User talk:Rosabibi

Welcome

Hello, Rosabibi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Sting au Buzz Me... 13:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please stop

Please stop reverting my edits, I am responding to complaints to the Foundation and the onus is always ont he editor seeking to include disputed content, to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that the Foundation would complain - but they should take up their complaints (perhaps using the legal system) with the very reputable sources that have been cited.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hi, Rosabibi. I see that you are looking for adoption. I would be happy to adopt you if you like. Let me know on my takpage if you're interested. Regards, --Beloved Freak 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Let me know when you're ready. --Beloved Freak 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah messages generally go at the bottom of talkpages, but that's easily fixed. Also - don't forget to sign your message using four tildes (~~~~). Yes I can still adopt you! Right now, I'm just about to go out for the evening, so I don't have time to look at your edits, but I will have a look tomorrow, and let you know what I think. Let me know if there's anything else you need help with. All the best, --Beloved Freak 19:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ishmael Beah

Hi there, I've read over the contributions you've made to Ishmael Beah, and the comments on the talkpage. I must admit, I am not familiar with the subject, and can't really weigh in on the situation with The Australian without a lot more research. Given that, my advice would be simply to take it slowly. You seem to have a clear vision for how you want the article to look, but with controversial or heavily edited articles, it's really best to try and sort things out on the talkpage before making the edits. Looking at the talkpage, it seems like most of the recent discussion has been between you and JzG/Guy. He is an experienced editor who has experience dealing with issues with biographies of living people, so it's worth trying to come to some kind of compromise with him. I think it would also be a good idea to request a third opinion or a request for comment, to get others involved. If you need help with that, let me know.

You may find that your edits are reverted, and if so, please don't revert them again without discussing on the talkpage. The last thing you want is to end up in an edit war. Have a read over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (I know you have already, but give it another go) and Undue weight. They are both official policies, so really important to follow. If you find you're not getting much joy from the talkpage, then seriously consider getting a third opinion as mentioned above. You could also try leaving a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, where there will be lots of editors who are experienced in writing biographies. It might also be worth joining the biography wikiproject if you're interested in writing about people.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't seem like I'm siding with anyone, because I'm really not. But just remember to take it slow, keep discussing, and get other people involved if necessary. I will keep my eye on the page to watch for further developments. Oh, and one final thing - please try and use edit summaries for all of your edits to explain to other users exactly what you are doing and why. If you keep forgetting (like me!) there is an option in your preferences where you can be reminded every time you forget to leave a summary. Good luck with the article, --Beloved Freak 14:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research has more information about the use of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Wikipedia articles tend to be based mostly on secondary sources. Basically, primary sources are open to interpretation, and as Wikipedia editors, we shouldn't be doing the interpreting. We should just summarise what other people have already said on a subject. Wikipedia:Attribution gives an overview of some of the policies, which may be helpful to you. By the way, these policy and guideline pages that I link to all have talkpages if you need to ask a specific question that I can't help you with.--Beloved Freak 16:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

The formatting thing that makes a box appear around your words is when you have put a space at the beginning of a line.

Like  this. (click on "edit" to see how it looked when I typed it)

It has some uses, but is obviously not ideal in the middle of a discussion! --Beloved Freak 16:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Lane Poole article

Hi Rosabibi, how's it going? I saw the article you created, Sophia lane poole, good work! I hope you don't mind if I give you a couple of suggestions for the article.

You may have noticed that the article is in lowercase, this often happens when you search for a term in lowercase, click on the red link and create the article. Not to worry though, it's easily fixed. Just click the "move" button next to the "history" button. In the box that says "To new title" put "Sophia Lane Poole".

You've used <ref> tags, but as yet the info in them doesn't show up. To make them appear, just put {{References}} in the "References" section.

It's important that all wikipedia articles are categorised (see Wikipedia:Categorization). Usually biographical articles have categories including birth and death categories (eg. Category:1921 births, Category:1980 deaths, Category:Year of birth missing etc), and categories describing their nationality and occupation. Have a look in Category:People for any you think suitable.

I hope I haven't bombarded you with too much, if you any have problems, let me know.--Beloved Freak 15:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, well it seems I am also a bear of little brain. When I said put {{References}} to make them show up, what I really meant was put {{Reflist}}. Apologies for that! Actually, you can also use <References />, which does the same thing (apart from the size). Have a go and see which you like best. Sorry for telling you the wrong one! --Beloved Freak 12:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E.W. Lane

Hello, Rosabibi. Your addition to the article is very good, but the references can be provided more clearly:

The work by "Thompson" is cited in the text, but is not mentioned in the Ref.s; likewise, Lane's work is cited in th text, but the particular edition used is not mentioned in the Ref.s
"Ahmed" is listed in the Ref.s, but is not cited in the text. Works not cited should better be listed under "Further reading", not under Ref.s.

Forgive my fussiness:). Happy editing!--K.C. Tang (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pls forgive me if I sound too fussy, but could the bibliographical info of "Jason Thompson" be provided more exactly? Is it a book or in some journal? I wanted to clean up the new material, but I was unable to locate the book you refer to. Regards.--K.C. Tang (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're probably too busy to check the references, but exact referencing is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. I've kept out the new material you'd added for the moment, but you can always add them back (btw, you know how to read and compare the past versions of an article?) when you've obtained exact references. Again, pls forgive me if I seem a super-fussy guy. Cheers.--K.C. Tang (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiprojects

Hey, not sure if you're aware but there are various Wikiprojects you may be interested in (eg. Biography, Novels). They are a good way to find people to collaborate with and the project talkpages are great for asking questions specific to certain subjects or types of articles. --Beloved Freak 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions in Meher Baba

You wrote:

I would note that attempt to include relevant information from a non "devotional' angle were deleted immediately and no response given to my comment (see above). Rachel Brown's book gives valuable insights into Meher Baba's legacy - that is, unless one is determined to claim that this legacy is unquestionably entirely positive. It is not very plausible to say that anyone who studies Meher Baba from non-devotional viewpoint ends up becoming a believer when contributions from non-devotees are deleted entirely without appropriate discussion.--Rosabibi (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't immediately figure out what was deleted to get your ire up, but if you will be more specific I will look into it. There is a least one new editor (Jossi) who seems determined to improve the NPOV status of this article, so I'd jump in now if I were you. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosabibi, I noticed your recent revert of the administrator's edit in the Talk page of Meher Baba and after coming here I did a search in the article's history and found the deletion you mention above. I find it very interesting, it made me smile, but its content is about Baba followers rather than biographic material. I understand your point and even the peer reviewer had made a point for the necessity of other than insider views (yet about the person of Meher Baba not about his followers). Anyway I will make an account in the Baba radio to get R.Brown's interview. Cheers. Hoverfish Talk 13:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Christine Assange

The article Christine Assange has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 23:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Christine Assange for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Assange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Assange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Youreallycan 00:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Assange - 2

Hi - there appears a strong snow merge position - as the creator of the article will you do it? - Youreallycan 20:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE sign your posts to talk pages

Your position as a wikipedian will be strengthened if you can remember to use the four tildes (~~~~) at the end of you posts to talk pages or when you add to your comments on the nomination for deletion on Christine Assange. Thanks, and best wishes for getting to keep the article. I support it's retention. Thanks. Vertium (talk to me) 11:57, 22 June 2012 (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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]