User talk:Fricka

Welcome!
Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to Layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal &mdash; and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

There's also a regular group introduction to Wikipedia for new users on IRC.

Happy editing! --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding links
If you're unfamiliar with the issues concerning the adding to many articles (including inappropriate ones, such as author-articles) of links such as those to Librivox, you might look at Hugh McGuire's Talk page, User talk:Mackinaw, especially my two comments:


 * 1) The comments here and from other people on my link page make clear that librivox is, through various people (referred to as volunteers) systematically adding links to its own site to a large number of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps Wikipedia:External links will make the problem clearer: under "Links to normally avoid" it includes:
 * 2) *Links that are added to promote a site.
 * 3) *A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
 * 4) Is it not possible for you to ask your volunteers to place the links on the relevant Talk pages (with a copied-and-pasted boilerplate introduction)? It will involve them in no more work, the extra being spread across all those editors who edit the individual articles. I'll undertake to go through and deal with any cases of neglected articles. That way everyone is happy — the links go on the articles, you and your volunteers don't violate Wikipedia guidelines...

Hugh McGuire agreed to this. Could you do this with the links that you've been adding? Note that links to works are appropriate for articles on those works, but not to articles to about their authors, etc. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, I must apologize profusely for jumping on in without more research on my part. The links I was adding were to The Public Domain Podcast, a different but similar site to Librivox but with a one reader per work situation. I was unaware of any conflict with Librivox over Wikipedia links. I happen to have read for them on two occasions in the past but visit their site infrequently. I was; however, following their formatting when adding in links to my own site, incorrectly assuming that if their links were valid, mine were as well.


 * I will surely follow the suggested advice and not add any links to my site directly but suggest them in the Talk pages and only for articles on the works rather than articles on the authors themselves.Fricka 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

inconsistant application of rules
You will note, I am sure that Mel sometimes reverts your addition to an author's article without also deleting other links that should be deleted if the same criteria is to be used for all "external links" (further reading). I'm confident this is due to either the tool he is using to revert or else simply lacking the time to correct everything he finds wrong while is is an a mission to correct a sting of stuff. The other day I ran into a misspelling, corrected it, searched for similar mispellings corrected a few and gave up on the rest. You could help by also deleting external links that don't belong according to the criteria descibed by Mel. Please don't make wikipedia worse by adding to an existing problem. Thank you. WAS 4.250 19:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this note. I understand how this could happen. I can follow up and remove any remaining links and instead follow the suggested procedures. My intention was never to add to an existing problem and hopefully I can contribute to its solution instead.Fricka 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! Please let me know if there is anything I can help you with. Cheers. WAS 4.250 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Coincidence
Now that was a very funny coincidence, Fricka! You almost got me in all sorts of trouble ;) How are things at PDP? Hugh. Mackinaw 21:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL! I'm so sorry Hugh! And of course you didn't recognize this name since I use a different moniker for readings! PDP is doing alright, I'm focusing on hitting lesser known authors or lesser known works of famous authors that deserve some attention. This way I can fill in the gaps as it were. Much congratulations on LibriVox's reach. I see mentions everywhere! And sorry again for the trouble, from your Talk page I saw that my timing was certainly terrible! I'll do anohter reading for you guys to help make up for it ;) Fricka 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your timing was impeccable! That is the first time I laughed in the past 3 days!! ;) nice to see a friendly familiar "face" here.Mackinaw 21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Likewise! I've actually had this account for a long time and love Wikipedia but I was always intimidated to contribute. I chose a doozy of a first step eh? Fricka 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * and by the way, though I think this is already clear to you, here is my brief explanation of what I have learned in the past 3 days; had I gotten an explanation like this on saturday night, it might have saved me a few days, a few hairs, and a few years off the end of my life:


 * "because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links/or write about that organization site etc. because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be written or linked. So even if the information you wish to write should be there, if you are directly involved in the subject of the article (for instance if you are a co-host of the show), then you should not make edits to the article directly. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed edits or links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included."Mackinaw 21:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hugh!Fricka 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "By Jove, he's got it!!" He now understands this specific aspect better than most wikipedians. Cheers! - WAS 4.250 00:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)