User talk:DonnaHalper

May 2011— Welcome
Hello, DonnaHalper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Epeefleche (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

OR
Hi. It is what is called original research. See wp:or. The basic concept (though you should read that to see how it is described there in full) is that there is much that is true that can be added to articles, but (unlike school papers, for example) we only put into an article what is "notable", and we determine that -- with regard to any subject -- but looking for it to be covered by reliable sources (see wp:rs) to an extent that suggests that it is notable. Otherwise, we have individuals deciding on their own what they think is notable, and the fights would be even greater than what you will now experience. So -- that's the sort of thing that might be accurate but isn't a main focus in articles on him, and IMHO qualifies as OR -- that doesn't mean that it is incorrect, just that in a bio on him it is not notable enough for inclusion given coverage by RSs. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can pose any further questions here ... I will watch this pg for a couple of weeks. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 06:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)I've contributed under several different names (I lost my log-in recently when my computer crashed, so I had to create a new identity), but I usually find good source material from newspapers and magazines, since I am a professor, author of five books, and a media historian (and I do research for a living!). But I am eager to be more effective, so by all means, when I mess up, please let me know so that I can fix it. What confuses me is that sometimes, I see references that seem like they are just somebody's blog, rather than a site that is fact-checked (like an academic site, or a newspaper site); I assume we are not supposed to use people's blogs unless they are well-known people with reputations for accuracy. Oh one other query-- my own entry on Wikipedia needs up-dating (I am getting my PhD this Friday). I assume I cannot update my own entry, true? Thanks for the input and if there are specific things you'd like me to research, please let me know.
 * There are some similarities here with academia (I have a doctoral degree as well), but there are differences (such as the OR restriction, and a peculiar tendency to shy away from primary source documents -- what academia and the law of course love more than anything). As to blogs -- they come in different forms.  Some are newspaper blogs -- really, just another name for a newspaper column.  Others are blogs of individuals -- those of notable persons are more likely to be considered reliable sources, and in any event blog material can more easily be used to reflect the opinion of the blogger (if notable) than any "fact", in the usual course.  For background, see WP:BLOGS.  As far as whether/how to edit material on yourself, you can look here for guidance:  Conflict of interest.  It is not impermissible -- there are simply suggested ways of going about it.  Congratulations on your PhD, by the way!--Epeefleche (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 07:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Wonderful to chat with you. I know you are busy, but I deeply appreciate the time. What is your Doctorate in? Mine is in Communications-- I worked on it part-time for 9 years, since I was not able to give up my full-time job and just go live in Amherst MA for 4 years. Still, at age 64, it's gratifying to learn some new stuff and write a dissertation (about early radio and how it changed the culture)-- it was good to challenge myself. I have one other query, and if I could learn how to do this, I'd be grateful to you forever. I am a visual learner (some might say I am also a neo-Luddite about some of this stuff, although I've learned to adapt to some of the technologies;) but I truly cannot understand how to do the footnote thing. I mean, I know how to do internal footnotes like they do in academia (Jones 44) or how to cite a source (New York Times, 4 June 1922, p. 7) as they do in books. But I have never mastered how you good folks do it, with the number and then it links down to the bibliography. I've looked at the written instructions at one time or other, but it just made my head hurt. Is there a simple step-by-step for how to do a footnote in Wikipedia style? Thanks again for all you do.
 * Nice to chat w/you as well. Mine is in law ... a juris doctor.  Nice to find someone here even older than I am.  As to footnotes ("refs", here), the process will be eased if you download a script called "Reflinks".  You can find some background here.  I've not dealt with the following, as it came out more recently and I already have a work-around (a "reflinks" tab), but it may be what you need ... or perhaps you can ask questions on it on that talk page.  In any event, it will ease your life measurably if you download a script such as reflinks that helps automate the ref-insertion process.  In essence, it allows you to put in the bare url in square brackets, hit the script, and then have half the work (though not all) already done, as it fills in (often) the title of the article or book, and the name of the publisher or newspaper, and the date of access -- and, if you are lucky, the author and the date of the publication.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Cool. I will try to download it and see if it makes sense. Meanwhile, can we return to what started this conversation-- my effort to mention on the entry for Sam Fuld that in two of the major streams of Judaism, he would not be considered Jewish-- I used his quote that he "considers himself" Jewish (I consider myself the Queen of France) but that is not the view of Orthodox & Conservative Judaism, which require one to be born of a Jewish mother (he was not) and raised Jewish (he was not). Again, my interest in this is not personal-- I'm not Orthodox, nor do I have any judgments about Reform Judaism, which is less stringent regarding who is considered Jewish. But as a scholar (and you understand, since you are one too), I don't like saying somebody is a "Jewish ballplayer" when in fact some denominations would disagree with that definition. As a reference work, should we not mention this fact? And what is the best way to do so?

