This is an archive of past discussions with User:FoCuSandLeArN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
On this edit of yours: Like many articles in Japanese Wikipedia, this one is merely a set of lists, and it's utterly unsourced. English Wikipedia is not helped (other than in sheer bulk) by translation of material such as this. -- Hoary (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
ok, if you say so. My tag was based on seeing a whole extra paragraph in the Japanese article, as well as a more extensive filmography, which I thought would be useful. I don't read Japanese, so I might've been mistaken. Regards! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Citation suggestion
Thank you for your contributions to the ACF (gene) article. If you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome but be careful
I saw that you are adding lots of references. Since you might be new at this business, here are some guidelines:
per WP:SECONDARY: we focus on secondary references (reviews and books). Any idiot can cite a lot of journal articles, that takes little skill. The real benefits come from general sources that contextualize journal articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a competitor for technical review journals like Chemical Reviews. So be selective.
per WP:COI: If you are associated with a research group, you need to be careful and disclosive about potential conflicts of interest. Every research group around the world thinks that they are doing the best stuff and tend to downplay the contributions from others. This is another reason to focus on secondary sources. Chemical Abstracts abstract many tens of thousands of journal articles each year, so we dont bother trying to keep up.
per WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia has zero need to report on most newly reports that have not been subject to the test of time. Many thinks that their work must be represented in Wikipedia, but that is a mistaken idea of what this project is about.
I will probably be removing some of your highly specialized references, so I wanted you to know the justification. Feel free to ask questions. And good luck, we need chemical editors!----Smokefoot (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The best form of gratitude is to follow advice, but you are repeating your error of adding many specialized references to articles with no edit summary and no justification. The additions seem almost random. I had this problem with you some time ago on thiosalicylic acid. I dont really care so long as you stay away from chemistry related articles. Completely puzzling behavior.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry once again for the misunderstanding. I haven't edited any chemistry-related articles for a couple of days now, so thank you once again. For the record, my edits have been substantiated by both the content and edit summaries. I you take a more careful look, after your recent comments I have added more specific attributions (e.g. when I reference a phylogeny or characterisation article I specifically mention it on the article). Once more, I won't be referencing any chemical articles as per your oppressive request. I appreciate your concern and wish you a wonderful rest of the week. Also, just a refresher for you in case you haven't been to university: primary sources consist of primary data and observations; secondary sources consist of the presentation and analysis of the data, such as scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals; tertiary sources consist of the meta-analysis of those articles, such as reviews; while some books often collect information already reviewed in tertiary sources, and thus are considered quaternary sources. This may veer away from wiki policy in your opinion, but is adhered to in the scientific sphere and is therefore pragmatically correct. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Check this out from WP:SECONDARY: "Primary sources are very close to an event, .... similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment is a primary source ... "
A million thanks for the welcome and the super useful collection of consolidated links to develop my editing skills. You are a star
! --Elekebia (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
There was vandalism on the Mihkel Harilaid page, but you changed it to the incorrect thing. I sent an e-mail to info-en-v@wikimedia.org and attached Mihkel Harilaid personally.
His "Personal Info" should say the following;
Harilaid has two children: Hannah Rowan Harilaid (HRH) and Silas Harilaid, with their mother, Amy Barrie. He has been dating Alex Vass since October 2011. Among his many interests are; diving, sustainable farming, and horses.
Can Either you put a stop to the vandalism and have the correct wording in, or will info-en-v@wikimedia.org be able to do this for Mihkel Harilaid and myself?
