User talk:Navarco

Welcome!
{| style="background-color:#F5FFFA; padding:0;"
 * class="MainPageBG" style="border:1px solid lightgrey; background-color:lightgrey; vertical-align:top; color:#000000; font-size:85%"|

Storia delle biblioteche e della documentazione sp.
ciao, spero di aver fatto tutto bene Dino Marco (talk) 15:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ciao, grazie delle dritte, ora è tutto chiaro UsersGeggia (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ciao, mi auguro che il messaggio sia visibile correttamente. Grazie, a lunedì! LucaSper92 (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ciao, spero di essermi iscritta correttamente. A domani! Arianna Santin (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ciao! Anche io spero di aver eseguito correttamente i tuoi consigli!Giulia.comun (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ciao, spero di non aver sbagliato nulla! Grazie, a dopo! F.Mocellin (talk) 08:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Ciao, con un pò di ritardo ma ci sono arrivato pure io.Matteo cefis (talk) 07:50, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

History of English Culture - Training
Hey there, here's my homework.

--Annaannieann (talk) 08:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Annaannieann

Ciao Navarro, I'm newly registered so here I am at last! See you in class this afternoon :) __Eslee110 (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey Navarro, here's my message ! See you in class next week! ClaraC12 (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco,

here is my message. See you in class next Monday

Micheladv92 (talk) 09:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco. Which project is this? Library or 18th c crime & justice? I have put some suggestions on my user page if you'd would like to have a look... but I think Im not using my user page for its proper purposes... by the wya it took me ages to find the tilde on a Mac - its to the right pf the alt (left shift) but its not the key! Jfclegg (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, finally I am here too. See you on Monday! Irene1209 (talk) 17:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, here I am as well! See you tomorrow! Asile91 (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, well, I do hope I got this right. See you tomorrow! 858rine (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, it's nice that you managed to organize wiki-project. A dopo :) Infinitas.is (talk) 17:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, this is my message. See you tomorrow! Gio1291 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, this is my message for you! Hope that I did it right. See you tomorrow! Patrick.ucciardo (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, I hope I have done it well even if it will require more time to keep in mind every passage! See you tomorrow!18:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Im 2u (talk)

Hi Navarco, here is my contribution to week2. Franberg5 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Here's my contribution, hope I got it right. See you tomorrow! Daniele.zecchinato (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, I hope I'm doing everything right, this whole thing can be a little be daunting. See you soon! G.ale.1105 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco, here is my contribution as well. See you later! Friedninja (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello Navarco! Here I am as well but I definitely need more training in this, it's very stimulating. Pbord (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, it's nice that you managed to organize this ptoject.Infinitas.is (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, hope I got this right. It's a little bit confusing at first, but I find this project pretty interesting. See you on Monday! GMari92 (talk) 13:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco! I can't wait to give my contribution to this project and get to know more about the "wikipedia world". I hope I'll manage it! Altereli (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco! I've join in the project. I'm trying to catch up all the previous lessons! Thank you! JMChaleat (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Here's my contribution for week 2, better late than never! See you later! Elisa.danesin (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Navarco! I'm happy to be part of this project! --Federicac23 (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey there! I'm finally here too... See you tomorrow! Oneyrox (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

ciao
Andybrendy89 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

test
TestMl17221746 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Test

 * ):)GMari92 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Test
Hello --ClaraC12 (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Test
Hello :)JMChaleat (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Ciao HEBMOORE16 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

test
testLela Lazishvili (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)lll


 * hi there--Navarco (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * hey--Navarco (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Test
Hi Navarco I'm Elia, I'm trying to send you a message, hope this is the right way --Elia7491 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Two doubts
1) Perhaps it would be better if I worked on the list of topics in my sandbox - ?. 2) Since there is no fixed system of citing sources I could in theory use my preferred Harvard system. But most articles do not, and in modifying existing articles one has to use the system used by the creator, so perhaps this would be counterproductive-? --Jfclegg (talk) 07:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Test
Hi Navarco, it's Elisa! I started this week, and I really like this project, even if I'm not very goog at it! I'll try to improve my skills, anyway!Xieyilian92 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