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Jane Cunningham Croly, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Unitarian and New Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC) I am very grateful for any guidance on these things. I am a visual learner, and I really do need people to show me how to do stuff the Wikipedia way. I hope my research is good and all I want to do is make a positive contribution. I always thought the double brackets were used when referring readers to a word that is already defined elsewhere on Wikipedia. Am I wrong?

Barry Soetoro
This would not be considered a reliable source and not suitable here - we are better off leaving off "Barry Soetoro" since we can't reliably source its inclusion either. Tvoz / talk 05:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC) Okay. Sorry about that-- I figured it might be okay, since I  know the fact-checker, and he is pretty reliable. I was simply trying to refute the assertion on the page that Mr Obama had been known as Barry Soetoro. There is no credible evidence, as far as I can tell, that he ever legally used that name.


 * I'm not arguing against the point, I'm saying that the way it works here is that we need reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia policy to include or exclude notable material - so this is out. It's hard to find sourcing to support a negative in any case, so the best bet for now is to leave this all out. Tvoz / talk 07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cable television in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism
Hi Donna, thank you for trying to deal with the vandalism at Mahalia Jackson. However, when you find vandalism, please don't undo it manually, if possible; it'd be better to go into the page history and revert the article to the last good version. Unfortunately you [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahalia_Jackson&diff=539154687&oldid=539151608 missed some of the vandalism, which I've cleaned up]. Also see Wikipedia's policy about responding to vandalism for more tips. Graham 87 02:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * DonnaHalper (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Sorry for making things worse-- thought I was being helpful, but it seems I was not. Oh well, my intentions were noble!  Hope I didn't make too much work for you.


 * No problem; fixing vandalism isn't exactly a straightforward task on Wikipedia. By the way, when you sign messages, your signature should go at the end of the message, rather than the beginning. Also, replies to messages are indented with colons like I've just done; see Indentation. Graham 87 02:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you so much for the lesson. I am a visual learner and while I can read the instructions, I really need things explained in order for me to do them the right way.  Much appreciate your patience.  Hope I did it right this time around. DonnaHalper (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=563633846 your edit] to Émile Coué may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * seemed dazzled by his accomplishments and did not question the results attributed to his method see for example and

DonnaHalper (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) All fixed (I hope). Sorry about that!

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=566483720 your edit] to Émile Coué may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * of Coué's Famous Clinic, Showing Marvelous New Method," Boston Post, August 13, 1922, p. 41, a handful of journalists and a few educators were skeptical. After Coué had left Boston, the

Writing about yourself
Hello Ms. Halper. I noticed you added text to the article about yourself - please note that Wikipedia discourages individuals from doing so, as per the content guideline on autobiographies. It's preferred that you suggest changes on the article talk page, and allow an uninvolved editor to review and implement them. That will prevent any appearance of non-neutral or self-promotional intent. Thanks. --Drm310 (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * DonnaHalper (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Sorry but I had no idea how to update something. It wasn't fluff or anything-- just an update about my new book. I didn't think that would be a problem. In the future, how should I handle such things? I mean, I never created the page about myself, so I don't know who to ask to update it!


 * Not a problem. In the future, just leave a note at Talk:Donna Halper with a request edit tag at the beginning. That should get someone's attention and it will be reviewed. Cheers! --Drm310 (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * DonnaHalper (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC) My apologies for any bother. I am a supervisor on WikiAnswers (Answers.com) and I try my best to follow the rules of the site and help others to do likewise.  Sorry if I caused any problem on Wikipedia, even unintentionally.  Much love to you.