Hello. What's currently on the article is "Harilaid has two children: Hannah Rowan Harilaid (HRH) and Silas Harilaid, with his wife, Amy Barrie (2002-present). Among his many interests are diving, sustainable farming and horses.". If this is incorrect, any new information needs to be referenced accordingly. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Vandalism Con't
There is no proof of said wife, amy barrie
If you need referencing, you can go on to Mihkel Harilaid's Facebook page, or Alex Vass's facebook page, and they are listed as dating
The date is October 2011, I don't know if that is listed on Facebook — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.236.245 (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
You can go ahead and make that change, however any information needs to comply with WP:BIO, and you'll find facebook is not a valid source. It is better to avoid any information than input unverifiable information. This applies for all articles. Cheers FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
It was a few months ago, but I thought it was worth answering the question you asked here. You were referring to the 'Claude' reference provided on this version of the 'John Hamilton Reynolds (poet)' article, and as far as I can make out, that reference was referring to the work by Claude Prance in the bibliography. The Harvard-style reference should have been to his surname (Prance), not to his forename (Claude). More on Claude Prance here if you are interested. I've left this note here, rather than at the talk page, because I've redirected both the article and talk page, as that article was mostly a duplicate of what exists at John Hamilton Reynolds. Carcharoth (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome and the offer of help. A friend was recently welcomed to editing by bot spam on her talk page. The personal touch is much nicer. I will let you know if I need any help Thanks, -Fjozk (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi, FoCuSandLeArN,I saw that you add an unreference template to the 2012–13 NCAA Division I men's basketball rankings page, it's still early in the season, and a month away from practice starting, once the full preseason polls start coming out in October, citations will be added to the preason polls. not sure if you your familar with college basketball in the united states. Thanks --Bearcats fan (talk) 03:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry for the mistake. I do apologise, and clearly should not meddle with college basketball, because I know nothing about it! thank you for the heads-up! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Cupcake
Hi, FoCuSandLeArN,
A short thank-you for the cupcake. I'll have it with my next cup of tea. As I've done a couple of hundred other U-boat articles, I wondered if there was any significance in U-465? (I'm not angling for a cupcake for every article; that would make me sick!) RASAM (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! When you revert edits such as this or this don't use the "good faith" option on Twinkle: use rollback or vandalism. I have seen that you always revert with (AGF) which is not always the correct option to use. Cheers, --Mark91it's my world14:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, edits such as this (where the user probably wanted to say "it's an old-fashioned item") or this other one (where the statement is very true, but is out of context) classify for AGF rollback. In general, good faith edits are when the user inserts true statements and facts but written in an unencyclopedic manner or taken out of context. Blatant vandalism should be reverted using the vandalism button, such as you perfectly did here. Keep up the good work! P.S. if you are interested I think you could make great use of the rollback feature. You can ask for it at WP:PERM/Rollback. --Mark91it's my world21:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello FoCuSandLeArN. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Periya amman, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: temples do not fall under A7. Thank you. SmartSE (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
notability needs to be established via third-party sources, which this article lacks. it will be deleted eventually, so i'm fine with it. regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you dude for helping me by editing my 2 newest articles. I'm just a new member in Wikipedia so you might expect some imperfections. Thanks again for your efforts. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aymdaman777 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I wanted to thank you on behalf of WikiProject Bivalves for the new bivalve stub you just made. Many thanks! Please let me know if you have any interest in creating more stubs about either bivalves or gastropods. Invertzoo (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I would love to. I've only recently started creating a few articles. Would love to work on some more. Please advise if you have any more work. Cheers :) FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
David Karp
I made that change because he does destroy social lives and he is our king. This is relevant. I am from tumblr. I know what up. We have to reblog him on site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.115.47 (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean to vandalise! I just meant that's what his fans think of him and was adding a fan-based flourish! Because basically... I don't know. On tumblr there
s this rule called "see him and you must reblog" litterally, we think of him like a god. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.115.47 (talk) 17:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That's fine, mate, but do check wiki guidelines before you edit articles, especially biographical ones, which are prone to defamation. fan flourishes are definitely disapproved of here at wiki. it's a fine addition yo your user page, if you decide to sign up. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Post Script.
Yet again sorry. I was just really peeved because of the new lay-outs when I wrote it. (still am), but hey! Did you know (fun fact regarding us treating him like a god) that last week I saw a prayer to David Karp floating around my dash?
Thank you very much for your help. I am quite new at these, so I really appreciate it, and am glad to see that someone noticed I added them :) Please tell me if there is anything urgent which the project needs help with; I would gladly dedicate some time to it if it's within my reach. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, that's extremely kind of you to offer to help, FoCuSandLeArN! I noticed your new stubs because we have a bot that lists for us any new articles that have certain snail and slug-related key words in them, and I am the person who checks those listings every day. Actually I do feel that we could use a lot of help with making more freshwater snail stubs, and probably also numerous land snail and land slug stubs. I have to think a bit about where I should ask you to start, and what I should ask you to use as references, unless you have some suggestions yourself? I was just about to ask one of our members to create a new list of articles on species where there is no corresponding genus article, maybe that would be an OK place to ask you to start making new stubs once I have that list... But there are alternatives too. Invertzoo (talk) 23:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
One possibility that you could do right now if you like, FoCuSandLeArN, is to go to Trochoidea (genus) and make stubs for all 10 of the species that are currently red-listed there, using Ref 2 on that page (the AnimalBase list) as a reference to back up your stubs. If you are going to do that, you should use the species article for Trochoidea betulonensis as something to copy and paste and then tweak to fit the additional species one by one. By the way, I have not yet cleaned up the other blue-listed species stubs in that genus yet, but I will be doing that tomorrow morning. As you can see, T. pyramidata has a nice image already so you could add that to the appropriate stub. It would also be great if you can copy the project template from the talk page and put that on to the talk page of any new stubs you make. Let me know if you are going to start that process and I will keep an eye on what you are doing. Also please feel free to ask me any questions you may have! Good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Sounds excellent. I usually just look for articles on new species and start from there, but your starting proposition sounds good for the time being. I'll do it first thing in the morning. Thank you again for the assistance, can't wait to start! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Wow! That was fast, FoCuSandLeArN! Many thanks on behalf of the gastropod project! Just a few small things that will save me having to do any fix-up work on your new stubs:
You can update the access date of the reference, since you accessed it on 17 October 2012, not in 2008, as the old reference said. You may want to check quickly with the reference to make sure that each one of the species are actually still on the list.
