User talk:Cardofk

Welcome

Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Criteria for speedy deletion • Conflict of interest • Notability • Lists of People • Biographies of Living Persons Ownership of articles

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages • User Talk Messages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts WikiProject • Directory

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

WP:SURREY and Award of Recognition

	The Keys of Surrey for informed research on locations in the county
	We would like to recognise your recent work demonstrating very high scholarly diligence to Wrecclesham, Holt Pound and Farnham Pottery of national importance accordingly we invite you to become a lifetime member of our project. Adam 37 (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Some tips to help you out!

Hi Cardofk, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:Cardofk/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

How references work

Simple references

These require two parts;

a)

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:Cardofk/reftest and try it out.

Named references

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Here's a little bit of magic which can save you an awful lot of time and effort!

You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can;t do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), bit, if not, just open the page yourself and choose soemthing appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

How to revert

I'm not sure if it's a gadget I have, but when I do a compare on this history page the left hand (older) copy has a 'restore' button. Otherwise, just load in the version you want to revert to, do a null edit, eg a space, and save it. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Dougweller, thank you, got that page sorted now. It would have been a headache without your advice. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

And I've made sure that IP won't be back for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

even better, many thanks. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating St Wilfrid's Church, Preston, Pjposullivan!

Wikipedia editor FoCuSandLeArN just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

thank you for that article. just reviewed it! cheers.

To reply, leave a comment on FoCuSandLeArN's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talkback

Hello, Cardofk. You have new messages at Dr Greg's talk page.
Message added 00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Dr Greg  talk  00:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sacred Heart (Wimbledon)

Sorry if this is in the wrong place but i don't know how else to contact you.... but I've put up a lovely picture of the Church Sacred Heart Church (Wimbledon), no reference to my site at all.... and you still take it down can you tell me why... this is sharing an image i like with the wiki community not advertising.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bycostello (talk • contribs) 09:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

no worries, it's a great picture Pjposullivan (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cardofk. You have new messages at Dr Greg's talk page.
Message added 00:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Dr Greg  talk  00:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Church of St Thomas of Canterbury and the English Martyrs, Preston, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Nottingham (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Live at the Garden

Hi, I've added some citations to Live at the Garden (James Brown album), which you recently tagged as unreferenced. Please remove the tag if you feel it is justified. Thanks. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

All done, great article, can't believe that no one reviewed it until now. Pjposullivan (talk) 08:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating St Aloysius Church, Glasgow, Pjposullivan!

Wikipedia editor Jackson Peebles just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Extremely well-crafted article. A pleasure to see and promptly check off on the page curator! Thanks for your edits.

To reply, leave a comment on Jackson Peebles's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Benedict Williamson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farnborough (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Assumption of good faith

Your point is well made. However, in my humble experience, I do not perceive a whole lot of good faith: rather, I perceive power-hungriness (to wit, command of a universe that fits extremely comfortably within a one-cubic-meter box). I perceive inconsistent behavior, deductibly inconsistent intent, and flippancy beyond flippancy. When legitimate contributions are repeatedly (well, that's rather strong: I'll say, "more than once") undone&#151;while the next fellow's contributions, regardless of their (il)legitimacy, are embraced&#151;how can I assume good faith?

Oh, also, "assumption" implies that I have no base of facts upon which to derive a conclusion. By way of contrast, I have accreted quite the factual base.

I have, on more than one occasion, worked hard to replace a (to me) all-but-useless "explanation" of something with a carefully constructed argument that actually&#151;hold onto your socks&#151;TEACHES the reader in a careful, spoonful-by-spoonful fashion&#151;only to have my changes deleted by the click of a mouse, accompanied by accusations of vandalism or, rather, inclusion of "original research." I was unaware that replacing ill-argued crap (particularly in mathematics, where the previous contributor's sole intent was to proffer lots of nifty-looking notation so that the now-more-bewildered-than-ever reader can say, "Wow, that guy must really be a guru") constituted "original research."

Moreover, I tend to correct things that are rife with misspellings. You may disagree (indeed, feel free to disagree), but it is, to me, a red flag when the would-be-professional contributor of content can't even communicate in written English. What an abomination! Such writing says to me, (1) The fellow can't be bothered to check his spelling; (2) the fellow goes out of his way to use a fancy-looking word, but can't be bothered to verify it, because [2a] he obviously doesn't KNOW the word or [2b] can't be bothered because, of course, he is too perfect and brilliant and exemplary possibly to commit any such pedestrian error; (3) how can the fellow purport to be a scientist [I assume that a contributor to, say, a scientific article is, well, gee, a scientist] when he can't even express his findings professionally, which is part and parcel of what a scientist ostensibly does?

(I don't specifically remember which article it was&#151;it had something to do with Taylor series and Maclaurin series, I seem to recall&#151;but I replaced some character's "explanation" that did little more than showboat how he could glue together nice-looking symbols and Greek letters in a syntactically correct manner with, well, a cogent, thoughtful explanation that did not require nice-looking symbols and Greek letters. It is the weak mathematician, indeed, who cannot conceptually explain something without resorting to&#151;as Prof. Bailyn humorously termed it&#151;"alphabet soup." Example: what is a frustum? Standard definition: "a conic section yadda yadda two parallel planes orthogonal to yadda yadda." Prof. Bailyn's definition: "It's what the elephant stands on at the circus." Can you possibly beat that?

This is nothing any less profound than the very definition of expertise and instruction. An expert seeking to assist the reader contributes something that can be readily understood and immediately inculcated into one's knowledge base. The typical Wikipedia contributor in the mathematical and physical sciences, by way of contrast, seems much more interested in showing the world how awesomely brilliant he is. That, to me, is beyond tragic.)

98.249.207.46 (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

It is intriguing that you consider a legitimate commentary, based upon one's experiences, to be harassment.

Legitimate needs cry out for attention. It would be easy to detect an inbound user and notify him of new messages, rather than doing so only when (presupposing "if") he starts editing a Wikipedia page. (I solved the problem in the back of my mind in seconds&#151;albeit it's an Apache-only fix {but what do you want for $0?}.) However, we seem to prefer to build bots that detect legitimately offended users who have edited this and that, and then notify the nearest Wikipoliceman&#151;or is that a "looshpah labutnum" or other sophomoric amusements for the Dungeons crowd?

Is this also harassment? I consider it "harassment" when I contribute something of scientific merit and applicability to an article, and an "authority" comes along, deletes it, and accuses me of being (a) a vandal or (b) useless.

Matthew 7:6, my friend . . .

98.249.207.46 (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)