Adoption

With a mixture of optimism and misgivings, I offer my services to you as an adopter. If you are serious about becoming a good editor ehere I will gladly help you. Give it some thought before you answer, because my intention is to teach you both how to edit well and to treat this place and your colleagues here with respect and care. Editing Wikipedia can be fun, and one can make good friends here; but those friendships are based on mutual respect for the work each editor does. If you are interested, you may reply on my talk page. Jeffpw (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we can begin with some simple stuff. I first want to give you some tips about working here. On Wikipedia we are working together for a common goal:the building of a great encyclopedia. Therefore, weassume good faith in other users. We also don't attack other editors when we disagree with them. We calmly discuss and try to achieve consensus in order to reach our goals. Please read both of the linked pages carefully, as they form core policies here.

On your talk page someone left you a nice welcome letter with lots of links about how Wikipedia works. Try to read as many of the links as possible, and if you have questions, bring them to me. The same goes for the policies I have linked to here.

Many people create articles here that end up deleted. That's par for the course. With some work, many articles can be saved. But if they can not, a sincere effort is made to both salvage what can be salvaged from the deleted material, as well as encouraging the good faith editor to create something else that won't get deleted. In the case of your Good Hair Day article, I think the best course is to allow it to be merged with as little dramam as possible. There are tons of other articles to be worked on or created.

After you read the policies and protocols, and all your questions about them are answered, we can search the 'pedia for some articles you might enjoy editing. When we get to that stage, I will create a sandbox for you to experiment in. That is your own little corner of wiki to try your edits out before you enter them into the encyclopedia proper.

Lastly, when communicating with others, please be aware that they are very busy with their own work here, and cannot stop everything to work on your project. There are exceptions, of course, but that is susally the case. Patience is a good thing to develop here. Also, please refrain from typing in all caps, as many consider that shouting and rude. You can drop the kisses and hugs (?--the 0o thingies). Most people see that sort of markup as unnecessary. Just a little tip.

I have to go out now for a few hours. Please get started when you can, and I look forward to working with you. Jeffpw (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

part 2

I see you have been productive while I was away. Your userpage looks lots better, I know a little bit about you from your userboxes, and hopefully you've read the policies about personal attacks and assuming good faith (from my post above). Do you have any questions about them?

I took a look at the school article you made, and I am impressed. It's a good looking starter article, well referenced and attractive to the eye. See what you can do when the subject is actually notable? That's an article you created, and that you mostly self-improved. You should be proud of it.

You mentioned there were other articles here about hair straighteners. Could you point them out to me? Maybe we can take a look at them together and see if we can apply some of the techniques there to you GHD article. To be truthful, I think that article could be better served merged into the parent compaby article (and think that will occur) but we can still try if you want. It might be good practice.

AS to your questions about why people don't sign with kisses and other emoticos here, all I can say is that Wikipedia is somewhat mroe formal. Most people prefer to keep things on a professional level, at least until they get to know one another better. We're not all sticks in the mud, but the work is the priority here.

In terms of articles I like to edit, my interests are wide ranging. I edit everything from Friend of Dorothy to Europa (moon). Take a look at the article James Robert Baker to see an article I am proud of. I created it and improved it until it received Featured article status. I also participate in policy and incident discussions as a regular editor. I am not an administrator, nor would I like to be one.

As I said earlier, please read the policy guidelines. I think it a very good idea to learn the core policies, as well as how to create an article. Let me know what further assistance you need. Jeffpw (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

part 3

Here's another core policy I would like you to thoroughly read: our civility guidelines. Many of the messages you are sending to other users come across as uncivil, and don't encourage cooperation. I notice that Duke of Whitstable has mentioned this to you twice. Our civility policy, along with WP:AGF and NPA, are designed to make communication flow more smoothly here, and most users take them very seriously. Continued breaching of these policies can lead to blocking from the site, for periods of hours to indefinitely. It is also considered bad form to continually comment in the discussions for deletion, and to ask for help from those leaving their comments (at least on the deletion discussion page). People already know you want the article saved. The usual form is to write Keep, then clearly and calmly state your reasons. Then people will take it more seriously. By the way, the article is improving nicely. If it continues this way, I may change my comment to a keep from delete. I did notice, however, you haven't implemented any of the suggestions that another editor left for you in the discussion. There is an expectation that the most concerned editor will make improvements if they want their article kept.

I do expect to hear back from you with some reaction to the above suggestions. While you are certainly not obligated to follow them, I am sincerely trying to help you get your footing on Wikipedia. Lastly, let me repeat in another way what I wrote earlier: It is not necessary to message other editors every time you are thinking about them. It's often annoying to be in the middle of editing an article and see that orange bar on the top of your screen. Try to concentrate more on the quality of your own edits and let other editors do their work, too. Also, just so you know, your contributions are viewable to all other editors, so what you write on another user's talk page is seen by anybody who cares to look. I noticed, for instance, you made some disparaging comments on one user's page about another editor. Even if you are not talking directly to the person you are disparaging, it can still be seen as very uncivil. Please try to keep that in mind when editing. Cheers, Jeffpw (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

I have archived the previous discussions for you, so you can better see where your new messsages are. You can also click on "last change" on that orange bar to see it directly. The old discussions are located at the top of your page labeled "Archives". I've also readded the welcome page you received when you joined Wikipedia. Reading this should answer most of your questions, but if not, feel free to ask them of me. Hope this was a help. Jeffpw (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You manually archive by opening two screens (at least, that's how I do it). First your talk page, then the archive page. Set them both to "Edit". Then cut what you want from your talk page, and paste it to your archive. I'll show you later how to make an archive page, though it is really the same as creating an article. Just make the name and press "create". It should have your own talk page name in it though, for instance, something like User talk:Iamandrewrice/Archive 1.

