User talk:GBenemy/Archive 1

Zuckerbucks
There, deleted. Wikipedia's guidelines are confusing, and hard to determing exactly WHAT I need to do. I asked you: "WHO do I need to quote" for various parts of my article, all you did was reply saying to read the guidelines, the guidelines state "notable source" Which isn't exactly alot of help. In regards to my article, I deleted because the only sources I CAN quote regarding Zuckerbucks, are Facebook, the Zuckerbuck's Information page and some web journal, which are obviously not going to be "Notable." I think the guidelines should include examples of who and what to cite for specific instances, I'd add them in myself, but obviously I don't know. But I would like to tell you that I'm grateful for helping me to (kind of) understand what it is that I CAN'T do on Wikipedia...The only real article I've submitted is here: South Dragons (Italian) and it was fine. But next time I'm submitted an article I'll tell you so that you can make sure it's good. Gbenemy 02:08, 22 July 2007 (GMT)


 * I tried to explain it all but I must've misunderstood some of what you were asking. For what or whom to quote, you need to read WP:RS. That explains the concept of "reliable sources." Some examples of reliable sources: an established newspaper or magazine (or its website), a published book, a major website (examples: c|net or Smoking Gun). Some examples that are not reliable sources: a MySpace page, a blog entry (including, for example, a blog entry on washingtonpost.com), a post in an online forum, a personal webpage. Using the webpage of the subject of the article you're writing is also discouraged (at least, as a primary source of the article). Using Zuckerbucks as an example, you could use the developer's site as references for some of the facts of the article, but the bulk of it would have to be backed up by (for example) a profile of the developers on Wired.com, a chapter about Zuckerbucks in a book about technology developing out of social networking sites, an article in Rolling Stone about Facebook that mentions Zuckerbucks (that would be considered "trivial" coverage, but still helpful), and so on. Any one of those would help convince other Wikipedia editors that there was at least a chance of notability. Without even a trivial mention from a reliable source you're fighting an uphill battle. I don't know if this answers your questions enough; feel free to ask me anything else. Cheers Precious Roy 01:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's much clearer. I now atleast now what I can quote, and if it is considered reliable. However, the original problem, is that the only information that (was) in the article, was the creator and a short description of Zuckerbucks. There are no "reliable" sources to quote for things like these. It would be like tyring saying "John Howard is the Prime Minister of Australia" there's no source it's just one of those things that is. You can't quote someone on saying that. The main problem, wasn't that I was confused as to what a "reliable" source meant (well, I was, kind of), it was that there are no sources to back up my information. It's kind of hard to explain, but I can't cite the source of who made the application, it's just a fact regarding the application, just like the description of the application. Doesn't matter now, I deleted the article, to avoid further arguments between us, and because I knew I wasn't going to be able to get it up to the standard you (wikipedia) wanted. Hope we didn't get off to bad start :D Gbenemy 02:34, 22 July 2007 (GMT)


 * I never thought we were arguing; I thought you were confused by Wikipedia's guideline and I've been trying to explain them so that you understand. There's no bad start there at all. (Believe me, I've had arguements on Wikipedia, and this was definitely not one of them.) The lack of reliable sources brings everything back to the question of notability: if there aren't reliable sources to back up the article, the subject isn't notable (in Wikipedia terms) enough to have an article; also (in theory) every bit of content in an article should be able to be backed up with a reliable reference. Otherwise articles could be filled with misinformation that one editor or other "knows" to be true. Using your example, it would be simple enough to find an Australian newspaper article that at least mentioned that John Howard is the PM; there's your reference from a verifiable, reliable source. As for the Zuckerbucks article, perhaps it is just too soon to create an article. I would recommend writing it up somewhere in your user space (like user:Gbenemy/sandbox) and then searching Google News from time to time, to see if you can turn up any references. Then, when you've collected some solid references, try posting it in the article space again. Precious Roy 11:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your help. I am currently working on Australian television if you go into the history page you can see what I've done, I'd really appreciate it if you helped me out on this article, so I can improve my standards and how to cite etc, because I'd really love to be a recognised Wikipedia Article Creator. Gbenemy 05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * When I get a chance, I'll check it out. Precious Roy 15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Australian television is new ACOTF
Australian television has bee selected as the new Australian collaboration. As you voted for it, please help to improve it in any way you can. Thankyou. --Scott Davis Talk 12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Adoption
Before I respond, you should probably know that I'm less than 3 months old (account age). I do know an incredible amount about Wikicode (probably more than average), but I don't go very much into the article-writing side of things...if that makes sense. I'm very metapedianist. GrooveDog (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually not an admin...I don't know where you got that from. Anyways, adoption can go either of those two ways. I can mentor you if you need help with something, or you can go ahead and ask me a question about something that you don't understand.


 * Whoops! I didn't notice that it said that I was an admin next to my name. Sorry!

Changing Title Of A Page
How is this done? Thanks, Jonah313 04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Jonah313 Or deletion of a page that was poorly named if changing is not an option. Thanks, Jonah313 05:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Johah313


 * If it is a REAL article (ie not a sandbox or sub-page of a user) then unfortunately, you have to either delete the page and start a new article with the new new, or contact an admin and request the name to be changed. There are several ways to delete the page (provided you are the original author and sole contributor, if there have been other contributors, please discuss your action on the talk page of the article (check page history to see if any one else has contributed to your article). if not, you can delete everything in the page and add either or  to the top of the article.

