User talk:Drbexl

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Keep Calm and Carry On has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwordpress\.com (links: http://ww2poster.wordpress.com/).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Georgette Heyer
Hi Drbexl. I'm sorry, but I just reverted the additions you had made to the article on Georgette Heyer. To my knowledge (and that of Dr. Sarah Annes Brown, who I emailed to check), none of the papers from the conference have been published yet. Therefore, information from the papers fails the wikipedia verification policy, as it cannot be independently verified. Your blog is very interesting, and I don't doubt that the information that you wrote is accurate. However, on Wikipedia, blogs are considered self-published sources, which are generally not to be used as sources unless the author is previously published, or otherwise noted as an expert in the particular field (s)he is discussing. Your blog notes that the conference was "was outside [your] area of academic expertise", which means it cannot be used as a source here either. If any of the papers are published, then the information absolutely needs to be included in the article, but until then WP policies seem to forbid its inclusion. If you have any questions, please ask. I'll watch this page. Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Drbexl (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Hi, do I reply here? I was largely keen to ensure that there was a reference to the conference on the site, as I think it's significant that the conference was held at all (not too worried whether I'm the one referenced on that, although of course that's a bonus). There's also an interesting article today: http://drbexl.co.uk/2010/09/23/georgette-heyer-is-featured-in-timeshighered/. There's quite a few bits & pieces of published work about Heyer (maybe I'll have another go when I have more time, that was just intended to be a quick update). And yes, I'm an enthusiast of Heyer, my specialism in mass communication/cultural studies/wartime posters (including Keep Calm & Carry On, took me 4 attempts to get myself referenced on Wikipedia for that, as everyone else had used my work without attribution, but had attributed their publication, so it looked like I wasn't adding anything new!)/the digital world. Jennifer Kloester has a new biography with the publishers, so that should be out for too long. BTW: Can you refer to me a good beginner page for Wikipedia? Part of my job is encouraging people in academia/Christian circles to get involved with more online materials... I am now less afraid of my students using Wikipedia with the referencing! drbexl (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2010 (GMT)


 * Thanks for replying! As a compromise, I've added your link to the external links section of the article. That way readers can learn about the conference if they'd like more information (like me...I was very intrigued to see that there will be a new biography). There are a lot of policies on Wikipedia, and it can be a little overwhelming at first.  Not all articles here adhere to all those standards, unfortunately (so I wouldn't turn your students loose just yet); the Heyer one is a featured article, so it's been through the wikipedia-equivalent of peer review.
 * There are a lot of links in the welcome box at the top of this page that might be useful if you haven't already read them. The most important policies to understand are the verifiability policy, and it's associated reliable sources guideline, the neutral point of view policy, and the policy on original research, which is usually important for academic professionals to read, as the type of information that is allowed here is different from the real world.  We also have a basic FAQ for teachers FAQ/Schools, as well as a project devoted to helping teachers incorporate WP into their classrooms School and university projects.  I've worked with several professors (and their students) on their Wikipedia projects, and have been happy to see that some of them have produced some excellent content.
 * If you ever have questions, you can ask at Help desk or come directly to my talk page or that of any other Wikipedian who seems to have been around a little while. Most editors here are friendly and happy to help.  Most of us are amateurs who research and write on the topics that interest us rather than those in which we've been formally trained; we'd be happy to have you on that basis, or in contributing to your own field of expertise.
 * Good luck and happy editing :) Karanacs (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Drbexl (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC) That's great thanks. She is a well-loved author, eh? I spent a fortune last year buying all her rare books! Always good to know what's good to encourage students to use/not use, but the referencing online is such an excellent step! I will play more with Wikipedia, and then see if I have an option to be an editor! For now, next article (for print!)