That article (one of several, but that's the one I am most proud of) took several weeks and a lot of patience to create. I also asked politely for help when I needed it, and people did what was necessary. People really do want to help each other here.

Oh, by the way, in the future, if you don't mind, I will reply to you on my own talk page, and you can reply to me on yours if I leave a message here. I have your page watchlisted, so I can see if you reply. Jeffpw (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you ever need a hand

It's great to see that you've got an adopter — hopefully that will help you lots. Just to let you know, though, that I'm always willing to lend a hand/ear if you need some help and they're not around. --Haemo (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that. Also, to save yourself from this kind of thing in the future consider creating new articles as subpages of your userpage to begin with. That's called user space and you can do pretty much what you want there - within reason of course! Most importantly, you can try out different versions of your article and work on it at your own pace. If you need help evaluating references in the future just ask. You also know of the Article Rescue Squadron now so you have a few people to choose from if you need any advice. By the way, I would have changed to keep had the nomination not been withdrawn. Best of luck - I do like people who don't give up! EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As promised, here is your new playground. Jeffpw (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sand box... I have put a link to it on my profile if you ever want to see it. What is your name by the way? i figured it mite be easier... lol
er... like, in reply to the Article Rescue Squadron, although I know it exists... I have no idea how to get to it... could you like give me the link? so I can put it on my profile.
Also... I kind of disagree with the idea of replying on my talk page and you replying on yours, as then it means I'll have to keep checking your page loads to see if I have a new message, and won't that take longer?
Oh and what should I use when trying to make a new page... my sandbox or my user space?
Oh and yeah, altough everyone's given me loads of links about the rules and stuff... Im kind of a bit overwhelmed by not only the sheer number given to me, but by the lengths of the articles themselves once I follow them. Wb. Iamandrewrice (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sandbox is the best place to try things out, rather than your user space. I know there's lots to read in the beginning. usually, new users learn this on their own, piece by piece. However, since you had such a rough time, I thought it best to acquaint you to the policies right away. That way you won't get blocked again (though you would probably be warned first; still, warnings aren't very nice, either).

My name is...Jeff. Just drop off the "pw" to make it easier for yourself. If you feel like replying on my page, go ahead. I just like to keep conversations together for convenience sake. To each their own.

I have to run now, as i have many clients to care for this evening. I'll check back in a few hours to see if you need any help. Jeffpw (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing: [this edit cold be seen as harassing.] You really didn't have anything to say, and Steve is very busy with many things here. You would do better to confine messaging to actual work that needs doing, or wikipedia related questions. Please think about that. Jeffpw (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... you can call me Ben... and what kind of things would you like me to start on next? Im sorry, but know his son and just thought I'd let him know... lol sory...
And the reason I had a tough time wasnt because I didnt care for the rules...Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA

Help:Pronunciation is a good start as far as linking English example words with the IPA symbols. I'm not sure about the English of Kent, but I'm sure that you're aware of Received Pronunciation (AKA, BBC English or the Queen's English). Once you get a good grasp of the English monophthongs, you can get a better understanding of the non-English vowels by looking at the vowel chart. If you can get ahold of it, A Course in Phonology (1999) by Iggy Roca & Wyn Johnson has some good chapters on vowels. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the vowel in school is the same for that in food and both tall and mall have the same vowel in paw. In some dialects, the /l/ can alter a preceding vowel or even (as in Cockney) delete. l-vocalization might have some more information on that. If you're not sure about a particular word, [www.dictionary.com] has a pronunciation for most words (the default is an ad hoc guide but you can click "show IPA pronunciation" to change that). Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 19:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my dialect, pool doesn't have the same vowel as poor but it does have the same vowel as tour. I believe this is different in other dialects and tour and poor rhyme in such dialects (having the same vowel in pool). There are some complications in my particular dialect (I pronounce caught and cot the same), but for many speakers poor has the same vowel as paw. The r can add some complications in understanding pronunciation, see rhotic and non-rhotic accents. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 03:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If poor and paw have the same vowel in your dialect then poor + l would indeed sound different than pool (it would probably sound more like pole). Using the IPA RP goes like this:

poor [pɔː]
paw [pɔː]
pool [puːl]

In non-rhotic dialects where tour and poor rhyme,

poor [pʊə]
paw [pɔː]
pool [puːl]

In my dialect, it's something like this

poor [pɔr]
paw [pɑː]
pool [puːl]

So if poor + l doesn't sound like pool, does it sound more like pole? Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 18:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

I just spent a little time looking through your contributions this evening. I see you made a few edits to the school article, and further improved the GHD article. I also noticed you have been engaging in silly back and forth with a user who is vandalizing the encyclopedia and is on the verge of being blocked from further editing, and have left a few messages on SteveBaker's page, after I told you that was not a very good idea. That kind of behavior is what gets users warned and blocked.

