The source for the mispelling of Jim's last name as 'Halpret' is found in the Entertainment Weekly magazine, but I don't know how to cite it. Can anyone {{helpme}}User:Xylogirl07|Xylogirl07]] (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. At the moment, if you edit the page, you will see this;
...spelled Halpret. {{fact}}
You can remove the {{fact}} tag, and add your reference, as follows;
...spelled Halpret. <ref> "Put the article title here", p.123, Entertainment Weekly, June 2009 </ref>
(of course, filling in the appropriate details - please give as much info as possible, such as the author of the article, the issue number of the magazine, etc). This will then automagically appear in the 'references' section.
Please try it, and if you have problems, give us another shout. I will add my own notes to referencing on this page too. For more help, you can either;
Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
Thank you for your recent edit to Big Brother 8 (US). I have placed a "citation needed" tag on the sentence that you added to the article. The sentence that needs citation is:
"This fact technically violates the eligability rules for big brother, which state that contestants must be 21 years of age at time of application."
Hi there! I see that you're looking for adoption. I have been on Wikipedia for over 2 months & made 1000+ edits, and I'll be happy to adopt you. I'm logged into wikipedia almost all the time while i'm at work, so i'll be usually available. Do lemme know if you're interested in being adopted by me! Amit@Talk16:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I see that no one has let you know yet that an article you created on Chad Juros has been listed for possible deletion via the AfD (Articles for Deletion) process.
The purpose of the listing is to seek a consensus to keep or delete the article. Any logged-in editor is welcome to have a say, and the debate can be found here. As the article creator you may wish to mke a comment regarding its future. Euryalus10:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How references work
Simple references
These require two parts;
a)
Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>
He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>
b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";
== References ==
{{reflist}}
(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)
Chzz was born in 1837, <ref name="MyBook">
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009.
</ref> in Footown.<ref name="MyBook"/>
Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.
Citation templates
You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;
Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
| last = Smith
| first = John
| title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
| publication-date = 2001
| publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
| page = 125
| isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>
I blanked the usertalk page, however, if the vandalism continues, I will most likely suggest that the account be softblocked. Message me back if you have any questions. Iheartsox (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gilmore Girls episode
Hi. I'm the editor reverting your changing of the Gilmore Girls episode (Knit, People, Knit! (Gilmore Girls)) redirect into a regular page. Please note that all articles on Wikipedia must meet the our general notability guidelines. Some specific discussion about how this relates to TV show episodes can be found at WP:EPISODE. In brief, in order for an individual episode to have its own page, it needs to be more than just a plot and character description; the episode must have been discussed in detail in multiple, independent reliable sources (not just the show in general). As a consequence, this means that very few episodes of TV shows should be their own articles. If you think that for some reason this episode can meet those criteria, the best thing for you to do would be to work on it in your user sandbox (if you don't know how to make one, I'd be happy to show you how) first to add the sources necessary to show that this is a notable topic. If you have questions about this or anything else about Wikipedia, feel free to ask me here; I've added your page to my watchlist, so I'll see them here. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that on another one, you mentioned that there was a prior deletion discussion. However, that discussion was back in 2007, before our notability guidelines had their current shape. If you insist, I will take them through another deletion discussion. It would be easiest if you pick the one that you want to discuss, and I will nominate that for AfD. 22:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The deletion nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French Twist (Gilmore Girls) (2nd nomination). As much as i am using the CBS march madness basketball+repeats to watch the entire series of Gilmore girls i am also going to strongly suggest you not put in all the effort to make 153 stub articles that will be deleted for being 98% plot summary. I would be one who would likely read them but i also can think of 4 or 5 people who would put them up for deletion without so much as taking 6 seconds to think about it. Typically the premiere episode of a long-running series and select other episodes that are particularly popular for their subject matter or events involving their creation or/and broadcast are sustained as individual articles. Years ago every episode of a tv show was being given its own article. Now those very stub-class articles that have not been improved upon have been redirected or are being put up for deletion at a fairly regular rate. I would suggest developing season articles. At 7 seasons / 154 episodes Gilmore girls meets the requirements to justify having season articles. There is much that can be added to the first season article. And, i have spent years looking for a reference for it but i do say 154 because the 'unaired' pilot was the episode that was broadcast on the station i watched the show on for its first few years. I am not sure if it was an accident or someone being sneaky or the station complying with rules about mandatory broadcast of episodes made in Canada. What we know and love as Gilmore girls was originally titled The Gilmore Girls. [1] I have drafts of i believe all 7 seasons' season articles and if i can find them it would save you a lot of keystrokes. There was also a couple of years ago now the mass removal of all cast members from navigation boxes. Things deemed appropriate include creators, characters, episodes, seasons, real-word related places or organisations, soundtracks, awards, and a wikiquote entry if one exists; things more explicitly rejected include producers, directors, writers, cast members, production companies, and broadcasters. It is a lot to take in at once so i will give you a while to reässess your approach and maybe we can find a way to work together on this. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~01:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support the idea of season specific pages, in part just for a more manageable presentation; plus, it's likely that there will be coverage for the whole season. Furthermore, I also support the idea of articles on individual episodes that received general coverage. So, for example, if a particular episode spawned significant controversy or discussion that was covered by other media sources, that could deserve its own episode. In some cases, a particular episode might be notable because it was particularly unusual, like if it was the first television episode with a particular type of scene or trait. But most episodes simply will not rise to the level of notability necessary to meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, WikiProject Disney has been rather inactive recently. I saw that you are a member of the project. If you still consider yourself to be an active member, leave a response on the Project's talk page. Hopefully we can get the project up and running again. Thanks!--GroovySandwich23:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiWomen's Collaborative
WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Xylogirl07! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.
As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:
This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.
The comment they left was:
Although there's a large amount of contents and information, this is simply hints at profile-making instead of a formal solid encyclopedia article. Also, looking her filmography shows there's not a large amount so there's also not anything imaginable for the applicable [{WP:ENTERTAINER]] notability. Please, no resubmitting, unless there's better filmography to suggest a better notable article.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rachel Alana Handler and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
![[1]](http://thefiveeight.com/img/TheGilmoreGirls.png){kind=link}