User talk:NorCalGirl78

Welcome!

Hello, NorCalGirl78, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Edit warring at William Harvey Lillard
I did get your email and responded on the talk page. Instead of reporting you, I'd rather we worked this out. Please read the talk page for the article and comment there. Since you're new here, you may not have realized I left a message there for you. Please read the policies listed above before making anymore edits to that article. You are already in violation of several policies, WP:Edit warring being the worst. When I reverted you the first time, you shouldn't have restored the information, but gone to the talk page and discussed, per the WP:BRD cycle. If you make anymore edits, you risk violating the three-revert rule, which isn't a magic number, but an absolute limit. One can be blocked for making fewer reversions than three. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Understood. I knew there was a place you were probably commenting but couldn't find it.  I sincerely apologize, I just tried to turn it back to the way the original author had it.  However, after reading the article you were questioning, found out new information, which I found valid.  I definitely need to review the terms, and FAQ's and start small.  I appreciate the guidance.  I didn't even know the term edit warring, but assume its a back and forth type of thing like we were doing.  However, since many things are subjective, who is to say someones opinion and understand is right over anothers?  Simply experience and longevity on wikipedia?(Meant as a legitimate question with no disrespect intended.)-- NorCalGirl78 (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been a newbie here too, back in 2005. It was hard to learn, but if one accepts the advice of experienced users one can avoid lots of problems. That's why I have NOT reported you for edit warring at the appropriate noticeboard. We have many such noticeboards for various purposes! I think we can work this out. I have placed a notice on the right board and left the link on the talk page. Look there. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Chiming in from the reliable sources noticeboard... NorCal, You are correct that it's impossible to tell 'who' is right. That's why we have a whole ream of Policies to try and tell us 'what' is right.  You don't have to take anyone's word for things around here, and your arguments are as legitimate as anyone else's--they might be against policy though, so it's good to look around before getting into a big debate.  Try these links: WP:IRS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:SPS.  Many people at first think Wikipedia is about just adding whatever information they can find.  The community has evolved certain standards for sourcing and inclusion, and having been at this fairly seriously for about a year, I think they are pretty good, even though they're not perfect.


 * Also, policies can change, so if you think community guidance is really wrong, or leading to a fundamentally unencyclopedic outcome, there are ways to pursue that as well. Let me know if you have any questions.  FWIW, I haven't always agreed with Brangifer on every issue, and I think he's giving you advice that tells it just like it is. Ocaasi (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I'm not the type of person that goes around challenging people, especially just for the sake of it. I just needed to familiarize myself with the process a little bit, and appreciate both of your inputs.  I still believe it belongs, but will try to clarify its inclusion tomorrow. NorCalGirl78 (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Great. I agree with you that the information (if true) belongs, but as a practical issue you just need a reliable source.  You mentioned contacting the chiropractors yourself.  That is an option, but even their personal testament would not be considered 'reliable'.  We don't do original research on Wikipedia, by which I mean interacting with primary sources.  You could, however, ask them if they every had their story told by a book or written up in a newspaper article.  That could qualify and make the issue simpler.  I've found that honest people have some of the hardest times with these policies, especially because you really do think the information is good, and you really wouldn't want to include it if you didn't.  Just remember that this community sees hundreds of thousands of editors, and sadly, we can't just take people at their word. But, all efforts at actual discussion are appreciated, and there are many who will encourage you to keep trying, just within the bounds of policy.  Good luck, Ocaasi (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd love to see this story included with good documentation. My only objection is to the sourcing and edit warring. Until it's sourced properly, that content shouldn't be in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I left a note for you on the article's talk page (so look for its placement), but I'll copy it here: "I suggest you copy your comment to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, exactly as you have written it here. We need more input from that source to help us. Your comment might get more responses." -- Brangifer (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I would have gotten back to you sooner but I've been down and out with an illness. I will do just as you suggest either tomorrow or this weekend, once I get a chance to catch up with everything. NorCalGirl78 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

July 2015
Your recent edit to Harvard-Westlake School appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. ''The page you linked to is a disambiguation page, kind of an index to articles with that name. None of the listed people appeared to be the guy you described. That's not surprising, since neither being an attorney nor being someone's relative are things that in and of themselves makes an individual notable.''  John from Idegon (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)