What I would like to see from you now is a summary of WP:AGF, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. By now you should have read them, and these policies form the core of how we interact with eachother here. Before we go any further, I want to be sure you understand these important topics. Once that is accomplished, we can find a small article for you to edit and perhaps expand. When we start you on editing, there are more policies and guidelines you should understand regarding verifiability, notability and reliable sources to support your claims. But you first need to understand how to interact with people here. I look forward to your summary of the above mentioned policies and your questions about them. Cheers, Jeffpw (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Making "chapter headings is easy. You don't have to fuss with font size, as you did on the school article. all you do is add two "=" on either side ot the text and it happens automatically. To see an example, click on the small "edit" link at the right side of this section. There you'll see how I made the chapter heading.

By the way, your vandalising friend has been blocked from editing for the coming 3 days. He didn't listen to good advice to stop his annoying behavior and is now paying for it. Perhaps he can use the time reading the policies I have given you, so the 3 days will not be a total waste.

lastly, I see from the section below this that you might have uploaded an image from a website and called it yours. If that is true, please do not do it again. Wikipedia is dependent on free content, or "fair use" of content from other sites. For Fair Use, we have to have a very good reason to use it. Otherwise Wikipedia could get i trouble. I'd give you the policy link about that, too, but I don't want to overwhelm you all at once. Jeffpw (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of WP:AGF

Was very good. You have a clear understanding of this important policy. The only things I would add to it are the ideas that you can discuss the behaviors without having to criticize or comment on what you think the motivation is. Also, consensus is very important. Rather than thinking that somebody who has an opposing point of view is against you or damaging the encyclopedia, you can discuss the situation on the talk page with other editors until several editors for a conclusion as to the best way forward with the solution. I thank you for reading this, and look forward to your summary of the next policy I gave you. Once we get this through with, we can start with some fun editing. Maybe you can think of an article you want to create, and we can work on it on your sandbox; otherwise, we can find a little something that is not so busy and polish and expand it. Wikipedia has millions of articles, so there's bound to be something you would like to work on. Jeffpw (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not biting new users is very important, and most of us try to avoid doing that. We are aware that Wikipedia is a whole new way of collaborating for most people, and remember how it was when we arrived. That said, sometimes it is necessary to be blunt if your nice messages are not getting the point across. Steve is a case in point. To me, he showed remarkable patience with you, and only ended up bluntly talking to you in an effort to make himself understood after multiple attempts had failed. He is an excellent user who works on the Help desk here, answering a wide variety of questions from people who don't have a clue. He is also a long term adopter of new users who are having trouble. Since you mentioned him to me, let me say something clearly (not to give you a slap, but so you clearly understand): the messages you have been leaving him, especially since you problem with the two articles has been resolved, could be considered harassment. People get blocked for that. I strongly advise you to walk away from that dispute, even if you feel you have been wronged. And once again: assume good faith. In other words, no more contact, unless it has to do with articles he has edited you have questions about. He gives far too much of his time to this project, without having to respond to every question somebody has (especially personal ones). Jeffpw (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve and password

You have nothing to gain and everything to lose by prolonging your dispute with Steve. He has clearly stated the conversation is over. Any further attempts on your part to continue it will be seen as harassment, not only by him, but by the community at large. Once again, even if you think you are right, the best course of action is to let it go. Wikipedia:Truce might be good reading for you at this point, particularly the first section. As to your password, you can change it in your preferences at the top of the page. I suggest you do that immediately, if others are logging on in your account. Imagine if they log on under you name, vandalize the encyclopedia, and you end up getting banned. You wouldn't want that, would you? Jeffpw (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIV

Your summary showed you read it, but you should give it some more thought and perhaps read it again. For instance, one point they make is that letting things go if you feel you have been slighted is an effective way of coping if you feel somebody has been uncivil towards you. It also explains how incivility make for an unproductive editing environment. I guess the long and short of it is treat other people here as you would have them treat you. It's pretty straightforward, when you think about it.

I really appreciate that you are reading this stuff. I know it's not as much fun as making articles or improving existing ones, but it will give you a solid footing when you start working with others here. And I do see a big difference in your editing here in a very short time. I'm happy I decided to adopt you, and hope the feeling is mutual. Jeffpw (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for edit practice

I was looking through the LGBT Project page, and saw this article: Tefé Holland. I don't know if it's something that will interest you, but you seem to like fantasy stuff (I noticed Harry Potter is among your likes), so thought you might enjoy researching it. If you do, we can put the article in your sandbox (a copy of it, with the images deleted in accordance with user page policy, and try to work on expanding and referencing it. You can also look through the other articles on the LGBT page if you'd like, and perhaps find something that interests you more. I just thought this would be A) fun for you to research, and B) an easy start for learning how to expand an article. Jeffpw (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Théophile de Viau Here is that article on the English Wikipedia. What might be useful, though, is to compare the two and pull out information we don't have in English, the add it to our article version. If you want, we can throw this article in your sandbox to work on. Jeffpw (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odds 'n' ends

You did not react to the message posted above. I just want to make sure you read it and understand. Harassment is taken very seriously here, and if it continues, Dispute resolution could be opened.