Secondly you can put "family Hygromiidae, the hairy snails and their allies". It's good to mention the common name of the family when there is one.
If you leave a line space before the stub tag "Hygromiidae stub" the article looks better I think. That's the way I do it.
In the Project template on the talk page, you can go ahead and put "class=stub" and "importance=low", as those rankings are going to be the case for all the species stubs you write, unless there is more info to put in them.
I will not touch your stubs until you have had a chance to do those small fix-it things to them. if you would rather not do that fix-it stuff, let me know and I will do it instead.
No problem, my pleasure. That's silly of me not to realise! How do I add that to the template? I agree on the line space. I will get to those things possibly tomorrow evening. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
No, really, you are doing great! As for adding to the template, you could of course just copy the markup in a template that already exists for a species stub talk page that has a template that is fully filled in, which looks like the following but with 2 curly brackets beginning and end:
By the way, FoCuSandLeArN, it would be great if you can continue to write stubs for any new species of slugs or snails that you can find, that would be really terrific. If you do that, look in WIkipedia for already-made stubs for species in the same family (or maybe in the same genus) and then copy and paste the already-made article as a basis for the new one so that the taxobox etc comes out alright right from the start. I am currently going through the last 3 hundred or so of our old stubs, so almost any article you find should (hopefully) be in basic OK condition.
Actually I have to say I have had no experience with collapsible lists, but usually for any feature like that, I would just try to find a ready-made small straightforward one on another page, and then copy and paste the markup on a subpage of my user page and then experiment with re-purposing it. Invertzoo (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
If you are interested, FoCuS, I see that the land snail genus Trochulus has 11 species listed that are red links (as well as 10 blue links). The one blue link that I have already cleaned up is Trochulus biconicus. I will try to get to the other blue links to clean them up either this evening or maybe tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
A very big WELCOME to WikiProject Gastropods for you, FoCuSandLeArN, a new member! We are delighted that you decided to join the Project! Thank you for the numerous snail stubs you have made already, and for your willingness to take on more work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of gastropods. I hope you can enjoy the work you do in the project. Please let us know if you start to get bored and we will try to move you onto something different. We have a zillion different things that need doing! Invertzoo (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hat notes
Hi. I created an article Herbert E. Gregory. There is another article Herbert B. Gregory. There is a page, Herbert Gregory, that allows the reader to pick which Herbery Gregory they are interested in. I was wondering, though, if the E. and B. articles should have hatnotes at the top of the articles listing the other Herbery Gregory? If so, I am uncertain how to use the template. Thank you. -Fjozk (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Just a follow up reminder on checking your later contributions, please do not italicize families, subfamilies, superfamilies, suborders, orders, and everything higher than a genus as you did in Prosorhochmidae and Monostilifera. Nor should they have a binomial parameter, as that is restricted to genera and species. Again italicize only the genus, subgenus (though subgenera are normally not included in the taxobox, and are only mentioned in-text), species, subspecies (in animals and plants), and varieties and forms (in plants).