List of criteria
Write here your suggestions!--Navarco (talk) 20:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody! In addition to the criteria we discussed in class, I thought that maybe the presence of reliable media (pictures, illustrations, printings, given the historical period we are dealing with) could be a plus for a good article. --Pbord (talk) 10:17, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! Besides what we talked about in class, I agree on the importance of including different types of media.. Moreover, I think it is important to highlight the fact all of those articles, as many others I have checked, begin with some sort of summary of what the reader is going to find within them, which, I think, is quite useful. Asile91 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , do you mean the table of contents? It is automatically created from the titles of the paragraphs, so we won't have to worry about that!--Navarco (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * , Nope, I actually meant the twentyish lines which appear before the table of contents. You can even find such brief summary quoted in here Featured article criteria, point 2.a Asile91 (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! It might be taken for granted, but I think an important aspect to keep in mind is that a good article is one that does not have only superficial information. On the contrary, a good article involves an in depth work on the subject, which means not only writing what you know, but research for more. In other words, a good article is full of relevant and pertinent details and does not end with few superficial lines about the topic. Micheladv92 (talk) 10:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree on both points. Also you need to see a logical progression of the information: every sentence should be an independent unit but at the same time it should "justify" what's coming next in order to have a readable article. --Pbord (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that the author of an article should constantly keep in mind that readers know little or nothing about the topic, so he/she needs to ask him/herself "How can I explain it clearly to make them understand?" The text should be simple - which doesn't mean superficial - and it should develop logically to help users build knowledge on the subject from scratch. If the author takes the knowledge of users for granted, some topics won't be explained properly and users will have to do their own research on what the author failed to explain. Annaannieann (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)Annaannieann

Hi, I have given some thoughts to the good article criteria, and I believe it is really important to use professional style of writing (with technical language when needed), but avoid being too much abstruse. Possibly insert intertextual links to other wikipages to explain the most technical terms (see for example “pupillage” in William Garrow, or “poacher” in Dick Turpin). But also presenting all the most important and relevant facts, staying focus on the argument and do not digress in unnecessary details. About the images I think we should add adequate captions and always paying attention to their copyright status. I found very interesting the fact that all these good articles present a sum-up identity table at the beginning of the page reporting birth/death dates, nationality, possible “other” names, occupation, spouse(s), children, parents, ect. Another section you usually find in good articles is the one on later theories or relevant comments (see Elizabeth Canning) or even on the possible legacy of the person in question (like in William Garrow). Irene1209 (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)irene1209

Hi, I totally agree with what has been said. I think that what makes a good article has to do both on the content you write and with how you write it. The section about someone's life, for example, seems to be well written if it shows how exactly the life of that person was relevant for the sake of the article (for example marking with more paragraphs the different parts of their lives), and does not consist in just writing a short summary of their life with very few details. In fact, I think that we have to keep in mind that the reason why we are contributing to Wikipedia is not only to make summaries of what we know, but most importantly to spread the knowledge of something, and to do so, we have to get into details. Another thing that I noticed in the featured articles is that there is always a section dedicated to the scholars' theories about the topic of the articles (e.g. theories, impact, legacy, modern view) that help to put the subject in perspective. Obviously, a good list of references and a good structure (images, paragraphs and such) definitely help! --Elisa.danesin (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I just read James MacLaine article and I think I have understood why you put it among the bad ones. Firstly, it is not divided into sections, so it could be very hard for users to get the precise information they need, because they would be forced to read all the article. Secondly, there are several robberies mentioned, in an ambiguous way, without a chronological context and I think nobody needs incomplete information. So, I think that a good article needs, in addition of all what you have said, a clear division in sections and the events must be very rich in details. I hope this could be a useful contribution and I apologize if I have repeated something you have already said. --Elia7491 (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with many of the criteria which have been proposed so far. Good articles should be well researched and based on sources which are reliable, preferably recent, and listed at the end. Their general structure should be clear and logically organised. Language should be altogether accurate and communicative enough. Specialised language is important to make our discourse more precise and accurate. However, it could be selected and used by keeping in mind that the encyclopedic entry we are creating is also meant to be understood by people who have no or little knowledge on the subject. At the end of good articles(ex.the ones on Dick Turpin and Jack Sheppard)you can also find external links taking you to other primary and secondary texts which can be useful for readers willing to deepen their knowledge on the subject.Ml17221746 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with many of the criteria proposed. In my opinion good articles should follow some simple rules such as: Sorry if I repeated something already said but that's what I think should be useful for a good article. --Patrick.ucciardo (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The topic has to be clearly focused, manageable.
 * The body of the article has to be clearly organized in order to develop the topic in a natural way, making it easy to follow and recall.
 * Each paragraph must have a controlling idea, solid detail, smooth transitions. Paragraphs display appropriate methods of development, such as description, examples, comparison, classification, definition.
 * Has to be well written: sentence variety, good word choice, an appropriate and consistent tone. Also concise, grammatically correct, with a good level of formality and technicality.

