User talk:Wallaceburghistory

Wallaceburg
The infobox on a Wikipedia article is required to be at the top of the article. The bottom is not acceptable; it either stays at the top or comes off the article entirely. Wikipedia is not a place where anybody can just make up their own rules — we have very specific formatting rules for how to write and structure an article. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough — I added the code that textwraps the article body around the table of contents instead of following it. Also, to make the table of contents a little bit smaller so that the text space looks a bit more natural, I took out the fourth-level headings under the rifle section and shortened the section heading at the top of the rifle section. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It might be your screen resolution — I'm not seeing a space after Baldoon Settlement on my screen. I'll try looking at the page under different screen sizes to see what's going on. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

John Lee (Inventor)
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that your article has been moved from John Lee(Inventor) to John Lee (Inventor). I am concerned, however, about it's origin, as the majority of it seems to be taken directly from Wallaceburg, Ontario. For GFDL compliance, we must acknowledge the creators of Wikipedia's materials and can't just duplicate chunks of text from one article to another. If this is, as it seems, a copy from that article, a direct link to the original must be included in an edit summary at the new location. Also, to avoid creating a content fork, the duplicated material from the original article must be removed. I'd be happy to help work this out in the two articles if I am reading this situation correctly. I'll be watchlisting your page. Please let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no problem whatsoever. :) It's a strange notion to many experienced Wikipedians that our copyright policy makes it possible to violate copyright by placing material from one article into another! It's just the way the GFDL license works. I entertained the idea that it might have been all your text and looked to see that the original contributions come from an IP address. I know this is quite likely you, but just to keep in line with policy, it's best to link back anyway. I'll go ahead and do that now and remove the duplicated text. I'll leave you a note when I have done so. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All right. I have left a note compliant with GFDL at both articles. I have also reduced the section in the parent article according to Summary style. I have no familiarity with this subject and feel sure that you can write a better abbreviated summary than I. The goal is to give readers of the parent article enough to context to get the gist of the matter while allowing the hatnote referring them to the alternate article to follow up for more information if so desired. Thanks for your quick response, and please let me know if I can be of any service. :) Just as one final note, when you leave message on article talk pages, user talk pages or discussion boards, it's best to sign them by typing four tildes ( ~ ), which will expand into your username and a timestamp. This is helpful for editors in keeping track of who said what when. Again, please feel free to contact me if I can be of service. And, in case you haven't found it yet, any time you have questions about how to work something on Wikipedia you can find volunteers at the help desk. Happy editing. :D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The signature thing worked fine. :) The page doesn't need to be deleted. Basically, Summary style explains that when we split an article into a new article, we have to credit authorship history by including a link in the edit summary back to the original article. The reason why we are required to link to the original article is that all contributors to Wikipedia agree to release their material under GFDL. This is not entirely the same as putting it into public domain. While Wikipedia's creditors release the material to be reused in any manner--commercially or otherwise--we retain the right to authorship credit for our work. If you look at the history of your article, you'll see that it now contains a wikilink back to the parent article, here. That way anybody who wants to know, say, who originally wrote the third sentence from the bottom can go look at the parent article's page history to find out. Page histories keep track of every edit made to an article. The edit history of Wallaceburg, Ontario now includes a note that material has been split off to John Lee (Inventor): here. I also edited the section on the rifle to direct readers to the new article and reduced that text to a brief summary. As I said above, I imagine you can produce a much better summary than that. :)


 * If you want any more clarification on any of this, please feel free to let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The information was removed from the James Paris Lee article about a half an hour before I got there. The editor who removed them felt that they were slightly off topic, evidently. The way to handle such situations is generally with a "see also" section. I've added one. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :) I'm sorry if you've had more frustrating experiences. There can be a steep learning curve on Wikipedia, and established editors are not always as helpful with newcomers as they might be. It can be difficult sometimes, but our civility policy recommend that we do our best to ignore incivility if we can. If we can't, there are places we can go to receive assistance (they are documented in the Etiquette guideline). Good luck with peaceful resolution of your dispute! (And if you don't find it, the dispute resolution policy suggests where to look for help with that. We have a policy or guideline on almost everything at Wikipedia. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thank you! That's very kind of you. :) I will move it to my front page. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Lee Rifle Plaque Two.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lee Rifle Plaque Two.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Wallaceburg Museum Glass Blower 042.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wallaceburg Museum Glass Blower 042.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

New 10,000 Challenge for Canada
Hi, WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge is up and running based on The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Canada like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Canada but fuelled by a contest such as The North America Destubathon to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. I would like some support from Canadian wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile! Cheers. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)