User talk:Marina C (2)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your recent edit to Michael I of Romania was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
When you added the new info to the Michael I of Romania page, you also deleted half the article. That is what the bot was complaining about above. I have reverted you a second time. If you want to put the new stuff back in, feel free to do so, but please be careful about deleting major portions of the existing article in the process. - TexasAndroid 20:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks , I am so glad you answered! Actually, I deleted nothing at all: I simply added an external link (as I have done many times before, successfully) and WHAM the article was cut in half, as you say, half of it disappeared.....I am now perplexed as to how I can avoid this in future, can you help? Marina C (2) 06:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this happened to me once before. This is what I wrote on April 17 "I made a couple of minor edits, today Monday 17 April 2006, and the whole of the bottom part of the article disappeared....puzzled, I tried to revert the article to it's previous complete form, without success. Now horrified by either my incompetence or a fault in my computer (always blame your tools...) I used another computer and created a second account, and then managed to return the article to it's previous contents... Sorry for any inconvenience, it was not intentional. Marina C (2) 20:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"
Contents |
[edit] Speedy Deletion Templates
Please do not subst speedy deletion templates. This does not place the page to be deleted in the Candidates for speedy deletion category. This places the article in the Speedy deletion templates category. Speedy deletion templates only work when they are not substed, like {{Db-attack}}, not {{subst:Db-attack}}.Jesse Viviano 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Still learning! Marina C (2) 08:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Talk:Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen
Marina C (2) wrote:
- Hi Gurch,
- You left a comment in your edit box Talk:Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen saying "(rm speedy tag -- CSD A6 not applicable to talk pages, article is not speedyable either) 09:28, 15 June 2006 Gurch m". I would like you to help me understand, I have made the effort to do the tutorials, and read as much as possible about "how to" on Wikipedia, but this I need help on. Especially as I see that the Serbophobia discussion page was nominated for deletion- why not the one on Prince Radu that I nominated?
- Thanks Marina C (2) 13:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, sorry if you find our deletion processes confusing. As Wikipedia has grown, the various processes have been extended many times to try and keep up, there is a lot to learn, and sometimes the tutorials aren't completely clear.
Pages can be "speedy deleted" (deleted within minutes rather than having to wait several days) if they meet any of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (CSD). The list tries to cover a range of things that are obviously not worth keeping in Wikipedia, so that administrators can remove them straight away. If a page doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, it can still be deleted using either Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AfD). With proposed deletion, an article is tagged with {{prod}}, and if nobody objects to its deletion within five days it is removed. If someone objects, the article is sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and has the {{afd}} tag applied (articles can just be sent directly to AfD). AfD also lists the article for five days, during which time its deletion is discussed (said discussion usually ends up taking the form of a vote). At the end of the five days it is either deleted or kept, depending on the outcome of the discussion.
The speedy deletion criteria are divided into eight groups – the eight subheadings under "Criteria" on the CSD page. The first group, "General criteria" are applicable to all pages (articles, discussion pages, user pages and so on), then each of the remaining groups applies only to a certain type of page (for example the next heading, "Articles", applies only to actual articles, and not discussion pages, images, user pages or anything like that. Administrators tend refer to these criteria using two-character codes (G3, A7 and so on) – this saves on typing, but can be a bit confusing! The letter refers to the group – so for example G7 is general criteria, number 7 (only contributor requests deletion) whereas A8 is articles, number 8 (blatant copyright infringement). It's not necessary to memorize all the codes, the CSD page lists templates – such as {{db-nonsense}} – which can be applied to pages.