Hi everybody, I totally agree with every proposal. I read some of the good and bad articles suggested in the email and I tried to compare them. I think that the clearness is a good point, it could fail not only when the tone is not professional and reliable but also when the article in not well organized and is presented as a jumble of information. I believe the detailes could add quality to the article and the different sections have to follow a precise scheme in order to allow the reader to create simple, mental links. As in an encyclopedia, every article could be clear, without any useless confusion. I am sorry if I repeated something, I hope this could be useful. Gio1291 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, so I guess at this point I can only say things that will sound redundant, but basically i agree with everyone, a good article should be written in a neutral point of view, and in correct English -> for instance, in the "Sarah Malcolm" article, I though that the style was really "childish" in a way, for instance the sentence: "Duncomb lived with another lady and their shared maid." -> this sentence should be incorporated in the previous one, because writing only short sentences coming one after the other is in my opinion annoying for the reader. Obviously reliability is also super important as everybody has already said, the people who wrote the article have had to find their information somewhere so they should cite their sources in the reference list, otherwise it sounds as if they just made the information up.ClaraC12 (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello to everyone! I'm late to the discussion, so I'll probably end up repeating what many before me have said already- sorry for that! So, I believe that clarity, order, and adequate sources are fundamental to write a good Wikipedia article: it should look as, and be written like, an academic expository essay, following therefore the same basic outlines. 858rine (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I agree with all the things said before and I think that an article must have clear sentences, neither too long nor too short; and the punctuation is fundamental to make it understandable. If the author of the article uses only short sentences writing things without explaining it, the result is like the section Fiction in Bow Street Runners which seems to be a shopping list. --Federicac23 (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the criteria which have been proposed so far. A good article should be well written, covering all the relevants facts in an unbiased way, and based on reliable sources. It should be divided into sections and subsection and provide a table of contents. When possible it should be accompanied by images or other relevant media content. I have chosen the Sarah Malcom article to see what makes it a bad article. In my opinion, the prose is not very good, coming off as disjointed and clunky. The article is not really comprehensive; it provides a broad summary of the facts but is not very detailed, especially in the account of the trial and in the description of Hogarth's painting. The final sentence introduces new content but doesn't expand on it. Moreover, the article doesn't follow the style guidelines very well: there is a lead section, but it lacks a table of contents and the subsection “Life” conflates her life, her trial and the information about Hogarth's painting.Finally, as far as images are concerned, they lack title, date, location and proper sources.G.ale.1105 (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi everybody! I agree with the main criteria proposed. I think that fundamental to a good article are, not only, the sources used to write it down but also the ability of the author in this process. Being clear is very important because it helps the reader knowing more about the subject in question without the peril of being confused. If an article doesn't follow these simple criteria, the reader can easely be lead astray by false informations. Im 2u (talk) 15:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

More topic suggestions
1.	William Spiggot/Spigget, leader of gang of 8, see OBO and OA, put to peine forte et dure 1721 could be added to ‘Cases’ §   of Peine forte et dure, and/or an example of highwayman. Would also connect to Ordinary of Newgate, Thomas Purney (see Hitcock & Shoemaker p.174)