 * DonnaHalper (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Just noticed my page now has a box that says one of the contributors has a close connection to me? I have colleagues (Michael Keith, Garrett Wollman, et al) who have told me they contributed to the page, but they are people I know from my profession over the past 30 years. They are not related, nor did I even know they put the page up. I am very puzzled by why suddenly the page is flagged as having problems when it's been up for about three years.  Anything I need to do to make things right?

No worries, Donna. I'm quite certain your efforts are in good faith. :-) As for the tags on the page, it looks like another editor has expressed concerns on the talk page. No need to panic - I can engage him and see if we can sort out some of the issues he's raised. It's not unusual for an article to be flagged years after it's been created, if potential problems have gone unnoticed. We'll make sure it complies with the policy on biographies of living persons and then remove the tags when everyone's satisfied. --Drm310 (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Oh, okay. I got worried because it was never flagged before. As I said, I was surprised it even existed (assumed at first that a Rush fan put it up, given that I discovered the band and have been friends with them for 40 years; turned out several professors who know my work in women's and African-American history put it up, and never even told me at the time). Anyway, let me know if there's anything I can do to help fix things. Not sure what the other editor's concerns are, but whatever they are, I just want to make sure all is well. Nice chatting with you and if I may ever be of assistance, say the word!

Phil and Don
Hi again Donna - your edits on the Everlys seem to have revealed some previous errors that have been standing on the page for some time. And I saw that you have some citations which is really important - original research, even though perhaps accurate, is not accepted here (see WP:OR) - we like to see third party sources confirming facts, sources that are verifiable by other editors. Links are not required, but they are very helpful in the verification aspect, so if you can find online links to the newspaper/magazine pieces you cite, it would be welcome. Similarly, while I assume that what you learned in your research regarding their being honorary members of the fraternity is true, we would like to see some published sources making those statements - especially since the article specifically stated college attendance and graduation years. Certainly what had been in the article could have been incorrect, or even put there as some kind of stupid prank - I believe there were no citations for those "facts" either - but you can see that it's problematic to replace one set of unverifiable facts with another, even though I'm assuming that yours are true. That's part of the OR restriction. Your communication with the fraternity can't be verified by others - not suggesting it is false, just that it is unverifiable. (One of the odd things here is that the ultimate standard is verifiability, over truth. Surely we want articles to be accurate, but in order to judge the accuracy editors need to be able to verify the claims, ideally by looking at the source articles ourselves. So online links are immensely better than bare-bones publication info for which one might have to go to a library to confirm, if that's even possible.) So - if you do have links to those articles, and if you can add citations for some of the other facts you added or corrected, that would be great. I'm not at all lead editor on this one, but I've done some work on it as a result of Phil's death and I'd like to see it brought to a higher level - your input has been great, and if you can improve the sourcing would be even better. In order to keep the conversation intelligible, you can respond right here. I have your page on my watch list. Cheers Tvoz / talk 23:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Hi there! Regarding my sourcing, the newspapers I used are indeed online, via either NewspaperArchive.com or GenealogyBank.com (which is where I found them). Sadly, these are subscription services, which may mean some folks don't have access (and they are outrageously expensive-- don't get me started). But surely we professional researchers can be helpful in this regard-- if I cite newspapers from those databases, is that okay? As for the TKE issue-- the web-page to which I provided a link does NOT say the person who is nominated for honorary membership must be a former student. It says (unless I am reading it wrong) that a student (or former student) who belongs to TKE must make the nomination-- there are numerous famous people who were nominated by members, including Elvis Presley, Mike Huckabee, etc. None of them ever attended Indiana State (or in the case of the Everlys, they never attended anywhere). It was a fan who nominated them, and that is permitted. That is what the membership department of TKE also told me. I'm a big fan of verifiability, but I also want to avoid what often happens: someone finds an online source that is wrong but widely quoted, and it gets repeated over and over. I am currently working on an encyclopedia article about the Everly Brothers for a reference work, hence my interest in sharing my research. Let me know how I can bring this page to a more accurate level-- as a former broadcaster, I am always interested in helping with media-related articles. Btw, I have a question on the talk page for the Everly Brothers, about whether there is in fact verification that "Wake Up Little Susie" was banned in Boston-- I am from Boston, and I lived here when that song was a hit-- this may be one of those cases where a source (in this case, Rolling Stone) made a claim, with no citation, and it got re-quoted over and over. Much love to you from your friendly media historian in Boston.


