This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.
HELP!!!!!!!!!
Dear Missionedit,
This is my first year on WiI ssipediaI'vend I'm not on very often. I'm really bad with technology but Wikipedia is articlesomething my friends tell me I should use because I have PythonessofDelphihese useless facts in my brain that they say Wikipedia is the place for. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what to edit because I'm afraid of making a mistake and I don't want to make a new page because what if it's really bad and no one likes it? It's taken me a while to contact a host because I'm rather shy by nature and independent. What do I do???????
Sincerely, PythonessofDelphi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythonessofdelphi (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello PythonessofDelphi, it's very nice to meet you! I'd be glad to help you with any questions you have :) Would you rather be called PythonessofDelphi or Hope?
If you want to make an article on Wikipedia, I would highly recommend using the Wikipedia:Articles for Creation wizard. This process helps make sure that your article is notable enough for Wikipedia, and that it has enough sources to support it's facts (it also helps make sure that your article won't get deleted in the future). What topic(s) would you like to create an article about?
If you have information about a topic that already has an article, feel free to add that info to the article, but you should make sure that any facts you add are backed up with a reliable source. For information on how to put sources in articles, Wikipedia:Citing sources is very helpful. And if an edit you make gets deleted, don't panic :) It happens to everyone, even very experienced editors.
I'll be on Wikibreak for the next week, so I'll take a while for me to respond to any messages you leave me. One last thing--when you post things on talk pages, make sure you type 4 tildes (~~~~) after your post. This will leave your username and the date. Cheerio! ~ Anastasia (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Missionedit (Anastasia),
To answer your first question, I would rather be called PythonessofDelphi. I've heard of making new pages/articles in the sand box but what is Wikipedia Articles for creation?? Thanks a lot!!!! Pythonessofdelphi (talk) 12:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Articles for creation is a help feature of Wikipedia that makes it easy to find out if you should create your article (and how to create your article) by asking you a series of easy-to-answer questions. Click on this link, then click on the "Click here to create an article now!" button to get started! ~ Anastasia (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Missionedit,
This could possibly be my last question though I sincerely doubt it. How do you make the tabs like you had a button to make them on your talk page to make it organized.
Thanks again, Pythonessofdelphi (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Pythonessofdelphi: Can you rephrase that question? No comprendo ;) Also, if you want to indent your sentences and such, use a colon ( : ) instead of a bunch of spaces. This will make it look like you want. ~ Anastasia (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the title of this message is Help and you can minimize the amount of space that it takes up. How do you do that???
@Pythonessofdelphi: What? I'm sorry, but I don't understand. Please make your questions coherent if you want them answered. I'll start a new section at the bottom of this page to keep this one from getting too long. Click here to get to it. ~ Anastasia (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO PYTHONESSOFDELPHI!!!!!! I AM USING CAPS BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN RESPONDING. I HAVE BEEN ASKING YOU TO PLEASE MAKE YOUR SENTENCES COMPLETE FOR A LONG TIME. IF YOU DON'T, I CAN'T UNDERSTAND YOU, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS!!!! Thank you. I started a new section at the bottom of this page to keep this one from getting too long. Click here to get to it. ~ Anastasia (User talk:Missionedit#to) 16:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dedlen followup question
I went ahead and used the submit button for my draft and followed the suggestion to move it to Draft:Dedlen for consideration. Is there a way for it to be assigned to you since you're already familiar with it? Thanks again for your help! Dedlen (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedlen: Well, editors usually "assign" themselves to articles of their choice. I would feel a little weird reviewing an article which I predicted would pass, if you know what I mean :) I'll see what I can do. ~ Anastasia (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. It was already reviewed! With 900+ I didn't expect that fast. So I tried to modify the phrases that were suggested I change. I'm waiting to find out the reviewer's thoughts. I really appreciate your help and hope to get the article eventually accepted! Dedlen (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes and added some citations. It was suggested I contact the Teahouse again to check before submitting it again. Could you look and see what you think now? Thank you again! Dedlen (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedlen: Prose looks a lot