User talk:Teamliddell

HI I'm a newbie and have just completed a sizable article on a worldwide genealogy activity. Luckily I saved all my edit copy but after hitting complete or whatever it is, I tested the search window for the article and am told it doesn't exist.

Welllllll, do I lack completing some more steps or what? Why can't I call it up?

The name of the article was Team Liddell et al, the name of the organization.

Help?

Jim

For starters, Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Now, I answered your question on Help desk. On a somewhat related note, the image you upladed has no licensing information and will probably deleted in seven days if you don't add any. You might want to add one of the Image copyright tags, but choose wisely, as this has major implications on that image's future, both here and generally speaking. -- grm_wnr Esc  22:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Since it seems that you're wondering about why the NPOV tag was put on your recent article about Team Liddell, I thought I'd try to help you out by giving you a lead. If you check the history of the article you'll see that User:Feydey added the tag and put "pov ... too much promotion?" in the edit summary. They really should have explained why they were putting the tag on the article in the article's talk page but they didn't for some reason. Anyway, you might want to ask Feydey why they put the tag up on they're talk page. P.S. Welcome to Wikipedia! Dismas|(talk) 00:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Team Liddell et al article
Most of the comments about the Team Liddell et al article have to do with the notability of the organization. The current articel has no links to information about the team provided by anyone outside the team, if i have read it correctly. Have you received news coverage? If so, a mention of this with a citation and/or a link would be a good idea. Please take a look at WP:CITE and WP:NOR and WP:VAIN and WP:SPAM and WP:NPOV. These may give you soem indication of why people commeted abnout "too much self-promotion" on this article DES (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is being discussed at Articles for deletion/Team Liddell et al, where you can post responses to the comments which have been made. i would advise you to do so. DES (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia mechanics
Your user page is at User:Teamliddell and your talk (discussion) page is at User talk:Teamliddell i.e. this page.

There is no nead to "activate" your user page, simply follow the link, and click "edit this page" just as on any other page. Most users put something about themselves on their user pages.

Other users may leave you meassages by editing your user talk page as I am doign here, and you can leave messages for other users by editing their user pages. This is used for communication on wikipedia instead of eamil in most cases. You should sign comments on discussion pages by typing four tildas (like this ~ ). The software will convert this into a link to your user page and a timestamp. You can customize your signataure (as I have done) on your preferences page. Feel free to ask me a question on my user talk page, which is linked in my signature. DES (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Restponse to your "No Consensus" position on the Team Liddell et al article
I'm going to repeat my earlier msg here in hopes it is seen by someone. In truth, I DO utterly fail to understand how to use your posting system, as all I seem to encounter whenever I try a hyperlink is a huge library of what appears to be internal documents pertaining to that particular library's development and refinement and not to anything pertaining to interpersonal communications.

Here is the message I THINK I just sent to Dus/Dis/Duv? plus "fus". (OH! It just occured to me that I can provide the citation for the 2000 paper from the scientists at the Max Planck. That is the only outside citation I can think of that is material to the Team Liddell et al article.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////

Please forgive my delay in responding to above comments by the various reviewers on the Team Liddell et al article.

I can add nothing to the statements I've made at your help desk which until now has been the only place that I could find to leave a message. As someone commented, I DO, indeed, have no idea at all of how to use your system with an assurance that a message is going to someone specifically.

I honestly don't know how to respond to your requirements for "news" coverage or any other items of this nature. The science of genealogy genetics (on which you have nothing of any nature whatsoever) was developed ONLY in 2000 at the Max Planck Institute in a landmark study and became a commerical activity that genealogy groups could use ONLY in 2002-03. The industry and the science are BOTH still in formulative stages. There has been only one news article of ANY type of which I am aware and that in a British newspaper about four to five months ago and (it was) shot through with misunderstandings by the reporter and editor, as well as (containing) outright errors.

The Team was the author of an article in the Lanarkshire Family History Journal in December 2004 at the invitation of that society's president, which served to introduce genealogy genetics to his group's worldwide membership and to Scotland in particular. So, you see, this whole thing is so new that there are no standard references or news coverage for us to refer you to. In very truth, we (the Team) are at the leading edge of this matter and what we are doing is defining this brand new field for others.

By the nature of your challenges to what we are presenting as factual history, process reportage and model creation for others to copy and benefit therefrom, Albert Einstein would not stand any better change of getting an article on the General Theory of Relativity, as well. There is NEVER any framework of existing reference material of the nature you are seeking for (matters) with these innovative natures.