And please do introduce the subject correctly. For example you did not identify what Prosorhochmidae is a family of, exactly. You should have first given a common name that is readily identifiable before identifying its taxonomic affinities. e.g.:
Also note that your links to "family" and "order" lead to the incorrect articles. Use piped links to family (biology) and order (biology) rather than simply to family or order. Remember that it's far better that you do it right the first time than to expect it to be corrected by later editors. Especially at the rate that you're creating them. :P It's important that you learn these things as early as possible.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL00:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you once again for your remarks. I will try to adhere to them in as much as my brain's capability to learn is still decent. How silly of me, really. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hardly silly of you. Articles about biological organisms are often incorrectly introduced as, "Such and such is a taxon in the higher taxon," and new articles tend to follow the existing style. It's nice to have someone willing to point it out exactly how to carry on with future articles. Nice post, Obsidian Soul. -Fjozk (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I ran into similar problems early on, and other editors were kind enough in explaining my mistakes to me. Stub-making is important in WP:TOL, but I still come across a lot of incorrectly written taxon stubs every now and then, and correcting them can easily take just about as much time as the author spent in writing them. It's like writing it twice. So... teach a man to fish and all that. :P -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL01:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree, however in some cases, where very obscure genera, etc are concerned, it is the only option, either because one can't generalise or simply because no information is available. I know the majority of the articles I created didn't fall under that category, but it must be said. I will do my best to continue improving the quality of my edits, thanks to constructive comments such as those! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me know if you run into something so obscure, and maybe I can help, particularly for marine organisms. -Fjozk (talk) 00:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. Very obscure taxa that do not have common names, whose parent groups do not have common names, or taxa whose affinities are not known/disputed will need to be introduced far more differently. But those are very rare (I can't remember if I've ever come across something like that actually). Most can be introduced by the nearest higher taxon with a common name. After all, subtaxa are still members of their parent taxon. For example, Peracarida lacks a common name other than the "anglicized" equivalents (they can be referred to colloquially as "peracarids"); but even if that is so, they are still crustaceans and can be introduced as such. Ariommatidae similarly has no common names for their members, but at the end of the day, they are still fish.
Thanks FoCuS! I just got back from working at the museum so I'm a bit weary and out-of-it, but yes, that stub should be turned into a redirect (you know how to do that, right?), but first we need to list that new "combination" Xerocrassa seetzeni, on the Trochoidea (genus) page in the Species list section, putting it as a synonym at the very bottom, like this:
We also need to put in a new reference on the genus page. The new ref is AnimalBase how it now is in 2012. They updated their info since 2008, and now we need to update ours. Thanks so much for all your good work! Invertzoo (talk) 22:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure thing. No problem at all. I'll get to it on Monday (I usually try to relax during the weekends, otherwise I'd flip out!). Cheers! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Haha, I've placed the redirect and the synonym at the genus article. I'll work on the other genus shortly (Xerocrassa). On that note, I've come to find that Xerocrassa sphakiota isn't there, however it does appear on the Fauna Europaea site...I will update the list and create new articles, as there are 53 species in total. Hope you're fine. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That sounds very good, thanks FoCuS. (Actually I have bad tendonitis at the back of my left knee so I am using a cane and can't get around very much or do any exercise.) When you add one or more additional species to a list using another reference, please add the new reference (do you know how to do an inline citation?) so people know where the extra info came from. Oh and if you have any questions on anything leave me a note on my talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The set of new Trochoides species stubs and their talk pages look very nice now! Thanks very much FoCuS! I am going to look around a bit and try to find some other suitable lists that have red links for which you could maybe create stubs, that is, once you are finished with the Trochulus ones. Invertzoo (talk) 13:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, one thing I noticed just now on your stubs, that the word "pulmonate" and the word "gastropod" have no space between them. It's just a small thing, but it is in all of them except the one or two I changed just now. Maybe that was already in place as a mistake in the one I told you to copy (?), or maybe it was a mistake that happened during the copying process. But either way, when you create your first stub in a series, it's always a good idea to proofread it slowly and carefully before you start copying it for the other stubs. Not a big deal, but it is something worth fixing. Thanks again and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about making so many talkback templates . Anyway, good job on the collapsible lists, except please see my last recommendation on my talk page. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, FoCuSandLeArN. You have new messages at Yinonk's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
More stubs?
Hello FoCuS, Thanks for all your very good work. Are you interested in creating some more snail stubs? If you are interested, there is a note on my talk page entitled "Note to self" which has a list of several different things that need doing. If you would rather do something else rather than making stubs, there are a lot of very nice shell photos on Commons that need to be placed in the appropriate articles, if that would interest you? Invertzoo (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Let me know as you progress along, otherwise I am juggling so many things that I may lose track of where you are in the list and what is going on. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Pierre Andurand non-notable?
Hi; saw you've rejected my piece on Pierre Andurand on grounds that he is non notable. I cant see how someone who has made Forbes Top 20 rich list, was worlds most successful crude oil trader can be considered non-notable. Sources include Reuters and Financial Times - are these not considered worthy and independent?
Also Wikipedia has an entry for Glory World Series kickboxing league, which Pierre owns. So surely thats the same as having an entry for the UFC and having an entry for UFC owner Dana White? Sorry but i spent ages writing that and i thought he was an interesting character and clearly of enoug standing to be getting attention from international magazines and newspapers. I think my wiki editing might be a bit crappy but i dont think the subject is non notable by Wikipedia criteria. Especially when youve got guys that are nothing more than reporters on the sport he owns, with their own wiki entries. Is this guy really notable but Andurand isnt? > Ariel Helwani Dont understand your logic there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johninmanchester (talk • contribs) 13:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I understand your frustration, I would be much happier with just a few more references and perhaps the use of a slightly more neutral tone for the article. once that's done, simply reapply and it'll probably be accepted. Thank you for your work! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits! and a question...