As to MySpace, while I did check out your profile there to see your interests (as you asked me to), it is not a good idea that we expand our relationship outside of Wikipedia. We have a professional relationship as editors, specifically as Adoptor/adoptee. More formally, this is called a mentoring relationship. I feel it is best not to blur the lines as far as that goes. I also think that given the difference in our ages, we should confine ourselves to editing and not socializing. I don't mean that to be rude, and think you are very nice; but anything outside of mentoring would not be appropriate, I think. I hope you understand. Jeffpw (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And while I do speak Dutch, I rarely do that on Wikipedia, as I feel it is exclusionary to those who happen upon my talk page and can't understand everything that's there. Here on the English Wikipedia, it's best to keep the language to English. Jeffpw (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:NPA policy

I gather from your summation that you glanced through it, but there's a lot more to it than that. For instance, using someone's edits in another article to discredit them on the page you're discussing can be considered an attack. Threats of legal action, too (that one I think you may be familiar with :-P ). Threatening to vandalise an article or user page is an attack. So are threats of violence. What you do to an editor here off-Wikipidea can also be considered an attack, such as giving information to a group or government in order to have an editor hounded. This policy is all-encompassing.

It goes on to state how to respond to what you think is an attack. Often, the best thing to do is to ignore it. If you feel that is not an option, you may try to neutrally discuss it, or ask for an administrator's help.

I suggest you read it a bit more thoroughly. I am glad you looked at it, but it is an essential policy here, and I want to make sure you understand it. Then we will begin with that article you would like to expand.

As to the LGBT stuff, I have no problem editing that with you. I am a member of the LGBT Project, so edit there regularly. In fact, I suggest you join the project if you're interested in it. There's lots there to learn, lots to do, and it is a fun group of people with which to work. Jeffpw (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to LGBT studies!

Hi, Iamandrewrice, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies!

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful:

Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able.
Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there.
If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics.
If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Race Box

Userbox answers

That request ended up not having the answer we were looking for, so I did some investigating. I finally was able to intuit the answer, since the directions on the userbox page are clear as mud. What you need to do is create a page with the name of the userbox, in this case, User:Iamandrewrice/Userboxes/BDD. You can then use template code {{like this}} to add it to the page in its finished form. I have done this for you here. Let me know if this is not clear and I will try to clarify. I know it is confusing. I spent more than an hour trying to figure it out myself, as I had never done it before. But it was time not wasted, as I learned something useful. So thanks for asking me about this. Jeffpw (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. As I said, I should know how to do that for myself, in nay event. So it was tiome well spent.

To create a page like I did for your user box, just type the name of the page you want inthe search field (for example: User:Jeff/userboxes). The search result will tell you that the page doesn't exist and ask you if you want to create it. Click on that option, and you are ready to add content to that page.

Given that you're now editing (and that's great, by the way!), you should read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPOV. There are important policies which explain the importance of reliable sources (and you'll see why blogs and forum posts are not appropriate), verifiability of assertions in the article, and why and how an article should be neutral.

Let me know if you have any questions. I already jumped into that Latino discussion to explain that you are editing in good faith, and that people should not throw around the term "block" so easily. Jeffpw (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about latins and race

I don't know the answer to that, I'm afraid. That would entail research, which I don't have time for at the present. until you gain some real confidence in your editing, I would suggest you stick to articles you know a lot about, or check articles for grammar, spelling, broken references, etc. Otherwise you'll end up in more disputes like the one above, and they are never fun. Jeffpw (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on the article talk page. Let's see your edit with the ref. if it is good, I'll support you. If the ref isn't appropriate, I'll try to explain why. Jeffpw (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a reliable source. You need to find a magazine, newspaper or book which supports your thesis. Petitions, blogs or forum posts are not reliable, and will be deleted (and quite rightly). We are searching for facts, not opinions. Jeffpw (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While that article is certainly well reasoned, it is an opinion piece. You can see that from the ending. Maybe you should read WP:RS to gain some insight into the type of sources Wikipedia looks for. In the meantime, I will do a Google search and see what I can find. Jeffpw (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it's not considered a reliable source, sorry. Especially for a controversial assertion, which this is. In fact, I did multiple Google searches and could not find a single source which supports this claim. IDictionary.com and Webster's both give a completely different definition of the term. Jeffpw (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latinos in Europe

Noticed you are having problems trying to find reliable sources saying Latinos can be Europeans. However, while this is not a reliable source as such, here is a link about a newspaper in Spain aimed at Latinos - ie people who are not actually Spanish:

http://www.visualeditors.com/banuet/2006/08/a-free-newspaper-for-latinos-in-spain/

It is called "Latino" and aimed at the immigrant community, therefore suggesting that the non-immigrant community are not Latino. However, I again stress it is not a reliable source.

