User talk:MikeWilkins

Welcome to Mike Wilkins Wikipedia talk page.

Please use this page for any and all communications intended for Mike, by the way, I will attempt to respond within 24hrs after reading your message.

1. You are invited to send me a new message.

2. You can continue any conversation on the page.

3. You may add or respond to an existing conversation under the current heading.

4. Please remember to indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.

5. You may create a new heading if the original conversation is archived, or initiate a further discussion on this page.

6. Please remember to sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes, or by clicking on the image icon at the bottom or top of the Wikipedia page.

7. The sample of a signature image icon. (MikeWilkins (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

Mentor

I am looking for a Mentor to help me create bronze star content for Wikipedia. I will keep my fingers crossed that my chosen Mentor will be able and willing to give my request consideration, then a positive response. While waiting, I shall continue attempting to find my notes in the study, as with luck I will need them soon. MikeWilkins (talk) 12:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's the 11th March 2018 and I have started to write a few words on my sandbox page on Wikipedia. I am still looking for a mentor, however, it's time to try and move forward. With hard work and luck, I hope not to make oversights. I want to learn the Wikipedia rules, so I have decided to start editing with the view of attempting to help, not hinder this great institution. MikeWilkins (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MikeWilkins (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: You've got messages!

Hello, MikeWilkins. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Thank you Vchimpanzee for your response and help regarding the issue raised in the Teahouse. By way of information correlation may I say that I have been working on the article for the past few weeks, and with luck and hard work I hope to have it prepared and submitted for review soon. You are invited to view the working draft is you so desire, it's in my sandbox with the redirect to the Wiki Edit Draft page.

MikeWilkins (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Robert Matthews aka Prophet Matthias. (April 16)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Robert Matthews (religious figure) instead.

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:Robert Matthews aka Prophet Matthias. and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Robert Matthews aka Prophet Matthias., click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MikeWilkins! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation 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! Theroadislong (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Robert Matthews aka Prophet Matthias. has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Robert Matthews aka Prophet Matthias.. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still Searching for guidence

It's good to have a cup of tea or coffee, I like mine with two sugars!..:)

May I say that it's a great pleasure to have some spare time so that I can attempt to contribute to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. For the past few weeks, I have been writing a few words attempting to improve the content of a Wikipedia article. I have been told that I should consider editing the original Wikipedia article. After forty years of research, and writing I am concerned as it appears that I am in danger of oversights or errors during the process of contributing to the Wikipedia system. I am happy to edit, and I have read many of the guidelines, however, I think that I need guidance as I do not want to waste time on oversights during the editing process. Before I start work on editing the original article may I request from you as an experienced editor in Wikipedia that you read my draft then tell me if I should remove any inappropriate information. Thanking you in advance. The draft is in my sandbox, it was rejected yesterday because the topic was covered in Wikipedia. Perhaps I can improve the original Wikipedia article, what do you think? MikeWilkins (talk) 06:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC) I have put the link here, hope that it works!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MikeWilkins/sandbox&redirect=no [1]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, MikeWilkins. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi MikeWilkins! You created a thread called Do I need a mentor to edit? at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Delivered by Muninnbot, an automated account. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page.
This functionality is currently under test. If you received this notification by error, please notify the bot's maintainer.

Scanned articles are the wrong way to go

There is no requirement that sources be available online. What we need are solid footnotes such as would be used in a doctoral thesis, not links to a .pdf on some random blogger's website. In this age of Photoshop, "scans" may be faked, or insidiously altered. We assume good faith if the reference is specific enough that the item could be found in a good reference collection. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

               Hi Orange Mike,  Many thanks for this communication. All the information which I have and intend to present is available from original American historical documentation. The information is verifiable from libraries, and pre 1836 public domain books. I only use original information which is verifiable from more than one reliable source. The idea of piggyback miss information is repulsive and inappropriate, hence the need to present more than one reference point which is fully compatible with all the available established information.

I must admit that I am perplexed regarding the best method of presenting both new and corrective information inside the Wikipedia articles. From my limited reading inside the Wikipedia articles, it is apparent that several articles require extensive edit work.

I seem to have three options today.

1. Simple slow one-off edits into the original article, showing verification.

2. Talk with Wikipedia editors and gain a census of opinions from the verification articles.

3. Write a paper then have it endorsed by a historical society or university.

Another two options.

4. There is one more option for some of the information which I have, however, I will have to write another book, then present it to the two American library's which have the original source material for independent content confirmation.

5. Do nothing go on holiday and enjoy my life!

It's hard to know what to do. I will attempt to seek counsel from wise editors, then after consideration and full evaluation, I hope to know what to do!

Very best regards.

MikeWilkins (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as an historian by training who's created or vastly expanded lots of articles here about 19th-century topics, I strongly advise option 1. There is no deadline here, and this way you can slowly polish the articles until they are genuine contributions to knowledge. 2 is more trouble than it's worth; 3 and 4 are impractical; and 5 would leave the rest of us bereft of your knowledge and efforts. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

           OrangeMike it looks like we both agree on the best method of moving forward editing Wikipedia articles. One question for you, what happens if the edit is unjustly removed, and do the editors have to state why they have rejected or removed the new edit?

As an amateur historian for the past forty years, I have written several books and articles. I enjoy public speaking, and with luck contributing into Wikipedia in the near future!

OrangMike you have been very helpful in your remarks.