User talk:Chicken Quiet

adoptoffer

If you're interested, I am open for adopting. Fattyjwoods ( Push my button  ) 03:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As Fattyjwoods has already offered adoption, I wish the two of you can get along well and good luck. --Deryck C. 10:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Just tak a quick look through this (the resource) I included. It has very basic intructions on what you should do, and what you should'nt do. First of all I would suggest Sandbox with the stuff you read in the above resources, and then do some minor edits to articles which intrest you. Then we'll go on developing your userpage, and when you gain enough experience. We'll do some anti-vandal work. :) Have fun and if you need any help feel free to message me on my talk page! Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 04:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I recieved a complaint from another user about you creating nonsense pages, may I suggest you try out some edits on existing articles and when you feel you are ready to create a page, disscuss with me your ideas, so there is not a repitition of this incident agan? Please do not create anymore pages until this problem is solved, Thanks Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And please remember to add refernces to all your new pages, it is absoulutely critical. Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 03:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One last thing, I am considering putting one of you're newly created pages (Emily Head), up for AfD as it fails WP:RS and WP:N. Because she is the daughter of a notable actor, it does not automatically mean she is notable herself. Please stay in contact with me. Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 04:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, no one complained about "nonsense" pages, I alerted User:Fattyjwoods that you had recreated a page deleted at AfD and that they needed to give you more guidance as your "adopter".  Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Chicken Quiet, some editors rhink I do not have time so I no longer will be your adopter from now on. Fattyjwoods  ( Push my button  ) 05:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'll have to find another one then Chicken Quiet (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

New adoption
I'd be willing to be your new adopter, if you're willing. Let me know either here or on my talk page. Stardust8212 20:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, yes please. I would be most grateful :  ) Chicken Quiet (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess to start with you should let me know about any questions you have about Wikipedia, how things work or policy type questions. I see from the above that you have had some complaints about using reliable sources and recreating deleted content, that would probably be a good place for us to start working. I'll try to keep an eye on your contributions for a little while and offer you tips as I see things. Stardust8212 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok Chicken Quiet (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess to start with let's talk about the sources used for Emily Head. I agree with you that she is probably notable enough to have an article at this stage but the sources used in the article right now are primary sources and unreliable sources. The citations to Emily Head and Anthony Head's websites are both primary/self published sources. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." While Emily and Anthony Head are undoubtedly experts on the topic we shouldn't use them as the main source for the article. Instead we need to rely on third-party sources for our information. As for the IMDb link, IMDb is generally not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia except for very basic information and generally other sources are preferred.
 * Doing a quick search there are some better sources out there, try doing a search on Google News for starters : there's an article in the Bath Chronicle about her role in The Invisibles and one from the Manchester Evening News about The Inbetweeners . Adding these to the article would really improve the article a lot and help satisfy some of the notability and referencing concerns. Maybe you could find some more information to make the article longer at the same time.
 * I hope this is helpful, let me know if you have questions and I'll keep trying to give you pointers. Stardust8212 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, Thank-you Very Much. I understand better now. Nobody really explained that to me before. Thank-You : ) Chicken Quiet (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, that's what adoption is for. Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines and it's easy for experienced users to forget what it's like for somebody who hasn't read through all of them twenty times before. Let me know if there's anything else I can help out with. Stardust8212 17:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thank-you : -  ) Chicken Quiet (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My userpage
Thanks. --Gwib (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats Ok. Chicken Quiet (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rusty Goffe
I removed the information from the Rusty Goffe article as the references were not valid, either because they were not reliable sources or because they were did not support what was being claimed in the article. You may add information if you cite reliable sources. This is particularly important for biographical information about living people, which should be removed if not verifiable in reliable sources. --Snigbrook ( talk ) 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, somebody emailed me, saying that I should do it. Chicken Quiet (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations
Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.