2.	Richard Savage (the poet) The present article makes no mention of Savage's trial for murder on 6 December 1727 (see H&S Tales p221). One could add a § in Life section --Jfclegg (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC) 3. The Blackguard Children. Not to be confused with the Blackguard as described in the current article. There is a section on this children in Hitchcock and Shoemaker, and they feature in Defoe's Colonel Jack

4. Some considerations upon street-walkers, with a proposal for lessening the present number of them, in two letters to a member of Parliament, to which is added, a letter from one of those ... persons ... [Daniel Defoe] Pamphlet, text at http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100577320 --Jfclegg (talk) 06:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Topic change
Dear Navarco, I just change my topic from "Ballads" to "Penal transportation". I just sent an email to Prof. Clegg and she said it's ok and that I had to inform you about this change. Gio1291 (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Dead link in bibliography
Hello Navarco, I was "testing" the sources already present in my article and I found a dead link to a book. Should I change it with a working link that includes the same citation? (I googled it and there are some options available) See [] ^3 Thank you.Pbord (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

How to improve my page
Hello, could you check my and Charles Hitchin's talk page to tell me how to improve what I have done, please? Lela Lazishvili (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Hello, I have already made the changes and would like to hear further suggestions. I'm still working on the adding and improvement of the text.Lela Lazishvili (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Questions
Hi Navarco, I have two questions and hope you can help me to find the answer. The first one concerns references. I wonder whether it exists a parameter to insert "Ibid". The second question concerns the section "See also". Is there a manner to create different subsections instead of just listing links one after the other?Thank you very much!Ml17221746 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Doubt
Hi Navarco, I have a question: what exactly is the edit explanation you mentioned in the wikiproject timetable? probably it is obvious but I just have this doubt. Gio1291 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Article images: lack of material
Hi, I added an image to the molly house page, but I'm not so sure about my choice, because I couldn't find anything concerning my topic in a specific way on commons. I found and added an illustration of a male brothel in a French book, even if molly houses were more like "clubs" rather than brothels. They were treated as if they were brothels in the proceedings though, and I thought I could add it with a caption for this (rather weak actually) reason. What do you think? Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbord (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Doubt on links
Hello Navarco!

I have a doubt. It might be stupid, but it's better to be safe than sorry, right?

When I use a website, should I put the exact link to the page I've used or should I use the link to the homepage?

Thanks

Annaannieann (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Annaannieann

Trouble with sections
Oops, sorry about the name thing!

I'm now having trouble with sections on my sandbox (I know, I'm late). When I create citations and they appear in the "References" section, everything works fine. However, when I create an "External links" section and insert the link, the references automatically move into this section when I save. What should I do? I don't want to mess with the entire article when I add my references and links!

Thanks you

Annaannieann (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)Annaannieann

about refernces
Hi, about your change in my references list: does it mean that I should follow this other style? How did you manage to insert the link to google books? and I also think it is the wrong book because I used the oldest edition present in the library published in 1989 by John Hopkins University and not the one published in 1992 by Taylor & Francis. They are probably the same (for sure they aheve the same title) but I am a little confused about how I should put this references at the end. Thank you for help anyway. --Irene1209 (talk) 10:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, I simply used the visual editor: when in "edit" mode just clic Cite>Manual>Book and fill in the requested fields. I have added a reference to the fact that Andrew Moreton was the pseudonym of Daniel Defoe, since I have used this claim in the hook for the Did You Know nomination and it is a rule that all hooks be referenced. I simply looked for a book that stated it and this one from 1992 seemed fine. It's not necessary that all books cited in the notes go into the bibliography anyway, don't worry. Since you used the 1989 edition leave that one. Btw, did you see the first review to your article? It's doing good!--Navarco (talk) 11:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Published article
Hi Navarco.

I've finally published my article. I thought it was too incomplete before.

Anyway, I have a problem with the image of a trial that I wanted to add. I wanted to show how the trial in question represents the Irish accent on the page, but the pictures on the Old Bailey are protected by copyright. May I report a sentence? If so, should I insert it as a quotation or as a citation?

Thanks!

