User talk:Tulkolahten/Archive1

< Back to main talk

Welcome!
Hello,, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! P.S.: Please explain in comment or article talk page when putting tags like "cleanup" on articles if it is not immediately obvious why such tags are appropriate. Hope this helps, -- Infrogmation 16:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Question
I have a question on how Wikipedians handle with pages having unverifiable content and how verification works. For example a page without any external link which content cannot be verified through the internet (using google, yahoo etc.) How long is tag source tolerated and how to ask for a verification if you are not sure that content is notable. I've found a couple of articles (biography) without any sources and any entry in Google and others (hard to beleive in case of singer 16 years on stage). Thanks.
 * Wikipedia is a wiki, so any efforts to verify information are collaborative and do not have set periods or procedures. Generally, articles will improve naturally, and those improvements will be made by people who chance upon it. If you're aren't sure whether something is verifiable or notable, it is generally wise to look it up yourself :) If you believe an article is not notable, you can nominate it for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 18:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

note on vandalism warnings
Excellent job reverting vandalism, warning the vandals and reporting them when necessary, but you should sign your name & date with ~ after your warnings. It's an easy way to see who placed what warning when, especially useful when verifying they've vandalised afer a final-type warning. Gotyear 23:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and you should also always subst the warning templates, by typing, for example . This puts the actual text onto the edit page rather than just the template name. You can read the full explanation if you want to at WP:SUBST. Gotyear 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try. Thanks. Tulkolahten 21:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

regarding your comment
My apologies, I'm new here and it wasn't intentional. I don't really know how it happened? Could it have been I was editing the article at the same time as you? If so, how does one prevent that? Mdelves 05:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: spelling in Jiří Grossmann
I was using the spelling script from Lupin, which only ever picks up on one error at a time. (However, sometimes I use other methods that will pick up on multiple errors in the same article.) Rjwilmsi 22:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Notification on College Tonight
Hi there. In an earlier AfD vote on the article College Tonight you voted Delete. This is a notification that due to procedural issues, the article is up for deletion again. Note, this is not a request to vote Delete again (though I'd personally prefer to see it gone!), just a notification that re-vote is taking place. Thanks! --Arvedui 05:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

List of idioms in the English language
List of idioms in the English language -

 A sub-article component of this article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at the sub-article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.

Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

''Steps to list an article for deletion

I just thought you may wish to contribute to the debate. WLD 14:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Hi, it seems I have troubles with proper starting AfD. It seems it is not listed properly Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Identical_cousin. I followed AfD manual, what did I wrong ? Tulkolahten 11:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The instructions are here. You've done step 1, you have not done step 2 properly (you created the page but didn't put the template on as described, just put a "vote"). And it doesn't look like you've done step 3. --pgk 11:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Page style
Yes you may. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 05:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Rogers.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Rogers.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 01:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tag Film-screenshot is already present there. What more ? Tulkolahten 11:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to specify how the picture was obtained (was it on a website, did you take a photo of the TV screen, etc.; give a link to a website it's on if possible), and also explain why you consider the picture to be fair use. --ais523 11:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The tag is correct; it's the source and rationale you have to provide (see my comment above). --ais523 09:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See Image:Looney_Tunes_intro.jpg for example; the rationale (and source, if applicable, as it is in this case) can be provided as text. There isn't a tag for them. --ais523 09:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ding, Dong, the Spam is Gone!
Which old spam? The College Tonight spam! Thanks for helping to flush it. :D --Arvedui 10:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Google Hits
Well I'm not the one to make the decision on that, but I will note that (1) it isn't in itself a deletion criteria, it can be used to support a view that an article doesn't meet the required standard (2) Deletion discussions are just that, discussions, you cannot ban people from making observations. Which would you prefer people telling you their rationale so it can be addressed or people giving a belief that it is non-notable without giving any indication of what led them to that conclusion? (3) This sort of thing has been discussed endlessly before, google hits are just one of a range of things people use and gives a quick indication of things, it's rebuttable, provide some reliable sources and it becomes less relevant. verifiability is a huge part of wikipedia, in the absence of an author providing that, then of course those participating in deletion discussions will use the tools available to them. The onus is on those creating articles to show the worth, not for others to rebut it. --pgk 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh an nearly forgot there is a WP:GOOGLE which looks at the subject in quite a bit of depth. --pgk 23:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem asking, that one was easy to find, other maybe not. It's a while since I looked or thought about the subject much, so it was a nice distraction for me. --pgk 00:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)