I created the D.B. Hardeman Prize entry that you edited. I appreciate your help!
I will soon be adding a photograph of one of the recipients, if that is okay.
About the image, I don't think it would be useful, unless you're adding it to that person's article. You sure can, there are two ways you can do that: 1) as a wikilink in-line with the text, for example "so-and-so was the recipient of the The D.B. Hardeman Prize"; 2) you can add a see also section with the same wikilink before the references section of the person's article. Good luck and let me know if you have any other questions! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hardeman Prize
I did a search for the D.B. Hardeman Prize and it didn't appear. Has it not been posted? Can you let me know today what needs to be done? Thanks!
MM
Margaretwmiller (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
the review process takes some time, but eventually the accepted articles are moved to the main space. don't worry. other editors might have a look, but if they all agree on accepting the article, it's a matter of waiting. cheers FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Reg the post you commented on HVKumar submitted for review
First of all, my apologies, if this is not the right medium to communicate back to you as I'm unable to understand how I can get back regarding the comment that was posted for the article I submitted.
No need to apoligise. Simply put, try to use references such as books, newspapers, etc. anything that can be verifiable. social media can't be used as references. I believe you received other comments on your submission, with useful links for you to have a starting point for its improvement. Thank you FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for taking the time to review this page /wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alberto_Arakaki
can you please let me know exactly whats the issue so that I can correct it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XK8ER (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi FoCuS, and sorry for the belated response. I'm not sure I understand your question about fungi stubs, but I'd echo Stemonitis in saying that WT:FUNGI is probably the place to ask. It's not terribly active, but there are clever people watching. Alternatively, talk to Sasata (talk·contribs). He's our top content creator and is also experienced in using scripts to generate stubs.
Thanks for the feedback. I want to improve my articles to be up to Wikipedia standards, but need a little clarification in doing so.
"A proper infobox can be added, and referenced need to be improved by adding full citations and using 3rd party referencesFoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC"
How do I make a proper infobox?
What else needs to be added to the references to become full citations?
No problem. Infoboxes can be found here: Infobox templates, just select the appropriate one from the menu and follow the instructions to add one to the article. References can't be just links. When you use the "cite" tool when you're editing the article, make sure you select the appropriate citation, such as "web", then fill the fields accordingly, such as access date, publisher, etc. For help on what constitutes adequate referencing, check out Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, but simply put, facebook, youtube or other social media are not adequate references. Good luck! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
I have permission from the USPS via email to upload a photo of the Lady Bird Forever Stamp panel
with the caption Photo courtesy of USPS. But I can't find the right "permission" to use to upload it. Help!
Here is the email I received with the image:
From: "Bolen, Robert S - Austin, TX" <robert.s.bolen@usps.gov>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 11:59:52 -0500
To: Margaret Miller <margaret@lbjfoundation.org>
Subject: RE: question from the LBJ Library
The references are usable, because they are from her website that she created. And I also got some references from her via twitter. 75.176.3.213 (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
They are absolutely not usable. They need to be independent third-party sources which are verifiable, and social media isn't verifiable. I transcribe Wiki policy: "A citation to a reference must verify the statement in the text. To verify the statement "Mike Brown climbed Mt. Everest", you cannot rely on a general reference about Mt. Everest or a reference on Mike Brown if it doesn't include the fact that he climbed Mt. Everest. You need to cite a source that directly supports the statement about his achievement. You must use reliable sources, such as published books and mainstream press publications. Blogs, MySpace, YouTube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another Wikipedia article.". FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up FoCuS! The last couple of days I have been up to my ears researching a shell paper long-distance, so haven't had much time for WIkipedia. However I greatly appreciate your work on these gastropod stubs! Invertzoo (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, the most valuable luxury's time! no worries, i love doing it. on that note, do you know the distribution of Vaginula? i found a study of species found in cuba, but dunno where else it's found. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Strange spacing
Hi! I have successfully uploaded a new image to Lady Bird Johnson but the reference section is pushed to the right. Can you help me understand how to adjust the spacing? Thank you!
Margaretwmiller (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you!
On another article, I need to remove the word "The" from "The D.B. Hardeman Prize." Not sure how to do it.
I appreciate your help!
Margaretwmiller (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, FoCuSandLeArN. You have new messages at Anonymouse321's talk page. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