better! Good job improving it, I can understand the article much easier now. Also the extra sources help establish notability. ~ Anastasia (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I resubmitted it. Is it typical for the same reviewer to review it again or does a different person usually do it? I really appreciated how fast the first one was but don't know the policies or common practices. Dedlen (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedlen: 99% of the time a reviewer will not review the same article again, for many reasons. One of them is that there are so many different reviewers. Another is just preference. Unless you ask your reviewer (or any reviewer, see the reviewer list) to review it specifically, someone else will review it instead. FYI your article was only reviewed so quickly because I asked someone to do it :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know :) thank you so much. I'll look at the list or just wait. It makes sense someone else should review it. Thanks again! Dedlen (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
after resubmitting I left a message for puffin hoping they might help review it. The number of pages needing review has jumped like 300 since then. Is there anything you can suggest? Thanks! Dedlen (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing, but I have an honest question. I'd like to edit and submit for a re-review, but I'm a tad confused. Is not WordPress.org, Mashable, Matt Cutts, Go Daddy (yep- the web host, on their blog), and The Guardian not noteworthy enough? I've cited those sources. I mean, I could listed hundreds of URLs from lots of resources. WordPress Powers 20% of the entire Internet and this guy and his company is responsible for creating a SEO tool for WordPress (actually 2) that is well known all over the world. His plugin is referenced in SEOMoz, Neil Patel of QuickSprout and KissMetrics mention his plugin, WPBeginner, and much more. How much notable are you looking for? I don't want to sound rude, but I honestly need to know. :) NileFlores (talk) 01:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing rude about wanting to understand :) I apologize for not clarifying further! Notability is not determined by the number of sources. It depends on the quality of the sources, and how they are related to the subject. WordPress.org is definitely a huge corporation. However, sources from WordPress do not establish notability in this instance because Yoast is affiliated with WordPress. Same with The Guardian, Yoast was paid to help them change their domain. See Wikipedia:Independent sources for more info.
The other sources, Mashable and Matt Cutts, are independent, but there is nothing more than a passing mention of Yoast in the articles cited. If you want to the establish notability of this company, independent, reliable sources which give significant coverage of it are needed. See the Wikipedia:Golden rule. Does that answer all of your question? ~ Anastasia (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an answer to your question about WikiProjects, you can get involved with any WikiProject you want by adding yourself to the member list of that WikiProject and reading their homepage to see what they need help with. To find a WikiProject you're interested in, go to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory page and look around. Or, I can help you find some, if you like. What are you interested in? ~ Anastasia (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Missionedit,
I am interested in Greek, Egyptian, and Roman Mythology and the Texas Revolution.
I created a page named LensKart. In first attempt it got live with removing 90% content and when i edited new content and updated. The updated content got approved but it created a new page with new URL.
Oh. I didn't realize that there was another live LensKart page when I approved your new draft. Stupid of me. Easy fix, though--I'll just redirect Lenskart to LensKart we'll be all set. Don't forget to sign your comments :) ~ Anastasia (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to move the new Lenskart content under the title of the old one, and redirect the new title to the old one. Kind of confusing to explain, so take a look for yourself. The reason I did this is because all the sources you cited refer to the company as Lenskart, not Lenskart, make this the widely accepted spelling by anyone who looks it up. See WP:COMMONNAME for more info. ~ Anastasia (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
03:47:36, 2 August 2014 review of submission by Bodrad
Thank you kindly for the very quick review and response to my draft submission. I think I understand your concerns and the changes required. I have attempted to address each of your suggestions, and also have a clarifying question. Again, I appreciate your assistance with this process and I hope that these changes are along the lines of what is necessary to publish this article.
Clarifying Question
You stated that I need to "improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable...". I am a bit unclear as to the best way to address this concern. Shall I include more references and citations? Or do I simply need to place the ones I already have more frequently throughout the article's sentences rather than at the end of paragraphs as I have done?
