User talk:SirShill

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, SirShill! I have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Calaka (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Help Question Answered
I've found a handful of link references in articles that are now behind paywalls (like the New York Times). Since I can access the content, I can see that quotes lifted from the links are there, but are they no longer useful as references since there is a paywall? SirShill (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * References behind a paywall are perfectly valid for use. More specifically, "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources."  See WP:PAYWALL for more information. --Darkwind (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Not a problem. :) Yeah that is no problem I think. This is the same issue when dealing with scientific articles. Many of the references need subscription in high impact journals (like from the journal Nature) but are still used as a reference. So what you are doing is fine. There will always be other Wikipedians that have the same subscription as you and hence they will be able to verify if what you have is correct. But yes, they can still be used. Kind regards!Calaka (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the help! thanks for the cookies! SirShill (talk) 08:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COI
I suggest you read this. And just to make sure we're on the same page, on svwp the relevant text is sv:WP:IK. GameOn (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The main problem isn't if links work or not. The links that have been added by users only here for one purpose (such as this one and a few others who clearly are only editing wikipedia to try and make Åsk and Adland notable) several times do NOT work as source for the claim done in the articles, in some cases adland isn't even mentioned, or is mentioned in passing, thus only a form of name-dropping. Please stop editing pages that are about yourself, your spouse etc. and let the rest of the wikipedia comunity write those articles instead. GameOn (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * An interest is not a conflict of interest, but if it appeases you I shall refrain from editing those articles and let the wisdom of crowds sort it out as I'm sure it will. SirShill (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've grown tired of answering the same questions over and over to serveral new users on several language versions. Please take a look at my user page for some questions and answers in case there's something else you are wondering. GameOn (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I thought we were clear. I washed my hands of the pages you nominated for deletion as you state above the links have been added by users only here for one purpose, which means none of them count now according to you. Before we talked here, and I returned the link where the opening quote came from with notes that I saw nothing wrong with it, you deleted it again (but left half of the quote as I recall). So I thought the best thing I could do was step away from the articles, and did so. While I disagree with your assertion that sources weren't valid and the way you went about removing things instead of improving on the article, I thought it best to leave it as frankly, you're coming off as a little aggressive and it's not my funeral. SirShill (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't need to answer on my talk page. I keep WP:OUTING in mind and let it be up to others to figure out how you breach WP:COI. GameOn (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've left all articles alone after our talk. I hope that you can do the same with me. SirShill (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding what links can be used as reference
I've previously asked this question, and been informed that paywall websites are OK to be used as reference in articles. In this [] discussion page I am asking the question again, now about a specific link as it has been removed by another editor, and I am unsure of what to do about this. Is the link I am using valid or not? SirShill (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My review of the appended content and the supporting reference conclude it as a valid inclusion. My advice would be to talk directly to the user who reverted the edit to see if there was some other reason, not apparent in the edit summary. It is often that a page watcher for a particular article is more involved and abreast of current consensus. Discussion after a reversion is usually the most civil recourse and generally leads to the best resolution. For my part, I am interested on where this discussion leads and will likely watch from a curious distance. Cheers.  My 76 Strat  19:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to look at the link and issue, I'll keep all discussions about reference links on the talk-pages of the respective articles from now on as to keep things neat. From what I've been told and can read in the wikipedia about reference links it is a valid inclusion, and I will now return it to the article. SirShill (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there! Adding references through a paywall is no problem at all (just think of it like a book you got from a library that not everyone might have access to). I think there is good faith placed on the refs people add and there would always be someone out there that has access (like there would be multiple NYT subscribers that also happen to edit wikipedia). Kind regards!Calaka (talk) 07:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, I can see why the feature might have been misused (unintentionally or not). I am experiencing a bit of a bug now though, when I de-select that "mark edit as minor", it still marks my edit as minor. How long until the preference is automatically changed exactly? /SirShill 14:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The bug might be me, and my habit of previewing, making an unselected box become re-selected. Still interested in knowing when the  comes into effect. SirShill (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall check with the developers effecting the change for you. It's obviously taking slightly longer than expected. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 15:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

sandbox failure
I wanted to make a few sandbox article to work on, but I failed miserably on my first attempt, and when I tried to move it I failed again. Please help me (save face) move the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbox/The_Firefighters to my sandbox so that I can shape it to a proper article before publishing it. Thank you. Sorry about that. SirShill (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. The reason it eneded up published instead of in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirShill/The_Firefighters was because I previewed, it seems. Thank you for checking in. SirShill (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Great when people fix things for themselves :-)


 * You'd left behind a couple of redirects - Sandbox/The Firefighters and The Firefighters - but I've just tagged those for deletion, so they'll be gone soon (maybe already, by the time you read this, they'll be red linked).


 * I just took the liberty of adding a little bit on your user page - I addded this;



My draft articles

 * User:SirShill/The Firefighters
 * User:SirShill/Test page one
 * User:SirShill/Test page two
 * User:SirShill/Anything you want to put here


 * Only the first one exists at the moment. (Obviously, the rest are just examples which you can change as you like).


 * What that means is, you've got an easy way to get to your user sandbox pages - just by clicking your user name at the very top of the screen in Wikipedia.


 * By clicking the red ones which do not exist, you can make them.


 * And to add any more, you can just edit your user page, put the name in there, and click the red link to make it.


 * Feel free to use another, for any more questions. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for those shortcut links, that will come in handy as I keep finding bits to work on.
 * I saw that the redirects stayed, wasn't sure how to tag that mistake, glad it's already cleaned up and thanks for the help on that too. :) SirShill (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)