User talk:Valenzine

Facebook posts cannot be used as Wikipedia sourcing. Like it or not, you have to wait until his death is reported as a news story by real media, such as a Canadian major market daily newspaper or the CBC, and cannot rely on social networking content or unreliable sources like "SNBC13.com". Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some reputable sources directly related to Dragland:

• https://www.uwo.ca/arts/news/2022/08_dragland_text.html
• https://bookhugpress.ca/tribute-to-stan-dragland/

Valenzine (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here's what Wikipedia says about "reliable sources" and Facebook:

Facebook: Facebook is generally not acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone may create a page and add comments, and there is no stringent checking of a user's real name and age. On occasion, Facebook pages that are clearly marked as official pages for notable subjects, with direct link to those pages from official websites, in which case they may be used as primary sources. Note, however, that if a public figure says something noteworthy in an official Facebook account (or from another social media site, for that matter), it is likely that the media will report this anyway. Valenzine (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sourcing means media coverage, not directly affiliated primary sources.

And "Note, however, that if a public figure says something noteworthy in an official Facebook account (or from another social media site, for that matter), it is likely that the media will report this anyway" is precisely the point — we don't need to rely on the Facebook post in the first place, because the media are expected to eventually report it anyway, which means we can hold out for the more appropriate and acceptable media source rather than having to rely on Facebook in the first place. It's not nearly as important that Wikipedia be quick about jumping on an article subject's death as it is that we rely on the correct calibre of sourcing for an article subject's death. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image you uploaded was too large, and arguably too high a quality. Non-free content criteria 2 states: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material." Always advisable to use lower quality, reduced size images, or they will almost certainly be deleted, possibly "speedy deletion". Regards, Kieronoldham (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Valenzine (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Tobacco, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks. Valenzine (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks. Valenzine (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit of Vanilla claiming it is unsourced but I gave the specific source for the claim. Can you explain this decision, please? Valenzine (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full quote, found in the fourth footnote on page 295 of this article:

In the 1651 edition of Hernandez's work (Rerum Medicarum Novae Hispaniae Thesaurus) this name was interpreted to mean "black flowers ". The flowers of this species, however, are greenish-yellow. This fallacy con- cerning the color of the vanilla flowers remained in literature for many years.

Do you think we can correct the Vanilla article in the light of this footnote? Thank you and sorry for bothering you and taking some of your precious time. Valenzine (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the edit you mark as "minor" are not minor edits. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Read Help:Minor edit for more information. Sundayclose (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Thanks. Valenzine (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]