User talk:Athiker99

Welcome to Wikipedia! Need a hand?

Hello! Athiker99, you are invited to join other new editors at the Wikipedia Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on wiki where you can ask questions about editing and receive support & help from experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Sarah (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding library links

Thanks for adding these links! Please see my response to your question at the Help Desk. If you have further questions, you can ask me — just go to my talk page and leave a question by editing the page. I'm also a graduate student working in an academic library (Herman B Wells Library, Indiana University Bloomington), so I'm somewhat familiar with the same issues that you're working with. Nyttend (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2012 June 11 and look for the section entitled "External Link". If that's not sufficient, ask me again for help like you just now did. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Please stop adding links to topics only tangentially related at best to maps of Oklahoma, such as you did here at Okie. Please take a look at our guidelines concerning such links. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VernoWhitney: I have gone through the process of asking permission to add the external link- http://www.library.okstate.edu/okmaps/ Oklahoma Digital Maps: Digital Collections of Oklahoma and Indian Territory- to wiki pages that are connected to both oklahoma history and geography. I am only adding this external link to pages that I feel are connected in some way to the maps that are in the map's collection in the Edmond Low Library at Oklahoma State University. The library has the largest digital collection of Oklahoma/Indian territory maps in the country. I am not clear on how adding an external link that contains maps from the time period of the Okies when they were headed westward is going to detract from the Okie page? If it is truly an issue please let me know and I will remove my external link but please provide me a reason. I want to learn from instances like this one. Thank you.Athiker99 (talk)

I appreciate that you previously asked about this subject at the Help Desk, but I believe there may be a misunderstanding regarding the scope. What Nyttend said was that it should only be added to relevant pages including "county articles, city articles, regional articles, historical articles". I believe the historical articles comment should still be viewed in light of the geographical relevance.

For example, Okie is about the term and its usage through history and in popular culture, not about any of the migrations. Similarly Flag of Oklahoma and Seal of Oklahoma are about those images/icons, and their history, not the history of the state or the state's area/geography/etcetera.

Please don't get me wrong, I have used the link in the past and found it to be a wonderful resource, but lengthy lists of links can be distracting (which is why the guideline specifies that links should be "on-topic"), especially if someone expects to be able to go to the site and search for an "Okie" map, for example. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Verno: Please slow down and reconsider which articles would really benefit from that link. Merely being in Oklahoma is insufficient cause to justify this link. Before adding the link, ask yourself if someone interested in that particular topic (of the article) would really benefit from the maps you are adding. In many cases, the answer is "no" as there is only a tangential relationship between the topic and those maps. ElKevbo (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the previous editors. There is questionable value in adding a link to the top-level of the collection to a wide variety of specific articles. If it is possible to link to content of specific relevance to the articles, that would be a different matter, but the links you are adding is roughly comparable to adding a link to the front page of the New York Times because somewhere in the website there might be content relevant to the specific article. older ≠ wiser 00:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information and suggestions. However, I have already removed the links from Okie and a few other pages that someone might have an issue with. I apologize for this and since I communicated with VernoWhitney I have taken greater caution in where I add this external link. Older ≠ wiser I really do not know what you are accusing me of in this sentence, "There is questionable value in adding a link to the top-level of the collection to a wide variety of specific articles." Several of the pages that I have added the external link to are so barren that this link provides one of the only sources that has been added. Also, several of these sites that are concerned with a geographical landscape have no maps and by adding this external link it provides a visual layer to the information provided through the wikipedia page. I truly do not know how a library/educational source can be a negative addition to a wikipedia page. I have asked for permission previously and received a positive affirmative. What more can I do? Athiker99 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Despite having been cautioned about this, you're still doing the same thing. We don't permit link canvassing, regardless of the quality of the site without a consensus. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From whom do I need to receive a consensus?Athiker99 (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single governing body for that sort of thing. I'd recommend starting at WikiProject_Oklahoma, though I suspect they will tell you similar things you've already been told (i.e., that it makes more sense to have a couple of links, maybe on Oklahoma and/or Geography of Oklahoma. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Athiker99. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oklahoma.
Message added 01:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dcheagle • talk • contribs 01:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]