User talk:Renoti

Welcome...

Hello, Renoti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I am in the adopt-a-user proram if you are interested. SpinningSpark 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your welcome, and if you're sure then I would love to be adopted. Renoti (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you will be fine. It is very encouraging to see a new user writing from the sources from the very start. This is one of the most important things on Wikipedia but newbies rarely get it right. There is nothing worse than trying to sort out the bad from the good in an article that has been written entirely without references.

If you are into userboxes you can put this one {{Adoptee}} on your user page. Use the code {{Adoptee|Spinningspark}}. You don't have to have userboxes, not everybody likes them, some hate them. But if you do like them you can find more at Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery. In any case, my first advice to you is to write something, anything, on your user page. Turning that redlink in your signature blue is the first step in converting a newbie into seasoned editor. SpinningSpark 23:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your complimentary words, and for your advice. Am I right in thinking that it is good to change a red link to a user page blue because editors associate such a red link with a newbie, whereas a blue link will be associated with someone more experienced? Also, I have examined a few editors' talk pages, and it seems that in a conversation of two sometimes both will post on one talk page, and sometimes each will post on the other's talk page. I was wondering, what is the correct convention? Thank you for all your help so far, and for adopting me. Renoti (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I imagine the answer but I want to make sure, once you have an account you can't edit by your IP address or create another account to edit by, can you? Renoti (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the reason I encouraged you to get rid of the redlink. You should assume good faith with all editors, but with some people they are almost reaching for the delete button before they have even read your edit when they see a redlink, plus it got you to do one more edit which moves you a bit closer to being autoconfirmed a milestone where the Wikimedia software starts to trust you a bit more and gives you a few more rights and buttons. There are some out there though, who refuse to write anything on their user page, ever. These are usually the Wikignome types who don't like talking about themselves and even though they may have tens of thousands of edits to their name, they still show up in the history as a redlink.

WP:Talk page guidelines will tell you the conventions used on talk pages. Unfortunately, there is no universally agreed standard on which page you should post on. Some editors like to keep all parts of a conversation on one page for easy readability. Others prefer to have messages addressed to them always posted on their own page. The advantage of the second method is that it triggers the "new message" bar at the top of the recipients screen whereas the first method requires that you watchlist the page you have posted on so you know when there has been a reply. A lot of users put a box at the top of their talkpage explaining which method they will use - a few will get upset if you don't conform. I used to have such a box, but I kept changing my mind and eventually decided I don't much care how people post on my page. Actually, I use both systems depending on whether its a simple "Where did you put the page", "it's here" type request, or a detailed discussion. Some try to get the best of both worlds, they keep the conversation on one page but post a {{talkback}} template on the other page when they reply (I hate those things by the way).

You are wrong about accounts, it is perfectly permissable to edit without logging on (ie, from your IP address). Many people do this when editing from a mobile device or a public computer. There are valid reasons for having more than one account, for instance administrators often use a second account for editing from public machines so that they don't risk an account with administrator rights becoming compromised (a serious deal for a soon-not-to-be-administrator) or just to keep the administrative work separate from normal editing. What is not permitted is to use multiple accounts for any abusive or deceptive purpose, for instance pretending to be more than one person is a deletion debate. This is known as sock puppetry and will get you blocked from editing. If you do need to create a second account for any reason, it is best to make it very clear on the userpage who the account belongs to in order to avoid any unwarranted accusations.

You have not given me an idea of what kind of thing you would like to do on Wikipedia which would help me to guide you. One thing I can do is give you an exercise to do now and again which will teach you some of the Wikipedia technicalities. You don't have to this if you don't want to, no problem, adoption is not a formal structure like a college course. If you would like to though, create a subpage for doing this in your userspace (this is exercise no.1, how to create a subpage).

SpinningSpark 19:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, and would it be ok if I do post my posts on your talk page and vice-versa based on the advantages you have told me regarding that system? As for what kind of thing I would like to do on Wikipedia, I'm afraid I don't know myself at the moment. What can I do? I would like to engage upon the exercises you spoke of, and I've created a subpage: User:Renoti/Sandbox. Renoti (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the telegraph thinks

Hi, welcome to wiki. Personally I dissagree with you that the telegraph thinks this or that is notable in the WP:BLP of widicombe. Are you going to add it to each and every politician? The telegrapph said this and the telegraph thought that..with a link to the telegraph and then we should add the opposite to show that but hey the gardian says she orders too many this or that... its endless and not really notable. imo. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well that is a nice reply. I have been right and wrong, so please do not defer to me.. I clicked on the link and was unable to find out why she was an angel? And an angel compared to what? we all know that she is not the winged angel type...so if we add a comment like that.. I think to myself ..well why is she an angel, who says that and what about someone elses opinion. I suggest leaving it in and watching if anything happens, it is cited so it is not wrong to insert it but I or even we could consider is it really of benefit to the biography of a living person or is it actually more benefit to the telegraph? Take care and I hope you like it here. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, no probs.. leave it there ..it's not doing any harm.. sometines there is no need to reply, you are doing well here...slowly ..slowly. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

No need to be too hesitant here.. you won't make the wheels drop off, I learnt much of what I know here from making mistakes.. have a look AT WP:BEBOLD (Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]