User talk:Sara USA

*Do not make personal attacks or use the page for harassment. Such comments may be immediately deleted. (See WP:TALK)

Hi Sara and welcome to Wikipedia. I responded to your query about signing pages here. Let me know if you need help with anything else. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sara USA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Lazulilasher (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Thanks for your contributions. Any information added in articles on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources (please could you take time to follow the link "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" and read this important guideline, thanks). Information based on original research is not accepted. Please could you improve what you have added by including proper sources, especially to the article invention. Otherwise, it may unfortunately be challenged and removed by anyone. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 20:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your message on my talk page. I was not accusing you, just trying to help. Let's just take the following paragraph:

"Artists, designers and architects commonly think like inventors, though only a rare few are inventors and not all inventions in the visual arts are patentable. Like other inventors, artists, designers and architects commonly question convention and if it is not useful or optimal, they discard it. Their creative process involves exploring their subject at a fundemental level, pushing against barriers, and breaking into new, unknown territory where unanticipated challenges confront them, all in the effort to create meaningful work that is unlike anything that has ever existed before."

Please could you cite the reliable source from which this comes from. Who said that? Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for supporting what is in one Wikipedia article. That's in Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Third-party means notably external to Wikipedia. Please have a look at any one of the best articles in Wikipedia, here: Wikipedia:Featured articles, that may help to see what I mean. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, the requirement for external references is the same for all Wikipedia articles. I have tagged the article you mentioned, Invention (music), to also highlight that it does not comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. If you see other articles which are not based on reliable sources, or for which the sources are not clearly indicated, you can also request sources by tagging the article, using e.g. {{refimprove}}. Wikipedia is (hopefully) constantly improving to meet these guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Verifiability (which is one of Wikipedia's core content policies) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Your contributions are very welcome and valuable to Wikipedia. They should however be verifiable by reliable sources, otherwise they may be challenged by anyone. Thank you. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distinguishing Invention in the Arts from "Invention (music)"

Very good point, thanks. I have changed this. Hope this is (more or less) what you meant. Cheers. --Edcolins (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Invention"

Please see my reply here: Talk:Invention#Definition_of_.22Invention.22. The discussion could be continued there so that other users can also participate. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links and COI

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [1] --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my talk page: I directed you to WP:COI in case you have a conflict of interest with the content you've been adding. As for the rest, because you added the same or similar links to multiple articles without contributing to those articles in any other way, you're in violation of WP:SPAM. See Wikipedia:Spam#How_not_to_be_a_spammer for more details. I started a discussion here that you might want to contribute to. --Ronz (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your recent comment from my talk page per the instructions at the top of it. Please carefully read WP:SPAM and consider how your edits to Innovation, Timeline of historic inventions, and Creativity techniques fit exactly what you should not be doing if you want to avoid having your edits reverted as spam. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your latest comment on my talk page, yes, my concerns are with your edits to Innovation, Timeline of historic inventions, and Creativity techniques. --Ronz (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please slow down!

I don't want to be rude, but please stop making such extensive edits to Wikipedia, particularly the Invention article until you have read some of the style guidelines that Lazulilasher provided above.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to collect quotes about invention and then add personal views as to what those quotes represent. The fact that you know much about inventions is not relevant. What is important is that you fairly represent what OTHER people have said about inventions in reliable sources whether these be books or internet articles or whatever. The invention article now reads like an essay in my view and is very far from being a good encyclopedic article.

You have clearly put a huge amount of effort into the article, but I fear that it is all for nothing because it does not provide useful and, more importantly, verifiable information for anyone wanting to learn about inventions. GDallimore (Talk) 11:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please listen to me. I have reverted your edits because they are not constructive in making a good encyclopedic article. Your citation style in particular is unhelpful. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources before making more edits. I really want to help but can't if you continue editing in a way that is contrary to long established guidelines for creating an article. These guidelines are useful because they enable many editors to work together on an article, checking each other's contributions so everyone can help and they ensure consistency of style across Wikipedia as a whole. GDallimore (Talk) 13:26, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for your comments about my work on the invention page. Please understand that it is a work in progress, very far from finished and I can only work on it part time. I am not able to work on it full days. I happened to find a number of fascinating quotes that I feel give a lot of insight into invention and the process of inventing. I am totally aware of the fact that there are too many quotes on the invention page now. But I left them in for now because the page is a work in progress and very far from finished. As a work in progress, the invention page is in my view better off in its current state with the quotes supporting than without them. Frankly I am hoping that someone else or maybe multiple other people start contributing content to the invention page too. If you read over the Creativity page you will see a dramatic comparision. I am not adding any original content to wikipedia. Much of the information I wrote on the invention page is taken directly from a very good website which is the site of the Invention and Innovation Center at the Smithsonian Institution here in the USA http://invention.smithsonian.org/home/. If you are not familiar with the Smithsonian Institution please take a look at it. It is truly a wonderful resource. The site provides a ton of information about invention including lots of interviews with many inventors. As I continue on the Invention page over whatever amount of time it takes, and hopfully with the contributions of other people to this page, the problem of having too many quotes on it will get resolved and the information on the page will get more substantial. I have met a number of people who are very knowledgable about subjects related to the inventive process who I may be able to talk into contributing to wikipedia. Thank you.--Sara USA (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Kindly look at the content you just deleted from the Invention page more carefully. It is all taken directly from this book which I cited and you deleted: Patenting Art and Entertainment by Gregory Aharonian and Richard Stim, Pub. Date: Jun 2004, Nolo Press, ISBN: 9781413300321. You can find this book online and even read excerpts from it online. Anyone can look at this book and see that the information I added came directly from it. The book describes inventions in art, design and architecture, as well as inventions in other arts. I do not agree with your deletion of the content I just added to the Invention page from this book. I think that if you look at the book yourself you will change your mind.--Sara USA (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories, projects

Thank you for your message on my talk page. To add a category, you can add " [[Category:Arts]] " at the end of the article. Be prepared to defend your opinion that invention should be part of the category. To insert your article in the arts project, please post your suggestion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Arts. Thank you. --Edcolins (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. You are very helpful! I know that I may have to defend having invention in an arts category but the facts are totally stacked in favor of this as one can see if they read what is already on the Invention page and if they then look at the references listed, such as the link to the Invention and Innovation Center of the Smithsonian Institution http://www.invention.smithsonian.org/home/ and this book: Patenting Art and Entertainment by Gregory Aharonian and Richard Stim, (2004). Again your kindness is v appreciated! --Sara USA (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invention Page - Let's Delete New Overview Section

I agree. There is not much in this overview section. Let's delete it. --Edcolins (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You shouldn't be afraid to delete material from an article if you think this is appropriate. The material still stays in the history. So, if somebody doesn't agree with your view, the deleted material can still be taken back from there.. Deleting material from articles is as valuable as inserting new material. Deleting is somehow part of the wiki process. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're recruiting art lovers!

Archives of American Art Wikimedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the Smithsonian Archives of American Art and I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about art to participate in furthering art coverage on Wikipedia. I am planning contests and projects that will allow you access, no matter where you live, to the world's largest collection of archives related to American art. Please sign up to participate here, and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Sara USA. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]