User talk:Forestrystudent

Welcome!

Hello, Forestrystudent, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Valfontis (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forestrystudent, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Forestrystudent! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm Valfontis. I noticed that you recently removed some content from 2014 Oso mudslide without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Valfontis (talk) 09:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 2014 Oso mudslide. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Valfontis (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2014 Oso mudslide. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 13:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Did you know that I did not add any commentary, but just quoted the article?[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Valfontis (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand. I left you a lengthy message, did you see it? Mongo has no reason to delete this post. I hope you were able to see my plea to stop having my very extensive contribution accepted. It is part of the knowledge base. I really am at a loss as to how I am disrupting, when it is my content that is being removed for no reason. I would appreciate the help, truly.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Oso mudslide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| publisher=[The Seattle Times]]
}}</</ref> However, it is not well understood as to the mechanisms whereby forest removal can affect

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Forestrystudent. You have new messages at Valfontis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Valfontis (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was on my talk page, and I've given you this note to show you that. Please take this block time to read up on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. That means clicking through all the blue links and reading them. Valfontis (talk) 23:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this to the Oso slide talk page, but I think you may have missed it. Since it's being suggested you read up on policy and guidelines, there are some more policy reading suggestions in the following: You might find WP:VERIFY of interest to better understand content inclusion and accompanying references, User:Forestrystudent. WP:NOR is something else that would likely benefit you as a newcomer. "Manners" can go a long way here, but getting to know how things work and why might be a better way to start. Don't stop editing just because some of what you've written has been deleted or changed. Bottom line, that is the very nature of Wikipedia. Nothing stays the same content-wise. Best not to become attached to what you write! -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the links Valfontis, I appreciate the no original research concept. I did feel that much of the commentary in the Oso Mudslide article was not only original content, but uninformed opinion. So this is confusing to me. The notion that there is an obvious link to deep seated landslides and logging is not fact, or even close to factual. It has to do with the geology in glacial till, young earth that we have in Washington State. I liken it to Glaciers calving. So, I am not sure how to insert the truth, I have inserted quotes from newspapers and researchers and they get removed. I will take the advice in the encouragement section and identify links that I believe should be in the article, and see if someone can find the proper place for them. I appreciate your guidance.Forestrystudent (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for edit warring on 2014 Oso mudslide

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Valfontis (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Encouragement

I wanted to acknowledge that, though I don't think that the material that you added to the article was appropriate, I was intrigued by the content you added. I did not think it was a copyright violation; it was obviously worked out in detail, with lots of Wiki markup. I searched around Wikipedia, and did not find much that addressed the history you had written about. It seems to me that it is unique enough to warrant an article of its own, and I hope it eventually gets developed.

However, it's pretty clear from your comment here that you are professionally, personally, and emotionally close to this incident. Wikipedians are strongly encouraged to NOT edit articles on subjects to which they feel close. That seems counter-intuitive at first, but because one of WP's strongest principles is neutrality, it actually makes sense. It's the same logic that discourages surgeons from operating on their own family members: the emotional closeness interferes with the ability to do the job well. (And editing at Wikipedia IS a job!)

Though I've been editing at Wikipedia for close to three years, I still feel very new, and the onslaught of links and abbreviations that comes at new editors very nearly did me in. But I've been slowly, bit by bit, learning about the culture and community here. I'm glad to be a part of it, no matter how tiny the part is. I can sympathize a little about what it's been like for you, starting out brand new--especially in the middle of a horrific disaster.

I do have a couple of links to offer you; reading them might help you understand more about what's been happening. The first is Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. This explains how to go about writing or changing articles you feel emotionally connected to. The second is Wikipedia:No original research, another principle that baffled me for a while. It took a good bit of time and reading before it dawned on me exactly what an encyclopedia was.

Lastly, the reason your material was repeatedly deleted was that it had only a tangential importance to the subject of the article. The article is about a landslide; the history of landslides close by is very relevant. Forestry practices may or may not have indirectly contributed to this landslide. But the history of forestry practices, and how they were developed, is very tangential to the article. The history of the establishment of Oso would likewise be considered not relevant. Each subject in the encyclopedia has its own article (ideally, at least). Each article links to many others whose information would be irrelevant to itself; the links allow the reader to go explore the tangential information if they like.