I noticed your problems via the Latino Australian page, which I found after viewing the template for deletion entry regarding Template:British Latinos. Could you please respond to my comment on the talk page regarding your view that black people cannot be English. Thanks Whitstable (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it and see what you mean now. Though it's a complex issue as the English ethnic definition varies. There is an argument that anybody who self-identifies as English is English. And what actually is English? Angles, Saxons and Jutes? Or also Celts and Scandinavians? Norman French? Whitstable (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think you will struggle to find any references to support your idea that Latinos can be European. However, it is quite easy to find sources the opposite.

As a consequence of tougher U.S. immigration policies after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Latin Americans are now looking to Europe as the next land of opportunity. In some ways, Europe has become an easier destination than the United States and, for many, a more attractive one, to the point that its population of legal and illegal Latinos could now be as high as 3 million.

Surely if Europeans were Latinos, then the number would be far larger than 3,000,000? Whitstable (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Europe edits

You say that the CIA factbook lists that (Roman Catholicism). You need to provide a reference to support that. I believe you, but additions should have references, or they risk being deleted or tagged. Jeffpw (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is ok to copy text from one article to another, it is not ok to leave it unreferenced. If it was not unreferenced in the original article, how do you know it is true? What's more, how can our readers know that? They need to be able to verify what we write. Jeffpw (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things

I was looking at your edits to the Latin Europe article, and notice that you had trouble with the ref you added. In the first place, refs need to be placed at the end of a sentence, immediately after the period. It is also preferable to use footnote format, rather than having an external jump in the middle of the article. Please see our manual of style to learn more. It is a very helpful little booklet that explains all about how to edit an article to conform to style guidelines.

I would also ask you once again to search for references when you add content to an article, even if transferring it from another article. Just because one editor was lazy when adding content doesn't mean you have to follow that lead. We are trying to develop good editing habits here.

I also wanted to ask you if you had discovered the watchlist function. It is very useful, and allows you to see any changes to articles or talkpages you have edited. If you want to watch an article, simply click on the link "watch" at the top of the page on the right hand side. Alternately, you can set your Preferences to automatically watch every article you edit. That's what I do. It's very helpful if you edit many articles.

Lastly, you might want to selectively edit stuff from your talk page and either trash it or archive it. Let me know if you need help. Jeffpw (talk) 18:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have worked hard on the Latin Europe article. I have a couple of comments.

you seem to want to promote Malta over other countries, as evidenced by the lead and your expansion of that category. Adding what you know isn't a problem, but be careful the article doesn't get out of balance.
As I said before, refs go at the end of a sentence, not in the middle. Also, it is better to set refs in as footnotes, not as external jumps within the article.
As a new editor, perhaps you would like to try your edits out in the sandbox before insertign them. That's your decision, but it will save you trouble later if the material is challenged or reverted.
As I mentioned earlier, please try to add refs to the material you add. It will save you trouble later, and is a good habit to get into.

As to archiving, see my post earlier in the page. Once again, to manually archive, open the edit function in this page. Cut the material you want to archive. Go to your archive and open it and its edit function. Then paste what you cut from the talk page. I will do it for you now, and you can go to my contributions and see how I did it step by step. I will write down what I do in the edit summaries. Jeffpw (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The glitch

That doesn't happen very often, but updates can be very annoying, yes. Jeffpw (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I am reading now, it seems a system wide glitch that has affected many areas of the encyclopedia. I'd wait to make more changes until we are sure it's fixed. Footnotes seem to be affected, still. Jeffpw (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make some dummy references in your sandbox on that article sitting there. That way you can see how I do it. There are templates for references at WP:CITE,along with a manual telling you how to insert references, but I prefer to make them myself. Jeffpw (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC) this is an example ref to show you how to format. Jeffpw (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on the WP:CITE page, every ref needs to have the author, article title, pagenumber, source of article listed (or name of book), publication date, and if it is online, the date you retrieved it. Jeffpw (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		For overcoming your rocky start, and trying so hard to become a good editor. I am proud to be your adopter. Jeffpw (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link to the ref you made, please. I can't find it in your contributions. Jeffpw (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you need to add the http://, as well as the www. here is a ref repair I made to your Latin Europe edit. Jeffpw (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much!

For the Barnstar and the kind words on my talk page. Acting as your adopter is a joy and a privilege. I am glad to see it means as much to you as me. Even after you become confident enough to edit on your own, I sincerely hope we will remain good Wiki friends. Jeffpw (talk) 12:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing and other stuff

to make a reference:

1) <ref> *2) Name of author; *3) http://www.article.com '''PLUS''' title of article (separated by a space) *4) Source of article (book title or newspaper); *5) Publisher (if name of book); *6) Page number; *7) Date published; *8) Date you retrieved it. *9)</ref>

So, a sample reference would look like this: <ref>Shapiro, Paul; [http://www.NYTimes.com The Good Shepard]; New York Times; Page A13; [[2007-12-17]]; Retrieved on [[2007-12-31]]</ref>

As to the map, if it is a map that is usable as GDFL ( a free image) then you can change it and upload it to use as you wish in an article. If it is not free, then even changing it would still leave the copyright with the original image maker. Send me the link to the image and I will check it out for you (and images are tough. I have had many removed that I thought were OK to use). Jeffpw 13:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image looks great, and you supplied all the right tags. I am impressed at how you modified it.