 * I don't know about Wake Up Little Susie being banned in Boston, but it wouldn't surprise me! I agree that misinformation is often quoted, including from here, and takes on a life of its own - that is precisely why we need verifiable cites. Yes, you can use those articles, but if you have links for them, you should provide them with an indication that they are subscription sites. I don't remember offhand what the syntax is, but it's done all over the project - I'll look for it and you can too - that way at least some people might be able to look at the articles. No link makes it much harder to confirm facts and also to check that there's no copyvio - you wouldn't believe (or maybe you would!) how many times people just lift paragraphs from articles, saying they thought that was ok as long as it's referenced. So again, having the link helps editors verify. About TKE, if we can't find reliable sourcing about whether they are honorary or actual members, we should just eliminate mention of the fraternity altogether. That's better than relying on something someone told you  - even if it is correct - which constitutes original research and it isn't allowed, regardless of its truth content. Indeed, there is no indication on that TKE source to suggest they were honorary, and the mention of the university apparently is misleading, so it's best to just leave it all off. Becoming members because a fan nominated them really doesn't belong in the article at all.   About whether they attended college, do you have definitive sourcing? Tvoz / talk 04:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)The membership guy looked into the database for TKE and he told me they were listed as "honorary" members (I can show you our e-mail exchange). Frankly, it looks like someone added that link about Phil being a chapter member and then made the assumption he must have attended. Should I get rid of the entire segment, or is that something you as an editor should do? (I'm just a supervisor on Answers.com, so you have more clout than me!) But anyway, their attendance at any college is impossible, due to their constant schedule of touring and performing-- there was little distance education back then and certainly no internet, assuming they wanted to take any courses! By the way, the entry on TKE says pretty much what I said to you (and what the membership guy said to me): anyone can nominate a celebrity as an honorary member, and that person does NOT have to have attended. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tau_Kappa_Epsilon#Other_Notable_Members

As for my sourcing, it's true they never say "We did not go to Indiana State University." But they repeatedly give a timeline that makes it impossible for them to have gone to college, plus they say they didn't want to be in school-- they wanted to perform. All of the articles I used in order to determine whether they were ever in college are available on Genealogy Bank (I'd be happy to fax the articles or scan them... I have no clue how to add in that the database is by subscription, so if you can teach me how, I'd appreciate it, since I'm a neo-Luddite and don't have much familiarity with coding). (1) Jane Scott, "Phil Everly: It's Like New Times." Cleveland Plain Dealer,13 July 1984, p. 39. Phil speaks about how after he and his brother sang on their parents' radio show for a decade, both left for Nashville to try to have a career in the music industry. In other words, they were still attending high school until 1955, and then began their efforts to become full-time performers. There is no mention of going anywhere other than directly to Nashville. (2) Charles Witbeck, "Everly Brothers Surprised." Richmond (VA) Times-Dispatch, 5 July 1970, p. H8. The brothers are interviewed and discuss how live radio was dying out in the early to mid 1950s, being replaced by recorded music and disc jockeys. They continued to tour the midwest with their parents trying to find places to perform and make some money, but in 1955 (there's that year again), their parents accepted the fact that live radio shows were a thing of the past, and they sought other work (Ike as a barber, Margaret as a beautician); the brothers went to Nashville to pursue a career in music: Phil speaks about hanging around recording studios and trying to sell some of the songs they had been writing. Again, no reference to college. In 1955, they leave their parents and begin seeking a music career. They stay in Nashville, get signed by Columbia, and cut a record, a song that Don wrote. It's a flop and Columbia drops them. But they remain committed to their career in music. (3) Nancy Anderson, "Versatile Phil Everly Presenting New Image." Dallas Morning News, 9 August 1976, p. A17, in which Phil says he has never done anything in his life except be in show business; performing, he says, is a "family tradition." He does mention, jokingly, that he once thought about becoming a lawyer, and says maybe he'll decide to change his entire image; but then he goes back to talking about life as an entertainer, and how he hopes his nine year old son will do what he and Don did, and become a performer too. I have many other articles I could share, which discuss each year of their careers, and after examining more than 50 newspaper articles and about ten books that mention them, I find no point in time where they were not either performing, writing, recording, touring, or having assorted personal problems. Don and Phil also mention in several articles that they were not great students, and that they were focused on becoming successful performers. In fact, even when they were struggling and trying to break through, they are quoted as saying they never wanted to do anything else other than be entertainers-- I can give you a number of places where they say that, including "Rock-A-Billy Everly Boys," Blytheville (AR) Courier-News, 31 January 1957, p. 8. Even in their later years, I find absolutely no mention of studying-- just writing and performing and guesting on various people's albums. Anyway, I really do try to be thorough and accurate; I've been told I have a good reputation as a researcher, and I hope I've shown that to you. But if I haven't yet, please let me know what else you need me to do to improve the article further. Apologies for any typos in this post.
 * Donna, you're an editor here as much as I am - you can remove or add things just as I can. I've been at it here for a long time, but I have no special powers. It looks like I may have been the one who made that initial TKE  error/assumption so all the better to remove it which I'll do - I may have read it quickly and made that assumption, but again, I am not sure you're quite getting the import of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We try as much as possible to include facts that can be verified by other editors, not by looking at private correspondence, but by looking at outside sources.  The idea is that if something is significant in a person's life it will be sourceable by anyone - in books, articles, etc - not by contacting sources directly. I'm not doubting the accuracy of your research, or your synthesizing of available facts (e.g., sources showing their tour/recording schedules with your knowledge of how academia works, leading you to conclude - synthesize - that they couldn't have gone to college in a pre-online world)  - I'm saying that we try not to make statements based on our own research and our own synthesis of facts without any actual published sources making the point. So, in this example, I'm going to take out the fraternity stuff and any mention of college - but I'm not going to replace it with "they didn't attend college" because we don't have a source that expressly says that, and that assumption - correct as it likely it is -  is not needed in the article. Unless we get specific sourcing, we just won't mention college.


