User talk:MoltonStPilgrim/Archive 1

Welcome, MoltonStPilgrim!
Here are a few links you might find helpful: You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~ ; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Policies, guidelines, and rules (have fun, but watch out for these, as well!)
 * How to edit a page and write a great article
 * A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial
 * Writing well
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about you

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please 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.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, hey, hey! It's not automatic... I mean, I have to go all the way to a special page... and then find new users... and then cut and paste a greeting onto your talk page :P OK, it's pretty damn close to automatic! But I like to think that it really helps new users out. Glad you appreciated it; I hope to see you around! Take care, &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; 11:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, no, I was joking. But your first edit doesn't look too controversial too me, so I think it'll stick. Good luck! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Lol! Good luck with that, let me know how it goes. &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:What do you think?
Very flattered to have someone ask my advice, so don't worry about my not wanting to get into all this... haha! OK, there are some good questions there, so I hope you don't mind if I take some time answering them. *deep breath* here goes...

1.Would my changes count as a minor edit or not, and is my descriptor of them too long?
 * I would mark your changes as major. Minor edits are reserved for things like the following:


 * Correcting spelling errors
 * Simple formatting (capitalisation, removing extra spaces, etc),
 * Formatting that doesn't change the flow of the page, eg splitting into paragraphs where it will not be too controversial, changing the headline level, maybe moving an image to the left side of the page instead of the right,
 * Changing obvious errors, eg 1873 to 1973 when the event could never have occurred that long ago,
 * Removing vandalism, eg WAYNE ROONEY IS A TWAT
 * Large chunks of info, formatting that may alter the pace, flow or meaning of the article, or removing information should all be marked as major. Making the distinction between a major and minor edit is vital. This is because users can set their preferences to not view minor edits at all. Thus, when they are looking over the page history or their watchpages (by the way, a watchpage is a list of pages you can watch, thus keeping an eye on the edits made to it... to add a page to your watchlist, click 'watch' up near the 'edit' tab), they will not see a minor edit, which should have, in fact, been marked as major. People may think you are trying to be sneaky by getting information past them.
 * Your edit summary was fine, too. It is always good to provide a summary, regardless of whether you consider your edit to be minor or major. A short summary is better than none&mdash;even if you are merely adding italics to a novel title, write "italics" in the summary box. Often, when an editor merely adds a sentence to the article, s/he pastes the entire sentence into the summary box; that way, an editor flipping through the page history doesn't need to go back and check out the difference between previous versions, but knows already what has been added. Once again, it's a question of people thinking you're trying to sneak things into the article.

2.Should I respond to messages like yours on the talk page of the article or contact the message's author directly like I'm doing here?
 * It's a question that you will have to personally decide the answer to, I'm afraid. There are 2 possible answers.
 * For simplicity's sake, I will refer the person asking the question as Andy and the person who needs to answer as Betty.
 * Some users, myself included, will prefer to answer Andy on his own talkpage. That way, Andy will get the 'orange bar of death', notifying him that Betty has replied to his comment/question.
 * Other users will prefer the following: Andy asks a question/leaves a comment on Betty's talkpage. Betty answers on her own talkpage. Andy is expected to keep Betty's talkpage on his watchlist, so that Andy knows when Betty has replied to Andy's message.
 * I personally prefer the first scenario as I tend to not use the watchlist function very much, or I use it when I am contributing heavily to an article, and want to monitor changes to it (which is very rare, as I prefer doing minor editing around here). Thus, I do not assume that others will also use their watchlists. I find it easier if I am alerted with the orange bar.
 * Other users prefer the second situation, as it is neater, and easier to follow the thread of a discussion, if it is all kept on the same page.
 * Regardless of personal preference, it is polite to abide by the choice of the other user. So, if Betty prefers situation 2, I'd leave a message on her talkpage, and keep it on my watchlist. If she replied on her own talkpage, I'd continue the discussion there. If, on the other hand, Betty wants to follow my rules, and replies on my talkpage, I'd do the back-and-forth thing. So you see, it's really a matter of preference, and of gauging what the other user wants to do. Some users will leave a message on the top of their talkpages, telling you what they would prefer to do. Some users will use both.

3.What is considered best practice when my edit throws up a red link (re: Prince of Wales)?
 * STEP 1: ALWAYS, ALWAYS use the "Show preview" box before pressing "Save page".
 * STEP 2: Go through your edit. Find any redlinks, right-click on them and open them up in a new window/tab.
 * STEP 3: You will get a box, and the first thing it says is Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Splunge in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings. Search for it, and see if you can find an alternative.
 * STEP 4a: If you can, write it down in your edit.
 * STEP 4b: If you can't... keep it as a redlink. Someone is bound to come along and start an article on it someday, or link it to something relevant. And if not... don't worry about that, either. Redlinks aren't bad. They just highlight information that is still needed.

Phew, that's gotta be the longest post I've ever made on a talkpage! I hope all that helped. If I've said anything in a way that's too confusing or roundabout, holler back at me and I'll try to clear up my mess.

Also, don't worry about asking too many questions... we'd rather you ask questions than went around, wreaking havoc. Much more fun answering questions from sensible users than putting warnings on vandals' pages.