Annaannieann (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Annaannieann


 * Hi, if it is relevant to the article you might want to quote text inside a paragraph. You could use a quote box template just like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde#Imprisonment or simply choose the "block quote" from the drop-down formatting list in the top left of the visual editor, like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde#Early_life
 * Regarding the image, can't you find it from another source? Probably not... Maybe just try to think of something else, free of copyright. Maybe an Irish riot or something like that.
 * Good that the article is out now, but consider adding also the reference number to the trials you quote.Navarco (talk) 11:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Images
Hi Navarco, I followed your advice and added the image of Baretti's dictionary. Now I was thinking of uploading an image of the Haymarket area, the place where the aggression of Baretti took place. I found this picture on the internet http://www.victorianlondon.org/crime1/the_haymarket_at_midnight.jpg, though it shows the Haymarket some years later 1769 I think it could be interesting, as it is still portraying the Haymarket as a place of prostitution. But how can I do with copyrights? Am I allowed to upload it to Common? Thank you! Micheladv92 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I found the source of the image here: https://witness2fashion.wordpress.com/tag/woman-dragging-a-mine-cart-1840s-victorian/ It's From London Labor and the London Poor, Vol. IV, p 260. “The Haymarket — Midnight.” The website also as a nice caption: "A glimpse of stocking signals that these women are prostitutes." Anyway, here https://archive.org/stream/londonlabourlond04mayh_0#page/n327/mode/2up you find all information: "London labour and the London poor; a cyclopædia of the condition and earnings of those that will work, those that cannot work, and those that will not work" by Mayhew, Henry; Tuckniss, William. Published in London in 1861 by Griffin, Bohn, and Company. And most importantly: copyright-free! When you upload it to Commons, you can specify that the work is not yours and manually add these tags: --Navarco (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much ! Micheladv92 (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Charles Hitchen next step
Hello, I have done some editting and wanted to ask you to have a look and offer further recommendations. Iàm still working on the improvement of the text though. Thank you. Lela Lazishvili (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. I have found the picture of Hitchen only on the blog page, is there any way I could use it? I can't find the image of the pamphlet 'The Regulator' other than book, is it possible to upload it? Lela Lazishvili (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'd try to add more in-line citations: some claims have no reference at all. As per the image, what blog do you mean? I can't find any on the Internet, maybe there is something in one of your teacher's books? Otherwise don't worry about it. If you do have a picture of the pamphlet you can probably upload it to Commons, I wrote about it in my previous emails.--Navarco (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi,, Could you give an example of valid and invalid in-line citations in my article so that i don't add more useless ones. Thanks for the note ab. image, I'll try to upload one if I find one of course. Thank you.Lela Lazishvili (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought an external link to a dictionary was useless for a mother tongue speaker of English, just in case I added a wikilink explaining the subject. This one is probably a good reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hitchen#cite_ref-2 On the other hand, all this part "Hitchen came from a poor family in Wolverhampton, West Midlands, and was apprenticed as a cabinet maker before he married Elizabeth, daughter of one John Wells from Hertfordshire, in 1703. He set up trade as a joiner for a time and the couple lived on the north side of St. Paul's Churchyard in the City of London. In 1711, Elizabeth Hitchen's father died and she inherited property, which she sold. Charles used that money to purchase the position of Under City Marshal for 700 pounds in 1712. There were two city marshals, and each had a staff of six men, whose job was to police the city for prostitutes, vagrants, and unlicensed tradesmen. For their service, they received all the fines paid as well as a 100-pound salary from the Lord Mayor of London." is without references, as many more below.--Navarco (talk) 16:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see now, and what ab. ref. with online libraries, which require membership to see the text, like for "The Regulator" I've got a link to library.villanova.edu. Lela Lazishvili (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You can read it without logging in on Google Books: https://books.google.it/books?id=2T1fAAAAcAAJ&hl=it&source=gbs_navlinks_s but you can't upload this to Commons, since it has Google's watermarks.--Navarco (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi,, with some queries: first, If I cite the same source is it better to do it with "re-use" option or give it a new number as it is with some other articles? second, If I cite a rather long part of the text or even a paragraph from one source, is it better to cite little portions of it or altogether at the end, I mean when even the pages for the reference are the same? Thanks.Lela Lazishvili (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

