|
Hello! Beavercreekful,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Good job on removing 95% of the inline links. Before you carry on, please learn a lot more about referencing. A reference must not simply show that (eg0 FIPER exists. When it is stated that SORCER took up where FIPER left off, the reference must bear that out. Thsi is why I have deployed {{ FV}} by that reference. Fiddle Faddle 00:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- When adding references to articles it is not usual to list the url (etc) of the reference separately form the reference itself. The fully qualified reference must go in between the <ref> and the </ref> tags, please.
- It is also inappropriate to remove tags such as {{ Primary-source-inline}} without addressing the problem of the reference being a primary source. You may leave the primary source present if you add a WP:RS source, too. Otherwise this tag alerts the reader to the fact that the source is, indeed, primary.
- These are part of the many rules of the discipline of editing Wikipedia. They may differ form the rules of working in tour field. Please read WP:ACADEME to start to understand why Wikipedia is very different from academe.
- Please expend your efforts on SORCER Verifying that it is notable by using references in reliable sources. Please read those links and make no assumptions about your perception of notability versus Wikipedia's need as an encyclopaedia for a different form of notability.
- I am sure you will get to grips with this once you start to understand that bombarding an article with just any old link as a reference just will not do, even if it is legitimate and learned research into that topic.
- However interesting, fulfilling, necessary, revolutionary a project may be, it absolutely may not have a place here without following WIkipedia's rules. Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- From your comment at Talk:SORCER you seem to be getting emotionally involved with the article. Please do not. Either it is notable and it will survive or it is not and will not. If SORCER is notable than all anyone needs to do is to prove it. It is not "under attack", it is simply that the article upon it is not currently a valid article. The elements you added have not been deleted, they have been incorporated, but they have been flagged as what they are. That's both fine and normal.
- It the global scheme of things a Wikipedia article on SORCER doesn't matter at all. What matters is that, if there is an article about t on Wikipedia the article is authoritative. If it is, then great. If not then SORCER itself is devalued. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Beavercreekful, thanks for your good work, you can call me 74. I'm trying to help figure out how to get SORCER through the minefield of rules. Please see my commentary on the Talk:SORCER page about getting a list of refereed sources and/or independent media coverage. I have some experience in neighboring industry, and some wikipedian contacts that know academic sourcing rules reasonably deeply. If you have any questions or problems please feel free to contact me directly, click 'talk' by my name, then click 'new section' at the top, type your message and click save. You can also get fast answers to quick questions from the friendly folks at WP:TEAHOUSE. Looking forward to working with you, appreciate your improvements to wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 01:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think we've got the wikiNotability nailed. Yay! :-) We shall have to see what the other wikipedians have to say, of course; they may not agree with me. Some discussion about who will be working on what, here. Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing Are you okay with moving all the current talkpage to an archive, so we can see what we're doing? It's pretty cluttered, now. Also, I have attempted to rewrite the first paragraph into a more neutral form, please give me your suggestions and criticisms. Talk:SORCER#todo_list Danke. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Left you and Professor Sobolewski a note, over here — User_talk:Mwsobol#procedural_discussion_only.2C_be_ye_not_alarmed — feel free to discuss with me on my talkpage, if you like (click 'talk' by my name, then click 'new section' at the top, leave me a message, and click 'save'). Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
|
|
Hello! Beavercreekful,
you are invited to the
Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us!
|
I, and the rest of the hosts, would be more than happy to answer any questions you have! SarahStierch ( talk) 18:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Good job on removing 95% of the inline links. Before you carry on, please learn a lot more about referencing. A reference must not simply show that (eg0 FIPER exists. When it is stated that SORCER took up where FIPER left off, the reference must bear that out. Thsi is why I have deployed {{ FV}} by that reference. Fiddle Faddle 00:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- When adding references to articles it is not usual to list the url (etc) of the reference separately form the reference itself. The fully qualified reference must go in between the <ref> and the </ref> tags, please.
- It is also inappropriate to remove tags such as {{ Primary-source-inline}} without addressing the problem of the reference being a primary source. You may leave the primary source present if you add a WP:RS source, too. Otherwise this tag alerts the reader to the fact that the source is, indeed, primary.
- These are part of the many rules of the discipline of editing Wikipedia. They may differ form the rules of working in tour field. Please read WP:ACADEME to start to understand why Wikipedia is very different from academe.
- Please expend your efforts on SORCER Verifying that it is notable by using references in reliable sources. Please read those links and make no assumptions about your perception of notability versus Wikipedia's need as an encyclopaedia for a different form of notability.
- I am sure you will get to grips with this once you start to understand that bombarding an article with just any old link as a reference just will not do, even if it is legitimate and learned research into that topic.
- However interesting, fulfilling, necessary, revolutionary a project may be, it absolutely may not have a place here without following WIkipedia's rules. Fiddle Faddle 12:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- From your comment at Talk:SORCER you seem to be getting emotionally involved with the article. Please do not. Either it is notable and it will survive or it is not and will not. If SORCER is notable than all anyone needs to do is to prove it. It is not "under attack", it is simply that the article upon it is not currently a valid article. The elements you added have not been deleted, they have been incorporated, but they have been flagged as what they are. That's both fine and normal.
- It the global scheme of things a Wikipedia article on SORCER doesn't matter at all. What matters is that, if there is an article about t on Wikipedia the article is authoritative. If it is, then great. If not then SORCER itself is devalued. Fiddle Faddle 17:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Beavercreekful, thanks for your good work, you can call me 74. I'm trying to help figure out how to get SORCER through the minefield of rules. Please see my commentary on the Talk:SORCER page about getting a list of refereed sources and/or independent media coverage. I have some experience in neighboring industry, and some wikipedian contacts that know academic sourcing rules reasonably deeply. If you have any questions or problems please feel free to contact me directly, click 'talk' by my name, then click 'new section' at the top, type your message and click save. You can also get fast answers to quick questions from the friendly folks at WP:TEAHOUSE. Looking forward to working with you, appreciate your improvements to wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 01:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think we've got the wikiNotability nailed. Yay! :-) We shall have to see what the other wikipedians have to say, of course; they may not agree with me. Some discussion about who will be working on what, here. Talk:SORCER#notability_and_sourcing Are you okay with moving all the current talkpage to an archive, so we can see what we're doing? It's pretty cluttered, now. Also, I have attempted to rewrite the first paragraph into a more neutral form, please give me your suggestions and criticisms. Talk:SORCER#todo_list Danke. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Left you and Professor Sobolewski a note, over here — User_talk:Mwsobol#procedural_discussion_only.2C_be_ye_not_alarmed — feel free to discuss with me on my talkpage, if you like (click 'talk' by my name, then click 'new section' at the top, leave me a message, and click 'save'). Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 ( talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)