User talk:Fede.Campana/Archive 2008 January-February-March

Some points of editing
If an assertion is plausible but unreferenced, use the tag, rather than deleting. A tag will result in a superscripted note:
 * Von Hasselbeck was the youngest mathematician to receive the prize.

which will be visible to all readers, alerting all to the fact that the claim has been called-into question, but also alerting those who know of a reference of how they may improve an article. To silently delete an assertion drastically reduces the chance of a referenceable (but presently unreferenced) assertion from appearing.

Wikifications are not merely “See also” links. The purpose of wikification is not to merely link to things particularly relevant to the subject matter of the article. The purpose is to allow the reader to go to an article on a subject that interests him or her (regardless of why) without having to transcribe. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to be of help. And note that if a  isn't replaced with a reference after some time, then it becomes quite reasonable to delete the assertion. (You could put a note on the article's discussion page if you were concerned.) Of course, the question is of how long to wait.  I think that depends in part upon your sense of the plausibility of the claim, with more plausible claims getting more allowance.  I also think that it depends upon the activity-level of the article; after all, we expect an article that gets lots of readers or lots of editors to be patched more quickly.  There is a 'bot that comes along and dates these tags; it does so in terms of months, which may suggest the relevant time-scale. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Writing "Citation needed" vs. deleting. Linking to history and older version.
This section was copied from User talk:Amire80. Nahraana (talk) 07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I received two contrasting opinions on this subject: Both users seem quite experienced. I would naturally tend to follow SlamDiego's suggestion since this seems more constructive and (as I am a beginner user, who is likely to make more mistakes) is "safer". I would like a third opinion. What do you think Amir?
 * User SlamDiego suggested I should write "Citation needed" when seeing another user claims a fact without referencing it (see User talk:Nahraana and my subsequent action 13:30, 27 January 2008 Nahraana on article Teddy bear.
 * On the other hand, user Allstarecho suggests unreferenced statements be promptly deleted (see 19:54, 27 January 2008 Allstarecho also on Teddy Bear).

Question 2: what do I write to make a link to the history page of an article? and to an older version of an article? Nahraana (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Citation needed" should be used on information which seems reasonable, but needs a citation.
 * If information seems really preposterous to you, be bold and remove immediately. (The leader of Wikipedia Jimbo Wales strongly supports this opinion, and i agree.) It is especially important in articles about living people; see Biographies of living persons for an explanation.
 * If you have doubts, ask at the article's talk page.
 * I often try to look for a source myself; if i can't find, i put "citation needed"; if no-one adds it within reasonable time, i remove the information and say at the talk page what have i removed and ask other contributors to put the information if they have sources. See for example what i did at Aranese language (check the history and the talk page.)


 * Answer 2: There is no nice "wiki" way to it. Just go to the page that you need, copy the the URL from the address and put it in square brackets. For example, this is where you added your message: the diff with your latest message Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For the link he wrote the diff with your latest message. Nahraana (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead internal links
Hi Amir,


 * Should I delete dead internal links (red links to yet-non-existing wikipedia articles) when I encounter them? I thought about this: although they don't look so nice they may encourage editors to click these links and write new stubs.  What do you think?

Nahraana (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are right about red links - they often encourage readers to write new articles, so you don't have to remove them. You should only remove them, if you have a good reason to think that there's no chance that this article will ever be written. For example, if a person's name is the link, then remove the link only if you are absolutely sure that the person is totally non-notable and will never have an article. You can also remove red link if it's really ridiculous like this one. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Amire80. Nahraana (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Nahraana, just noticed that you corrected vandalism on the Rosati-Kain High School page. Just wanted to say thanks for that!--65.66.34.234 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Edits
I looked at your edits and they are really good.

Consider adding to more categories. I'm not sure what categories i can suggest, since i don't know anything about these topics, but try looking for articles on similar things and add them to the same categories. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Amir, thanks for the comment on categories. I added more categories to the articles I started, but your comment was also useful in that it led me to look into relevant categories to improve related articles.  Thanks again!  Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 10:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do some categories work every now and then. The rule with categories is the same as with everything else in Wikipedia - be bold. It usually begins sporadically - i just notice that something appears not so good to me and fix it, but often ends up bigger than i planned.
 * Lately i am doing a big project adding interwiki links to articles in the Hebrew Wikipedia, and i also link between category pages, so i harmonize categorization between he-wiki and en-wiki, and sometimes i get so bold that i categorize pages in wikipedias whose languages i hardly know (Finnish?! :)
 * Which reminds me - you say that you came from Argentina, so you speak Spanish, right? (You should add Babel boxes to your user page, BTW.) I've been studying for Romance languages for a few years. I already read Italian and Catalan pretty well, and now i am moving to Spanish and starting to read El amor en los tiempos del cólera by Gabriel García Márquez. I may ask you for some help :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied to you by email. Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)