I hope you will grow to like this (sometimes crazy-seeming) community. Give yourself (and us) time. - Gorthian (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gorthian. Forestrystudent, the above is excellent advice. Note the block I gave you is not punitive, it is a sort of "time out" so you can understand why you were continually being reverted. It's possible you missed several of the warnings and messages addressed to you, so the block may have seemed to come from out of the blue. Please use the time wisely and be prepared for dialogue when you return. Sometimes the collaborative process is slow but it results in a great encyclopedia. If you don't have your account set up to receive e-mail messages when this talk page is changed, that might be a good thing to do also. Valfontis (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FS: this is all good advice. I will underline the caution about editing on topics too close to one's own work; one can be too close to see. Consider that unusually heavy rainfall has also been cited as a contributing cause, but we do not have a long section on how climate change is perturbing the jet-stream, etc. Note that you can request a mentor. Also, most editors accept e-mail, so you do have options for an off-line discussion if you prefer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks J.J. I may look for a mentor, haven't been able to find the emails for an off line discussion yet. I do appreciate your advice. I've been traveling so did indeed get to read the links above and despite the closeness to the topic, I can see it is extremely one sided, relative to logging. I will make another attempt to put relevant, unoriginal information and see if it sticks. My experience thus far is that anything that counters the notion that logging is a cause, is being stripped away. This is a position, not a fact, and that is where I find my most objection. When I follow the rules, quote articles that point to the extreme weather event, which geologists are saying is the cause, they are stripped out by other users. I hope I can receive some protection here for putting up information to balance the view. I am really intrigued by the concept of a mentor, would really like to have one. again, thank you.

Thanks Gorthian -- I really appreciate the encouragement.Forestrystudent (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy, I would suggest that rather than add information and "see if it sticks", you discuss any changes and additions you wish to make on the article's talk page, OK? If you need to contact users via e-mail, you may find a link on the lefthand side of the person's user page under "Tools". If they have e-mail enabled you will be able to contact them. Also, you might want to check in with the Teahouse, linked above on your page. Valfontis (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I left the citations that I would like to see in the talk page, under the appropriate sections. If you would have a chance to review them, and see that they are valid, complimentary points of view that round out the story. I love tea, and will definitely check out the teahouse. If I should add the citations myself, I am happy, but thought I was supposed to offer them up in the talk pages relative to the sections I think they should be added to. Truly, we are missing some very important information, and again, like Dr. Rivers, we need to be much more neutral and balanced than it appears......thanks for your coachingForestrystudent (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned you were thinking about a mentor. This may be an excellent idea. I've never been a mentor or mentee(?) myself, so I can't judge what it's like. Here's where to go: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Best of luck! - Gorthian (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC) THANK YOU.Forestrystudent (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Forestry

I don't know if this project is very active, but this might interest you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Forestry. Valfontis (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC) Thank you!Forestrystudent (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 19, 2014

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to 2014 Oso mudslide in the references section. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. That includes references. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yikes, not sure what you meanForestrystudent (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference changes you made were to a POV article. The changes shouldn't have been made for that reason alone, but as well, they shouldn't have been made because they aren't specifically relevant to the content being referenced. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

trying to fix a broken link. Also the Science Magazine, which was a good reference, was moved, but seems to have disappeared. There are credible sources of information I am trying to contribute. what else am I doing wrong now? I just don't get it, there are so many POV links in there references it confuses me as to what is acceptable and what is not. My intent is to only insert credible references.