Keep up the good work... methinks I see the makings of a good editor! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 14:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

hmmm
Wait, I'm not sure I answered your second question properly. If the above answer is the one you wanted to know, tell me so. But you mentioned the talk page of an article. Talk pages of articles should be reserved for discussion of an article, not a personal comment/question/issue you want to raise with another editor. Is that what you meant? &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 14:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No wuckin' furries. Yeah, Wikisyntax (I love how they prefix everything with 'Wiki' around here) is a little hard to get your head wrapped around at the very start. However, if you're any good at HTML, Wikisyntax is a laugh. I learned it by reading existing pages and checking out formatting. Another handy way, I've found, is to look at the coding of particularly fancy user signatures. Anyway, I have a Maths lecture now, so I'm going to pop off... hope to see you around! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 23:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because I'm studying Maths doesn't mean I'm good at it. ;p &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 10:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The sad thing is, I do enjoy them. I'm just not one of those people who has got that natural inclination towards Maths. More of a Chemistry person. &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 11:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I enjoy talking science very much; I stay away from editing science articles here, though, because everybody seems to know a lot more than I do. I'm just an ickle first year! Well, I'll hold you to that one :) &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

old revisions
Huh. Not sure I understand what you mean, because your first suggestion would be the one I'd go with. Any examples? &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 16:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I think what happened is that the oldest entry was so old, it just disappeared off the page history. I didn't know that could happen, but then an important article like Wagner would be one of the first articles created, sooo... it's possible. This is the first revision&mdash;you can tell it's little more than a draft by just reading the first few sentences. I got to it by huffing and puffing and clicking the 'older revision' link. It was first written on 26 February 2002, which is possibly why it got stamped off the page history.


 * Hmmm... thanks for teaching me something about Wikipedia... I'm not entirely sure why something like that would happen, I can try to find out if you'd like? &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 22:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A-ha! found the culprit! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 22:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No trouble, I was editing between lectures, so I really have nothing better to do anyway :p Yes, if you like you can continue via email, but it's upto you. I don't really mind. The talk-page is due for an archive, I know. Come to think about it, yours will soon be too if I keep up these long, rambly messages. People around here are so good at concision! *sigh* By the way, what should I call you? Molton? St? Pilgrim? Gustav? Ah well, I'm glad that answered your question. Keep on truckin', &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 11:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By creating User talk:MoltonStPilgrim/Archive (as you get more, you can name them Archive 1, 2, etc). I enjoy Blake as well, although I haven't had a chance to read much of anything since last December with my final exams. Must make more time&mdash;and stop spending it on Wikipedia... Well, must run, have a good one! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 11:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's not nice to delete other editors' comments, they might find it rude. Not sure why, myself, but there you have it. &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 11:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no! You just said 'archiving as opposed to just deleting', so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. And, like anything you create around here, everyone can see your archive; in fact, the polite thing to do is keep a link to your archives at the top of the current talkpage. Who knows, people may want to check out a discussion they had with you before. &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Glad you like it :) Wait, what am I doing here? I'm off!!! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 15:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ian Anderson
Hi Gareth, it's nice to be back! I had a quick look over Ian Anderson – it was an interesting read. I suggest you remove the Education section and merge it into the rest of the article – the number of O-levels is a fairly trivial fact, methinks. Otherwise it seems to be quite good. I'll come back later when I have a chance and do some copy-editing, and perhaps try to tone down the bits that are a little too, well, adoring :) But still, you've done an excellent job (especially for a newbie!). I hope you're enjoying contributing. Looking forward to great stuff from you! Best wishes, &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 12:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, "borrow" away – I'm rather flattered (although I stole most of it from other people in the first place :p). Give me a yell if you need a hand with those nattily coloured boxes, I'm slowly learning how to do fancy tables around here (go me!). I listen to the sort of music that people see and go 'Well, at least you have an open mind'. So... :p Anyhow, I'm off to bed now, it's getting late down here. I'll definitely have a look over Mr Anderson's page tomorrow, see if I can lend a hand. Have a great day, &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 14:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, does it sound that bad? I'll have to change it :) No, I'm just swamped with coursework at the mo... just surfing through Wikipedia trying to find some extra information on something. Thanks for your concern though. Hope all is well with you... damn, I should change that message to something more cheery! &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 10:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Eeep! I completely forgot! So sorry. Let's do it now if you're still on. &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc ''' 09:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah dear, so sorry – was experiencing serious lag issues with Wikipedia. Still am actually – you wouldn't have an instant messenger program of some sort, would you? Might be a bit easier to do things that way, cuz I can take you through the process. &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc ''' 10:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, don't apologise! It's fairly easy if you want just normal userboxes, but if you want to get fancy with it, it may take a bit of time :) Tell you what, we'll fix a time, say, errrr... serious mental maths going on here ;) since it's 10:30AM for you right now, what about 2:30PM for you on, say, Friday afternoon? That's about 12AM for me on Friday night. I'm 9.5 hours ahead of you, basically, so if you want to do it in the evening I don't mind staying up (I'm usually awake til about 4:30AM anyway, so it shouldn't bother me too much) The choice is yours, since you work. &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc ''' 10:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ohhh, I see. Yes, sleep's probably the first thing people think when they leave Wikipedia or go on Wikibreak ;) Well, I have a monumental pile of homework (ah, the glories of being a first-year) so I'll have to talk to you later, so sorry, but I'll add you to my MSN list and we'll do this thing on Friday. Should be fun. man, I'm a geek... See you on Friday, then! &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc''' 10:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)