As to ref'ing websites, you should still add the author, if you know who it is, and also the date it was put on the web if that is available. The basic idea is to add as much info as possible so people can verify it, and also recreate it if the link goes dead. I gave you a link a day or so ago to WP:CITE. It has lots of information, as well as templates to use. Some people feel the templates are easier, since you just have to plug in the info; others feel that manually creating the ref is easiest. Neither is better; it's just personal preference. I do them manually, but when you edit an article you'll see the templates, too, so it's best to familiarize yourself with how they look. Jeffpw 13:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: PLEASE LOOK AT THE SAMPLE REF AGAIN! I left out the first <ref> before the autrhor's name, and have now added it. Jeffpw 13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>Ben Lavender; [http://www.google.co.uk The Google]; Google?; Er.... dunno wot shud go here...; [[2007-11-30]]; Retrieved on [[2007-12-30]]</ref>

Where you wrote Google?, you would write Google.com, as that is the source site. You would also hyperlink it. If there was an author of an article on the page, you'd include that, too, but often that's all the info you can include. It looks good, Ben. Jeffpw 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I hit save too soon. It should be Lavender, Ben, not Ben Lavender. Also, if you want wikicode to show up on the page, before the code write "nowiki" inside brackets (<>), and after the code, write "nowiki", again in brackets, but with a forward slash before the "nowiki". Then everyone can see it on the page. Jeffpw 14:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Latineurope.jpg

Hi! I saw this image was tagged for deletion. As noted in your edit summary this is a derivative work. Since you used a GFDL licensed image on Wikipedia Commons I've changed the license to GFDL, removed the speedy deletion tag and provided a link to the original image. That should keep it from being deleted. EconomicsGuy 13:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report

First, I added the image to Latin Europe that I think you wanted added--the new one, right?

The image tags are so confusing, even for veteran users. It just takes time and practice, and people watching out for each other when they make a mistake, like what happened with you.

I was looking over your contributions to that article, and while I can't say much about the contributions themselves, as I know very little about the topic, I can say that you are following Wikipedia conventions, linking properly, adding edit summaries as you go along (very important, so people can follow your logic in the history page of the article), and using the talk page to let other editors know your plans. That is exactly like you should be doing! I'm really, really impressed at how fast you have caught on and how well you're doing. Please continue to message me for any help or advice you need, and we will start discussing WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:V in the weekend. You'll see how important they are when you start to edit articles that are controversial. But if you understand those key policies, and discuss changes to articles with your fellow editors, you can't really go wrong. Jeffpw 14:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References redux

First off, when I said wikicode, I meant html code. Sorry for the imprecision. when you add the "nowiki" before the code, it makes the code itself show up on the page, instead of the code being activated. It's like putting the code in a cage where it can be safely looked at without attacking us.

You'd put Google.co.uk in as source because your readers won't see it in the first part of the code once it is activated. They will only see the title of the article as a hyperlink. And we put in the dates twice because the first is the date the article (or web page) was published, and the second is the date we downloaded it to put ion the article. That way, if the link goes dead, readers can at least see when the link was good, and also find a working version through the Wayback machine. Jeffpw 14:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm......

What was [this edit] all about, and how do you feel that it contributes to a positive atmosphere on Wikipedia????? because it looks like you were contributing to vandalism, to me. Jeffpw 15:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what you wrote on Jza84's talk page, and I also saw this edit. I stand by my remarks. Be that as it may, I would still like to know why you felt it necessary or fun to contribute to vandalism on the Wikipedia. Your friend has now been blocked for a further week. Lucky for you the blocking admin did not notice you contribution and look at your block history, or you might well be sitting a block out, too. Please, do not do something like that again. Jeffpw 16:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventive, not punitive. Your friend was blocked to prevent him from damaging the encyclopedia and bothering users even more than he did. As for assuming good faith, think about this: You're a user someone doesn't know. Maybe a little old lady of 75. you open your messages thinking somebody perhaps left you a barnstar or a christmas card, and WHAM!, you get an obscene short story in its place. How would you react? Would you think, "oh, how sweet! Somebody wants to be friends"? Or would you be shocked and think perhaps Wikipedia was not a very nice place? I think the latter. How is it possible to think Joseph was doing anything other than trying to shock somebody in order to amuse himself? There is a fine line between WP:AGF and simplemindedness. I sincerely hope I do not see further edits from you like that. With that said, we can drop this subject if you'd like. Jeffpw 16:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had nothing to do with his block. I neither contacted an administrator nor asked anyone to contact one on my behalf. I hadn't even noticed the vandalism until another user messaged him and that came up on my watchlist. Sadly, your friend managed to earn his block without anybody's help at all. And I am not angry, merely trying to make you understand that messages like that serve no purpose and often backfire. Please do not quote policy to me, as I feel I have a better grasp of it than you do. And yes, your template is very pretty. Jeffpw 17:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Re: User talk:Eugene2x, The vandalism by user:Joeseth1992 was clear. He added a pornographic story to a user page. There is no need to re-add it. Whitstable 17:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. <sigh> I guess our conversation hasn't made much of an impression on you. Jeffpw 17:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, as I see it I am helping you. I am teaching you to be a good editor here. If that help must extend to warning you when I see you making edits that contribute to vandalism here, or even contacting an admin about your behavior, so be it. An admin blocked your friend fro vandalism. I saw it and warned him too, as did Whitstable. Protest all you want, quote policy until you are blue in the face, it will not change the way that sort of contribution is viewed here. If you revert to a vandalised page again, you will receive a mush sterner warning from an administrator than the one I am giving you. Hadn't you best just drop it now and go back to trying to improve your editing? Jeffpw 17:42, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you are through acting out, we can continue with what we were doing, which was teaching you to become a good editor. I will not respond to further outbursts on my talk page, and suggest that you perhaps take a bit of time to go cool off. I will, however, continue to monitor your contributions to make sure you are going the right direction, and intervene as necessary. Jeffpw 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

