User talk:Anne447

Hi all, I just contributed for the time to an article, Gwen Shamblin. I added ISBN numbers, but I don't think I did it right. Please feel free to fix any mistakes and let me know what I did wrong, so I can do better next time.

Be kind, I am a newbie. :-)

Anne

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

Hello, Anne447, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

BTW Anne - make sure you're always logged in when you edit. Then you'll be able to see all your edits at Special:Contributions/Anne447. :) pfctdayelise 04:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Shamblin anon edit

I appreciate being welcomed. I am wondering why the article I edited has been comlpetely changed. Even my references were deleted. What is that about? I worked pretty hard on that.. and the person who changed it didn't even leave their name or a reason. Anne 15:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Anne

Hi Anne, I just checked it out. If you look at the page's edit history, you can see that the edit was made by an IP address, ie. an anonymous user. That's not necessarily a problem, but this anon has made three edits, all to this article, all very similar. It's safe to say that they are not a member of the WP community and thus are not primarily interested in building a NPOV, referenced encyclopedia. So I reverted their edit (see Wikipedia:Revert). The nature of a wiki is such that anyone can edit anything anyone writes (with some exceptions... like "protected" pages, such as the main page - if they were vandalised, it would make WP look very bad to visitors).

So anyone can write anything, anyone can revert anything... that doesn't necessarily mean they should. A good practice to follow is the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

I guess what I'm saying is, don't be afraid to revert edits that make articles worse. My personal practice is, if I have to revert something more than once, I tend to make a comment on the Talk page and ask people to discuss it there before making the change again (because Wikipedia:Edit wars are WP:LAME). See how you go.

Happy editing, pfctdayelise 16:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Shamblin

(copied from User talk:DESiegel):

I just revised my first article yesterday. Today I find that almost everything I wrote has been removed, but the person who revised it didn't say why. I thought my work was neutral, and I certainly cited sources for the things I said. They removed the magizine articles I worked so hard to find.

What's that about? The article was Gwen Shamblin. Anne 12:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Anne[reply]

I Presume you are refering to this edit which removed a good deal of recent work, and several cited sources. You will note that another user has already reverted these changes. I see only one very minor edit from you logged in, preceeded by several edits from a user who was not looged in, adding up to this set of changes. Do I correctly understand that you were the user who made these while changes not logged in? (there is nothing wrong with that, i just need to be sure that I have correctly understood which edits you are talking about.) Please note in the article's history that only one editor, who was also not logged in, removed these changes. In a case like this, commentinmg on the talk page, as you did, adn drawing the attention of other editors, as you also did, is the best way to proceed. I will put Gwen Shamblin on my watch list. The current state of the article seems reasonably neutral we will hope that these sorts of changes will not be applied again, but if they are, they can easily and quickly be reverted. Thank you for calling this to my attention. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it is generally considered a poor idea to refer to an article that an editor has worked on, or even started, as "my article". Wikipedia is a collaberative project, and no one owns any article. I am sure you did not mean this as anythign but "the article that I recently edited", but other editors might take this the wrong way, so tryu not to sue such terms in the future, please DES ^(talk) 16:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Welcome to Wikipedia! DES ^(talk) 16:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. I hope you stay and do lots more. Warning: wikipedia can be quite addictive. Yes one does feel pride in articels one has worked on, and that is good. Just remeber that helpful edits, even ones you may not agree with, made by other editors should be respected. Clearly unhelpful edits, such as the one that brought you to me, are another matter, but even thouse should be reacted to politely if possible. I am curious, how did you happen to select me out of many active wikipdians and over 700 admins to bring the matter to? i am glad you did, but wonder which link led you to me. DES ^(talk) 19:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Wikipedia:General Complaints and then to the link reference desk and from there to help desk where I saw this (pasted below) and you looked like a smart, powerful guy so I went to you. :-)Anne 19:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Anne[reply]

3 RV rule

Whoermaster keeps on insisting on retaining Uncyclopedia-esque and POV content in the Jewfro article. I have reverted it twice, so I guess I cannot revert it a third time. It appears that Whoermaster has violated the 3 revert rule, although this is impossible to prove since the last revert was done using an anonymous IP (sneaky...). My question is, what am I supposed to do now since I cannot revert the content? Where 00:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

i have reverted, and warned User:Whoermaster. I have also placed a note about this on WP:ANI. In future that is a good palce to report such events. DES (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Where 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Starting new articles

Thanks for looking at the article and reverting it. I am wondering if it should still be called a stub, and if not, how do I remove the "stub" tag. Also, I would like to write about another author. Do I need permission? I have searched extensively and have not found any articles about her. Thanks again, this is great fun. Anne 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Gwen Shamblin: if you edit the article, at the bottom you will see a line that says {{US-writer-stub}}. Use of {{curly brackets}} indicate use of a template, which means you can include the same text on several pages easily. This is what the stub notice is. You can add or remove a stub notice to any article you like (so to remove it, just delete that line - in the edit summary, you should put something like "removing stub notice"). For this article, I would probably remove it, but it's just a judgement call. Even though it's short, it seems reasonably comprehensive in explaining why she is an interesting or notable person.

If someone else adds it in again, you can again ask them to explain on the Talk page what information they feel the article is missing.

OK, now for a new author article. Absolutely, go right ahead and create it, but I encourage you to have a quick look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), specifically: Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more (may be suitable to write an article on). If you don't make it clear why the author is interesting, your article may be in danger of being nominated for deletion. Obviously we want to avoid that, so make it as clear as possible in the lead section.

Also, check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, which will be able to give you some tips on writing a great bio article.

You are well on your way to being a fully-fledged Wikipedian! :) Happy editing, pfctdayelise 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese wikibook

Hi Anne, thank you for your kind words. You're certainly welcome to post links to the Wikibook anywhere you like, however at this present time there are no audio files for pronunciation. -- ran (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]