User talk:Amedea

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Amedea, 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 and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
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! Ariconte (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution to the Conflict Continuum article

This is in response to your comments at User talk:Frank Rawland.

Please improve the article referencing secondary sources and refraining from original research. Your own published work can be among the secondary sources. See WP:SELFCITING. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I’d like to improve the article on the conflict continuum to meet Wikipedia standards. I’m the creator of this model, so have access to background materials that should resolve the issues. I want to respect the Wikipedia process, and so have a few questions. 1) How do I find the article’s author? Whoever wrote this article did an impressive job, and I would like to check in with him before re-doing his work. It’s Frank Rawland, but he doesn’t seem to have a current page. What’s considered correct here? 2) Original research: If I understand guidelines for original research, this article may be OK with additional citations. No original material was published here. Mr. Rawland cites one of my books and an NPR interview. There’s another book based on this model, other interviews and other articles. Am I correct in thinking that if citations show where the information was published elsewhere in legitimate sources, it will meet standards here? 3) This model is taught in a variety of college and graduate-level courses, using Conflict Unraveled as a textbook. How do I verify that fact to your standards? For instance, a course catalog is a document, but it rarely lists textbooks. I could always include that information in an interview or article, and let the reporter or editor verify, but that seems pretty oblique. How is this done for other textbooks? 4) Cleanup: Is the Cleanup request primarily about sources? If I add a number of examples of these issues described in other books, would that meet standards? 5) Orphan: Similarly, the Orphan tag seems to ask for more links to existing Wikipedia articles. That seems straightforward. Anything else I should keep in mind? Thank you--

Would like to request getting adopted by an experienced Wikipedia editor. I'm new to the system and would like not to do anything regrettable. Amedea (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are on the right track to me!! Use the help pages.... I will try to answer your questions - (1) Write on his talk page or use the 'email this user link to the left on his talk page, (2) You are generally correct, cite the source that another author can find, (3) Cite the textbook, (4) Yes, (5) Yes. Thanks for you contributions, Ariconte (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that I'm on the right track. A bit more clarification:

1) Is it possible to run updates past an editor before publishing? Would rather correct any problems before publishing rather than after.

2) Is this an appropriate venue to ask for editing advice? I take it you're a general editor and not one of the coaches.

3) Since Frank Rawland doesn't seem to have a user page, I've requested links to him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Frank_Rawland#Suggestion_from_the_Prof This looks like a shot in the dark. Is there a better way to find a contributor?

Thanks so much for your help. It's just getting the hang of the Wikipedia system. Amedea (talk) 17:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers: (1) No, See Wikipedia:Be bold. (2) Yes, I would rather you asked a more experienced 'help' editor; see Template:Help me/doc, (3) No other than email to him via the link on the left of his talk page. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ariconte. Your suggestions are much appreciated. Let's give it a go on the Wikipedia system for finding a coach:

Request for coach

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I'm a new Wikipedia editor who wishes to improve an article in my field of expertise. Would appreciate having a coach/ 'help' editor to help me follow the Tao of Wikipedia. Thank you. Amedea (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can apply at WP:Adopt-a-user. JohnCD (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tests

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page User:The Rambling Man. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry! I was following a tutorial and thought that page was created to practice reversions. I hadn't realized that I'd strayed into an actual editor's page. My apologies.

BTW, I'm primarily trying to learn how to add citations to upgrade existing articles. Would you be able to recommend any tutorials, especially ones that don't involve mangling the work of perfect strangers? -- Amedea (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:REF and http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Please see my reply on my talk page, further discussion should go on the talk page. Widefox (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pls see talk page

Andre - Did you see my comment on the article's talk page??? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Conflict_Continuum Do you think we can expand the lead in my sandbox??? Regards, Ariconte (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single-purpose account

As per WP:SPA

Greetings, Amedea, and welcome to Wikipedia's deletion process! Thank you for your contributions. As a newcomer, it may be helpful for you to read Wikipedia's deletion policy, and the pages describing the articles for deletion process, proposed deletion, and speedy deletion. Remember that deletion debates are not votes, and reasons matter, especially reasons relating to the central content policies of verifiability, neutral point of view, no original research, and what Wikipedia is not, and to the consensual community guidelines for biographies, corporations, music, and fiction. Also remember that deletion is not always the answer to a bad article. Feel free to drop me a line at my talk page if you have any questions. Again, welcome! Widefox (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion from deletion page)

I have encouraged you to edit, and shown you the relevant guidelines. As per WP:SPA, I have added a welcome tag to your talk page. Please also see WP:AGF, and WP:LUC though, which will guide you. Due to the repeated low-level claims of unfair treatment, I think it best to flag-up the COI at WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Widefox (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC) Widefox (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does flag-up mean that the conflict of interest tag will be removed? Amedea (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added indents to the above - to make it easier to read. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ariconte. BTW, is it seriously a problem to have a Single-purpose account? Afraid my expertise is more or less limited to conflict management. Amedea (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit only the one article, then I think you have an issue with SPA. There are lots of articles you could add value to in your area of expertise and in other areas. Examples: Elise M. Boulding needs work, any article in Category:Peace_and_conflict_studies, articles on your town, county, state, hobby, etc. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the bio entry for Diane Nash hardly does justice to her work. She was a remarkable and often overlooked leader in the American civil rights movement. A brilliant tactician.