monkton

I repaired that ref, but while reviewing my work I noticed the text. Unfortunately, it was unencyclopedic and I removed it. However sensational it may have been to the local population, it is more a news story than one for an encyclopedia.

By the way, I don't "need" to do anything here. All contributions are voluntary. Please ask me for help, rather than telling me what I need to do in the future. Jeffpw 19:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term was "net benefit", and since I am not the one who made the remark, I am not in a position to clarify it. However, I do think contributing vandalism, readding it after it was repaired, then arguing about it do not make for very good editing practices. Think about it. And really, stop taking everything so personally. You made an error, it was corrected and pointed out to you, and is now over. Move on and let go. Jeffpw 20:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ground rules

I am here as a volunteer, like everybody else here. I am happy to help people who sincerely wish to learn, but I will not be dictated to, talked back to, or otherwise challenged when I am giving good advice. While it was not my intention to hurt your feelings with any comments I made, I am not responsible for your reaction. You asked about your template without replying to my concerns about your behavior. To me, that seems like deflection. Your attempt to make this about my reaction to your template seems manipulative to me, so I have decided that a change of course is required.

Should you wish to continue being mentored, I am prepared to continue. However, if you do, you will follow my directions and do the work I ask you to do with regard to reading and summarizing policies about editing here. It seems clear you have not read anything about WP:V WP:NPOV or WP:RS. I ask you to read them and summarize them for me now.

When I tell you that you have vandalized or otherwise made an unconstructive edit, instead of becoming defensive, ask for clarification, and consider what I have said. This goes for other editors who have comments for you, too. People are taking their time out to help you and you haven't been responding well today. It has gotten tiresome.

You are welcome to message me, but consider if it is important or not. Your messages about refs were certainly important. Your messages about how I wronged you were not. This is not a social networking site, and I am your mentor, not a net pal. I am a professional colleague who is assisting you. I ask you to remember that.

If you want to continue after reading this, that would be fine with me. If you wish to seek another adopter, edit on your own, or even leave the site, that is also ok. The choice is yours. Jeffpw 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already responded to your "sarcastic comment" query in the above post. Please do not message me about this again. I will say generally your edits are fine. The template looks good. As to the content you added to the Latin Europe article, you'll not that a great deal of it was deleted as original research, which leads us back to the policies I asked you to read. Please take a look at them and give me a summary. They are there to help you learn what can and cannot be added to articles. Jeffpw 10:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Busy

I am currently busy doing other things related to my participation in this project. I have already said not to message me unless it is something important related to your editing experience. Please learn to respect other editor's boundaries. We can discuss your edits tomorrow, and at the same time discuss your summaries of the policies I have asked you to read. Your messages are becoming annoying and I am asking you nicely to stop for the evening. Thank you. Jeffpw 21:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joeseth1992

Umm... this guy came on my talk page saying how he despreatly needs an adopter, but from what I saw on his talk page, you had already adopted him. Apperently he also said that he did not mean to vandalise pages, and he was sorry. What is the deal with this guy? I thought you might know him a bit more than I do, so I thought I should ask. Thanks, ~ Bella Swan 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unadoption

Given that you do not listen to what I am saying, do not modify your behavior after being clearly told that it is annoying me, and your recent message calling me and other users "hypocrites", I no longer feel it is appropriate to be your adopter. I sincerely hope that what you have learned from me, combined with the policies I have asked you to read, will help you to develop further as an editor. I wish you luck. If you find another adopter, I wish him or her luck as well. In the meantime, I advise you to read WP:CIV once again.