As a retired newspaper editor with national awards (USA civilian and military, both), and one who had to test the news submissions of entire news rooms of reporters of every degree of development, I fully understand your concerns and issues about documentation and citations. As a man with two masters degrees in hand (Journalism MA and Demography MS) and most of a doctorate (Communication) completed, I probably better understand these things that you (deleted) do. And if I could have provided these things you want, I would have done so at the beginning of this affair as a matter of professional courtesy.

But news stories and independent references pertaining to Team Liddell et al simply do not exist. In fact, any news story or magazine article would have to originate with us anyhow and if we can't write accurately about all this, it hardly stands that an outside reporter can do any better--and much more likely, far worse because of the evidence of that one news story I know of.

Frankly, I am bemused by all this flap. You accepted an article by a professional kick-boxer/wrestler--Chuck Liddell--and even run his wresting bout schedule and carry all the citations his handlers provided you to the (articles about) other professional kick-boxer/wrestlers in his so-called "league" and all this amounts to is free advertising for him and them and all those citations are self-referencial because all of the articles refer to each other. I see no citations of news stories for any of them and I see no intellectual furtherment of the knowledge of humankind as a result.

But you carry that!

And the article you have on the mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, is so shot-through with error as to be laughable. In fact, you even had a ending sentence for a brief while that he was election president of the United States in 2008. I have the documentation for that, please! And as far as his being an excutive in Cox Communication? That is a total falsehood. Where's the documentation, please? Nagin was a regional sales manager in Louisiana for CoxCableTV, a part of Cox Communication that is headquartered in Atlanta and has no field officials outside of Atlanta.

I grant that it is unfair of me to cast these things back at you--Chuck Liddell, the kick-boxer/wrestler whose article is purely self-promotional and with no intellectual content at all, and a nearly instaneous article on the embattled mayor of a ruined city who was being slaughtered in the national news media--but I cannot resist calling you attention to the inconsistencies at play here.

The only thing about the article I more properly should be discussing here is the length. That's only shortcoming I see, given the other items I have covered above. But we are having to cover so much closely-related and interdependent subjects that I professionally do not see any other way to do it.

As far as opening the door to other genealogy groups, I can only reply to that possibility by stating that no one else has done what we have done and is not likely to more rapidly without using us as a blueprint for action. We reveal no genealogy material in and of itself unless it is germane to the development of the article and the history of our group. And I want to make this point very, very clear: We are dealing with a unique part of the Scotland border with England, one with military importance that actually predates the Romans on Hadrian's Wall, and with an economic importance to that area even today. And, we are dealing with not one but nearly 100 possibly related surnames, all of which are presently believed to be derived from the place-name for this region--Liddesdale.

In my postings at the Help Desk, I have discussed our academic relationships, which are all in a formulative stage but growing in importance as we progress. That's all the information I care to provide at this point because many of these things are still of a sensitive nature as well as a still-maturing one with unknown paths yet to be mapped out.

This is the best I can provide you. If it is insufficent, then kill the article. At this point, I am only repeating myself as I already have done to an uncomfortable degree in this message. (If you have specific suggestions, I am, of course, interested in them and will do my best to respond to them. But because the target keeps changing--from "too self-promotional" to "not notable" to "not big enough an organization", well, I just have to ask that I be provided specifics and not generalities with none of them fixed in nature. As I stated very early in this, I really don't think that any of you actually have grasped the nature of this whole matter because it IS so new.)

Thank you for your attention.

Again, I thank somebody who took the time to read our caption for that piece of self-generated and Team-owned artwork as I have checked off all the boxes that I could find and have no idea how to generate certificates for our own creation. Many thanks.

Jim Liddell 22:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Posting to wikipedia
To leave a message for any user, you simply edit that user's talk page. If you have the user's User ID (Mine is "DESiegel") the tak page is at "User talk:USERID". So my talk page is at User talk:DESiegel. If you read a signed message from a user, it will normally include a link to that user's user page ("User:USERID"). If you follow that link, you can then click on the "discusion" tab at the top, and you will be taken to the user page. Some people (such as myself) have a link directly to their talk page in their signature.

Once on a user talk page, you can simply click "edit this page" and leave a new message. Generlaly it is best to do so at the bottom of the page, in a new section (formed by putting the section title between paired equals signs (==Like This==). Or you can click the plus sign tab at the top of the page (if it is presnet, which it usually will be). This will create a new section and open it for editing, with a seperate entry box for the section title. In either case, enter your message, and please sign your comments with four tildas (like this ~ ). The software will convert this to your userid, with a link to your user page, and a timestamp. The next time that user logs on, he or she will be notified that ther is a new message, and given a link to open the user talk page to read the message. Most users respond to such messages reasonably promptly, but that is of course up to each user.

