User talk:Vchimpanzee/2007

Welcome...

Welcome!

Hello, Vchimpanzee, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. 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! Xiner (talk, email) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Xiner (talk, email) 18:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

NC Radio station stubs

(Copied from the help desk)

It is generally a good idea to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types rather than jsut use {{stub}} when you have a stub but don't know what stub template to use. In this case, {{NorthCarolina-radio-station-stub}} looks like what you want. DES ^(talk) 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Help Desk Question

Page deletions and how to avoid them.
I thought I would help you be replying here, as this is a bit involved. Firstly, don't worry about anyone being bothered by you recreating the article if it meets the required key standards - you won't get into trouble for it unless you upload it again without making the necessary improvements. I always advise editors to work on articles off-line (I currently have four or five in development using Notepad) or perhaps in a drafts sub-page of user space (three in development there, too!). My preference is usually for the off-line option, but in this instance, you might be advantaged by creating a new sub-page at - for example - User:Vchimpanzee/Draft articles. This will allow other editors, including me, to help you and work out whether this article has the potential to meet the standards. It is quite possible that it may not ever be suitable.
These standards are strict, and rightly so. The policies and guidelines that are most relevant to you right now are: Manual of Style, Notability, Verifiability, Attribution, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy. Those are the policies/guidelines that spring to mind off the top of my head. Please take the time to read and digest these pages and you should be better equipped to make the important assessments of any subject about which you want to write. Leave me a message if you would like further assistance. Regards, Adrian M. H. 17:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Based on that, I can see why the article was nominated and deleted; primarily, the obvious issue of notability, but also the use of weasel words that gave the impression of advertising. The key benchmark against which the subject must be judged, if it has any viability, is notability, which is determined by its actual and potential sources. Check out the link that I posted earlier, and Reliable Sources as well. Strict interpretation of policy regarding the deletion of material and entire articles allows for unsourced material to be considered non-notable and potentially inaccurate or biased. I would like to be able to see the article for myself (which I cannot do, because I'm not an administrator) so that I can better gauge its notability. I recommend that you follow my earlier suggestion of a sub-page for drafts - you will find it very useful in the future as well - and use that to work on this article prior to its re-creation.

In your message, you touched on the issue of articles that do not meet the standards, yet remain alive on Wikipedia. This is a significant and ongoing problem, and comes about because of the very disparate ratio of new articles to active editors (specifically, editors such as myself who regularly assist with new page patrolling, tagging, and deletion nominations). Added to that, there is a permanent backlog that includes unassessed stubs. Really, the site needs twice as many pro-active patrolling editors and about 50% more admins, in my opinion. The end result of this situation is a large number of sub-standard articles that don't get noticed - some of them could be improved, and some are only fit for deletion. They drag the average standard down and leave novice editors wondering whether the system is really fair. Adrian M. H. 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the thorny problem of intangible facts! I have encountered those when making articles, so you're not alone there. It is frustrating when you know that you have read something somewhere in the past, or you heard it from a source that you have no reason to doubt, but you can't actually find anything that is citable. But, there is no option but to leave out such facts, even if it means having no article at all. There was a quote from Jimbo Wales that I read recently: "No information is better than wrong information". I can appreciate that it is frustrating when your efforts to contribute are held back by policies (an oft used word around here, but unavoidable), but even if Stephen Hawking wrote an article on Wikipedia about some new, unpublished theory, it should be deleted, because until someone writes a book, journal or paper about it, that theory cannot be verified. New changes patrolling is better staffed and more effective than it once was, so I don't think his contribution would slip through now! Anyway, don't give up in your search for sources; it can be a pain sometimes, but you just might strike gold. Adrian M. H. 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WORD (AM) vs. WORD-AM

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page WORD (AM) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eric Bronder 18:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I did notice your comment on my talk page... but you also removed some sections from it so expected foul play from your side. I'll check what happened. When made my comment the page just showed WORD-AM nothing else... for that reason i presumed editing test. Let me check again... i'll get back to you. Eric Bronder 22:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please... be careful when editing pages... you removed a section from my talk page again.

OK now i noticed... you added comment to the talk page of WORD (AM) not WORD-AM. What is it you try to accomplish? Make WORD (AM) link to WORD-AM? If there's is limited number of articles using WORD (AM), i'd say fix those articles to so they link to WORD-AM. If that's not the case maybe you create a redirect in the WORD (AM) article to the WORD-AM article. But the way i see it only make the redirect if the term Word (AM) is common use, it's better to repair the links in other articles to directly link to WORD-AM. Eric Bronder 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to tell how to make a redirect. i've created a redirect from WORD (AM) to WORD-AM. Did this fix your problem? The content of the WORD (AM) article is: #REDIRECT WORD-AM. Eric Bronder 22:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I located your problem. The template at the bottom of the article uses the wrong link. The redirect i created for you will fix it, but not in the preferred way. Note that the template will now show WORD in black (inactive link) when viewing the WORD-AM page and as an active link on the other pages using the template. The best way is to check all links in the template before creating other stub pages, when using the redirect-method the "self-links" won't show as inactive when viewing the article. Contact me if you've got any further questions.

Happy editing Eric Bronder 22:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Back again. While you're editing now... is it correct that the template on WORD-AM shows just 5 frequencies and six stations? Eric Bronder 23:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Middletons

I restored this- it looks like a legitimate, widely published comic. The article still needs improvement of course but I see no reason this should be deleted. Friday (talk) 19:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Help desk restored

I examined the history [1] of the help desk and restored [2] the section you accidentally deleted. I also removed your comment about the deletion since it was no longer relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)