User talk:CA387/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! (→ Netscott ) 08:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

List of Cellists

 * I didn't add my name to the List of Cellists. Someone else did. Whoever it was, it definitely wasn't me... I haven't edited any pages at all recently. You can even check my edit history to confirm. Neil the Cellist 04:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been telling a lot of people at my school not to publicize my name, be it on school newspapers, school magazines, and the Internet, including Wikipedia. While "neilthecellist" appears a lot on Google, and that I am a cellist bound for music school (I'm in high school right now), it doesn't justify Wikipedia publicizing of a minor, nor someone who does not even have a contribution to society or astounding achievement.


 * People have also tried hijacking this account. There's one instance in which a user page for me was created, and I had to change my password shortly after. High school is stupid sometimes. Neil the Cellist 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also 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! HagermanBot 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're adopted!
Thanks for getting in touch (the first person to ask me directly, as it happens). I'll be delighted to help you as much as I can. I've had a quick look at some of your edits, and the only point that springs to mind is WikiProject Musicians/Categorization: someone shouldn't be in Category:Cellists when they can be in Category:Fooian cellists - in fact, ideally, they should be in Category:Fooian classical cellists. Similarly, they don't need to be in a category of musicians or classical musicians or Fooian people, since Fooian classical cellists would be a sub-category of all of these. There is a List of cellists if people want to browse for a cellist's name. I'm slowly going through some instruments and creating full category trees for them, sorted by nationality/genre/instrument combinations - e.g. Category:Bassoonists, Category:Oboists - so if you need a project for cellists, there's an idea for you! Anyway, enough of that for now, I ought to go to work. Best wishes, Bencherlite 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again, sorry to be slow in replying but was hardly able to get on WP at the weekend (domestic chores, boo hiss) and my work access is made problematic at the moment by the firewall thinking that many "innocent" WP pages should be blocked on pornography grounds! I haven't seen a way of tagging/scripting that would meet your suggestion - pages tend to be "List" or "Category" and I haven't seen a third way, although I can see the sense in having a page that lists all cellists at once.  It may be that nobody has gone down that route because of where it might lead: for example, a page with all Americans listed... which might be a bit too long to handle!
 * When you've got a few more mainspace edits, you'll probably be allowed to use WP:AWB which can help speed up boring tasks such as recategorization. Incidentally, when looking at your edit history, it shows that you don't always use edit summaries.  Some people get quite annoyed by missing edit summaries as they like to be able to see what editors say that they have done - even if all that it is is "adding unreferenced tag", "reverting vandalism" or "typo fix", or something minor like that.  In "preferences", you can turn on a function to warn you if you've forgotten to leave a summary, which I find useful.  Anything I can help you with, rather than offering unsolicited advice?!  Bencherlite 08:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting musicians into boxes
Hello again. I agree that both categories and lists have their problems. I'm not entirely convinced that Category:Living people is terribly useful, I must say! The ethnic Scot living in London is a problem too, but not as much as the person born of Italian parents in Scotland who moved to America in later life - Italian, Scottish, American, or more than one? (I must admit that I tend to follow the national categories that people have already used and, when in doubt, use more than one...)

I was interested in your suggestions for further categorizations of musicians. I can see why you want to be able to see all names in a category and its sub-categories at once - it's a good idea. Whether the solution is categorization at multiple levels (which WP generally seems to be against) or some special page function, I don't know. There is a Category:Music educators already which might fit the bill for your SI teachers category (and / or Music educators could be broken down by nationality and / or instrument: at present, there's more than 200 names there without any sub-cats). As for sub-cats of soloists, band members, etc, my initial thought is that it might end up getting too specific and difficult to navigate. But it's certainly worth taking for discussion at the project page. Whether anyone's still interested in music categories is another issue, though! Best wishes, Bencherlite 14:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Music
Blimey, you don't make life as your adopted parent easy, do you?! Errr, I don't know... I'll have a look (but it won't be before tomorrow evening UK time at least, as I'm going to be away from a computer for a day or so, suffering Wikipedia withdrawal symptoms in the meantime of course!) and see what I can come up with. In the meantime, have a look at Choral Public Domain Library which may help or give you some further material to read. Yours, Bencherlite 18:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism
Sorry, TW (or more specifically, my computer) must have been a bit slow there and warned the wrong user! Waggers 11:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Technique
Finals over? I'd like to resume our discussions. --Ronz 16:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alas, two more weeks. :( I'd like to as well, but with about 42 pages of term papers, the only things I'm using Wikipedia for is research, and compulsively checking out the mortality rates of Red Bull. Thank you for your good wishes, though! --CA387 02:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard the mortality rate from drinking Red Bull can be partially offset by eating chocolate-covered espresso beans. --Ronz 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At this point, I'm not sure offsetting the mortality rate is entirely a good idea. Only a week to go... CA387 23:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Alive and well
Sorry, haven't replied to your last question about refs, references, external links and the like - mainly because, although I think I know, I ought to give you a decent answer, which means some reading first on my part! Sheer laziness. Will now go and do something about it, and speak to you later! Bencherlite 18:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

