User talk:Darleen Gruben

Userpage

Is your userpage an article in progress? Useight (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. I am trying to find out how to submit itMary Schallhorn (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{help me}} I have been writing an article and have come to a point where I would like to find out how to move it. I have looked and can't find what I need to do nextMary Schallhorn (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be autoconfirmed, but that's not an issue, I've granted you the confirmed permission (which will be redundant with 3 more edits). The instructions are at WP:MOVE. Hope that helps, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do the edits need to be within the article that I am writing or can they be anywhere?Mary Schallhorn (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Kevin R. McMahon and tweaked the article in various ways. It's a good start but it really needs some independent sourcing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So can I consider this aricle to be live in wikipedia? I am working on the independent sourcesDarleen Gruben (talk) 16:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I have added citations from what I believe are reliable sources and verifiable for the article on Kevin R. McMahon. Is this sufficient? Darleen Gruben (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The number of references is impressive, far more than enough. You have clearly put a lot of work into this, and you are to be congratulated. As to the quality of those references, however, that is more difficult to assess. I have been able to check only the online references, so I have no idea about the others. However, the online references include at least a couple that are not independent sources (e.g. the links to pages at www.ovationmanagement.org); at least one which is a page by McMahon, rather than about him, and therefore does nothing to show his notability; and several which make only very brief mention of him. In fact, http://www.nwitimes.com/uncategorized/article_3d8c90ed-d1f9-5a44-8778-724f86d33145.html is the only one of the online references which seems to me to do anything significant towards establishing notability. Having said that, I will repeat that I have not checked the offline references, so I have no idea whether they do a better job. My own guess is that the article in its present form is very unlikely to be challenged, in which case you don't need to worry about whether the references would be enough to save the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JamesBWatson for your response to my question. Happy New Year! What I am wondering is, what will it take to have the banner removed from the top of the article on Kevin R. McMahon. Can you advise me on that? Should I remove the references that are not independent sources? Darleen Gruben (talk)

No, you don't need to remove references that are not independent. If some of them are not really very relevant you could remove them, but if they are relevant then there is no harm in keeping them, and adding some independent ones as well. As I have already said, I have no idea what the non-online references are like, so they may already be good enough. If I could see one or two that give significant coverage of Kevin McMahon I could let you know what I think. Brief one-sentence mentions are not much use. In theory printed sources are at least as good as online ones, perhaps better, as they may not be so ephemeral. However, online sources have the advantage of being easier for other users to check. Do you have any sources that (1) are not written or published by Kevin McMahon, or by anyone selling or promoting his work, and (2) give significant coverage of him, preferably a few paragraphs rather than a few sentences, and (3) are from reliable sources (not a blog or another Wikipedia article, which is not reliable because anyone can write it)? If you have any such sources online then give a link to them. If you have any that are not online then if you like you could email me one or two examples (please, not loads of examples) and I could let you know what I think of them. You should also have a look, if you haven't already, at the most relevant guidelines. These are the general notability guideline the guidelines on notability of people and of music-related topics, and the guideline on reliable sources. I'm afraid there are rather a lot of these guidelines, which can be really confusing for a new editor. My own opinion is that Wikipedia would be better off if we cut out 90% of them to make everything simpler, but unfortunately that is not likely to happen. You don't have to read every word of every one of them before you edit, but you should at least have a quick look at them to see what the general ideas involved are. One other thing: if you think that some of the printed sources you have cited are suitable reliable and independent sources then I suggest putting a brief mention of them on the article's talk page. Not a detailed account of a long article, but just a couple of sentences to indicate that they really are suitable independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a couple of articles that I can email you. What is your email address. I can not find it. Darleen Gruben (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't put my email address in such public places as Wikipedia pages. However, if you go to my talk page, in the "Toolbox" (at the left hand side of the page) you will find a link to "E-mail this user". I am about to go off line, but I should be able to read your email tomorrow. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi James, I was wondering what you thought about those articles about Kevin R. McMahon that I sent to you in an email. I never heard back. Are they considered independent sources? Darleen Gruben (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, sorry that I didn't reply to your email. When I received it I was busy, and meant to get back to it when I had more time. However, once the email was marked as "read" in my inbox it just got forgotten. Now that you have reminded me I have gone back and looked at it again, and yes, they look to me like perfectly good sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear James, If I were to add references to the two articles that I sent you, would that be enough to have the banner removed from the top of the article on Kevin R. McMahon?

In my opinion, yes. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear James, I have added the references that are from independent sources that are reliable and verifiable to Kevin R. McMahon. What do I do next to see about having the banner from the top of the article removed? Are there certain steps I need to follow? Thanks for all your help.Darleen Gruben (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the template for you. However, you could have simply done it yourself. If you go around removing tags asking for sources while there are still no suitable sources in the article, then you will find that is not accepted, but provided you have actually provided suitable sources then you can remove such a template yourself. If anyone disagrees then they may question or revert your edit, in which case, if you think the matter is worth pursuing then you can discuss the matter with them. (It is not considered acceptable for editors who disagree to battle it out by just repeatedly reverting one another's edits. That is known as "edit warring", and can eventually lead to both editors being blocked from editing.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much James. I'm really sorry if I bothered you. I had absolutely no idea that I could have removed template myself. I'm still really new to this and still learning. You have been most helpful and I appreciate it so much. Best wishes to you. Darleen Gruben (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia can be totally confusing for a newcomer. (I found it confusing at first.) JamesBWatson (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

{{help me}} I can't remember how to edit references. Can you help me? Please help me with...

Darleen Gruben (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darleen. I think the problem you are having is probably related to the fact that when you click edit at the references section, all you see is some code there, rather than the references. We have a standard template for explaining that issue, which, I will post below. If that does not answer your question, please re-post the help me template (and maybe explain exactly what you tried and how it failed or was confusing) Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, normally what you will see is markup similar to this:

==References==

{{reflist}} or <references />

The text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>...</ref> tags, which display as Footnotes (e.g.^[1]^[2]) when you are reading an article. The template code shown above in the references section collates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^{^} symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more, please see Help:Referencing for beginners.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Kevin R. Mc Mahon.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kevin R. Mc Mahon.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Kevin R. Mc Mahon.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Kevin R. Mc Mahon.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]