Again, what you see as credible from your POV lens isn't necessarily what Wikipedia considers credible from an online encyclopedic lens. Verifiability over truth is what works here, not what would work in a research term paper or doctoral dissertation. And you can't just start changing references to suit your POV lens. Regardless of how much you know about the subject matter. There are guidelines for referencing. PLEASE read them. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 23:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't infer that I am trying to insert my POV -- I saw 'broken link' and was simply attempting to fix it. The State Geologist is on the link, it is not my POV, it is the head of our state's geological department. The next add, will be from the University scientist. I may be making flubs, but am not trying to change the credible information on the site. I didn't realize you were editing it back, so was totally confused as to what was happening again. I know you've been in some tough discussions with others, and I applaud your POV. Right now, I am trying to add some credible references. Not exactly sure why the Forest Practices Board link is under broken links, it is indeed working.....so sorry for my oops.Forestrystudent (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I REALLY need your opinion on this because I am totally confused. How is the STRANGER SLOG not an opinion piece? Truly, this is not a piece of journalism, it is hateful, conjecture from a rich, motivated attorney who is setting up an environment to sue the State? This is why I get confused, and this story was repeated in the Christian Science Monitor and maybe other places......There is a credible investigation going on right now. I would truly appreciate your comments on this question. thanks.Forestrystudent (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Props to you and editors, the article is much tighter and better organizedForestrystudent (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Stranger is a considered reliable reference, that's why it's being used as a reference. The article cited is not an opinion piece, it's an article reporting on the slide. Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. It is an encyclopedia that works via verifiability over "truth". Please also look at that article so you can further understand citing references and what is considered a good reference to cite. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning the source, it is the content of the article. It is opinion, which is my point. I don't know if you have actually read it. I hope you look at it and you will see the remarks in the opinion are outlandish and blatantly accusatory. If it is not obvious to you now, it will be over time. I urge you to read the story for its worth, and not be overcome by the images and what looks like credible reporting. This is a rich, advocacy lawyer using Wikipedia to further his agenda, truthfully. I hope you take some time to read this, from an objective POV. thanks for answering.Forestrystudent (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki -- I really want you to consider what I am trying to say -- I added a section talking about evolution of forest practices, and was banned. The SLOG is doing the same thing, but misrepresenting, and flaming the evolution of forest practices. This attorney shows up at every public meeting and ridicules the state for its approach, it is obscene the way he acts. He paid $250,000 to beat the opponent of the State official, and now that he is in office, has turned on him.....I am telling you that wiki is being used to perpetuate a very strong, and dangerous agenda. The evolution of forest practices that I carefully spent hours writing is not offered up as legitimate, but this article in the SLOG is. This is what I don't understand. Please advise. If getting a mentor to explain this to, or figure out how to create more balance, neutrality and accuracy on this encyclopedia is the answer I am willing to do this. Or whatever else is the appropriate step, I am not an antagonist, but a bonafide user that is at a loss sometimes for the right action to take.Forestrystudent (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer look, it appears the Stranger article isn't connected as a reference to content at this time. I could be wrong, but, from what I can tell, it's just there. Even so, if it were connected to the article as a reference, it would likely be supporting a specific statement. The Stranger remains a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, by the way. I get the feeling you are looking at Wikipedia and its articles as scientific or scholarly journal submissions. That's not what Wikipedia is about. You do see that by now, right? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oh yes, most definitely. I am trying to reconcile what counts as NPOV because I keep stubbing my toe on that, inadvertently. I am truly learning a lot with this style of editing, in fact I really like it because I agree that I can be too close to my own POV. It has really changed the way I think about presenting information, at the beginning it was very one sided- which I reacted to mightly, but over time that straightens itself out, which is why I appreciate your strength in adhering to the wiki manners and rules. I am still learning, and I want to contribute positively, which I think I have today with a couple of recent references, which I didn't botch! thanks.Forestrystudent (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I've said to you from the beginning, hang tough, read articles on editing, and don't give up. You're doing fine. Everyone makes mistakes: newbies and long-time editors. And don't let the assholes get you down. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why I removed ref

@Forestrystudent:: My apologies, but I had to remove the ref you added to 2014 Oso mudslide, for several reasons.

Most importantly, it wasn't cited in the text of the article. References are used to support individual statements (phrases, sentences, or paragraphs) that are made in the article. So if you add a new statement to the text, then you add the "ref" tag right after it. The two ref tags surround the actual citation, and the wiki software automatically adds it to the "Notes" section. (We're trying to use a different style of citation in this article; don't try to learn that right now. Other editors will move the citation you add into the "References" section.)
The "References" section is ordered alphabetically by author, then date.
When a citation is added to the "References" section, do not put "ref" tags around it. That's only done in the article text.

You're clearly learning fast here; keep up the good work! - Gorthian (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is really helpful, thanks!Forestrystudent (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay -- hopefully I put this reference in a proper place -- it is the alternative to the Science Journal which was removed, someone suggested to find another source, which I did, and tried to put a quote in the article in the appropriate place -- thanks for help!