References, Footnotes, External links
OK, I'll try and explain what I've read in the Manual of Style and elsewhere. There are various systems, and different people prefer different things. The rule of thumb is to use the same format as previous editors of the page in question. However, if in doubt, "As with all citation advice in Wikipedia, the most important thing is to provide some information about where you found your material, even if you don't know how to format the citation." Harvard referencing

Essentially, your choice is from:


 * 1) Embedded HTML links
 * 2) Harvard referencing
 * 3) Footnotes

Embedded HTML links
This method should only be used, we are told here, for a citation for a specific section or fact. You put in your website link in the body of the article as a reference, e.g. like this


 * Rostropovich's death 

which appears as


 * Rostropovich's death .

You then add a references section and full citation in the following form:

==References==

* [author if known] "Russian maestro Rostropovich dies", BBC News, April 27, 2007. Accessed April 27, 2007.

The other way that external links are used is as part of a list of External links at the end of the article. This is sometimes done, as you've noticed, for things that haven't been worked into the article. On occasions, this will be because an editor saves time by just giving the external link instead of using it as a reference. It's not the best of ideas because the article isn't properly referenced.


 * All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic. (from WP:CITE)

The MOS says that there should be an appropriate header followed by a bulleted list of links. As the MOS says, "External links should summarize the website’s contents, and indicate why the website is relevant to the article". So we might get:

 ==External links== 


 *  *Why this website is relevant 

Harvard referencing
See WP:HARV

(Life's too short for too much detail. No, really.  Academics with lots of time on their hands have developed a very strict system for referring to each others' books and articles, and then fail theses that don't comply!)

You type some text, and then you add your Harvard reference (Author 2007)

You then have to give the full citation later in a References section. The basic format for referring to a book under the "References" section is:


 * *Author, A. (2005). Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4

which produces


 * Author, A. (2005). Harvard Referencing, New York: Random House. ISBN 1-899235-74-4

Footnotes and References
The preferred format is now this:


 * Place a where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.


 * Place the tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here.

You can add in extra information in the footnote if appropriate; footnotes go after punctation.

To cite a footnote more than once (which I didn't know how to do until a couple of minutes ago!) you do this (from WP:FOOT:


 * To give a footnote a unique identifier, use . You can then refer to the same footnote again by using a ref tag with the same name. The name cannot be a number, or the extension will return an error. The ref name need not be placed within inverted commas unless it consists of more than one word.
 * Only the first occurrence of text in a named ref will be used, although that occurrence may be located anywhere in the article. You can either copy the whole footnote, or you can use a terminated empty ref tag that looks like this: . Such forward-slash-terminated named tags may precede the definition of the named reference

So, for example, by typing this:


 * So, for example you might need to cite the same source again and again and again to make sure that the article is properly referenced!

we get this:

So, for example you might need to cite the same source again and again and again to make sure that the article is properly referenced!

And finally
Hope this makes some sort of sense to you - it's confused the hell out of me! Good luck! Bencherlite 20:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

More of the same
Glad you liked it. I'll probably keep a copy of that somewhere in a sub-page of mine and tinker with it, so I don't have to look it all again for chapter and verse the next time I, or an adoptee, needs to know. So if you think of any improvements, let me know. OK, so you want to know (a) the exact difference between references and footnotes, and (b) are external links just links for developing the article, eventually to be added to the in-line cites?

References vs footnotes It seems to be mainly a question of following what's there already, and if there isn't anything, you get a free choice. The Harvard system of referencing would seem to lead to a "References" list at the end; use of in-line cites to a "Footnotes" or "Notes" or "References" list, with WP:CITE giving a free choice, I think:


 * Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia:
 *  ==Notes==  or
 *  ==Footnotes==  or
 *  ==References==  or
 *  ==Notes and references==  section: Used if there is no separate section with general references, and if all sources of the general content of the article are covered by the footnotes, but see the note about this below.


 * Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"
 * It can be helpful when footnotes are used that a separate "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which lists citations in alphabetical order, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used. Works cited in the References section may be cited in abbreviated short title form in specific footnotes, using the format .