Lastly, after you have made well over 7,000 edits here, have at least one Featured article and two Good articles under your belt, participate in many policy discussions, and formally mentor troubled users, then-- and only then --will I listen to your criticisms of what is on my talk page. Until such time, I strongly advise you to listen, ask questions, and try to improve yourself here, rather than commenting on things which do not concern you. Jeffpw 10:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are now focusing on the work you need to do, rather than engaging in ppointless debate, I am willing to give this another chance. I am currently busy trying to improve an article so that it will not be deleted, so may not respond swiftly. Please keep that in mind and try to send your messages "in bulk" rather than one at a time. Thanks, Jeffpw 11:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you very much for the message. I am leaving that idiotic Bencherlite now, and trying to find a new adopter. Yours sincerely, Christine118500 11:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a userbox

Thanks for your note. I think I am sufficiently aware of the principles here, and I don't agree with you that removing a userbox that refers to me being the adopter of a user when that is no longer the case constitutes a personal attack in any way, shape or form. WP:USER says that by convention, a user page will not usually be edited by others – not never. In any event, this message was entirely unacceptable, hence my decision to unadopt Christine118500. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 15:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iamandrewrice, since you are under adoption and have edited for little more than a week or two, please take on board what people are telling you. You have an imperfect understanding of policy and guidelines here, and your messages on people's talk pages are simply sowing seeds of discord, intentional or not. In this latest example,you have contacted Bencherlite's former adoptee, to no good purpose, with the message that (to paraphrase) "we new users shouldn't let older users push us around". That is neither accurate or acceptable. Further, Bencherlite is an admin here, and could probably quote policy here to you backwards in her sleep. Look before you leap, and think about the consequences of your actions. I am at the limit of my patience with you. If I see any more nonsense of this kind, you are on your own and will have to face the consequences of your action without hope of support from me. Jeffpw 15:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His sleep, incidentally (!), and I hope I'm not so dull as to talk WP policy when asleep, but otherwise sound words of wisdom from Jeffpw. Suggesting that other editors are in breach of policies/guidelines at this stage of your Wikipedia career when you are not certain of the principles or aware of the full facts is not a Good Idea (regardless of whether you're talking to an admin or not - after all, adminship is "no big thing" and admins (myself included) are as capable of mistakes as anyone else). Happy editing. Bencherlite ^Talk

In spite of the fact that at least 5 users have told you that your use and abuse of the talk page messaging is unconstructive at best you persist in doing so. If you can explain to me why you felt that telling a a user that her adopter was in violation of policy, as you did in this message, was helpful, productive or furthering the goals of this project, please do so. I do not think you can. Your persistance in sending these sorts of message, and indeed, in forming relationships with people who have been blocked more than once for vandalism, calls your judgment into question for me. I urge you, once again, to concentrate on the lessons I gave you to work on. Your constructive/unconstructive ratio today is telling. Please start taking this seriously before I decide I have made a mistake in mentoring you. Jeffpw 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your well meaning intentions

That's very kind of you, I'm sure. Some blocked users do need wikilove to support them while they cannot edit. Others, like the ones you have messaged, could better spend their block time reading policies here to understand what went wrong and how to avoid it in the future. To message those editors might be seen (and interpreted by the blockee) to be supporting them in their wrongdoing.

I'm rather busy right now, with a project that is on a deadline. Have you read the other policies I asked you to? If so, you can summarize them for me and we can discuss them. Nice to see you back here, and I hope your mood is better than it was. Jeffpw 20:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ref repair

You need to format dates like this: [[2007-12-02]] First year, then month, than date.

I am taking a few hours off, so will be unable to answer questions until at least 4pm, your time. Nice to see you back editing. Jeffpw 12:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

thanks for your support. don't listen to the fat-cat 'experienced' users. all they wabt to do is crush us. spek again soon, 213.122.55.204 14:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your support. don't listen to the fat-cat 'experienced' users. all they wabt to do is crush us —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christine118500 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious cats

I was blocked for an hour by an admin who felt I had violated the WP:3RR rule. Then when the block was lifted, he forgot to lift the block from my IP (that's called an autoblock, which you see on my page). The admin and a bureaucrat are now discussing the validity of the original block. Does that answer your question? Jeffpw 16:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you go and either delete the message you left for David, or strike it thorugh and make it more polite. As written, it is a violation of WP:CIV. He was very polite to you in his initial message, if blunt, and saying "sort yourself out" can be construed as rude. Strike throughs are accomplished by adding <s></s> before and after what you want a line drawn through. Further, the message you left on the potential adopter's page for your friend Joeseth was highly inappropriate. I would encourage you not to leave those sorts of messages again. Joeseth is blocked, and you do him no favors by allowing him to violate the block and communicate by proxy, particularly with such a silly message. Jeffpw 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Countries with Latin Populations
Latin American	• Argentina¹ • Bolivia¹ • Brazil² • Chile¹ • Colombia¹ • Costa Rica¹ • Cuba¹ • Dominican Republic¹ • Ecuador¹ • El Salvador¹ • Guatemala¹ • Honduras¹ • Mexico¹ • Nicaragua¹ • Panama¹ • Paraguay¹ • Peru¹ • Puerto Rico (US)¹ • Uruguay¹ • Venezuela¹ •
Latin European	• Andorra • Belgium* • France • Guernsey • Italy • Jersey • Luxembourg* • Macedonia* • Malta* • Moldova • Monaco • Portugal² • Romania • San Marino • Spain¹ • Switzerland* • Vatican City •
Notes	• * Indicates having Non-Romance Language at Official Level • ¹ Indicates an ethnic group also belonging to the Hispanic category • ² Indicates an ethinic group belonging to the Lusitanic category •