User talk:Loninappleton

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Loninappleton! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 17:59, Tuesday, November 1, 2016 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (January 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of films and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

For films to be notable, we specifically need major news and reviews.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Loninappleton/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Loninappleton/sandbox has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Loninappleton/sandbox. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm lost most especially in formatting code.

But I did make the needed improvement with an edit. It's a review from the New York Times in the historical period. I was not aware of it previously. The Canby review/introduction to The Living Theatre Company contains more details. I would appreciate help in formatting these.2602:301:77E9:1600:3DB0:D128:C8D1:9D98 (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Signals Through The Flames has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Signals Through The Flames. Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Signals Through The Flames (January 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gbawden was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Signals Through The Flames and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gbawden (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Loninappleton, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Gbawden (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Loninappleton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --David Biddulph (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Email

You sent me an email, but I'm not going to answer it by mail as you say that you are getting confused with all the mail messages. I don't know who you are getting messages from, but I find that it is easier keeping discussion on-wiki, then it's easier for both sides of a conversation to see what has been said, and for other editors to add further helpful comments if they can. If the information which you have been given at WP:TH#Confused about Drafts-- I seem to have lost some work doesn't answer your questions, please feel free to ask further, either there on the Teahouse or here on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David,

You've been most helpful and I have read and replied to the teahouse reply and will follow up on that.

Lon,

Still piecing my way through this.Loninappleton (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous advice is archived at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 563#Confused about Drafts-- I seem to have lost some work, if you need to go back to it. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Helpdesk is what I need rather than the Tearoom. I thought I had a lead by discovering the History Tab and possibly doing the citation re-edit needed. But I'll need more than that.Loninappleton (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every old version, and the exact details of every change, are recorded in History. For example here is an edit made on January 10th, approximately when you asked for help. Near the top you can click the ← Previous edit link and Next edit → links to view each edit over time. If that isn't the edit you're looking for, you should be able to find what you want within just a few clicks on ← Previous edit. Alsee (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alsee.

Assuming I go back some edits, where will I find the code contained in the book drop down to get it right? When I open that area to edit in the Draft, the inline inserts-- there are two-- do not appear. It may be a formatting issue but I have been that far along in the trace and don't know where the inline refs are stored. What I do see should be deleted as duplicate or misplaced.Loninappleton (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you message someone, they will get a special message notification if you include a link to their name. Like this [[User:Alsee]] or [[User:Alsee|Alsee]]. The easy way is to copy-paste it from their signature. Without that link, they may miss your message.

Ah, you're looking for the inline refs. "Inline" means right in the middle of the text you wrote. If you edit the full page they are in the middle of the article, in the middle of the paragraph you wrote. They are right where the [1] appears. (That's how it knows where to put the [1] [2] [3], they show up wherever the inline ref is written.)

'''Signals Through The Flames''' is a documentary film on the work of [[Julian Beck]] and [[Judith Malina]] as the founders of [[The Living Theatre]] performance company.<ref name="TimesReview">{{cite news|last1=Canby|first1=Vincent|title=SCREEN: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE LIVING THEATER|url=http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/05/movies/screen-an-introduction-to-the-living-theater.html|accessdate=11 January 2017|publisher=New York Times|date=February 5, 1984}}</ref>

This yellow is the inline New York Times ref. The name= is optional, it allows the ref to be used more than once. The {{cite news|....}} is called a template. It's optional, but it makes the stuff inside look nicer. It's created for you when you use the CITE/TEMPLATES dropdown.

The title of the film is taken from the work of [[Antonin Artaud]] in his book on theatre theory called ''The Theatre And Its Double''.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Artaud|first1=Antonin|title=The theater and its double|date=1958|publisher=Grove Press|location=New York|isbn=978-0802150301|pages=158|edition=1997}}</ref>

This yellow is the book ref. I think this is what you wanted? If you edit your draft, you can directly change any of the information in there. If you want to move the ref, you copy and move everything between <ref> and </ref>.

The film was produced by Mystic Fire Video as a project of the now defunct Mystic Fire Video bookstore in New York City.  It was directed and edited by Sheldon Rochlin.<ref name="TimesReview"/>

This is a second copy of the New York Times ref. It only needs the name=. Notice how it has a / inside? The / says it's done. You don't need a </ref> to end it.

