- 1 New messages
- 2 Disambiguation link and bracket bot notifications
- 3 Jefferson Finis Davis
- 4 The Creature from Jekyll Island
- 5 Apollo 17
- 6 Your birthday here
- 7 Happy First Edit Day
- 8 RE: List of solar storms
Wikipedia policies, guidelines; twitter, facebook; what Wikipedia is not; avoiding common mistakes
References to Wikipedia policies, guidelines, instructions, include:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Wikipedia guidelines on twitter, facebook: Wikipedia:Twitter. Wikipedia guidelines, policies on external links: Wikipedia:External links. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which includes not a dictionary, a publisher of original thought, a soapbox or means of promotion, a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, a blog, Web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site, a directory, a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, a crystal ball, a newspaper, or an indiscriminate collection of information. • Wikipedia:Verifiability. • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. • Wikipedia:No original research. • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. • Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. • Wikipedia:Citing sources. • Wikipedia:Notability. • Wikipedia:Image use policy. • Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. • Wikipedia:Vandalism. • Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. • Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles.
User Talk page guidelines
Excerpts Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages While the purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia.
Users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages, though archiving is preferred. They may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users.
There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details.
User talk pages are subject to the general userpage guidelines on handling inappropriate content—see Wikipedia:User pages#Handling inappropriate content.
- Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving.
From the section Editing comments, Other's comments in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines:
- Fixing format errors that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include fixing indentation levels, removing bullets from discussions that are not consensus polls or requests for comment (RfC), fixing list markup, using
<nowiki>and other technical markup to fix code samples, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation.
- Fixing layout errors: This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, repairing accidental damage by one party to another's comments, correcting unclosed markup tags that mess up the entire page's formatting, accurately replacing HTML table code with a wikitable, etc.
- Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings. When a topic is split into two topics, rather than sub-sectioned, it is often useful for there to be a link from the new topic to the original and vice versa. A common way of doing this is noting the change at the [then-]end of the original thread, and adding an unobtrusive note under the new heading, e.g.,
:. Some reformatting may be necessary to maintain the sense of the discussion to date and to preserve attribution. It is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments. very long discussions may also be divided into sub-sections.
<small>This topic was split off from [[#FOOBAR]], above.
Note that it is proper to use
<nowiki> and other technical markup to fix code samples.
I occasionally get one of these notices. I fix the link or bracket, then delete the message, as the messages state is permissible, instead of further cluttering up these pages. Donner60 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Jefferson Finis Davis
Thank you for that correction.
I had assumed the Encyclopedia Britannica was correct in listing his middle name as "Finis" but after reading more into the matter, there is no solid evidence of what his middle name actually was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Your welcome. The real thanks goes to those who found the information. Occasionally the Encyclopedia Brittanica has gotten a detail wrong. Donner60 (talk) 03:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The Creature from Jekyll Island
- I have deleted my notice as possibly unfair. However, I am not sure the edit is proper. At least one other editor has made a reversion and added comments on your talk page. I also add some comments. Donner60 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
He reverted a subsequent comment; asking how this edit was unconstructive. I'm not used to wiki's chat system yet. I'll forward your comments to him, since he is citing you as the main objection i.e. another editor reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- Note that I did not state that I thought the edit was proper, only that it was unfair for me to characterize it as vandalism at that point. Donner60 (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually, despite 220.127.116.11's too-cute way of introducing the mouse experiment on Apollo 17 (seeing as his first edits were these  , it was hard to take him seriously), it appears that the Bio-core experiment he describes was included, or at least was planned. See "NASA Press Release no. 72-220K (Apollo 17)". November 26, 1972. pp. 62–63 (106–107 in PDF document). Retrieved July 14, 2014. If we can find verification the planned project was retained in the mission, I would not be averse to adding it to the article in an appropriately encyclopedic way (i.e., absent the nonsense).
[SFX: more googling]
Looks like it was performed as planned. See Apollo 17: Preliminary Science Report. NASA SP-330 (1973), chapter 26 (pp. 451-463 in my copy of the PDF), avail from here or here. TJRC (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that it should be added. Will you do so? I think I will delete the last warning on his talk page and add a note. Donner60 (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I just looked at the IP's talk page. The unblock request has not been acted upon. It seems as if the 24 hours will run, or nearly so, before the administrator acts on the request. I am not sure whether other administrators become aware of unblock requests and another administrator could step in. It seems increasingly unlikely. Maybe a large number are on vacation. Perhaps our comments will help the IP straighten out. Donner60 (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Your birthday here
Happy First Edit Day
RE: List of solar storms
- Thanks. It looked out of place but I missed the earlier mention. That makes sense. I suppose the inclusion in the "see also" section would be considered superfluous by some but I am not concerned much either way as long as it is relevant. Donner60 (talk) 07:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because the IP user has been blocked as a sockpuppet, I added the following to the IP user talk page: In view of this block, I re-examined the List of solar storms article and the proposed see also link to the History of Hydro-Quebec. That link is in fact superfluous because as the user noted, the event is already listed in the article. Also, there is a link to an entire article about the storm which affected Hydro-Quebec. The history article merely briefly mentions the storm and links to the longer article. So it is a somewhat relevant link but it is not really useful and is quite unnecessary in view of the more specific article. I should add that this user did not add the link that I reverted so his comment was useful. Donner60 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)