User talk:Davidlee cda

Nancy Nash

Just a couple of quick notes for you — the information is valid, but there were a couple of problems with the way you formatted it. We don't nest an entire section in reference tags; only the actual reference itself goes inside those tags. Secondly, I've moved the information down to the contextually appropriate place for it in the article: it's not a full-on subsection in its own right, but just supplementary information that belongs within the existing subsection about the song controversy.

And finally, the "reference" link you provided for it didn't link to an actual copy of the SOCAN registration, but merely to a "Your session has expired" error message. Can you find or provide a different reference link for the information? Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Nancy Nash Update

Thank you for the input - sadly the SOCAN site is an in-the-moment search form so the terms must be entered and can't be directly linked to. The actual "information" on a copyright dispute is fictional, as I have seen first hand the email from SOCAN describing that the song is "public domain" way BEFORE 1994 - it appears that someone has been posting info that is not accurate or even real. (as I'm a newbie I don't know what to do about THAT - but thought I could post a bit of info on where someone can see the actual listing.)

One day if I ever get enough experience on here as you do now, I'll know what I'm doing.

I personally know Nancy (and saw her last night in person).

The thing about the copyright dispute, just for the record, is that our rules on here require us to report the incident the way the sources covered it. Regardless of whether Leonard George's objection was justified or not, he did raise an objection — and he did very nearly derail the Junos from even being able to present the award at all. And we can't just present Nancy's side of the story without proper reliable sourcing for it, either — we have to be neutral, which means we have to try to present it in a way that's as fair as possible to both Leonard and Nancy rather than taking sides too blatantly. It's pretty obvious to me personally that Leonard was in the wrong — but Wikipedia cannot express our own editorial opinions about things, so we can't just leave his claims out of the story entirely. Even if his claims were wrong, we still have to fairly and accurately report what he claimed. I fully understand that Nancy feels the article isn't fully reflective of her side of the story — but Wikipedia also has to be careful not to cross the line into attacking or libelling or smearing Leonard in the way we portray the matter, and Nancy's first attempt to rewrite the entire article her way did cross that line.

We're more than willing to make some adjustments to the article, trust me — but we have to be careful to maintain a properly sourced balance between Nancy's side of the story and Leonard's, and can't tip too strongly in either direction or make unverifiable claims about what was going on behind the scenes. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't actually have any rule that our sources have to be directly accessible from a newspaper's website to be usable. Stories published in 1993 or 1994, for example, wouldn't normally be locatable that way, because newspapers didn't even really have websites as a rule until the late 1990s or early 2000s — but if all of our sources always had to be directly web-accessible, we'd be severely limited in who or what we could write about on here at all. Rather, the rule is that as long as we provide the complete "title, publication and date" citation details and don't misrepresent or lie about what the source actually said, we are allowed to cite "print-only" sources, such as books or old pre-web newspaper or magazine articles retrieved from a microfilm, or a professional archiving organization, or a news database like Lexis-Nexis or ProQuest.

It's always best for a reference to provide a link to the specific article that's being referenced if that content is directly available on the web — but just linking to the front webpage of the paper in question isn't helpful if the content was retrieved from a microfilm or a database, and isn't visible at the link being provided. A weblink isn't mandatory, as long as enough citation details are provided that a person who wants to check the reference can find it if he or she needs to — a weblink should always be provided if the content is available that way, but the availability of a weblink isn't a basic precondition that a reference has to meet to become usable. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sybarite Jewellery

Hello Davidlee cda, I've updated the Draft:Sybarite_Jewellery could you please review and approve it or write me what needs to be added. Thanks. Ostashevskiy (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)