't believe his agent? Who else is going to keep an accurate record of an author's credits? Anyway for a moment there I was prepared to believe that things were okay and Wikipedia was not the petty place I was thinking it was. I can see that there are now a number of positive edits on this page. But there is always someone who just has to get in there and carry on deleting stuff. Now it is the image Paul Finch Silhouette.png which I put some time into creating. Of course I have appealed for the reasons I give, but I do not want to have to be spending my time constantly fighting
Big Brother when it could be used more constructively. Who wants to contribute to Wikipedia when the knee-jerk reaction is just to delete stuff constantly and let the minnows try and fight to put it back?S.tollyfield (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:WPNOTRS
.
As for the photos, I didn't remove any from the article. However, please try and understand that Wikipedia has
WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE
. When two editors disagree about the use of a particular photo, the best thing to do is try and discuss things on the article's talk page and find something that is acceptable all around.
Finally, please try to remember that article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article. For sure, these discussions sometimes get heated and editors sometimes get frustrated, but article talk pages
walk the dog and get some fresh air. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Meeow page on the link. Something that would also be clear if you had left in the references to the programmes in question, but you have not because they do not contain references to Finch himself. No but they do fill in extra detail about programmes he has created. You say we have discussions, but your default position is always to delete.S.tollyfield (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@

Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Noticeboard and whether it's use is appropriate in this case. - Marchjuly (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

@Marchjuly: Yes why are multiple editors all working on this page at the same time? Have they all suddenly got an interest in Paul Finch? I'm sorry but you will no doubt forgive me my feelings of paranoiaS.tollyfield (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@S.tollyfield: I have my moved response to the above to User talk:S.tollyfield#Multiple editors because I think it is more appropriate for a user talk page than an article talk page. If you would like to respond, then please do so there. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Speaking of knee-jerk deletions...2 perfectly harmless and free images were deleted from this page, despite their obvious relevance to the books in discussion on the page. What is Wikipedia Commons there for? Answer: amongst other things to provide a free resource to illustrate Wikipedia articles. I spent some time looking through Wikipedia Commons to find appropriate images to improve the appearance of the page and someone just comes along and deletes them. How is this helpful and constructive? They are free - whoever uploaded them wants them to be used. What is the problem??S.tollyfield (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What images are you talking about? Thanks.
talk) 08:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
@
GeorgeLouis: The images were the original versions of Red Sands Fort and Mort d'Arthur - someone did not like them and deleted them. I took the opportunity to put back slightly different versions of them. But now someone else has deleted all the book covers from the page - which other editors did not object to. It seems if you leave things long enough every illustration you put on a page will be deleted by someone who objects to it!! So how can you ever get a consensus!?!S.tollyfield (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Bold, Revert, Discuss

Hello, S.Tollyfield! I just want to welcome you. Also, about those "quick deletions": Very annoying they are, I am sure. Now each editor has a different way of handling what seem to be problematic entries. Sometimes he or she will just put a

talk) 08:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Use of images

The image showing the cover of Nora and the Magic Tree is copyrighted, and can be used by Wikipedia only under these circumstances:

Copyrighted / This image is of a drawing, painting, print, or other two-dimensional work of art, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by either the artist who produced the image, the person who commissioned the work, or their heirs. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art for critical commentary on the work in question, the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or the school to which the artist belongs on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. . . Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information.

I have removed it.

talk) 16:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Biography

The fact of Finch's parentage is, it seems to me, not important enough to feature in the lead but it would be well served by a new "Biography" section, which I created but which was reverted by

talk) 16:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

The whole article is a biography so having a "biography" section is redundant. The standard sections in bios for these details are "Early life and education" and "Personal life".--ukexpat (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poor references Comment

That Finch wrote one episode of Meeow! is NOT supported by the two references. The first reference a primary source, calls it MAISIEMAC: MAISIE IN THE RAINFOREST, the second reference doesn't mention Finch at all? User:S.tollyfield says "I've read the comments, but together they do" ….I'm afraid they clearly don't.Theroadislong (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above in "Children's animation", I agree with
WP:RSCONTEXT; Editors should not be trying to mold and shape sources to match what is written in the article. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
(Note: I suggest combining this section with "Children's animation" above so as to keep all discussion related to these sources in one place to make it easier to follow from start to finish. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Possible sources

I googled "Paul Finch Lancashire" to see what popped up. I found some possible sources that might be useful, but not sure. Anyway, I'll just list them below for discussion.

  1. Discover Author Paul Finch;
  2. Paul Finch. An action-packed combination of possibilities;
  3. Krimi-Couch-Interview mit Paul Finch;
  4. Paul Finch interviewed by David McWilliam;
  5. 'Heck' of a time for author Paul;
  6. Paul Finch - Mädchenjäger; and
  7. Interview: Paul Finch on genre writing, Part I.

Does anyone think any of these can be used per

WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I think no. 5 should be OK, but not sure about the others. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Here's some more I found.
  1. Paul Finch, Interviewed by Neil McRobert;
  2. Interview: Paul Finch on genre writing, Part II;
  3. DOCTOR WHO WRITER, PAUL FINCH BOOK & AUDIO DRAMA SIGNINGS;
  4. Wigan writer's delight at Cannes debut film premiere;
  5. The Devil's Rock: Interview with Paul Champion;
  6. The Devils Rock Press Kit;
  7. Brian Finch; and
  8. Author makes history with biggest ever pre-order
Sorry for just posting links and leaving the editing to others, but
real life is busy at the moment. The BBC source (no. 4) is definitely reliable and looks promising. Source no. 8 also looks good. - Marchjuly (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Here are two more I found: Wigan author puts a chill in Cannes, and Avon signs five from Finch. I've used the Manchester Evening News article to support the fact that Finch has two children, but it maybe it can also be used as a source for more detail about Finch's police career and Finch's father. Is there anyway to make the quote "'To be honest, nothing in written horror is as dark and grim as the real experience of being a copper in Manchester,' he says. 'That's real life. This is fantasy.'" in the article? - Marchjuly (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Finch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_Finch&oldid=1202004714"