 * Again - would you add any links to the news sources you did have, even if they are behind a paywall?  Some others here may have access. If you're not sure how to do that, you can just post it here on Talk and I'll take it from there - but it's pretty easy to do if you look at WP:CITE.  Tvoz / talk 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 06:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Okay, I read and re-read the material you suggested about how to cite sources that are not online, as well as the material about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; I think I have a better idea now of where I went wrong. That said, just so that I don't feel totally stupid, you asked "would you add any links to the news sources you did have, even if they are behind a paywall?" Umm, what are you asking here-- I cited and footnoted appropriately (I think). Do you want me to mention which database I got the cite from? I don't see other entries that do that-- not complaining, just looking for something I can emulate (I'm a visual learner). Meanwhile, I know you have access to all sorts of stuff that's behind paywalls, but if I might be of any help, I pay for access to a number of databases including the Boston Globe, NY Times, Wall Street Journal, various magazines (Harpers, Atlantic, New Republic), and through the university where I teach, I have JSTOR and Project Muse among others. By all means, if there are entries that you think I could improve, or research I could help with, let me know.
 * It's not the database per se -what I meant were direct links to the articles if they are posted online, even if only subscribers can get them. So in addition to the publication, title, author, date and page, the URL would be very helpful so others can look at the articles. See, for example, note 6 - the NYT obituary by Jon Pareles - and look at the way the cite is formed in the edit screen. There is a URL field that creates a hot link directly to the article that can be viewed by anyone with access behind the paywall (which I have too, so am not sure what people without that access would see, but that's ok). When you're adding material for which you have a citation, if you click on the "cite" link at the top of the edit screen, and choose, say, "news", you will get a little template that shows available fields like URL, pub date, author, etc, and you just fill in whichever ones you have info for - "work" will automatically italicize the newspaper name, for example.  And that's also how you can "refname" a citation and then use it in another location in the article with the syntax rather than repeating the whole thing.  (See Pareles again.)  But if you have URLs and have trouble with the template, just post them on the article talk page and someone will get them in for you. It's easier to do than to explain, however, so you shouldn't have much trouble. Hope that clarifies what I meant. Tvoz / talk 20:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Okay, I do know how to do this when it's already an online source, like I just corrected (or questioned) the assertion on the Everly Brothers entry that Phil was a pallbearer at Buddy Holly's funeral-- he later told Kurt Loder of Rolling Stone that this was not true, and I cited the URL (hopefully, I did it right). Btw, in that article Don says he was a terrible student in high school and as soon as he graduated, he and his brother left for Nashville to work on their music career-- but again, he never says in words that he didn't attend college, so I still can't cite that, right? See, I'm getting the hang of it! Anyway, my problem is more about how to cite newspaper articles that are either NOT online or are behind paywalls so that the average person can't read them-- let me re-read what you just wrote and see if I can do it right. I'm a bit of a neo-Luddite, but I'm trying my best. Thanks for being patient.