recommendation on the editing of the article Charles Hitcgen
Hi, 1. I've answered the first question above after erasing some references in the article... but still interested if I need to cite smaller portions of the text when the reference is absolutely the same. 2. I'd also be interested if the "banner" at the beginning of the article could be removed, and if I could do it, at least before nominating the article. 3. Could you also tell whether giving a title to the first summery paragraph is alright? And last, what does "editing conflict" mean? I still have my text and is it possible for it to be altered again before nominating? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks.Lela Lazishvili (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)--Lela Lazishvili (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Lela, sorry I didn't reply to last message: I totally missed it. As per your questions: 1. If you are citing from the same page, just use one reference at the end. 2. You can remove the template at the top if you believe all its issues have been addressed, sure. If someone disagrees, it will pop up again, presumebly with an explanation. 3. Do you refer to the "Early life" paragraph? Yes, why not. 4. Editing conflict is when you and another user don't agree on some changes and keep editing one the opposite thing of the other. It is considered bad behaviour and can be sanctioned. Always discuss with others before reverting their edits. Lastly, yes: an article can be edited also during review or nomination. Actually, it is very possible that it might happen, since it must be polished before it gets any special status.--Navarco (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * never mind. Hi again and thanks for your advice. As far as "editing conflict" marked the parts of the text I inserted two days ago with accurate reference, I left my added portions of the text and still continuing to add and edit. Thank you again.Lela Lazishvili (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Format of images on Wikimedia Commons
Hello Navarco!I have uploaded an image on Wikimedia Commons but it appears also a message informing me that the pdf format may expose my private information.Here is the link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Title_page_of_Augusta_Triumphans_(1728)_by_Daniel_Defoe.pdf Could you please advice me a different format or procedure? Thank you very much.Ml17221746 (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2015
 * Hi ! Don't worry, as it is stated below "This issue is not specific to this particular file, but a general issue with the PDF format." It is true that when you create a new pdf file it might contain the name of the creator for example. This is not a problem for you since you uploaded a file taken from someone else: you didn't do the scanning yourself, so no problem. Just to be complete, I believe Wikipedia suggests the use of Djvu: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:DjVu --Navarco (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Doubt about a message on Wikimedia Commons
Hi Navarco!I think I really need your advice again...on the basis of the message which I have received at the following link, I may have uploaded my image in the wrong way. But I would not know what they expect me to correct. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ml17221746#.7B.7BAutotranslate.7C1.3DFile:Title_page_of_Augusta_Triumphans_.281728.29_by_Daniel_Defoe.pdf.7Cbase.3DImage_license.2Fheading.7D.7D Thank you very much. Ml17221746 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently you didn't select any copyright tag. I suggest you add and  --Navarco (talk) 15:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

message on the chosen article's talk page
Hi Navarco! thanks for your useful tips. I noticed you wrote me on my talk page about announcing the intention of editing the article on its talk page. I actually did it before starting to edit the article, as it was required by the wiki project timetable. Someone also answered me giving some tips about quoting. So when I found your message I was a bit surprised because I was sure I had done it. But I can see why you wrote me to do it, because there isn't any message on Bosavern Penlez's talk page, and I don't understand why. Anyway I'll try and do it again. Could it have been removed ? Thanks (Giulia Odo (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC))


 * No idea why it has disappeared... Good that you have posted it again.--Navarco (talk) 12:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Image for article
Hi Navarco, I've looked for an image to add in Footpad's article last week.I had some problems in the uploading but on Monday the 9th I finally uploaded it. So the article now includes an image and I'm working to improve it. See you on Monday!Im 2u (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I see there are now two images!--Navarco (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Rating
Hello! I've been working on the Thomas de Veil page and I've tried to get it rated again on the Wikiproject England and Wikiproject Biography. How should I proceed? Thank you so much! 858rine (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am no expert on this, sorry. I see you have written on the project's page: that's probably a good move, let's see if it's useful.--Navarco (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Creating stubs and the assignment of week 11
Hi Navarco! I have a question concerning the assignment of this week. We should work on suggestions which have been given to us. Pbord has kindly suggested me to turn some of the red links of my article into blue ones by creating stubs of few lines. What do you think? Would it be pertinent? Thank you! Ml17221746 (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi there, it surely is pertinent but remember: if you create a new article, it must comply with all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Even if you leave it at a "stub" level, it must have a good lead, at least a few lines long, references and bibliography. Don't leave it orphan: link to it from other pages and link from it as well.