Was that the answer you needed? Alsee (talk) 05:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Yes I think that should help.  A long way to go with this.

Perhaps you can say why when I look up the book itself on wiki there is a big error message over the top of the entry, but the entry was not pulled. Many entries exist with their errors uncorrected. Mine remains in Draft. How is that so?2602:301:77E9:1600:C52C:66FC:2043:60D7 (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You got a number instead of a name because you're logged out. The link to log in is at the top-right.

I changed the book ref to say page 13. I'm pretty sure that's what you wanted.

I was able to figure out that you were talking about the book article The Theatre and its Double. The message at the top warns that the article has serious problems. That article was created in 2005, and a lot of our earliest articles were extremely poor quality. Some of those articles have been deleted, some of them have been improved, and some have simply haven't gotten any attention. Any editor might nominate that article for deletion at any time, or hopefully someone will improve it. It would certainly be rejected if it were created today.

Your draft is better than that book article, but we don't accept a new article just because it's better than old forgotten junk that should be deleted.

Your draft hasn't been accepted because you didn't show evidence of "notability". You need to look at WP:Notability_(films). If possible, you want to show news coverage of the film, wide distribution, significant reviews it has gotten, awards, anything that demonstrates that "the world" already considers it important enough to write about it. If you add refs showing notability then you can click the Resubmit button to get a new review. If the film is some small production that hasn't received any significant attention, then it's not really a topic that anyone would expect to find in an encyclopedia. If that's the case, then there's not much you can do to fix it. Alsee (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Signals Through The Flames has been accepted

Signals Through The Flames, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Alsee (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeay! You only really had the New York Times review to establish Notability, which wasn't really enough. Then I did some Googling and I found that the film is still being given screenings by various significant institutions. That is extremely noteworthy under the WP:NFO section of the film notability guidelines. I added that to the article. I was about to leave a note for the next reviewer saying they should definitely accept it. Then I realized... I'm a 10 year editor... I'm fully qualified to do the review myself! So I simply signed myself up as a reviewer and I approved the draft myself. This was my first draft approval. Congratulations to both of us. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying

Hiya. The current Signals article is fine, nothing needs fixing. I just want to clarify something for any future work. I just saw that you started the draft by copy-pasting text from somewhere else. At Wikipedia we're very careful about copyright law and plagiarism. We get information from various sources, but we write that information in our own words. I've double checked the current Signals article, over time 100% of the text has been replaced with re-writes. Everything is fine now. Just be sure to avoid copying in the future, unless it's an explicit quote. Alsee (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping in touch. I had some questions but got bogged down in my machine problems. I recall that I may have done some cut and paste for only formatting not knowing about some of the special commands. Can you give an example from the history of the questionable text? Also I made no further reply since I just got the inter-library copy of that Cambridge Companion book mentioned for the research a day or so ago. It only had a mention of the group, nothing worth using. Would like to make an entry if none exists on the Occupation of the Odeon Theatre mentioned in the Living Theatre entry.

Also I noticed in the finished entry, Theatre has the two spellings. I probably should use only the spelling which the Living Theatre itself uses in the titles, yes? And what is paragraph character again?Loninappleton (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a colon to indent.

The very first draft version was an exact copy-paste from another website. A google search easily located the copy-source. In theory it is possible that you were copying something that you had previously written elsewhere, but even in that case it would be a mess trying to confirm that you were the same person was behind the accounts here and at the other website.

It is likely that the early versions will be deleted from the article history. That will not affect the current article, just the early history of edits will be gone.

I think you're talking about the 1963 "occupation" relating to taxes and The Brig (play)? It looks like there are good sources if you want to make an article on it. I found this[1] which is good. I haven't seen inside this next book, but I believe it is discussed in: "Gary Botting, "The Living Theatre" in The Theatre of Protest in America (Edmonton: Harden House, 1972)". I assume some digging could find newspaper coverage, and other sources. Alsee (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indent or colon, not sure how to respond. A little late on my reply but your info is helpful. The Occupation of the Odeon took place as part of the May Uprising in Paris 1968 as it is presented in Signals Through The Flames. What you see is a General Assembly with many speakers at the Odeon. Some of it is on Youtube. I had no idea the Signals film was still being presented as shown in the link which was added. I'll see if I can find the protest book you mention. Also getting used to using Preview each time. This entry looks right.Loninappleton (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]