User talk:Allenwc

Welcome!

Hello, Allenwc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Ok, a year and a half or more late, but still.... GRBerry 00:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Todays edits

As you asked about, I did revert todays edit to Midden#Shell middens, because it seemed spammy. It reads more like an advertisement ("The seminal work ... should be read ... contains a wealth of information ...") for the book than encyclopedia content for this article. Always remember when editing to write content that belongs in a tertiary source reference work. (If there are multiple indpendent reviews of the book published in reliable sources, and they say that, consider using those sources to write an article on the book.) If you can use her book to add content to the article, please do so and cite it as a reference using {{cite book}} as you did originally. Or, if you used it as a reference in your edits back in January 2006 and that content is still in the article, use it as a citation for the content you added from it then. References are works actually used in creating article content, that a reader could go to to validate the current content of the article. I would not recommend just putting it in a "Further reading" type section; the instructions at Template:Expand further discourage leaving such a section intact.

hmmm. I see your point. How would you feel about a brief summary section on Shell Midden Chemistry? Just mention the possibilities and then refer to JK Stein's book for indepth coverage and as a reference? After nearly 15 years I still run into field workers who don't realize that ground water leaching can cause apparent strata where none in fact exist. Allenwc 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that you also created the article Borden System today. Frankly, I don't know if it will survive; it is unlikely to be removed as spam, but it doesn't cite any sources at all. I've wikified the page somewhat; you might want to review the changes that I made so that you'll understand how to format a bit better. The changes were

1. We don't put header text at the top of the article's text; the page header is automatically generated from the page name.
2. We do use ''' triple quotation marks to make the page title bold text the first time it appears in a page.
3. Links to Wikipedia articles use [[]] and just the title of the page, or [[title|article-text]] if we want the article text to be different from the title. Links to external websites use a [url article-text] format.
4. We don't sign or date articles; the "history" tab lets those who wish see when and/or by whom an article was written.

Again, welcome and I hope you continue contributing. GRBerry 00:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Borden System Page

Thanks kindly for the edits.

I've incorporated your suggestions, adding category etc.

I was waiting for my query to UBC to see if the article was still published or on web, but neither is the case, so the original article citation is the only one available according to the library. There is the reference at Canadian Museum of Civ, I added that as well.

70.66.178.177 21:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing out of print works

There are a number of books and articles that I own that are long out of print or unavailable in any form. How does one cite these sort of works? Does one cite them or continue to look for available works?

For example, for the Hoof glue page I have this material: which is not only out of print, but due to its highly esoteric nature, nearly impossible to find in any form at all.

Roman Era Adhesive (Feugere 1993, p. 80)

There is this article which makes a passing reference to the relevant pages, but that's all it does reference. This article is really an aggregation of material, much of it without proper citation or reference. Not a very good academic article at all.

(Smith 2002)

Or should I just add the {{Fact|{{subst:DATE}}}} or {{subst:Fact-now}} tag and see if the wiki-world can find something?

References

Allenwc 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

References need not be in print or particularly easy to find, although. If you have a copy of the work, and it is challenged, you could scan the relevant pages and email them to the challenger. Wikipedia generally prefers to cite secondary sources, ceterus paribus. Academics prefer primary sources. If the source that you list second is an accurate secondary source, and you are disparging it because it is secondary, then feel free to cite the secondary source. If the source is lacking in accuracy, don't cite it, cite the source that is accurate. It is always better to cite a source when you have one than to leave one of those irritating {{fact}} tags. GRBerry 23:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that makes it a lot easier! thanks kindly. And yes, the source I don't want to use is because it is secondary of secondary sources. Thanks kindly Allenwc 15:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!