User talk:HopsonRoad

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

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5

Thanks for the cookies![edit]

Hello, and thanks for the Welcome. I joined Wikipedia for the first time to help add info about a video game project that I came across, and needed edits before being able to post an article. Having grown up in Vermont I made a simple edit or two there where I saw very minor changes to be worthwhile. I hope they help. Frankly I have no idea what I am doing! but figuring it out as I go. I did manage to post a basic article for which I first came to Wikipedia but since much of the sourcing material is work I have either produced myself or contributed to I did not feel it would be within the Wikipedia code for me to post those external links and sources. Now, I am being notified that the article is being considered for deletion. I have contacted some friends who have used Wikipedia about as much as myself and asked them to provided needed references, etc. Is this acceptable and sufficient for the page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Titans <--- That's the one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesse Abbott (talkcontribs) 17:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jesse Abbott. First a note, please remember to click on or type "~~~~" when you post on a talk page. This gives an automatic signature and date stamp. I notice that another editor has begun to add references, and pointed out that the article is still under development. I posted Keep. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 19:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Got it, thanks again. Jesse Abbott (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martha Rockwell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FIS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Copy attribution added at Airplane[edit]

Hi, HopsonRoad,

Thanks for your edit to Airplane to add the information about Clément Ader's early efforts in aviation; it improves the article. One thing you forgot, is to include proper copy attribution for the content.

When you copy or translate from one Wikipedia article to another, there is a legal requirement to provide attribution to the source article. I've gone ahead and done this for you at the Airplane article (see the edit summary at this version). There are a couple other steps the guideline recomends per WP:CWW, namely, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination. If you'd like to take that on, that would mean making a dummy edit at Clément Ader just to add the attribution in the edit summary (without changing the article at all, except to add or subtract a blank space) something like, Copied content to [[Airplane]]; see that page's history for attribution.. For the talk pages, you can use the {{copied}} template; they go right under the talk header on the page (above the first comment section).

Thanks again for your improvement to the article. Mathglot (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this, Mathglot. I had no idea about this requirement, since I thought that all WP content was freely licensed, per WP:5P3. I was impressed with how you made references to the revisions in your edit comments. I have no idea how to duplicate such references to revisions in an edit comment. I'll study what you suggested, and if I can understand it, I'll attempt it. I expect that I have committed this transgression elsewhere in WP, but can't remember where! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 02:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about the revision links I included in my comment, that was mostly for convenience and can be handy, but aren't strictly required. If you just duplicate the message you see above in monospace font, that is sufficient. See WP:CWW.
To find your other ones, you can click your contributions link, restrict to 'article space' in the dropdown, and look for them that way. If you remember approximately how long ago they were, you can pick 'from' and 'to' dates to search your history between. If you need any help you can ask me or anyone. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
P.S. I think this edit of yours meets the attribution requirement for the source page part of it. The templates are handy and standardize and highlight the notification, but this is good enough, imho. I'm no expert in this stuff, just an editor like you, so will ask User:Diannaa who knows this stuff backwards and forwards for her opinion. Mathglot (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not ideal but it's good enough. It should be in the article's history rather than the talk page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for checking in here, Diannaa. I'm a bit confused. It's easy to mention the origin of the borrowed piece of writing in the receiving article with an appropriate edit comment. Are you suggesting that one make a nominal (e.g. one-space) edit in the sending article for the purpose of making a notation, regarding the destination of the same text? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The attribution should be provided at the time the content is moved/copied. If you forget to do it, make a tiny edit and add the attribution in the edit summary for that edit. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand that part, Diannaa. My question was whether I should leave an edit comment in the source (or sending) article, as well. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
For minor copying, there's no need to do an attribution edit summary at the source article. There's a template {{Copied}} you can use on the source article talk page (and the destination talk page as well) if the content is being removed from the source page and transferred to the destination page. For an example, see Talk:O'Dean and Talk:Mötley Crüe. This is used in addition to the edit summary at the destination article. In this example, an edit summary is not required at the sending article for attribution purposes, but if the content is being moved to a new location, it's a good idea to leave an appropriate edit summary as to where you sent it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ice dam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buffalo River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks[edit]

thanks for ping I had delisted that page and would not have known otherwise NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Contribution to Ski mountaineering[edit]

Dear HopsonRoad,

i see where your thought was going to and thank you for your feedback on the article Ski mountaineering. I know that the added material was mostly about Vorarlberg but I had to start somewhere. The issues with safety and natural preservation concern all mountain regions but laws are different locally. Therefore, any further information needs to be kept within a certain region otherwise the time spent for research will be too high. I could focus on Ski Mountaineering in Austria in general and cover most regions there if that is ok with you?!

Sources: the sources I used, where from the national news company as well as from the regional tourism board which is also owned by the state. This is as official as a source can get! :) --MichaelPedro (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, MichaelPedro. Please review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and you'll see that "reliable" is not the same as "official". You can certainly include a summary survey of practices that vary from region to region. I'd suggest starting in your Sandbox (see the top right of your screen) to develop the material and then bring it across, when it's ready. I don't see a need for exhaustive research. One or two books on the subject should have chapters that give an overview of the topics you suggest, e.g. Safety. There shouldn't be any "official" material that leads to booking excursions including in the material. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
To give you some context - in Austria, the official information from the government owned organizations are usually the most verified sources. They are checked usually 100% before they are published including feedback from experts, scientists or researchers. They are very strict about their publications and therefore, I considered them "reliable".
And if you refer to the ski-ride chapter: I added this section because this project was launched to cross a whole state only by skiers which is a unique feature of this region. Usually this is not possible due to landscape or missing mountain access so I thought this is worth mentioning.
I will try again adding some more information and structure the new information in another way. I will post it as "comment" in the article so that I can check with you beforehand next time... thanks HopsonRoad, MichaelPedro (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you and a question[edit]

Thanks for adding the |image has rationale=yes tag to my image of Howard Frank Mosher. I don't know much about how that aspect of Wikipedia works. Is that a thing I could have done myself? Or do you have some special admin privs that make you able to do that? Would love to help other people include more fair use imagery on Wikipedia. Thank you Jessamyn (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: Thank you for contributing the image of Howard Frank Mosher under fair use. That action doesn't require any special privileges, assuming that anyone can "patrol", but it's probably better form to have another editor look over the shoulder of the person posting the image. When I do fair use, I let someone else check that box. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Jessamyn: Update Upon reviewing Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers, I may have overstepped my authority, since that seems to define a Patroller as a Reviewer. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Good to know, thank you for your time. Jessamyn (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

list of sailboat designers and builders[edit]

Hi. FYI I have not been using the target articles themselves to populate the list, instead the interwiki articles in other languages, where Wim de Vries Lentsch and Jean-Jacques Herbulot are described as, and indeed *were*, prolific designers of sailboats. The articles in the English language need work, but don't revert the list because of that yet please. Thanks for contributing. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, Donan Raven. I'll exercise more caution, now that I understand that you understand! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)