User talk:Whitesquire

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question about Draft:South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf
Hello, Whitesquire! I'm Wikiisawesome. I have replied to your question about Draft:South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk wia (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC) wia (talk) 01:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll add that the reference list is looking good; nice work! wia (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf. Thanks! Fiddle  Faddle  19:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There's just a technical issue in the way. Hang in there. Fiddle   Faddle  19:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me try to explain what is going on. Right now South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf is a redirect to the Gamecocks article, the bog one, the one yo do not want to replace. I need an admin to move that redirect out of the way. Its; important to do that rather than copying and pasting the Draft:South Carolina Gamecocks men's golf text over it because the edit history is important. Its; all to do with licensing and stuff I don't; present to understand.
 * If I were an admin I could do the entire job, but I am not, so I cannot. So I have asked for help to do the heavy lifting, after which either they, or I, will move the draft to the main space title.
 * I bet that was more information than you ever hoped to see! Fiddle   Faddle  20:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I like all that info. It helps me to learn the process.  From what you're saying, deleting a redirect shouldn't be too difficult to do.  Just need an admin to do it.  Thanks for keeping me informed.  Whitesquire (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. It's just process work. It has a low priority because admins mainly use a mop and bucket and clear up vandals and nastiness. But it will happen in due course. In the intervening period feel totally free to make any improvements you can make to the draft. They'll come with it when it comes over. The on;y thing that can delay it is is someone doesn't agree with me that it's ready. That's ok, too, coz they'll just push it back to you for a bit more work. Fiddle   Faddle  23:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I'm getting impatient now, too! We'll get there. Fiddle   Faddle  09:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest and efforts. It looks like there are a few other SC teams in need of articles, but I'm not sure I want to go through this again if they all have the same "redirect" issue.  On the other hand, it has only been about a week since I first submitted the article, and I'm sure the Gamecocks aren't considered a priority.  Maybe someday I will know an admin or two who might give my articles some attention.  Whitesquire (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you just go right ahead. You know the standard we need now. I know many admins, but I choose not to ask for favours in process items. I do ask for speedy help with vandal fighting. This one, though it feels urgent right now, we both know to be able to take its turn Just enjoy playing in the Wikipedia pond. Fiddle  Faddle  11:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will. I've made revisions to articles for years, but this one is my first from scratch.  So I may feel some urgency just because it's my baby, but I know (with your help) it will be moved in due course.  This wiki community is very interesting to me.  Thanks for reaching out and helping.  Whitesquire (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just have fun. Even enjoy the frustrations! Seriously! Fiddle   Faddle  12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, I am. Just wish I had more time today to get started on another article.  Hey, would you suggest that I draft an article through the AfC process or on my user page?  Whitesquire (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What I suggest is that you create Draft:whatever title appeals to you and work on it in peace and quiet. then, when ready, you decided either to submit for a review, or, if you are sure, move it yourself to the final article title. Fiddle   Faddle  19:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And we are live. A couple of other editors finished the job while our backs were turned. Fiddle  Faddle  20:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! You've been a big help, and I've learned a lot from you.  I really do appreciate you.  I hope we can work together again soon.  Whitesquire (talk) 03:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

See also sections
Hello. Please read WP:SEEALSO before adding anymore to articles. You are adding redundant information and in the second paragraph of WP:SEEALSO, it says: ''The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page). As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes.'' I hope you take this in consideration to help you improve your editing.  Corky  |  Chat?  00:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the tip. However, the "see also" sections I've worked on do not include links to non-existent pages or any disambiguation pages, and I was mainly adding new WP:PORTAL links that were not in the body of any of those articles.  I wasn't doing any major edits, so it's not clear why you would contact me to cite a fairly minor guideline.  Perhaps you could send me a link to whatever you found so objectionable.  On the other hand, WP:IAR is a reminder not to be too pedantic.  I encourage collaboration, so if you see repeated links, then please delete them.  Your edit summary would tell me why, so there's no need to tell me about it here.  Please feel free to drop me a line if you think reverting or deleting my edit(s) would be controversial.  Otherwise, edit away and have fun.  Whitesquire (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)