If you decide to go on, create it in your sandbox and publish it only when ready. You can then post a message in the talk page, explaining that you created it together with your other main article, to give a better understanding on the topic. You might list further readings if others are willing to improve it in the future.--Navarco (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Second Thoughts are Best
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Stub Page
Hi, I created a stub page for andrew moreton as you suggested, but I noticed that the link in Second thoughts are best and Augusta triumphans does not turn blue. Is that normal? Thank you for your help --Irene1209 (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It is blue now, it probably just needed a while... good job!--Navarco (talk) 13:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Information
Hi Navarco! I came late at yesterday class, can you tell me of what have you discussed about? Could I find all informations in your last email? ThanksIm 2u (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * don't worry, everything is in the email, as usual!--Navarco (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Copyright on an image
Dear Saul, for my article about pickpocketing I would like to include an image that I found on a website Mrs Clegg gave me a link to. However, as I tried to upload the image, wikipidea asks me the type of licensing, and I cannot find the right one in their list. On the website where the image is they say that "EBBA is open access, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. All materials are available for non-commercial use free of charge. Attribution is required for all non-commercial re-use of EBBA's images, recordings, and other resources." So if I understand correctly, I am allowed to put the image on Wikipedia since it is a non-commercial use free of charge. But on the Wikipedia list, they don't have the option "Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0", so what should I do ? Thank you in advance for your answer ! --ClaraC12 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't accept "noncommercial" licenses, since they are not completely free... Check here in case you need clarifications: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Creative_Commons_copyright_tags --Navarco (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Unsure about a picture
Hi Navarco.

I have found a website with an image I could use, but there is no indication about sources or copyright. I'm not sure whether to trust this link or not. What do you think? http://www.aycliffehistory.org.uk/html/People.htm

Thank you!

Annaannieann (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Annaannieann


 * Mmm, copyleft is not explicitly stated, therefore we assume everything's under copyright here... No good, I'm sorry.--Navarco (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Doubts conserving topic and redirections
Hello. I would like to ask you a question that we can't answer with prof. Clegg. Conserning the article about William Spiggot, Prof. Clegg suggested to add a paragraph to explain Peine forte et dure, Why the legal term is in in french and link it toward the French page. However I wondered, as a page on peine forte et dure already exists, if it is necessary to explain it. I would rather think that readers would go to the redirected page of the Peine forte et dure to know about the legal term and all rather than read it on Spiggot's page? And also do you think it is relevant to link it to the page in another language ? Thank you. --JMChaleat (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with you the English page Peine forte et dure already exists, and it is linked to Spiggot's article. From there one could also easily go to the French page if s/he wished to.--Navarco (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Correcting the title of articles
Hi Navarco, I have a question about a stub article which I created some days ago. Its title should be An Essay Upon Project. The title at the top of the page, however, is An essay upon projects (some of the letters should be capital but they are small). But in the text I wrote them correctly. What could I do to correct it? Thank you!Ml17221746 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the title is with the final "s" apparently: http://www.worldcat.org/title/essay-upon-projects-1697/oclc/301633611 As per the capitals in the title, Wikipedia's guidelines tell you not to use them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Article_title_format --Navarco (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you answer, Navarco but I must have done something wrong when I created my article. In the section "Schemists and their time" of Augusta Triumphans, one of the links to An Essay Upon Projects is red and redirects you to an area where you can create an article. The same problem occurs in the article of Defoe. In particular, An Essay Upon Projects is red. But its sub article was created at the beginning of this week. Should I remove it and create a new one? Thank youMl17221746 (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I fixed the link. Remember that links are caps-sensible, so pay attention that next time.--Navarco (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)