User talk:Charhally

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Charhally, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Alhutch 03:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wake Forest University[edit]

Hey, thanks for all your work on the Wake Forest University article. In order to coordinate the recent extensive efforts on this article, I reccomend you start talking on the article's talk page so people can work together to make this page the featured article it deserves to be. Thanks! JHMM13 (T | C) 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for Wake Forest articles?[edit]

Where are you copying the text from for your Wake Forest articles? They appear to have come from another source, perhaps a scanned print source from the university? Lilting Banshees is written as if it was part of a larger publication about Wake Forest, as it doesn't mention the school's name once. Four Years at Wake Forest had to have been derived from a student guide to university life. Please let us know your sources. Postdlf 05:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

They are my own creation, read your own discussion to find a more complete commentary from me. Thanks --Charhally 05:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering how you posted the complete lyrics of the "Wake Forest Fight Song," I worry that you're not really complying with copyright here. Even if you did write all these yourself, please let us know the source of your information, to make sure you're not violating our prohibition against original research. I'd also recommend working with the other editors of the main Wake Forest University article to expand that topic rather than unilaterally inventing subtopic articles that are likely to get deleted, or severely trimmed and merged back into the main article. Postdlf 05:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I copy and pasted the "fight songs" for Wake Forest after viewing it done on the Rutgers University artile, and since I'm pretty sure (though not completely) that the songs are "copyrighted" since they are about 100 years old. I believe it should be fine. Also, I am trying to create a comprehensive guide about Wake Forest via Wikipedia. I started with putting lots of information so that I could eventually connect it via an informaiton directory templete (as I am doing right now, as you can see, the Wake Forest article has been decreasing in size as I redirect subtopics). --Charhally 05:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
If the songs are 100 years old, then yes, they're public domain, but song lyrics do not constitute valid articles (that's what Wikisource is for), and you better be completely sure, not just make a guess. With all due respect, I really think you don't know what you're doing at all, judging from your confusion above about what "copyrighted" means, and from the 50+ images you spammed Wikisource with without any authorship attribution, immediately after your block for doing the same thing had ended.[1] You're working far too fast before you really understand what this site is about and what our article standards are. And please respond to my comments where I leave them, on your own talk page, rather than jumping back and forth between mine and yours. Postdlf 05:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That was a typo between are and aren't. I am well aware old material (as in about a century old) aren't copy right. As for the pictures, that was me as a beginner learning through the process, and yes I didn't completely understand the proceess at the time. Now I do and I have made the effort to fix all my mistakes with the pictures. It is learning from one's mistakes that one gets things done right the next time. With all do respect I believe you are a becoming overzealous in hitting my edits with unnecessary slaps. Your tacks for deletions and mergings have little merit considering how the way I'm shaping this article is already been done in other articles (i.e. Duke University, which is being considered as a feature article). Wikipedia is a building process, I am trying to build the quality of this article one step at a time. I do have a job and other things to worry about in my day. Please do not be in a hurry to red flag my edits when there serioulsy aren't any things to red flag. If you look at the big picture and not the parts I think you would apprciate my approach. Thank you. --Charhally 07:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't fixed any of your Wikimedia Commons uploads; all you did was inexplicably add a tag to the images for a license that only applies to software, and you still haven't provided any source information. Postdlf 07:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Four Years at Wake Forest[edit]

AfD Nomination: Four Years at Wake Forest[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Four Years at Wake Forest, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Years at Wake Forest. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

--Peripitus (Talk) 07:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Two things: 1) do not blank the AFD discussion—this is considered vandalism. Feel free to vote there, however. 2) You just added a "reference" to the article of an "anonymous Wake Forest student." This is not a reference that complies with Wikipedia standards, and I'm honestly having a hard time believing that you took this seriously. Once again, please take the time to read our policies: Wikipedia does not permit original research, and all content must be verifiable by reputable sources. Postdlf 07:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your dealy about the photos. I am fixing it right now. Again I am new to wikipedia. As for the Adf, that was my mistake, I thought after making a reference I had satisfied the complaint. Again keep in mind I am learning on the way. However I would appreciate it if you ceased your brash and unnecessarily abrasive tone. I am taking this very seriously. Understand that this is a big project, ususally one taken by a team of people and not just one person (who is relatively new by the way). You as a veteran of wikipedia might know all the loops, but understand that for me I spent a significant amount of time learning about Wikipedia and I am continually learning the process. What I do is take a look at other articles' features (of all sorts) and incorporated it to this article. Again I am patching it up each day so it won't be perfect from the get go. Please give me some patience. --Charhally 08:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

the article Four Years at Wake Forest is my own description of Wake Forest based on my experience there. I never knew it was in the student handbook. The handbook is pretty big and obvioulsy we don't read every single page. Please unmark it for delation. I am adding a reference saying that its written by a anonymous student.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charhally (talkcontribs) 17:12, 15 July 2006.

Hi, I think you've misunderstood. I've marked the article for deletion primarily as it is not encyclopediac and reads as original research, the note about it being from the handbook was based on the mass of text with no wikilinks which is usually the hallmark of copyright violation. Alhutch has left some useful links at the top of the page that you would do well to read to see what constitute a good wikipedia article. As for removing the deletion notice - no can do - The purpose of the notice is to start a discussion on whether we should keep it which anyone is welcome to participate in. At the end of the discussion ( in at most 5 days ) an admin will make a call on what the consensus is and either keep or delete the article - Peripitus (Talk) 09:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wake Forest Volunteer Service Corp[edit]

Wake Forest Volunteer Service Corp has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant concerns. An example of notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (websites). If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am retiring from Wikipedia[edit]

I am retiring from editing Wikipedia. It has become too much of a time consuming/addictive project for me. I have called in other people (who have the time and resources to work on it in mass) to help edit the Wake Forest article, hopefully they will do a fine job.--Charhally 16:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)