User talk:Beaglepack

Welcome!

Hello, Beaglepack, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other 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!--Mishae (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St Paul's Cathedral

Please don't stuff around with that carefully formatted article. The pics are arranged right/left so a to fit the relevant paragraphs. It doesn't look the same on every screen, so care is taken that it will look OK on both wide and narrow formats.

With regards to the paragraphing, you divided material into so many small bites that continuity was lost. For example, when talking about the series of plans, it is important that the details of each are kept together rather than spreading plan a over three two-line paragraphs, and plan B over another three two-line paragraphs when the info holds together and is more readable as two six-line paragraphs.

There are a great number of very poor articles that need work, so it is general better to start on a very poor article, or a short stub, than sail into a major article that reads well and is carefully laid out.

General advice

Look at the article to see how it is laid out. The Table of Contents is the best place to start.
Read the article to see if what you want to add or remove is appropriate, necessary, or adds value.
Search for the right place to put it.
Check Use the "Show Preview" to make sure that what you have done is appropriate and correct.
Discuss any change about which you are uncertain, by placing your proposed text, or just a suggestion, on the talk page. Someone who watches the article will usually answer in a day or so. You can monitor this by clicking the watch tag at the top of the page.
Be aware
- that an addition inserted between two sentences or paragraphs that are linked in meaning can turn the existent paragraphs into nonsense.
- that a lengthy addition or the creation of a new sub-section can add inappropriate weight to just one aspect of a topic.

When adding images

Look to see if the subject of your image is already covered. Don't duplicate subject matter already present. Don't delete a picture just to put in your own, unless your picture is demonstrably better for the purpose. The caption and nearby text will help you decide this.
Search through the text to find the right place for your image. If you wish it to appear adjacent to a particular body of text, then place it above the text, not at the end of it.
Look to see how the pictures are formatted. If they are all small thumbnails, do not size your picture at 300 px. The pictures in the article may have been carefully selected to follow a certain visual style e.g. every picture may be horizontal, because of restricted space; every picture might be taken from a certain source, so they all match. Make sure your picture looks appropriate in the context of the article.
Read the captions of existent pictures, to see how yours should fit in.
Check the formatting, placement, context and caption before you leave the page by using the Show preview function, and again after saving.
Discuss If your picture seems to fill a real identifiable need in the article, but doesn't fit well, because of formatting or some other constraint, then put it on the talk page and discuss, before adding.
Be aware that adding a picture may substantially change the layout of the article. Your addition may push another picture out of its relevant section or cause some other formatting problem.
Edit before adding. Some pictures will look much better, or fit an article more appropriately if they are cropped to show the relevant subject.

Amandajm (talk) 14:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

I have been through the article and returned the links that you made and returned the new section heading. But I can't find the edit that you labelled as "grammar". In the course of searching, I did find two words that were the wrong way round. But I still don't know where the grammatical error is. Amandajm (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beaglepack, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Beaglepack! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the message. Everything on the page is referenced, and openly discussed in Australian politic discourse and the Australian print & news media, including the publicly funded news source, the ABC.

Its understandable that there might some who want to suppress talk of Kevin Rudd's faults out of bitterness, given that Kevin Rudd just lost the ALP a federal election in Australia 3 days ago. It is a desperate time for those souls, and they have my sympathies.

However, I am concerned that the main wiki page about Kevin Rudd is currently missing a large piece of the puzzle that everyone on the ground here in Australia is aware of - Kevin Rudd's controversial personality. If someone overseas read the Kevin Rudd main wiki page, they might be left scratching their heads about the dynamics of Kevin Rudd's political career, and Australian politics over the last few years.

Thank you. Beaglepack (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted a message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#AfD needing a WP:SNOW closure asking that an administrator close this discussion and delete the article given the clear consensus that it should be speedy deleted. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Your recent editing history at Kevin Rudd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelbourneStar. How was your Saturday night? Beaglepack (talk) 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Beaglepack, it was wonderful indeed . Ps, I would kindly suggest you take a good long read of point of view editing. It may just make your time here on Wikipedia, more enjoyable. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 05:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Smith (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]