Yes, nearly all of what I was going to tell you. But two other things. First, when you use "cite journal" or any of the other "cite xxx" family of templates both words need to be on the same line. It is also a good idea to not split the parameter values. Second, it really is more readable start each parameter on a new line and indented a space, and the closing braces at the start of a line.

I would point out that while references in a Reference section are generally sorted by the author's last name and year, newspapers (and by implication similar news sources) are done a little differently: by name of the newspaper and full date. This is because the newspaper and date (not just year) and generally more important than who wrote it (and often unsigned), esp. where there are a number of articles in a short period. But don't sweat the details. If you get most of a reference filled in right we can fix it up for you. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, appreciate the counsel, so if the case is that references have to be cited in the article, then these need to be removed also.....The Stranger: Kiley, Brendan (March 27, 2014). "Is There a Connection Between the Mudslide and Our State's Historical Mishmash of Logging Regulations?". SLOG. The Stranger (Seattle, Washington). Retrieved 30 March 2014, as they don't relate to anything in the article. thanks.Forestrystudent (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

26 April 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2014 Oso mudslide. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges.

A number of us have been patient with you because you are new to Wikipedia. I recently discussed the reference you removed with you here on your talk page. You expressed how you didn't like the reference. My own personal view is that you don't like the reference because it doesn't support your own POV, and that's how I take your removal of that same reference just now - definitely disruptive and pointy. Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT for more information, as well. For future reference: if you know something you want to do is already contested by another editor (or more than one other editor) the best thing to do is utilize the talk page, not disruptively remove content or references. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, I am responding to JJ who removed a reference of mine that was not cited in the article -- so since you pointed this out to me, I removed it for same reason. Now I am trying to insert the reference in the proper place -- it is difficult to track the conversations because they show up in different sections -- see WHY I REMOVED REFERENCE, and you will see I was simply following the rules.....Forestrystudent (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to the talk page where everyone interested in this article can comment. If you are removing a reference to place it elsewhere, make sure you note that in your edit summary so others won't mistake your motives. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC

I have done this -- and nobody is replying -- now what do I do? This violates what JJ mentioned, that the references need to be connected to a statement in the article.....this one is not. I've opened up a talk page dialogue on this, nobody is talking....what next?Forestrystudent (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Winkelvi -- I am never quite sure where to start the conversation, so I respond in kind to the last place I received a message -- I was truly executing what you pointed out: Taking a closer look, it appears the Stranger article isn't connected as a reference to content at this time. I could be wrong, but, from what I can tell, it's just there. Even so, if it were connected to the article as a reference, it would likely be supporting a specific statement. The Stranger remains a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, by the way. I get the feeling you are looking at Wikipedia and its articles as scientific or scholarly journal submissions. That's not what Wikipedia is about. You do see that by now, right? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC). Also, there was another comment about finding an alternative to the post that was done from the Chinese Version of the Science Magazine -- I indeed found an alternative, tried to place in references then had it removed by JJ because it wasn't linked in the article. So, I did indeed find a place in the introduction/overview where I placed the reference -- again, thought long and hard how to do that -- hopefully okay with you all. thanks for advice. Forestrystudent (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wink -- I don't know where else to respond to you -- now truly, you've got to step back and see what you are judging -- the Experts were stunned is a quote from the article, and a fact -- it is an alternative to the Science Journal article -- that someone asked to be replaced. You cannot just read this and remove it without understanding what it means -- this is indeed a fact by the experts that the run out was much longer -- over a mile -- more than any geologist expected -- this is not an editorializing article. help me figure out a better way to say it -- I simply quoted the news article. This is the alternative source for the Science Journal article. the expert that was stunned is Richard Iverson one of the world’s foremost landslide experts. so I am not sure how to introduce this topic, which is about the most credible that there is, if you can suggest another wording that would be helpful instead of simply undoing my hard work.Forestrystudent (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, Please take a look at the following Wikipedia link re: quotes and paraphrasing. [1]. Next, please understand that "stunned" as you have included it is still not encyclopedic language and gives an emotional tone to the article. That's decidedly un-encyclopedic, wouldn't you agree? When news articles are quoted, it's best to attribute the quote to the person who said it (if it really is important and encyclopedic enough to include in an article). Use of complete content (sentences, paragraphs, and the like) isn't permissible, of course. That would be a copyright violation. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes I agree, thank you -- I quoted David Montgomery and hopefully puts the correct tone on this......thank youForestrystudent (talk)

