User talk:Consciencecreator

June 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Film score has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Film score was changed by Consciencecreator (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.863407 on 2016-06-09T04:19:26+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Consciencecreator! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Proposed deletion of Mary DeChambres

The article Mary DeChambres has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Melcous (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags

Hi Consciencecreator and thanks again for your message. I think the first important thing to understand is that the page is not being challenged. What is currently on it are what's called "maintenance tags". These are not saying the article shouldn't be there, but rather are indicating that it still needs some work. That is pretty normal for an article that is recently created (there are some articles that have been on wikipedia for years that still have such tags!) The idea is to remind editors that there is still work to be done, and the tags may in fact encourage other editors (e.g. those who are looking out for some of the particular issues they flag) to help out.

The sources that are still there are ok (you are correct, things like IMDb and wikipedia are not acceptable, WP:UGC explains why), but it could still use some more to verify some of the information in the article and affirm that the person meets wikipedia's notability criteria. If you haven't yet, have a read of these two articles: WP:N and WP:V which explain these two key ideas. I hope that helps and sets your mind at ease - most wikipedia articles take some time to improve, and when other editors start contributing and collaborating it will hopefully improve even more. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - yes sorry unfortunately many of us who have been around wikipedia awhile can add automatic notices and explanations and forget that it is not always as self-explanatory as we might imagine, so happy to try to help to further answer your questions!

The tag about links is about whether there are any other wikipedia pages that link to that one. The idea being that if someone is notable enough to have their own encyclopaedia article, there should be other articles that mention them. So if you click on the "Find link tool" you should see that it tells you that DeChambres is mentioned on the 67th Emmy Awards page. So if you then go to the page, and add a wikilink on her name (by putting a set of double brackets around it), then her article will no longer be an "orphan" and that maintenance tag can be removed. (I was going to do this for you but then thought I would give you a chance first, which will also test whether my explanation makes sense! Let me know if it doesn't).
The tag about sources isn't saying that the references that are currently included are unreliable (you are correct, LA Times is reliable) but is saying that the article needs more reliable sources. Are there other newspaper articles, journal articles, or books that talk about DeChambres and can you add them to the article? That will help it get to a point where it no longer needs that maintenance tag. The references can also be improved by including more relevant details - I have just done that for the LA Times citation, so if you do find some others, you can copy the fields I have used in that temple (e.g. first and last refer to the author's names etc).

Hope that's helpful, cheers Melcous (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one more thing, when you leave a message on a talk page like you did on mine, please "sign" it by adding four tildes (this symbol ~) at the end, which will then automatically add your username, a timestamp, and a link to your talk page. Thanks! Melcous (talk) 07:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi again, yes I hope you don't mind me jumping in - I happened to be here at the same time as you and I now have the page added to my watchlist, so I saw the change you made and realised my explanation must not have been clear enough! So what I did was add the WP:WIKILINK to the 67th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards article - so I went there and found Mary DeChambres name, and then just edited it to add two sets of square brackets [[ around it, to link it to her article. That then meant that her article was no longer an WP:ORPHAN because it had another page linking to it and so then i removed the maintenance template - inside the double {{ brackets at the top of the page. I hope that makes sense. I'm glad to hear you are sticking around and trying to figure some things out, feel free to ask me if you have more questions in the future and I will try to help if I can. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done!

Good work on creating Molly Shock. I've had a look and made a few edits - I did them a section at a time and tried to explain in the edit summaries what I had done and why, so hopefully if you go through those that will help you see some things to look out for about formatting and referencing. There is a lot to learn for new editors, so don't worry if you haven't got it all at first, the whole point is that wikipedia works by collaboration so other editors can help you out. But it might also be worth knowing that there is a Manual of Style that has lots of details about how wikipedia articles should look and you can search it to help you find what you need. Keep up the good work! Melcous (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an orphan, even though it isn't tagged as such, but rather than me fix it, I will leave it with you. If you search for Molly Shock in the search box (if you add a ~ at the beginning that might help) you should find at least 2 other articles that mention her, so then you need to go edit those articles by adding wikilinks [[ ]] to her name. Melcous (talk) 09:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]