The tag will let Admins know that YOU (the author) blanked the page with the intention of deleting it, and the  lets admins know that you (the author) accidentally created the page or created the page under the wrong name, and you request it to be deleted. GBenemy ( talk ) 05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ruth Hassell-Thomspon
Hi there! I noticed you have tagged Ruth Hassell-Thompson for speedy deletion due to inadequate context. As an experienced editor, I have to tell you that I was a little suprised seeing this done (if anything, I would have expected it to be tagged for notability). In any case, I barely had any time to finish formatting the article before you tagged it. You might want to give the benefit of the dobut to people with thousands of edits to topics like these, especially when discussing when the context is clear, e.g. State Senators, etc. You might want to familiarize yourself with Wiki:What links here? in the future before tagging something. Thanks for your time and for checking out one of my edits. Mrprada911 07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry, I am still unfamiliar with all the tags that are possible, and at the time of reading your article I thought that the inadequate context was appropriate for it. However, a little while later I noticed several other articles by you that were exactly the same only about different senators that I realised what you were doing, and my mistake, however I couldn't remember the article that I tagged. The tag has been removed now (I hope I'm allowed to do that, if not just put it back and I'll agree to your  section on the discussion page. However, I hope this incident doesn't impeach any future relations we may have, as I am still quite new to Wikipedia and was just trying to help out in any way possible.  GBenemy  ( talk ) 07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it! Thank you for the civil discourse. It's good to know there are people out there patrolling for vandals or spam, etc. All I would ask is that in the future you take a look at the editor, see if they've made similar edits or are part of a project, and give them a couple of minutes to improve upon the placeholder article before tagging it. ;) Again, thanks for your help. The article is now up in it's preliminary stage. Mrprada911 07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed after removing the db tag just now it had been upgraded significantly. Thanks for your suggestions and I will certainly follow them next time I find myself in a similar situation. If you would like any help writing that (or any other) article, I would be happy to give as much input as possible, because I want to contribute to Wikipedia in as many ways as I can. Also, as an "experienced editor" I would like to ask for your help, because my articles aren't really that good editorially-wise and any advice on how to create good articles would be very much appreciated. My main problem is citing. I have no problem with creating noteable and verifiable articles (I am against plagiarism 100%) but the problem is, I never seem to know exactly what needs to be verified and what constitutes an acceptable source. (Please don't put me to WP:V, WP:N or WP:Citing, I have read through each of these countless number of times, I just can't get the grasp on them. Any and all advice and support you could give me would be appreciated. Once again, sorry for tagging your article. GBenemy  ( talk ) 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a very interesting question. I myself struggle with what I should cite, and what I shouldn't. I'll try and list a few guidelines I use for myself, and give you some examples from my articles.
 * For biographical data, 'e.g. Joe Snuffy is a graduate of XYZ university' one source (major newspaper, book with ISBN, etc.) is usually acceptable, and may be placed in the references section, with applicable page numbers placed in the notes section (if you are relying on that source for multiple facts, see Hugh Ewing).
 * For specific accomplishments e.g. awards, a direct-link to the awarding authority, or a citiation from an article or website noting it, would be acceptable, at least to me as a reader. (see RoseMarie Panio for examples)
 * Also, every quote should be referenced, including those that are broken up mid-sentence, ergo "See this example" and "also have a look at this example."
 * When it comes to material that discusses a specific action, quote, event, etc. multiple sources may be necessary to verify the information, evne if the primary source is a respected journalistic entity like the New York Times (see Eliot Spitzer ex. 1). In some college papers I pretty much had to cite every sentence that I didn't come up with on my own, so many of my articles on Wikipedia end up having every sentence cited.
 * Finally, I try to cite anything that could be construed as controversial, even if it is completely NPOV, from at least two reliable sources (see Eliot Spitzer ex. 2).
 * I hope that was of some assistance to you. Let me know if you see anything that is missing from any of those articles, if a specific citation requires clarification, or if they are missing a citation! Mrprada911 08:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One other thing, just a point of information--even when you think you've cited an article to death, it may not be enough. Even statements that are common knowledge, that are contained in the same sources you've already mentioned, may need to be cited. For an example, take a look at Hugh Ewing's talk page. A GA reviewer contested the statement according to the report of General Burnside, "by a brilliant change of front he saved the left from being completely driven in.", even though that can be found in several of the sources I used, along with a standard google-search on Ewing. In other words, like I stated above, sometimes every sentence has to be cited, especially for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter (and as far as I know, that reader was very familiar with the subject matter). It will also help prevent edit wars, if you provide 3 or 4 airtight references for anything that is potentially controversial or murky in nature. Mrprada911 08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Adopt
Also I'd like to tell you I'm usually on from 7:00am till 6:00pm Tuesday-Friday and I'm not usually on Wikipedia Saturday-Monday, however I sometimes get on Wikipedia in the morning on Saturday-Monday. Che tbl ong talk to me 00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Award
Hey GBenemy, Here is the award that you've earned for finding my SSP.

Congrats! selfworm Talk ) 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks :D GBenemy  ( talk .  it.wiki ) 03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)