Wink -- I disagree that "stunned" is an improper word, especially in light of references (that are not connected to the article) that uses the following language:

"Your ordinary citizens would be shocked if they really knew how this worked," said Peter Goldman of the Washington Forest Law Center.
he said, timber companies leveraged watershed analyses as a "get-out-of-jail-free card."
DNR has had a tendency to play fast and loose with the rules.
"It's at a 65 percent grade—black diamond skiing runs are barely 50 percent

I implore you to please help me understand why the word "stunned" is inappropriate, when it is in fact being used to describe a phenomenon that the nation's most respected geologist, Iverson believes, geologists were indeed stunned, astonished, surprised, etc.....how does this not qualify as encyclopedic and the other statements in the reference list qualify? I am asking for consistency -- not a point of view.....simply consistency. please let me know.Forestrystudent (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am about ready to give up -- you MUST read this article -- it is indeed a fact that the geologists are surprised at this run out -- this is a very important piece of information -- how indeed shall I include it? I really do not understand what the issue is here -- I thought the useage of the word stunned was at issue -- then you suggested I quote an author, which I did, and still remove it -- please help me get it in there. You cannot say that this is not an encyclopedic article when many other articles, and journals are referenced in this page -- I simply am at a loss about how to contribute to this when you remove bona fide information -- please help, or tell me how better to go about it -- this information is the latest in the string of news that is unfolding -- where my lord shall I put it? Forestrystudent (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants you to give up, and you shouldn't want to, either. And I didn't say the article you're quoting from wasn't encyclopedic, I said the prose you are using is. Look, maybe you should read the Wikipedia Manual of Style to get a better idea of how to write and include content that's appropriate for Wikipedia articles. I'm not trying to make things harder for you, nor am I trying to discourage you. But I do have to say that at this time - weeks after you started here - you still don't seem to be grasping what Wikipedia is for and how to contribute appropriately, successfully, and in a cooperative manner. I want you to succeed, and I believe others do too. Please try to understand where those of us who've been here and have been contributing successfully are coming from: not a place of targeting you, but a place of building an encyclopedia productively. Maybe in the future, while you're still trying to understand how things work here, ask yourself when readying to contribute and hit the enter key. "Does what I just wrote sound like something I've read in the Encyclopedia Britannica or other quality encyclopedias"? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super! then how can I insert this article in the proper way? I still don't have a solution for that -- you see, I feel like I am playing the 'bring me the rock' game -- I have read and reread all of the references you have sent. What is the proper sentence to use to quote this article from the foremost landslide expert in the country?Forestrystudent (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DEADLINE. There's no rush in Wikipedia. The encyclopedia gets built as it gets built. We are not a newspaper. We don't try to "scoop" anyone. If an article has an unnecessary or unused reference in it, what's the worst that could happen? Further, articles never get finished in Wikipedia. Like the earth and life and human beings, it constantly evolves. I've been gone most of the day, did what I felt was urgent here when I could from my smartphone and knew the rest could wait. What the hell is your hurry? Calm down, take a breath, and realize the world won't stop turning if something in the Oso article isn't just right according your standards. Or anyone's standards, for that matter. And please take the reference matter to the article talk page. If someone doesn't answer you right away, work on another article. There are thousands upon thousands to be edited and improved. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wink -- I was misunderstanding your intentions, it seems like I was being dissed....glad not the case. Appreciate your counsel. BTW -- do you all do this for a living? it is one heck of a lot of work.......will take that breath.Forestrystudent (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Forestrystudent. You have new messages at Winkelvi's talk page.
Message added 01:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding

What you seem to be not understanding, is that it's not the reference that's the problem (unless it's not a reliable reference), it's the content you've written that's the problem. The reference isn't disqualified for being "newsy", it's how you've written the content you've included. I thought by now you would get that considering the number of article links I have provided for you to read in order to increase your understanding of Wikipedia contributions. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unfortunate I hope the latest post I've made clears it up.......when I inserted a quote, and changed my content -- that got deleted too, and a dialogue about using a newspaper ensued (which was not enclycopedic) Maybe my second post was deleted because it was an exact quote, (as I read in the policies) SO, today I picked a different reference, didn't quote article exactly, tried to follow the format of the article....hopefully you'll like it!Forestrystudent (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]