Addressing Notability
It seems to me the biggest issue with the article in its current form (and I do plan to flesh out the other sections more fully in the next weeks), is its notability. I have reviewed the Golden Rule and musician notability guidelines that you were very helpful in passing along.
Golden Rule
Significant Coverage
I've included over 15 unrelated and independent references from sources including newspapers, magazine articles, well-known music corporations (e.g., ProMark and Zildjian), other musicians' websites, and online music stores. Nearly all of these discuss the topic directly and in detail. I understand these may not be enough, and I actually have other print sources that I have not yet had a chance to include as I was saving them for additions to the topic. I've listed these below to hopefully bolster the significant coverage requirement:
Modern Drummer is the premier magazine/news source for professional drummers of all musical styles. One of my currently referenced articles is available online[1] - the others I only have in print form at the moment.
Reliable Sources
As mentioned on the Golden Rule page, these sources are newspapers, periodicals, and media stations, which fall under example categories of reliable sources. Please let me know if those listed above and those referenced in the current article are not up to standards.
Independent Sources
All of the articles referenced and those listed above were generated by independent authors or interviewers. None were paid advertisements or otherwise arranged by the topic.
Verifiability
I am a bit confused by the statement listed: "Non-independent reliable sources can be used for verifiability". Either way, I hope the sources I've already used and those listed above are considered verifiable. The answer to my question above will help me understand more clearly how often sources should be included/referenced.
Notability
Multiple, non-trivial, published works in all forms
It is my contention that the listing above and those already referenced fall under this category.
Non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country
The interviews and articles listed above cover this topic regarding several major festivals Abbey performed at in Europe
Two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels
Two of Abbey's albums were released by Cadence Jazz Records, which contains notable musicians and is a leading label for independent jazz music.
Musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles
Abbey played for John Handy and Mal Waldron in several ensembles during the 70s and 80s, both independently highly notable jazz musicians.
Prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city
Hello, Missionedit. You have new messages at Bodrad's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fundación Aladina
Hi, I´m working on the translation for a new page on the Fundación Aladina, I´m working on the spanish article and decided to translate it. Could you help me out checking the links? They told me the format is ok, but that the reviewer couldn't check the links because some are in spanish. Thanks.--FMateos (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FMateos: Done - Who was the reviewer? I checked the links, and I believe that you may need a few more sources to establish notability. Nice job translating :) One suggestion--the "See also" section is only for links to Wikipedia articles, not links to other websites, which belong in the "External links" section. ~ Anastasia (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chandesh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indian. 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.
Hi // Thanks for the teashop welcome! I'd love to get started as a wikipedia editor, but I'm not really sure the best way to get going. There are certainly topics I know about, but it's not clear to me the best place to get going. Are there lists of tasks that I can work through, preferably starting with fairly minor copyediting or other straightforward activities while I get the hang of it? Thanks!
Breandank (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I KNOW YOU! ANATASIA. I HOPE THE SPELLING IS RIGHT MISSIONEDIT. DON'T YOU REMEMBER ME? LAST TIME YOU TRIED TO HELP ME. BUT IT WAS A FAILURE. AFTER THAT I DELETED MY ACCOUNT. WHEN I RECREATED IT I WAS SEARCHING FOR YOU MY DEAR FRIEND. AT LAST I FOUND YOU AT TEA HOUSE. HAPPY TO MEET YOU AGAIN.
NOW I'M IN TROUBLE. COULD YOU PLS HELP ME BY ANSWERING A TRICKY QUESTION.IN THE LAND OF THE BLIND, THE ONE-EYED MAN IS THE KING. WHO IS THIS OR WHAT IS THIS?
I HOPE YOU WILL HELP ME.
I HAVE A LOT TO SAY TO YOU. BUT NO TIME. BYE BYE.
HERE ARE SOME GIFTS FOR YOU.DURYODANAN (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
