User talk:Rmg08057

A Belated Welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Rmg08057. I see that you've already been around awhile and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help one get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Thanks Aristophanes68 - very nice to get a welcome. I do have some questions. It seems to me that when someone creates and then strongly edits a page, they kinda take ownership of it, or perhaps a better term is "stewardship". They seem to have the primary editorship... is that correct? Or am I seeing that subsequent visitors are being respectful of that initial editor's efforts. So my question is... is there such a role or position as steward or primary editor for a page? Thanks mate! From Ralph in Auckland.

That role is strongly discouraged. It is even the subject of its own policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles--SPhilbrick T 22:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is permitted is something quite unofficial. For example, I am interested in the article Geno Auriemma. If someone comes along and starts rewriting it in a negative way, and someone else notices, but doesn't want to get involved, they could look at the template on the talk page Talk:Geno Auriemma and see that if they contact me I will look into it. It doesn't give me any special authority over anyone else, it simply means that I care enough to follow up on any issues that might arise. Note, in particular, that the template clearly states that I do not have ownership.--SPhilbrick T 22:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If my answer isn't sufficient, please feel free to ask me to elaborate at my talk page, or use the helpme template if you want to hear from someone else, or ask at the Help desk.--SPhilbrick T 22:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has replied to your request for help.
Please see below for the reply. If you need more help or have additional questions, please replace the code {{help me-helped}} on this page with {{help me}}, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Ahh... the OWNERSHIP link was very illuminating. There is a page I wanted to edit and there has been one main and several minor editors. I guess the best approach is to put the proposed change up on the TALK page, get any feedback, then take it from there. How long would you wait for feedback on the TALK page? Rmg08057 (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The idea is that you should be BOLD and make your change, but then discuss if it gets reverted. Having said that, though, it is prudent to propose any major change on the talk page first, particularly on an active page. Depending on page activity, I would suggest waiting 3 days to a week. JohnCD (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the responses above. To my mind, the editors for each article fall into at least two groups: (1) those who really know the subject and who can make major revisions when needed, and (2) those who spot-check edit--that is, they edit smaller chunks that they're familiar with, or even just grammar and formatting problems. So although no one has ownership, it may well be that certain editors play a larger role in shaping the article based on their expertise, and other editors who aren't as knowledgeable may well defer to the experts' opinions. But notice that when there's a discussion on the talk page, everyone gets a say in the matter--not just the experts. I hope that helps, Aristophanes68 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are great, thanks for taking the time to help a new person. Rmg08057 (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have a question regarding external links. I added an external link which was for a book related to the main subject in the arcticle. The link is to the web site of the publishers of the book. They publish several books by this same author. The book I reference has its own page. On that page you can also buy the book. Now, someone removed this external reference of mine because the page I linked to gave the price of the book and links on how to buy. Quite reasonably I think they thought I was "pushing" the book sales. In fact I am not, but because the book and the subject is reasonably obscure, there are not many web sites to link to, and the page I linked to gives really good information, excerpts from the book etc... My options are I guess 1) Stand my ground and fight it out with the guy (but I too don't like the $'s/purchasing portion of the referenced page).. 2) Link to the Home page of the book publisher which doesn't explicitly talk about the book but the inquirer can drill down from there... 3) reference the Wikipedia web site for the author and there is a link there if they want to find more of the actual book. I kinda think #2 is a reasonable compromise. Your guidance? Rmg08057 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be glad to note a few things. The external links policy has a lot to say about this. In general, the home page of a publisher isn't going to provide significant encyclopedic information about the subject, so the policy would generally prohibit such links. The WP:ELNO section of that policy in particular has points that apply (5, 13, 14...), and which would argue against your first two solutions. On the other hand, it certainly is okay to include a link to the wikipedia article on the publisher. I'd also recommend making use of the WP:ISBN templates, there's a note about that at WP:ELNO point 15. Sorry that this is probably not what you wanted to hear, but I hope this was helpful in any case. Have a great week! --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]