User talk:TerritorialWaters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, TerritorialWaters, and welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some pages that will help you to find your way around, understand key policies and guidelines, and develop your contributions:
Help and information Contributing articles Policies and guidelines
Please sign your name whenever you leave a comment by using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the date. Whenever you edit a page, even if the edit is minor, you should include a descriptive edit summary. If you need help, visit the Help Desk or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will respond shortly. If you would like direct access to help from an experienced editor, you can join the adopt-a-user project. I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and find it a rewarding experience. - Adrian M. H. 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Your post at RFF

Rise of nationalism in Europe When I went to review this article, I saw that it has been nominated for deletion at AfD. I am a little disappointed that the nominating editor did not substitute the AfD notice onto your talk page, which is encouraged out of courtesy, but I guess you probably know by now anyway. If you would like to follow its progress, the debate is at Articles for deletion/Rise of nationalism in Europe. The consensus is erring towards a Keep, which I think is right in this case, despite the shortcomings that led to the nomination. But if it is allowed to stay, you need to do quite a lot to bring it up to standard. The nominating editor cited its lack of attribution and verifiability, which as I'm sure you can appreciate, are among the most important content policies. Basically, the article is totally unsourced. Verification is achieved through the diligent application of reliable sources, which are used – in the form of footnotes – to cite the statements that you write.
Oddly, the article has no lead section, which suggests that you may not be aware of the Manual of Style. This is a large and very important group of guidelines that together set out how an article should be structured, what should and should not be contained within it, and how it should be written. The lead section is essential in all articles and serves to establish notability, create context, and outline the key points. Another weak area is the quantity of wikilinks in the body text; these should be used more judiciously and primarily for two purposes: linking to related articles and providing an explanation of terminology. For example, you have linked to Europe in the first part of the first section, and then repeated that later, which is redundant.
On a good note, you appear to have been able to write with a neutral viewpoint, which is another key policy that is set in stone. The prose is quite well written, too, although it may need to be a bit less essay-like and a bit more encyclopædic. But, I have to say that this is one of the most promising debut articles that I have seen in quite a while, which makes a refreshing change! Regards, Adrian M. H. 20:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm glad that I was able to provide some useful help. Looking at the deletion discussion, I see that it was only nominated two days ago, so an admin will probably review the consensus between three and five days from now, approximately. I noticed that you had !voted, which might be disregarded from the consensus because you failed to openly acknowledge your vested interest as the article's primary contributor. Incidentally, if you're wondering why I put an exclamation mark before voted, that is a weird little thing that has developed on Wikipedia and refers to the fact that consensus comments are not votes. I had to see that used about three times before I figured it out! There is some opinion about whether the article should be merged; you might want to have a look at Romantic nationalism (presumably why the nominator considers your article to be a fork) and see if your article really offers content that is not so closely related to it.
Also, you asked about an Irish community. Well, Wikipedia doesn't have communities as such, because that's not what it's about, but you might be interested in the Irish WikiProjects that are listed here. Regards, Adrian M. H. 13:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I just saw your question about sources at the New Contributors' Help page. I answered a similar question at User talk:BigKnish recently, so you might find that reply useful. (Saves me pasting it here!) Bear in mind that you don't need to cite online material – on the contrary, citing books and noted academic papers is encouraged as good practice. Look at some featured articles to get a feel for ref style and other hints, as those articles naturally set the standard. Adrian M. H. 21:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many articles that are not sourced. Wikipedia only requires sources if one thinks that what is written might be challenged. I saw very little in your article that I did not know before, so I would not have thought it would be challenged, and so I saw no need for sources. I would not expect to need sources if I write something on basic quantum mechanics since most of the time, the maths speaks for itself. But, since it has been challenged for deletion, I suppose you should find all the good references you can. I am afraid I can not help you there since I don't understand what could possibly be challenged (but I am not a professional historian). My main ideas have to do tracing the roots of nationalism. There are roots and ideas that go back a lot further than the period you mention, although it certainly rose to prominence around this time. DanielDemaret 16:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC) As an example, I am a physicist, the article on Physics is almost unreferenced, and this is as it should be. DanielDemaret 16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That would make it possible to include unverifiable claims and untruths represented as facts, and because I - and the vast majority of readers - do not have more than a basic knowledge of physics, we would not know that it was inaccurate and would not know where to go to check it even if we had a reason to doubt it. That idea goes against the entire ethos of citing sources, as laid out in the relevant policies, and as taught to me by very experienced editors. I do not understand how that situation could be acceptable, with the possible exception of very obvious and very unquestionable subject matter. For example; junior single-seater motor racing in Britain is a specialist area of mine, but I would not expect any reader to take what I write for granted. Adrian M. H. 17:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

I did explain: it's a content fork. Whatever useful content there is in there can easily be moved to Romantic nationalism, Zionism, etc. It's also rather pat: you take a broad, disparate subject and try to force some contours around it. Better to leave that for the pre-existing articles. Also it's vague: nationalism has come in waves over the past two centuries. One could speak, for instance, without too much exaggeration, of a rise in nationalism in Europe just since the 1990s (BNP, FN, NDP, FPÖ, etc). Plus, you lack any sort of meaningful references, and it reads like a school essay. Since we already have similar articles, we really don't need this one.

By the way, you're a fairly new user, so let me make a friendly suggestion. Write about more concrete stuff at first. Biographies are great. But also buildings, cities, rivers, mountains, animals, battles, wars - the specific sort of item. Articles like this one are just too vague in scope and thin on new content to be of much usefulness. Biruitorul 18:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw your note on my talk page. It's too early to tell whether or not the articles will be keep or delete. If it's delete, you could still merge some of the material with the articles Biruitorul feels they are forks of. Either way, in fact especially if the article is kept, you should add references. I recommend making yourself a copy now for that purpose, if you have not already. Edward321 22:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply about saving/archiving pages

I haven't viewed the HD yet today, so I would have missed your question. Strike that; it was at WP:NUH, just spotted it. Initially, I thought you were referring to archiving talk pages, but I remembered that you were a bit worried about the AfDs. There are two possible options, both of which are useful (and used by me and others) for developing articles and other content. One option is to save the contents of the edit window into a Notepad file (using UTF encoding to preserve all forms of wiki-formatting) and the other is to create user sub-pages, such as User:TerritorialWaters/Draft articles or similar. I also use a Wikipedia:Sandbox sub-page for bits and pieces. Click the icons at the top of my user page, and you'll see my sub-pages. Adrian M. H. 14:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bronski Beat

Please note that Wikipedia categorizes articles by what they are, not by what they're indirectly related to. For example, we file a Bronski Beat song such as Why? in song categories, not in musical group categories. Thanks. Bearcat 08:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republicanism in the Commonwealth

Hello TerritorialWaters,

I see that you are interested in the British Empire and oppose monarchy. I edit Res Publica, an international anti-monarchy Web directory and wonder whether I've missed any republican resources for the Commonwealth.

Would you please have a look and share your thoughts?

Thank you.

Jonathan David Makepeace 22:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing. --Svetovid 20:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hit That Perfect Beat cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hit That Perfect Beat cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Milling

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Southern Milling, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.southernmilling.ie. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)