The Encyclopedia of Black American Women had me write her entry. Could there be any issue with me citing that article? The EBAW is a standard reference, all secondary sources. Amedea (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia are classed as tertiary sources, see WP:PSTS. So you could not cite it.... but you can use your knowledge of the sources it is based on to improve the article and you can use secondary sources you know of the reference the article. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Light dawns. I may have missed the point.

This isn't the world of EBAW and the Oxford University Press. This isn't about writing only where one has vetted expertise.

Wikipedia is a citizen's initiative. One demonstrates Wiki-citizenship by contributing to projects at large. A Wikipedia concern is anonymous writers gaming the system. General contributions are one way to demonstrate intelligent good will.

So it's fine to add to Diane Nash's bio, where I have specific expertise. But in the Wiki-world it's equally fine to contribute something that's just well-sourced. It doesn't have to be a big production, like a EBAW entry. A contribution can be a well-sourced paragraph in an existing article.

OK: Apart from Diane Nash, other useful topics. CNN interviewed researchers who have found cell phone texting has an addictive effect on the brain. The transcript in on the CNN website. The original research results would be the primary source, the CNN transcript would be secondary. It could be a paragraph in the existing article on texting.

Also, there are various citizen's initiatives to stop violence, just regular people doing what they can. Today there's a feature in the Chicago Tribune about a black women's initiative in violence-ridden neighborhoods. The Tribune article would be a primary source. Useful, but can't be written up unless a secondary source appears somewhere.

Diane Nash yes, CNN texting possibly yes, Tribune on citizen's anti-violence no.

Is this more the idea? Amedea (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if you edited the Diane Nash article. It needs sources! See WP:BLP.

Editing on testing would be good; I imagine the CNN article presents one view... it would be good to present other views if you can find them.

The Tribune article would be a secondary source in regard to the women's initiative. I think this gets confusing because it depends on how a source is used.... a source is secondary if you could say "The Tribune said xxxxx". It is WP:OR if you say xxxxx happened.

I hope I've opined that well, Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All terribly helpful. Sounds like the Nash article is the place to start. Start with sourcing.

If we exclude primary sources and encyclopedia articles, sources come down to perhaps a handful of books and a number of academic articles. Some of the histories are exceptionally high quality- Pulitzer Prize, etc. etc.

Would like to include more statements from the awards committees as a clear way to articulate why her work was so important. Looks like the best articulation of the 2008 Freedom Award is from a PR News Wire release. Would that be OK in a case like this? Some difficulty finding the actual wording on some of the others. Amedea (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put 'diane nash freedom award' into Google's news search (2008 and Archives section) and found 4 articles; the PR one, Seattle Times, Memphis Daily, and upi.com. The PR one is by far the longest... the papers boiled it down to the salient points, so I would use them. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have compiled a list of sources in my sandbox. Would you mind looking them over, checking the coding? Some website syntax seems to be off. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Amedea/Sandbox

A wordpress site is listed. That isn't a strong reference but it has the best photo of Nash from the period. OK to use that photo? Amedea (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look good to me. Put them in the article.

Photo copyright is a real pain; I would not use unless I was sure. See the help files.

Lets close this off.... we are way past SPA. Regards and Merry Christmas, Ariconte (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict Continuum formatting

Hi there. Did you want to change your !vote from delete to keep? Your last comment made it sound that way. If so, you may want to strike your previous comment with the strike-through markup (<s>'''Delete'''</s>). Also, I'm not sure what WideFox has said to you, but WP:COI does not prohibit you from working on articles where there is a conflict of interest. If you are familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and feel that you can edit in accordance with them, you should not be dissuaded from doing so. The COI guideline recognizes that you are more likely to violate community norms where your interests are involved, but it is not a prohibition if you can avoid doings so. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RJC. However, since this conflict article has become so-- forgive me-- conflict ridden, I'm actually more comfortable submitting changes to a neutral third party. It allows for an extra layer of editing, from better eyes who know more about Wikipedia protocols. Thanks for the tip on the strike-through. Amedea (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Here

Hello Ma'am. I'm Frank Rawland. I see you cottoned about a year ago that I'd posted a Conflict Continuum article on Wikipedia. The article went up back in 2008. I haven't been very active here since then, so yeah, it would have been hard to reach me via Wikipedia. Your inquiry only came to my attention now because I was bored enough to Google myself and bored enough to find out what became of my article; it wasn't doing so well the last time I saw it, having quickly acquired three flags. And now it's gone entirely. So I'm delighted that you, the model's originator, approved of my work, however outdated it might have been.

I've thought about putting my article up on Squidoo, a hosting site which is, um, somewhat lower in prestige than Wikipedia but also refreshingly free of editorial standards. Except it appears you've elaborated your model. If there are now eight categories I would only be posting half of it. Is there some other way to contact you? ie: LinkedIn? Facebook?

Regards, Frank Rawland —Preceding undated comment added 05:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Greetings, Frank Rawland. That was an exceptional article you wrote. In fact, I've used your article speaking at grad courses on international conflict resolution. The students get assigned to problematic countries, and they really run with it.

For that matter, the rogue model is playing out in Libya now. When people ask, I send them your article. Your piece is the shortest, clearest explanation I've got. So it's still getting used.

Sorry your article got cut over here. As I understood it, the problem came down to footnotes/ citations. Should have been some way to work that out, but I didn't understand the rules, and then life intervened.

Yes, there is more material, and you're welcome to post at Squidoo. Will check in with you at LinkedIn. Amedea (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]