External links If possible, use the material from the external link and cite it - that's the first preference. However, there may be reasons not to do so - so it isn't the case that all external links should be turned into references and then the "External links" section removed removed. WP:LINKS says "Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." If it's being cited, it goes into a "References" section, rather than an "External links" section.

So, for example, you can link to someone's/something's official website, to professional reviews of an album / book etc (the guidelines don't mention reviews of a concert, but I suppose it depends on what the review says: it may be possible to cite as evidence of notability / support for claims of excellence). There's a list of "no-nos", including advertising/ spam sites, or sites that require registration. See the list at WP:LINKS for fuller details.

Again, hope this helps. I'd be happy to look over any Hey, I've just looked at all the work you've done at Aldo Parisot - good work! You should be giving me the lessons on WP:CITE! (My only quibble was the categorization, so I fixed it.) Well done! Bencherlite 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bits and pieces
Hi again. Couple of things. Not sure if you saw this message left by another editor about a discussion we were having the other day - I think it answers the question you raised. The other thing is that I'm about to go on holiday for a couple of weeks, so you're unlikely to hear from me during that time. Hopefully you won't get into too much trouble whilst I'm away, but if you have a question/problem, go to the WP:AAU discussion pages and ask for help there (say that your lousy no-good-adopter has abandoned you for the joys of a holiday!) I'll see you in mid-May. Cheerio for now. Bencherlite 21:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename of Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterists
You seem to have closed the rename debate without actually renaming the article to Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians. Could you please check it? Thanks. --CA387 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's on the "working" page. Please be patient, sometimes the changes take time : ) - jc37 06:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Pardon me, then. --CA387 06:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been renamed : ) - jc37 07:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
Replied on my talk page. --YFB ¿  17:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

back from Wikibreak
Hello once again and thanks for your kind message. Yes, had a great trip (Toronto, Niagara, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo) - and now stuck in Cardiff for a couple of days for my sins! Hope you haven't been wrecking the place whilst I've been away. Anything I can do for you at the moment? Bencherlite 17:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection
There was not much recent vandalism at the time. Now that I see the vandalism, I have sp'd for 1 week. Thanks! Sr13 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Calls for comments on clarification of semi-protection policy
CA387 I am writing to you because you recently had a semi-protection request denied for the page   I have found that the enforcement of the semi-protection policy is not very consistent and there does not appear to be any firm guidelines on how it is interpreted. So I am trying to get some more clarity on the criteria for getting a page semi-protected. I have  proposed an addition to Protection policy and there is now a discussion about the merits of my proposal. Since you have just had a semi-protection request denied you might like to make a comment on the proposed additions to the policy. If you would like to comment you can do so here Ttguy 10:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for defending me. Ttguy 13:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cellists
Nice work! I've tweaked the categories a bit, as you'll see, but have left the text alone (all looks fine to me at present, though). I'm not too hot on image policies, so I'll need to have a good look at the rules if you've got any particular examples in mind - have you? Bencherlite 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles and images
Hello again - got a bit distracted recently (but to good purpose, I assure you) and neglected you. Apologies. Right, then, I've had a look at the short articles on various cellists that you wrote, which all look fine so far. I've added categories where I could. It's nothing to be frightened of: if it's a biographical article, xxxx births and xxxx deaths for starters; if it's a musician, then Category:German classical cellists, or whatever. If this brings up a redlinked category, and you're sure that it is the right category, then create the category by clicking on it and then adding parent categories to the new category, so that it fits into the existing system. The easiest way of working out which parent categories to add is to look at a parallel category tree: e.g. for Category:Armenian classical cellists just now I copied the existing structure from Category:American classical cellists, turning each redlinked category into a blue link as I went. Now if you start at Category:Armenian musicians, you can click all the way down to Diran Alexanian and all the way back up the other side to Category:Cellists. Magic!

As for images to accompany the articles, there you might be in more difficulty. Non-free content sets out the 10 points to satisfy before you can use a copyrighted image under a "fair use" justification - though see Publicity photos for some further thoughts. Non-free content says that you can't just use a copyright photo of someone who's alive to illustrate what they look like, although as many of your cellists are dead, that doesn't apply! Quite a minefield, and one reason why the only images I've played with on Wikipedia have been photographs that I took myself...

And as for your wild goose chase for that citation-related template, have a look at Category:Citation and verifiability maintenance templates and chase your own geese! :-) Let me know if you find it - new tags and templates are always fun, and I first saw Template:Onesource today, where you had used it. (In fact, I liked it so much, I left a question on the template talk page...) Yours, Bencherlite 22:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)