User talk:Seri909

Welcome

Hello, Seri909! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! —— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Girl Scouts of the USA

The content you added to Girl Scouts of the USA has been moved to the talk page for discussion:

It is controversial and does not have any references from reliable sources: see Verifiability and Citing sources.
It appears to be mainly copied from a blog: [1]

Please discuss this on the article talk page before adding any of this again. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I think I may have figured out how to reference the blogs, websites, etc, but the source I used for the Communications Alert is that I received it directly from GSUSA via email. (Although it can also be found on some of the blogs.) How do I reference that? Also, as to the discussion of the material, what do I need to do to facilitate that? Thanks again for all your help, I really appreciate it. Seri909 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An email is not suitable for a citation. Please see our guidelines on what is and is not a viable citation. Some more information can be found here. If you have more questions feel free to put another helpme up, below my comments :). —— nix eagle 17:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References: You have to state where you got the information. If it is a web link, include the link in between brackets like this: [http://www.onenewsnow.com/Printer.aspx?id=160368] Someone will clean them up later and you will see how it works.
Reliable sources: Blogs, emails and the like are not considered reliable sources. You need articles from a news organization or something similar. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources
Here is a simple example: Other than blogs, I find nothing to indicate that the GSUSA recognizes the CoG religious awards. It is not mentioned at girlscout.org or praypub.org. It may very well be true that the GSUSA recognizes those programs, but you can't add it without a reliable source.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I think I finally have it..whew! :) How can I post something for "inspection" so to speak to make sure I have it the right way before submitting it? Also, I was asked to have it "discussed" before posting...how can I do this to match proper protocol? Thanks so much :) Seri909 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just be bold and make the edit, and note in the edit summary its an experimental edit. Expect the edit to be reverted, but it will be fodder for discussion on the talk page of the article. If you like, after you edit, explain the edit on the talk page, that will start up a conversation there. However, as I said before, expect the edit to be undone. But the person that undoes your edit should be able to explain why on the talk page, and talk to you.

Again, be sure when you make the edit to note it is experimental, and request any concerns be discussed on the talk page of the article. No matter what, your edit will be contained in the history of the article, which you can get to vie clicking the 'history' tab. —— nix eagle 18:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crud, hopefully you see this before you edit, it may be best for you to copy paste the article to a sandbox, say User:Seri909/sandbox and make your edits there. Use that as the basis for the discussion. However once you think you have reasonable edits (acceptable by all involved), try adding them, with the same warnings and info as I mentioned above. —— nix eagle 18:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another edit, hopefully I'm not boring you. It should be ok to make your edit if it is substantially different from the edit you made before that got reverted. If its the same edit, keep talking on the talk page. —— nix eagle 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK yall, sorry to be an idiot..lol...BUT I finally figured out how to MAKE the footnote marks show up, but not the actual footnotes themselves..I posted this in my sandbox. Can you guys see that? If so, I'd love it if you'd take a look at it, and I will work on trying to make the sources appear where I added the footnotes! AND I took out any references to blogs, emails, etc. Thanks so much for all of your help. I appreciate your advice :)Seri909 (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add:

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

Once you do that, the footnotes will appear. Also note you don't have to make the whole edit at one time, just be sure that everyone on the talk page of the article is in somewhat of an agreement about what changes you make. —— nix eagle 18:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the reflist template to User:Seri909/sandbox. I'm going to markup your sandbox article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk page

When you get this sorted out and you have something to discuss, you should move the conversation from here to Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA#Reliance on New Age Philosophy. From what I saw that you had in the sandbox, I'd suggest you try to wikilink some of the words in there. The last link I gave you should give you details on what you should be looking for when you are going through the words wondering which ones should be wikilinked and which ones should not. Cheers! —— nix eagle 18:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you need any more help that is not related to if this content should or should not go into the article, feel free to leave a helpme tag like you have been doing, otherwise please forward the conversation to the talk page of the article. :) Cheers! —— nix eagle 18:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. The only question I have left is what is the appropriate amount of time to leave an article up discussion before submitting it again? I was asked not to resubmit without discussion, but I don't seem to be getting any discussion? Is there anything I can do to facilitate that? I think this is an important topic for those of us who are lifelong Girl Scouts, but I don't want to violate (any more than I already have!) protocol or upset anyone! And, again thank you so, so much to the guys who've helped with me this! Yall are great :)

One or two days, if nothing happens then try making your changes keeping in mind the advice I gave you above. —— nix eagle 21:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]