Carter G. Woodson
Hi again Donna, thanks for the refs you added to Carter G. Woodson. However I've tweaked their formatting a bit, as we usually italicize newspaper names (with two apostrophes either side of the name) and put the "." after the title outside of the quotation mark, not inside (which is known as logical quotation). I also added a non-breaking space (" ") before the page numbers, so they are guaranteed to display on the same line as the "p." that goes before them, but that's not so important. I know you're not really a beginner anymore, but you might want to take a look at Referencing for beginners to get some more tips about citation formatting. Graham 87 15:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC) Ah okay. Thanks for doing that. I guess I am accustomed to using MLA formatting, which is what I was taught in my journalism days! Also, feel free to call on me if ever I can verify assertions about historical figures. Black history and women's history are my specialties, along with the history of broadcasting. I've been a professional researcher for years. Sorry for any bother and I'll try to follow the way you want it done in future citations. Thanks again.
 * You didn't follow WP:LQ with this edit. Please take care when editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Citing sources
Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. No space between the content and the reference. Also, the publication, such as Toronto Star, should be italicized and may be linked to the article for the publication. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)My apologies. I get so excited about finding verifiable source material that I sometimes forget to format it correctly to the Wikipedia standards. But I hope at least my information is useful!

Disambiguation link notification for September 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Night Heat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wheel of Fortune. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rosalie Trombley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guess Who. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CHML, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jackie Washington. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Manilow
Hello. You addition to the Manilow page was removed. In future, please consult the Talk page when adding details about someone's personal life. There has already been a lengthy discussion on this issue, especially on the reliability of the sources. They all point towards one report in People magazine, which is both vague and and considered heresay. Neither the artist himself of his representatives have confirmed the event. So as it stands, this cannot be included. Karst (talk) 08:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

DonnaHalper (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Okay, I defer to your decision. I am not in the habit of printing gossip, but this seemed credible and was sourced from several magazines that generally are considered realiable. But again, your site, your rules, and I don't wanna violate them, even unintentionally. Sorry if I caused any problems.

Trying to Add Something and Doing it Wrong
DonnaHalper (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC) I tried to add a new section for the Canadian series "Intelligence," to show that it was now (as of July 2017) streaming on Netflix in the US. But when I tried to add it, the columns got all messed up. I followed the instructions to revert but didn't do that right either, evidently. Sorry for all the little edits-- I've deleted them all, including the effort to show that Intelligence is now streaming on Netflix. Wish I knew what I did wrong. Can anyone help walk me through it so I do it right next time?

