User talk:WhistleWhereYouWork

Welcome WhistleWhereYouWork
Hi WhistleWhereYouWork,

 Something I found useful when I started editing: 

Cordial 'real time' advice can often be found via IRC.

Somethings I would have found useful when I started editing:

The editorial community is quite diverse and includes it's fair share of cranks and eccentrics ranging from domineering and contentious to just plain weird in addition to editors simply amiably enthused about sharing knowledge with the world and each other. Humor and emotional cues are often missed or misconstrued when communicating through text alone. A bit of cautious consideration applied to both what one 'says' and what one 'hears' (i.e. writes/reads on talk pages and such) may prove helpful. Regardless of stated ideals—in actual practice disagreements amongst editors may have a tendency to get 'litigious' with much citing of rules and guidelines frequently via acronymic wikilinks.

As with making laws and sausages—making Wikipedia articles can get a bit messy at times. So I've offered a few—perhaps cynical—grains of salt lest expectations be overly tinged with rose colored sweetness. Basically, in my case I'd initially allowed myself to be overly enthused about lofty ideals which led to a sense of disillusionment when I realized that I was not in fact interacting in some sort of cyber utopia but within a culture of real humans with it's own associated range of quirks and protocols. If someone had 'talked me down' a bit initially I may have chosen to walk into the adventure with open eyes rather than running in with blind enthusiasm. That said, there are many interesting paths within the Wikipedia editorial community and I value my journeys here.

WhistleWhereYouWork, good luck, and have fun.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In regards to Julia Davis (whistleblower)
I noticed your recent edits to Julia Davis (whistleblower). 'Good on ya', you've been bold and started editing. Welcome to Wikipedia.

Now let's work on refining technique a bit ...

In the future, please be sure to fill in the edit summary so that your fellow editors have some idea of 'what' and 'why' changes have been made when they look at the page history and such. It may be best practice to leave a more detailed explanation on the articles talk page as well—especially if the edit or the subject of the article may be controversial.

I noticed you flagged all your edits as ' minor edits '. Some of your edits were just simple punctuation or format changes; others however were not. For the future—as a courtesy to fellow editors—please take a moment to familiarize yourself with Help:Minor edit.

Well, there's a coupla' general guidelines to look into for now. I may have some questions about some of the individual edits within the context of the article that I'll likely ask about later. But I might shift to the article's talk page for that. If so, I'll leave you a notice here to let you know.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Julia Davis (American cinema) edit and general thoughts
Some advance warning, it appears that the page you've created Julia Davis (whistleblower) is about the same living person as Julia Davis (American cinema). This dichotomy isn't likely to be allowed for long. You may wish to pre-empt a forced merger and save on some redundant work by simply voluntarily starting a 'whistleblower' subsection within the pre-existing Julia Davis (American cinema) article ... and then nominating Julia Davis (whistleblower) for deletion. ''[Edit: Upon consideration, turning it into a redirect page afterwards would likely be better. --12:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)]''. You could try proposing a merger the other way, but the chances of that happening are minuscule in my opinion. Although if you have plenty of solid references you might then be able to make a case for a name change. I'd suggest being extra careful about sources and references as the 'whistleblower' angle has been contentious in the past. See Talk:Julia Davis (American cinema).

Speaking of Talk:Julia Davis (American cinema), I noticed you deleted the images from the Julia Davis (American cinema) article. Please feel free to share your reasons for doing so on it's talk page. In the mean time I'll be restoring the images to the article. Please let them be unless a consensus otherwise—amongst multiple editors—is reached on the article's talk page.

Making such an edit—which may seem to some neither 'minor' nor 'uncontroversial'—and flagging it as a 'minor edit' without an explanation on the talk page or even an edit summary is likely to be viewed by other editors as bad form. You may wish to browse through some of the links User:Dlohcierekim provided in his Welcome! post to get a better feel for standard practices.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you inserted the same images—as deleted from Julia Davis (American cinema)—into Julia Davis (whistleblower) just two minutes after the edit which had deleted them. Accidental  instead of  perhaps? --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Julia Davis (whistleblower)


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Julia Davis (whistleblower). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Julia Davis (American cinema). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Julia Davis (American cinema) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. VQuakr (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)