User talk:Dimitrisdad
Welcome!
Hello, Dimitrisdad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Cailil talk 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry the above template wasn't left here earlier - I had assumed that someone else had already done it--Cailil talk 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Baldwin[edit]
Please stop returning the material to the Alec Baldwin article. The proper thing to have done was request more information about the tag in the section, which was placed because the entire section as it was, and in some cases, still is, undue weight on the entire topic in the article. It was edited completely in the light of removing what is essentially a continuation of a bias toward Baldwin's side of the story, which is unacceptable in a neutral article. Why would you say that the article's "politics section reads the most well toned as it has ever been right now" and then return all of the "case against Basinger"?? This is not balanced and can't remain. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Responded on the article talk page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
October 2008[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Alec Baldwin has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Flewis(talk) 08:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alec Baldwin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. If you return that section it will be a 3RR violation and you will be blocked from editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Guide to referencing[edit]
Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.
| Using references (citations) |
|---|
|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. If you need any assistance, let me know. -- Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.
Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) It should appear like this:
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:
Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets. The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead.
You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Here is an example for a book:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.
These formats are all acceptable for dates:
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are 3 sources and they are each referenced 3 times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.
The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair.
More information can be found at: |
This will teach you how something is properly referenced.
User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]
Regarding reversions[1] made on October 31 2008 to Alec Baldwin[edit]
November 2008[edit]
Regarding your comments on Talk:Alec Baldwin: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Let me remind you to assume good faith, stay cool, remain civil, and do not make personal attacks, such as was left by you here and here. I would suggest at this point that you take a step back, take a day or two to regain your composure and stop being so personally invested in a point of view. Your behavior to date on this article has been unproductive, ill-tempered and a prime example of tenditious editing. Please consider ways to better interact with other editors involved and don't become so personally involved that you lose your temper. Any further displays may result in your being banned from Wikipedia. LaVidaLoca (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Response[edit]
I have read through all of the article talk page discussion, looked through the myriad of page revisions and your postings on user talk pages asking for administrators to block the other user. I have also noted your series of personal attacks upon the other editor, which are absolutely forbidden on Wikipedia and are blockable offenses. You are admonished to assume good faith at all times and to avoid making personal attacks such as you have, even in your posting on my talk page (gadfly) and to desist from lobbying adminstrators to ban someone based on your personal perspective of the issue (such as on this talk page. You may have made the points about the tape, but at no time, until you obviously became quite angry, did you say that your objection to the TMZ page was because it contained the recording. I note that other reliable sources were put in about the tape which were also removed. From an outsider's perspective, you are only arguing that on the basis of the Baldwin book, and not from any court action that has determined it to be a legal violation. I have to wonder, however, if the release of the recording is a legal violation, why the court has not ordered its removal from the TMZ website. TMZ is based in California.
In reviewing the original addition of the section, there were issues related to what appears to be a biased skew to the verbage used in it, which to me seems to be what the other editor repeatedly tried to convey to you. There was nothing in what was discussed by the other editor that conveyed anything except issues with referencing, wording and the potential of libel on the part of Wikipedia based on the wording and lack of specific references for what you were submitting as information from the book. Detailed referencing when writing what could open Wikipedia to libel charges is fundamental policy that cannot be ignored. There will be no blocking of editors who are trying in good faith to improve article content in a manner consistent with Wikipedia policies. I note that initially, the other editor removed your wording due to potential WP:BLP violations, which are one of the highest of Wikipedia tenets which must be followed. Direct citations and page numbers are required to avoid such issues. Neutrality is tantamount, and I don't believe the section as you originally wrote it, had a neutral tone. The issue is in how your section is presented, and I support the other editor that it lacked neutrality.
It is my opinion that the section of the article, as it exists at this time, is sufficient. If you can't accept that, then the article will likely be locked from any editing and formal dispute mediation will commense. One other point that I want to make is that if you don't want your contributions to be changed, shortened, lengthened, or altered, that you do not submit it. You have no claim upon anything you write once you click the save page button. I note that the other editor has suggested that if you wish to write about the book in a detailed manner, that you create a separate article about it. That is a valid and very good suggestion. I would echo the other editor's comment, and suggest to you that anything written on this book needs to have complete and thorough sourcing and citations, no matter where it is. I hope that when you return, it is with a new outlook on user behavior and Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would suggest that you read WP:BEHAVE in the interim and strive to comment clearly on content issues and cease with the personal attacks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)