To leave a message about a particular article for anyone editing that article to read, go to the articel's talk page. This is "Talk:ARTICLENAME". So for example the talk page of the article you created is at Talk:Team Liddell et al. Anyone who has this article on his or her "watch list" will be notified of any changes to the talk page, just as any such person will be notified of any changes to the article. Again you post a messge by editing the page ort a section of the page, and adding your comments. You can add them to an existing section, or start a new section. In general, each section is treated as a seperate discussion thread. Again, sign your messages with four tildas

There are various public pages on which you can post messages to wikipedia at large. You have already found the help desk. The village pump is a collection of such pages on various topics. The administrator's incident board is a place to request assitance from an administrator. All of these work much like the help desk does -- a new topic is normally added as a new section at the bottom of the page. Messages on all fo them should again be signed with four tildas.

In general, almost every page on wikipdia is freee for anyone to edit. If there is some readon why you shouldn't edoit a page, there should be a note to that effect on the page, and in any case soemone will undo any edits that cause a problem and tell you what the problem was fairly promptly.

I hope this is helpful. Please feel free to post to my user talk page with any questions about this. 205.210.232.62 15:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Status of the Team Liddell et al article
The Team Liddell et al article was, as you know, nominated for deletion. the result was "no consensus to delete". This means that the article was kept. It is now as much a part of wikipedia as any other article, and is in no particular danger of deletion. No one can simply "kill" the article without re-nominating it for deletion, and it is generally considered a poor idea to re-nominate an articel a short time after it was kept. A note mentioning that it was nominated for deletion and the result is on the article's talk page and anyone who thinks it ought to be deleted should see that, and have second thoughts.

Like any and every article on wikipedia, the Team Liddell et al article can and shouid be improved as oppertunity offers. You (or anyone) can add useful and verifiable information about the team and its activities to teh article. Citations to any papers the team has written or contributed to would be throughly appropriate, as woulds citations of any news reports or papers or other discussions of the team by people outside the team.

Note that the article should be written from a neutral point of view and with an encyclopedic tone, so that it is neither a piece of advocacy for the team, nor a piece attacking the team, but a piece neutrally reporting what the team is and has fone, and (if relevant) what other people have said or done about the team. If a subject is controversial, the views of all sides should be reproted, and should be attributed to those who hold those views, as specifically as possible ("Professor Foo said the team was wonderful because... while Scholar Bar expressed the negative view that..."). Any facts should idealy be supported by citations that a reader could in principle, verify.

Ihope this is helpful to you. I will leave a more detailed response to your comments to me, which i have read, when i have a moment. Thank you for contributing to wikipedia. DES (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Search result
The wikipedia search function operates off a cached index, and the cache is updated somewhat irregularly, although i would expect that it has been updated at least once since the article was created. I fear that our search engine is not our strong point. It is often more effective to go to google and search, limiting the searth to . This effectively uses the google search engine to search wikipedia, and works suprisingly well.

The "Go" button, unlike the search function, retrives the page by the exact name entered, if it exists.

People are probably more likely to find any given wikipedia article via links from other wikipedia articles, or from wikipedia categories, or from google or other outside searches, than via our internal search, i fear. This is one reason why it is important that any given articel is linked in multiple appropriate places, and belongs to a proper set of categories. DES (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

POV tag
The POV tag was added to the Team Liddell et al article by User:Feydey on 25 September 2005. When I said that the article was in the same status as any wikipedia article, i mean it is no longer listed as a candidate for deletion.

Any editor can insert this tag, or any of a number of otehr tags (such as disputed or unreferenced), and any other editor can remove them again if they seem to be unjustified. It is generally good practice to discuss the matter on the articles talk page, where a person inserting such a tag can indiacte his reasons, nan what changes that editor things are needed, and an editor who thinks the tag is unjustified can indicate reasons for this belief, either before or after removing the tag. In this case that was not done. I will place a note on the talk page questioning the tag's presence. DES (talk) 19:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

question
When I was editing the intro to conform with the general principle that it gives 'a reader unfamiliar with the topic would have a clear understanding about what they can expect the article to cover', I made two edits, shown here - I wondered then whether the use of genealogy-genetics equated to genealogy-genome project. Would you have a look at genome project, Genomics (the the Genetic similarity section particulalry), and related topics like Sequence motif, to define which of these are ways the organisation employs to determine biological links to the Liddesdale valley?

I tend to agree that the article would benefit a good pruning and wikification to assist the variety of readers: remembering that some ahem..(me!) sometimes have a short attention span and you have to grab us them from the start. Thanks. Alf melmac 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

File:Team emblem.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Team emblem.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)