User talk:Aliciaskrinjar

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Aliciaskrinjar, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Nomination of The Onion and Satirical Newspapers in today's Media Industry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Onion and Satirical Newspapers in today's Media Industry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Onion and Satirical Newspapers in today's Media Industry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, friend
Welcome to Wikipedia. No, seriously, I'm a person, not a machine — I mean it!

Unfortunately, you are having what is an all-too-common initial meet-and-greet with the proverbial "encyclopedia anyone can edit" — a canned welcome note and a canned notice that all your hard work is being subjected to the deletion process. I apologize for that, things really shouldn't be like that for newcomers who are serious content-contributers like yourself. Rest assured that I and others here do appreciate your work and want to help you "get up to speed" as a contributor to the project.

If you have any questions about how to do this or that with the very strange editing software, what's going on, etc., do not hesitate to write. You can either leave a message for me on my "Talk Page" by clicking the (TALK) link that follows my signature below and then editing a message onto the bottom of that page like any other Wikipedia page — or you may email me directly if that is for some reason easier or more comfortable for you: MutantPop@aol.com is the address. Okay?

Now, a few words about what is going on with your piece. If you've been at Wikipedia before and are starting up again under a new user name (which is pretty common), I will be saying a bunch of junk you know already. In which case, sorry about that. Anyway, here we go...

Quality control
There is a common popular conception that Wikipedia is something like a big whiteboard that anybody can write anything on with the pile of dry-erase pens handily provided. This is an unrealistic view. In reality, there are probably several thousand hardcore volunteers around the globe working intensely on the project, with a very big emphasis placed on matters of form, content, and quality control.

Your piece has run into trouble on two grounds, as nearly as I can reckon, it being seen on the one hand as what is called a an "essay" and on the other hand as a possible "content fork." I'll go over both of these things now.

Ideally things at Wikipedia need to be written in the form of an encyclopedia entry, starting with a searchable noun or phrase for a title. I know there are thousands of exceptions and I don't pretend to intimate that this is anything like a universal rule — however that's the vision to keep in the back of your head. At the other end of the spectrum are things that are NOT searchable nouns, but rather "original contributions to the literature," if you will, offering opinions or advice. "Twenty reasons why dogs are better than cats" would be a perfect example of what I'm talking about — that would get tossed from Wikipedia by volunteers working at the "front gate" immediately.

In between there is a grey area, where your piece lies. Yes, there is material on The Onion and perhaps other publications that may well have or merit encyclopedic entries of their own. But there is an aspect of journalistic opinion-writing to the piece: "Should Satirical Newspapers be adopted as a Daily?" etc. This is regarded as outside of the bounds of encyclopedic form.

Now, briefly as to "content forks"...

The content of Wikipedia is something like a massive jigsaw puzzle, with each article linking to other articles, ideally with each piece a fully "encyclopedic topic." That's the point of all the blue links inside the articles, connecting one piece with the next. There is a real effort made to not have duplicate pieces, however, because this both messes up the puzzle and provides greater opportunity for mischief — a right wing and left wing take on the same subject, for instance, rather than a balanced piece combining the arguments of the two.

So forking is a no-no, even if it is completely accidental. It messes up the puzzle.

In your case, your piece has excellent content relating to The Onion, but it also is likely to be regarded as a "fork" to that article. Material will probably need to be "merged" out of your piece and into that standing piece, perhaps in part in a new section in that piece on "Impact on Society" (as one person has already suggested at the deletion debate.)

Which brings up...

Articles for Deletion
Now, let's talk about Articles for Deletion, the place to which your piece has been hauled. I tell people that "AfD" (as it is called in the lingo we Wikipedians use) is akin to a public traffic court. Anybody can stop by to voice their opinion, to make a case for finding the piece innocent or guilty of charges. After a week a judge makes a decision based upon the evidence presented with two possible outcomes — the death penalty or walking away scot free.

(Actually there is a "hung jury" outcome as well, in which case the default is to save the challenged material rather than to delete it.) Anyway, you don't want your stuff to be in this traffic court, but once it is one needs to make the best case possible for keeping the stuff.

In the case of your piece, it seems likely that there will be a result of "Delete" or "Merge" — a belief that the piece as it sits is an essay which "forks" the standing piece on The Onion. I urge you to take the initiative to merge in new content there on your own, assuming one of these outcomes.

Rest assured that your work will not be destroyed even if the piece ends up being ruled a "Delete" in the AfD debate. All you have to do is ask the closing administrator — the "judge" in the case — to restore it to your sandbox, and there it will be. This is called "Userfying" the piece. In the event that you wish to merge the content to a standing article, it would be useful to have the work back at home again, eh? All you have to do is ask.

In the event of a "Merge" outcome at AfD (the death penalty but the info is formally proclaimed worthy to be moved to prevent a fork) this shift of content is sometimes done by other people, but since you have the passion for the piece it would definitely be best if you did the transfer. It's entirely up to you, we're all volunteers here, but I'd recommend it.

Anyway, that's way too many words, for which I apologize. I just didn't want you to feel shat upon by Wikipedia — we need many more long-term, active, dedicated content contributors and I hope you'll become one.

best regards, —Tim Davenport /// Corvallis, Oregon, USA /// Carrite (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention: you have the right to participate in the deletion debate on your own piece. I strongly advise that you do that. Please try to remember that nobody hates you or is out to get you, don't lash out at your opponents — everybody is trying to make the best encyclopedia possible, whatever those visions or methods may be. The link getting you to the debate already appears on your page above. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tim, this is great note you left Alicia. I also fret about the tendency to bite the newbies around here, and I hope she decides to participate further.--Milowent • hasspoken  05:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alicia! I've moved your article back into your sandbox so it wouldn't be deleted. I've also updated the link on your course page so your instructor will be able to find your work. Let me know if you have any questions. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)