User talk:Clockchime

Welcome Clockchime!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 48,289,256 registered users!

Hello, Clockchime. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm W.carter, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:

Introduction to Wikipedia

The five pillars of Wikipedia

Editing tutorial

How to edit a page

Simplified Manual of Style

The basics of Wikicode

How to develop an article

How to create an article

Help pages

What Wikipedia is not

Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:

Do be bold

Do assume good faith

Do be civil

Do keep cool!

Do maintain a neutral point of view

Don't spam

Don't infringe copyright

Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest

Don't commit vandalism

Don't get blocked

If you need further help, you can:

Ask a question

or you can:

Get help at the Teahouse

or even:

Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:

Fight vandalism

Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome

Help contribute to articles

Perform maintenance tasks

Become a member of a project that interests you

Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.

The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Sincerely, w.carter-Talk 21:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC) (Leave me a message)[reply]

Your first article

Hello! Very nice article you are working on. I have left you some tips in the edit summaries on how to proceed with it. If you run into some more snags, you are always welcome to ask at my talk page. I am one of the editors who help "newbies" here. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 22:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Clockchime (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more tips

Now, for getting the links right, the trick is to actually go to the page/article, copy the name of the article from the headline of the page and place inside the double square brackets. That way you get all the characters, spaces, caps, etc. right. Furthermore, you will be absolutely sure that you link to the right page. Since this is an international site, there are so many articles with the same name so there are bound to be mistakes if you don't check that. Like you did with the link Queen Isabella as opposed to the right link Queen Isabella. Click on both links here and check in the code/editing window and you'll see what I mean. This is called piped links.

Also, when you write the text in another program, say Word, you get some bad formatting tagging along when you copy paste it to the article, like the quotation marks. When you hit the (") or (') keys in Word, the citation marks automatically get converted into "slanted" typographical marks:

“ ” whereas the Wiki-code is to use only straight marks: " ".

The difference is not easy to spot in the text, so I'm enlarging them here. It is easier to see in the code/editing window, take a peek.

The same goes for the single ones: ’ vs. '.

If you type with the same keys directly in the WP the marks will always be straight. So it might be a good idea to remove the formatting from the text before pasting it into the WP, otherwise each mark has to be hunted down and replaced. I have no idea why the code is supposed to be this way, only that it is the consensus of the WP community that it should be like that.

Last, if you're planning on sticking around here, it would be great if you created your user page. You do it by clicking on your red name and simply write something in the editing window. "Hi!" is quite sufficient. :) That way your signature will turn from "newbie"-red to editor-blue. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, good advice -- all very helpful. Clockchime (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also please consider using the preview option to lower server stress and chances of edit conflicts (which happened to me now). Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 00:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SwisterTwister, will do. Clockchime (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metafiction?

So there is a relatively minor book on film as the source to support the claim that one of the most famous (and most written about) plays of the second half of the 20thC is Metafiction ?

Metafiction's defining characteristics are 'Metafiction is a literary device used self-consciously and systematically to draw attention to a work's status as an artifact. … … (it) does not let the audience forget it is viewing a play; metafiction forces readers to be aware that they are reading a fictional work' … … 'metafiction is specifically fiction about fiction, i.e. fiction which deliberately reflects upon itself'.

To be honest, I don't get too upset about categories (although they often seem unhelpful and unregulated to me), but does Waiting for G. really fit the Metafiction description, and have most critics characterised it as Metafiction?

I leave the matter with you as to whether WfG is really, substantially, looked on as Metafiction. Pincrete (talk) 19:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzing back here, no I don't feel strongly about 'cats', just can't see the sense of it, anti-theatrical sure (nothing happens, twice), even vaudevillian in places, 'abstract' as to its time/location, but those just make it non-realist.Pincrete (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 1 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Lake Wobegon page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Clockchime. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]