Talk:Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen was tagged with the template for "Attack pages", {{db-attack}}. This is criterion A6, hence the "CSD A6" in my edit summary. However, this criterion is listed in the Articles section of WP:CSD, hence it only applies to articles, and not discussion pages. Since it was placed on a discussion page, I removed it. Occasionally editors put a speedy tag on the discussion page rather than the article by mistake, so I pointed out that the article itself was not speedy-deletable in case this was the problem. This does not mean that discussion pages cannot be deleted – they can be speedy deleted for any of the reasons listed under General criteria, or they can be tagged with {{mfd}} and sent to Miscellany for Deletion. In this case, however, I recommend that the discussion page stays. While it contains some content that would certainly be unsuitable in an article, it is usually best to keep past discussion for future contributors to read – then they can see the outcome of disputes and avoid creating the same problems again.
The discussion page Talk:Serbophobia was not in fact nominated for deletion – it was the article Serbophobia that was nominated (twice). The wording of the message gives a clue to this – "This article was nominated for deletion...". The message is placed on the talk page rather than the article to avoid cluttering the article with message boxes; information about old nominations is useful to editors, but is not something the casual reader will want to know about. Note also that while speedy deletion applies to all types of page, only articles can be deleted through Articles for Deletion (hence the name). Other types of pages have their own processes – there is a Wikipedia:Categories for Deletion, a Wikipedia:Redirects for Deletion, a Wikipedia:Images for Deletion, and a Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion. Everything that is not an article, category, image, template or redirect is handled by Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion (MfD) – discussion pages go here if they need deleting and don't qualify for speedy deletion.
Hope this clears things up... slightly – Gurch 15:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Marina C (2) wrote:
- Hello again Gurch,
- I thank you for your explanation about the discussion page on Prince Radu of Hohenzollern Veringen, and the time it took you to write it. I will study it with great care tomorrow. I think that I understand (somewhat!) better now. As the discussion page on Prince Radu is so long and unwieldy now, is it not best to archive it? I will study how to do that too. However, I am concerned that it has, however, become an attack page, using Romanian ultranationalistic sources for wild accusations. I know a case for that has to be made, which I hope others apart from myself will try to do.In the Wikipedia way, of course!
- Marina C (2) 20:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. If you're interested in archiving talk pages, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page for details. Moving old discussion to subpages is the most widely-used method, and the one I would advise. I also recommend you add {{talkarchive}} to the top of archive pages once they are created. Also, be sure to add a link from the discussion page itself to the archive, so anyone looking at the page knows the archive is there. As far as Talk:Radu, Prince of Hohenzollern-Veringen is concerned, I see that there's quite a lot there, but it's probably not worth archiving it just yet. See Talk:Race/Archive 18 as an example of how big discussion pages tend to get before they're archived – I would recommend archiving before it gets quite that big, though – Gurch 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Radu
Hi Marina;
I would try a request for dispute resolution. There is a lot of balancing that needs to be done with the article. Most likely, you will have an unbiased third party (or parties) who will come it to give his or her opinion on what the slant of the article is and how to make it level and fair. I am not really active in the editing of the Radu page, therefore I feel it would be better if you did it. I will point you where to go though. Thoroughly read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It outlines the things you will have to go through. First, you should try explaining your stance to Stefan on his talk page, where it will be available to see. Do not go through email. Try to keep your cool, even in the face of heat (if he happens to go off the handle). If that does not work, move on to the other steps, as outlined on the page. Charles 18:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- It was no problem at all. Best of luck, and if you feel you need any more help, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do. Charles 18:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Footnotes and books
I had a similar problem about citing books as footnotes, so i asked the help desk and they said: 'You can use the {{{title}}}. template. See Template:Cite book for how to use that. If that seems too complicated then just include information about the book in the ref templates - at least the author and title but preferably the publisher and year also. Hope this helps. --Cherry blossom tree 15:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Note to myself:try to use : {{{title}}}. template. See Template:Cite book for how to use that. OR, just include information about the book in the ref templates - the author and title and preferably the publisher and year also.
Big mess!
- Ellsen, I. (1998). Toi,ma soeur, Paris: Editions de La Martinière,Chapter:Au quatre coins du monde,par SAR la princesse Margarita de Roumanie, pp 182-187: ISBN:2-7324-2413-7.
