User talk:Carole70
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Carole70, 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:
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Le Deluge (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Referencing
[edit]Hi - I think I sorted out your problems with the Mario J. Ciampi - it needed a reflist tag. Using ref tags is generally much better than using bare web addresses, I tidied up the ones for the buildings references. Just as a general comment - the idea of references is to allow the reader to WP:VERIFY what's been said, so in general things like a "Personal family interview" would only be acceptable if they had eg been deposited at a library or archive where they were publicly accessible. And even then they're a bit too close to the subject of the article. Stuff like where he was conceived are probably never going to be provable, and such tittle-tattle is not particularly encyclopaedic so should be omitted. Things like his projects and awards should be sourceable from publicly-printed documents, and it would be much better to use such sources. I take it you're related to him? In that case you should have a read of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Writing_about_yourself_and_people_you_know and Wikipedia:Autobiography. I don't think there's a problem, it's just good to make these things clear with a note on the Talk page and maybe your user page. If nothing else, I guess it means you probably have access to a lot of out-of-print material that would make good references for the article, that other people may find hard to get hold of. Best wishes. Le Deluge (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like you've got the hang of it! <g> Sorry if there were any edit conflicts in the meantime. Le Deluge (talk) 20:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- How the heck do I respond to you? I love your attention and information, as it seems as though you are peering over my shoulder. Yet, I cannot figure out how to reply. I decided to just "edit" this column and add a new heading. Carole70 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Here is just fine - that's why it's called a talk page. <g> Alternatively you can get to my talk page by clicking on the "talk" link in the signature at the end of my posts, and then just edit it like a normal page. Every time one's talk page is edited, one gets the orange bar appearing to alert you to a new message. There's two schools of thought on discussions. You can either write on each other's talk pages (which has the advantage of the orange bar alert, but which makes it hard to follow a conversation as it's split across two pages), or you can keep it all on one page as we're doing here. Most people tend to do the two-page thing, personally I'd rather do it this way so you can follow the conversation. I've watched this page (using the star button at the top) which means that every time it's edited it appears on my watchlist (link top right). When you know someone's in a conversation with you, it's easy enough to check your watchlist. Watching an article page is also one way to follow what's happening - in this case I've been doing "View history" (again, top right of the page) and seeing what you've changed. One other thing - you don't need to do full http links to Wikipedia articles, you just need to enclose them in double square brackets - eg [[California]]. You might also want to drop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture although it looks pretty sleepy at the moment. Le Deluge (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- How the heck do I respond to you? I love your attention and information, as it seems as though you are peering over my shoulder. Yet, I cannot figure out how to reply. I decided to just "edit" this column and add a new heading. Carole70 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- So how will I know if I have ever "passed inspection"? I am curious if my "Personal Interviews" will be acceptable. Will I just receive an email alert? I seem to receive them whenever this page has received an update. Thanks for all your help, by the way! Carole70 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- You don't, because there's no formal "inspection" as such, you'll just find one day that someone will decide that something's not acceptable and delete it. The only way to handle that really is to keep an eye on the article via the watchlist - the nature of this kind of slightly obscure article is that it can go months if not years without major edits other than people tweaking formatting/typos or a bot adding links to other language wikis, then suddenly someone will get a bee in their bonnet and go mad on it. To be blunt, the interviews aren't OK as things stand, I was just trying to be nice not to discourage you because you're obviously trying to do things the right way and have even battled with the head-banging complexity of the cite system. And 70% of Wikipedia is completely unsourced, so you're better off than that. However... The fatal objection is that they're not publicly available in any form, so noone can verify them per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Even publishing them on your own website would be better than nothing; submitting them to an archive would be better (I'd guess Berkeley or any of the other places he worked would be interested given the local connection?). The way Wikipedia works means that even better would be if a journalist took that interview and wrote an article based on it, even if it was full of inaccuracies and misquotes - the idea is that it's been filtered by a third party and so the obvious rubbish has been rejected. That gets round the second argument against the personal interview, that it's just an old man's say-so. If the interview was accepted verbatim then he could say he impregnated Marilyn Monroe and shot JFK, and that would be recorded as fact in Wikipedia. The idea is that being accepted by an archive implies at least some kind of notability and non-nutjob-ness, and being rewritten by a journalist implies a more granular filter that would discard individual items of craziness like being abducted by aliens. But to be honest, WP:SELFPUB means that just publishing it on a website would be good enough for the minor details like his parents farming and being in tents on the Presidio, there's nothing controversial there. I'd avoid the thing about being conceived in the tent, but I think the way I've rewritten that bit to emphasise the timing relative to the earthquake, means that readers can read between the lines.Le Deluge (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, bunches! You are a fun person to work with!2001:558:6045:41:18E:414:AC6F:6A4B (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- You don't, because there's no formal "inspection" as such, you'll just find one day that someone will decide that something's not acceptable and delete it. The only way to handle that really is to keep an eye on the article via the watchlist - the nature of this kind of slightly obscure article is that it can go months if not years without major edits other than people tweaking formatting/typos or a bot adding links to other language wikis, then suddenly someone will get a bee in their bonnet and go mad on it. To be blunt, the interviews aren't OK as things stand, I was just trying to be nice not to discourage you because you're obviously trying to do things the right way and have even battled with the head-banging complexity of the cite system. And 70% of Wikipedia is completely unsourced, so you're better off than that. However... The fatal objection is that they're not publicly available in any form, so noone can verify them per WP:SOURCEACCESS. Even publishing them on your own website would be better than nothing; submitting them to an archive would be better (I'd guess Berkeley or any of the other places he worked would be interested given the local connection?). The way Wikipedia works means that even better would be if a journalist took that interview and wrote an article based on it, even if it was full of inaccuracies and misquotes - the idea is that it's been filtered by a third party and so the obvious rubbish has been rejected. That gets round the second argument against the personal interview, that it's just an old man's say-so. If the interview was accepted verbatim then he could say he impregnated Marilyn Monroe and shot JFK, and that would be recorded as fact in Wikipedia. The idea is that being accepted by an archive implies at least some kind of notability and non-nutjob-ness, and being rewritten by a journalist implies a more granular filter that would discard individual items of craziness like being abducted by aliens. But to be honest, WP:SELFPUB means that just publishing it on a website would be good enough for the minor details like his parents farming and being in tents on the Presidio, there's nothing controversial there. I'd avoid the thing about being conceived in the tent, but I think the way I've rewritten that bit to emphasise the timing relative to the earthquake, means that readers can read between the lines.Le Deluge (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- So how will I know if I have ever "passed inspection"? I am curious if my "Personal Interviews" will be acceptable. Will I just receive an email alert? I seem to receive them whenever this page has received an update. Thanks for all your help, by the way! Carole70 (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Home Economics
[edit]Hi there! I'm looking over the Home economics page. You added some content in March 2015 and cited the Carolyn Goldstein book. Unfortunately it looks like the contributions were written verbatim from the book without quoting them or integrating them into the page. I'm wondering if you could consider taking another pass on it? Thanks! -- Techtonic (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)