Women in Red
Hi there, DonnaHalper, and welcome to Women in Red. As you intend to add some new biographies of women, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Article about Otis Boykin
Hello. I left a notice to you on the Otis Boykin article's discussion page. As I contribute mostly in French, I didn't know which code to use to notify you directly there. You seemed to believe there were some mistakes in this article and to have done some research on the subject. I would greatly appreciate your help. The article has been translated into French - maybe mistakes included (!)- and if needed, I could adapt the current French article. I tried to find infos on Boykin and sometimes I read he had 25 patents for his inventions, sometimes I read he had 28. Mostly, these articles seem to be merely copying each other, so it is hard to know which is correct. Braveheidi (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, Braveheidi. I do speak some French, but not enough to do a Wikipedia page! I have a LOT of research on Otis Boykin. The question about how many patents he had is really uncertain. Some sources say 25, others say as many as 30. Let me update his page with new (and sourced) information. Then let's talk some more, and perhaps I will have answered your question. (I just finished an encyclopedia entry about him for an academic textbook, so I had to find a lot of actual documentation-- and I did.) I hope to update his page within a couple of days, and once I do that, perhaps the French article can be updated too-- are you the one who will do that? Much love to you. DonnaHalper (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Detroit Stars
Hello, DonnaHalper! I just wanted to drop you a line to let you know that the 1933 Stars already have their own article at Indianapolis ABCs (1931–1933). They are also referenced in the hatnote pointing to Detroit Stars (disambiguation). The 1933 NNL page had links to the incorrect teams, so I fixed those, too. Let me know if you have any questions. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, Bison_X. But weren't the reconstituted Detroit Stars around for just that one year (1933)? I found it confusing to just say they ceased to exist in 1931, since they existed as the Detroit Stars in 1933. Of course, I'll defer to the way you want it done! And thanks for the note. DonnaHalper (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not technically. Read the Indianapolis ABCs (1931–1933) article.  These are 2 distinctly different organizations.  The "reincarnate" moved to Motown in 1933 due to low attendance in Indy, then closed up shop.  Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. I was working on a biographical sketch of the Black sportswriter Russell J. (Russ) Cowans for SABR (Society for American Baseball Research); he wrote about them in the 1920s, and had high hopes for their 1933 season in Detroit... but things didn't work out. Anyway, doing research on Russ is what brought the Stars to mind. Do you ever do any Negro Leagues research? Hope you are staying well & healthy in these difficult times. DonnaHalper (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My editing wheelhouse on WP is Negro league baseball, going back to about 2007 (as an IP). Unfortunately, I seem to be a voice in the wilderness in that neck of the woods nowadays. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * BTW, Chris Carpenter's 1-0 shutout over the Phiilies is the greatest game I ever witnessed. You really don't do it justice, no offense. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not offended at all. I had a very strict word count, and couldn't say as much about certain games as I might have liked. I've got a Jocko Maxwell entry on SABR, and am currently working on Frank "Fay" Young and Russ J. Cowans. Trying my best here! And you are not a voice in the wilderness as far as I'm concerned. I love writing about unsung heroes and heroines of sports, especially women and people of color. Is there a team or a player who lacks an entry on Wikipedia? If time permits, I'd be happy to try and collaborate on one! DonnaHalper (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November edit-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

December with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Invitation
Hello - I saw your interest in Women in Sports at WikiProject Women in Red/Members and wanted to extend an invitation:

There are also a several taskforces for specific sports: WikiProject Women's sport/Task forces and opportunity to create new ones.

Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

My expertise is in women on the radio (or TV), as well as women sportswriters. Do you think that would be of interest? The page to which you referred me seems to mainly focus on women athletes & coaches. DonnaHalper (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

August Editathons at Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May Women in Red events
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Citing sources
Hi Donna,

Thanks for your constructive edits on Suzyn Waldman. In the future, please cite newspaper sources in full using Template:Cite news rather than simply placing them in &lt;ref> tags. This helps keep Wikipedia orderly, readable, and verifiable. Rift (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh, I apologize-- I only know how to use &lt;ref> tags-- nobody ever taught me anything else. Would you be willing to help show me? I'm a visual learner, and I learn by example! DonnaHalper (talk) 15:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. The Waldman example would look like this:
 * Rift (talk) 05:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (By the way, I got your previous message 6 times! It just kept re-sending.) As for this one, I've never seen it done this way! Seems really complicated, and I hope I can emulate what you just showed me. At the risk of making work for you, when do I use {{ cite news, as opposed to just using tags? DonnaHalper (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * cite news is used for citing newspapers, cite web is for citing websites, cite book for books, etc. See Help:Citation_Style_1. Rift (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * cite news is used for citing newspapers, cite web is for citing websites, cite book for books, etc. See Help:Citation_Style_1. Rift (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women In Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Where to put citations
Thanks for the great refs in Lillian Russell. It is better to put the ref in the body of the article, where the material is discussed in more depth. Then, if the Lead section makes a controversial statement, that ref can be repeated in the ref name format like this. BTW, not everyone likes the cite templates (except that everyone likes the "cite book" template. I prefer manual cites, myself.  Basically, a new cite should, ideally, match the format of the current cites in an article so that the whole article has a consistent format style.  See MOS:CITEVAR for more info about this. Indeed, new edits should try to match styles in the current article, generally, assuming that the current article has a consistent style.  See MOS:VAR. Best regards! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. But are you saying it did my citations wrong? I was just trying to clean up the message I saw in the introduction (from January 2023, I believe) that a citation was needed, and I thought I should provide credible cites to back up what the first paragraph asserted, because that's what seemed to be asked for. If I did it wrong, I apologize. Much love to you! DonnaHalper (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging