User talk:Moorebridges

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, Moorebridges, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! IainUK talk 22:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Moorebridges. You have new messages at IainUK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eastern Mennonite University

Thanks for your contributions. I suggest you read WP:WTAF (short for Write The Article First) for a better understanding of why so many of the alumni you listed have been removed. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the "Write the Article First" page. Thank you for suggesting that. I am just learning how to be a Wikipedia writer and editor and this EMU page is my first venture. But let me see if I understand what you are saying in this case: Alumni can only be listed if they already have a Wikipedia article pertaining to them? Is that it? -Or- can someone be listed if there is adequate third-party documentation that they are indeed significant people, and if this documentation is shown with footnotes?

Moorebridges (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tricky one, mainly because the sources have to (collectively) show not only notability but that the person attended EMU. And one redlink can act like a magnet, attracting other redlinks that aren't referenced, which is another reason why many experienced editors will remove them. Having said that, and now that I'm sure you've read the essay and guidelines, if you're confident of your sources then go ahead and include the other names. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am not quite clear on what a "redlink" is, even though I read the article you recommended. If, as an example, I list "Donald Duck" as an alumnus who is a prolific writer and a popular cartoon character too, will it pass muster if I include a footnote on Donald Duck's writings, a second footnote on the cartoons in which he has appeared, and a third footnote from the EMU Alumni Directory of 1945, showing that he is an alumnus? Is that sufficient documentation? Moorebridges (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redlink is an internal link that leads to a non-existent page (much as your username does in your signature above, at least until you create said page). And yes, I would think that sources showing that level of information would suffice. I wouldn't remove them, at any rate, although an independent source making the EMU connection would be considered better (see WP:RS for more on primary and secondary sources). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, now somebody has deleted the alumni entries I added that WERE footnoted, along with a message for me to read the WTAF pages -- which I had already done before trying again with footnoted entries. This seems to contradict what I was told above -- namely that an entry did not have to be written for each person, if it was adequately footnoted. So now I need to draw a different conclusion? I.e. I MUST write and properly footnote a Wikipedia entry for every alumnus and/or faculty member that is noteworthy? Also, is it considered bad form for me to not put up my own page under the title "Moore Bridges"? Moorebridges (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different interpretations of WTAF, I guess, although I will point out that it's only an essay and not even a guideline. (There are three levels of "rules" around here - policies at the top, which must be followed; guidelines are below that, and need to have a really good reason for ignoring; and essays, some of which are good and treated almost as guidelines and some of which are bunk.) And yeah, it's considered bad form to create an article about yourself. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, that was me before we had this exchange. Go ahead and add the entries again. I promise I won't remove them this time.

69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it is my bedtime now, so later on reposting the footnoted entries... This Wikipedia stuff is fun, but it can almost be addictive. So I will stop now and pick it back up sometime this weekend. On the "Moore Bridges" thing, I didn't mean an actual encyclopedia entry on myself (I am certainly not "noteworthy"). I meant, "Am I supposed to tell the other Wikipedia editors out there about myself somewhere?" Moorebridges (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undoing my edit is really easy. Just click on the "View history" tag at the top of the page, look at the diff involved, and hit "undo." And yes, it's very addictive for those with those inclinations. Check out Wikipedia:Wikipediholic for help if you find yourself succumbing. As for the personal info, that's why your user page exists! Click on either the (redlinked) "User page" tab at the top of the page or the (redlinked) name in your signature. Just remember not to reveal too much. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 01:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leymah Gbowee

Hi Moorebridges, I am also a big fan of Leymah Gbowee, and I appreciate your work on the article. I must caution you to keep the information limited to what's appropriate for an encyclopedia. A good place to start is Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Thanks, USchick (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and words of appreciation. When you speak of the need to caution me "to keep the information limited to what's appropriate for an encyclopedia," I would be interested in learning what inappropriate information you might be referring to? Moorebridges (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"An article on Gbowee in O-The Oprah Magazine painted this backdrop:" (and then a long quote). Using large sections of copy from copyrighted sources is a copyright violation. Also, the lead paragraph should be a summary of the article, not a quote from another source. USchick (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worried that I might have done something wrong, I just went through all the "Fair Use" sections posted at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Use. This review leads me to believe that Wikipedia is "safe" in the way I quoted and attributed O Magazine in this case. Perhaps I should have tried to rephrase O's description of the political and social conditions in Liberia prior to the women's movement led by Leymah Gbowee. But, honestly, I cannot see how I could have improved on Kevin Conley's excellent, brief summary -- he covered 14 years of history in just three sentences (97 words total)! It is awesome to read such good, tight writing -- and to be able to give it further circulation via Wikipedia. From what I understand, O Magazine is very attentive to copyright infringement matters. I think they would take it down immediately if they felt any hesitation about the way the excerpt was used. (And if O Magazine does take it down, that is okay with me -- the entry works without that brief contextual background, but it is better with it!) I am glad you directed me to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I can now see other things that I could do better. I will work to improve my contributions. Thanks for helping me! --Moorebridges

Hi Moorebridges, you don't have to worry about O magazine reverting your edits. I'm glad you enjoy editing Wikipedia and I encourage you to continue. USchick (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Moorebridges. You have new messages at OlYeller21's talk page.
Message added 19:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

OlYeller21^Talktome 19:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Howard Zehr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bethel College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]