User talk:Deadhenry: Difference between revisions
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:* The reference was retained, in reference #5. The sentence for ref #5 was a '''direct link''' to the PDF so I simply turned it into a reference instead. Then I noticed the same material was referenced, albeit less completely, in the first sentence. According to the MOS (WP:LEADCITE), the lead shouldn't really be referenced (because the material will appear again in the article) and since the reference was simply for the definition of the term "orphan work", it didn't seem to need any citation, especially in a lead section. I hope this clarifies. [[User:Deadhenry|[+][dead.henry]]] ([[User talk:Deadhenry#top|talk]]) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC) |
:* The reference was retained, in reference #5. The sentence for ref #5 was a '''direct link''' to the PDF so I simply turned it into a reference instead. Then I noticed the same material was referenced, albeit less completely, in the first sentence. According to the MOS (WP:LEADCITE), the lead shouldn't really be referenced (because the material will appear again in the article) and since the reference was simply for the definition of the term "orphan work", it didn't seem to need any citation, especially in a lead section. I hope this clarifies. [[User:Deadhenry|[+][dead.henry]]] ([[User talk:Deadhenry#top|talk]]) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC) |
||
:* Can you please explain why the quotation marks were replaced around the phrase ''orphan work''. It's a standard, valid term; why the hedging? |
:* Can you please explain why the quotation marks were replaced around the phrase ''orphan work''. It's a standard, valid term; why the hedging? Thank you. |
||
Revision as of 23:13, 25 October 2012
hello world. Deadhenry (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Capt. John Jeffries Burial Marker
 | On 19 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Capt. John Jeffries Burial Marker, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that a ghost ship is engraved on the Capt. John Jeffries Burial Marker? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Capt. John Jeffries Burial Marker. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jaffe reaction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ludwig Traube (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. It is fixed. [+][dead.henry] (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
October 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Orphan works in the United States. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 22:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- The reference was retained, in reference #5. The sentence for ref #5 was a direct link to the PDF so I simply turned it into a reference instead. Then I noticed the same material was referenced, albeit less completely, in the first sentence. According to the MOS (WP:LEADCITE), the lead shouldn't really be referenced (because the material will appear again in the article) and since the reference was simply for the definition of the term "orphan work", it didn't seem to need any citation, especially in a lead section. I hope this clarifies. [+][dead.henry] (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please explain why the quotation marks were replaced around the phrase orphan work. It's a standard, valid term; why the hedging? Thank you.