User talk:S trinitrotoluene

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome!

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

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please take a moment to read my comment(s). Please don't take it personally, but rather take in my constructive criticism as guidance on your journey editing Wikipedia!...:) Your recent edits to the Weeds (TV series) article have both been good and unnecessary. First of all, please try to avoid redundancy. Also, please read WP:Trivia. The Wiki policies explain why trivia sections are not appropriate on an encyclopedia of any sort. Please remove the Nancy Botwin "weed dealing history" sub-subsection. Instead, (whatever is not added into her character section already), please remove it and add it to Nancy Botwin's character section. Thanks and I hope you enjoy your stay at Wikipedia...you are a very pleasant writer! I hope you establish a great sense of Wiki editing! Also, please feel free to leave any questions you may have on my talk page! ATC^{. Talk} 21:47, 25 September 2010 (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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I didn't know that. --S trinitrotoluene (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPR

Thanks for the heads-up. I sometimes forget that Wikipedia isn't meant to be truthful--just verifiable. Thanks again. 71.203.125.108 (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the NPR article contained the term ""presented solid evidence" this may be considered "weasel wording" WP:Weasel reliable sources must support such assertations. --Wlmg (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG A citation to a credable source was provided.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but relying on a primary source to make such assertions is likely synthesis, which Wikipedia considers to be a form of original research. Your primary source could be used to support a secondary source if one is found. There's been quite a bit a buzz about this incident so it shouldn't be that difficult to find.--Wlmg (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FOX is itself the source. Maddow only re-broadcast the same material. Quoting WP:OR "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Maddow is the secondary source; FOX is the primary.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the transcript again. There is already a discussion about the Maddow reference on the article's talk page so I will not address it here anymore. The problem arises is Maddow a reliable secondary source? Her program consists of her playing "gotcha clips" followed by her snarky remarks. Her commentary on the issue was, "Beyond menacing brown and black people out to get you, though, it‘s worth pointing out today, because of today‘s news, that FOX News in particular has also focused on another target: the scary Muslims that are out to get you. That has been a FOX News specialty for a long time now." and at the end of the clip section, "FOX News hosts and contributors there." No one is disputing the anti-muslim stuff on Fox news, but as the discussion on the talk page says there has to be a better source than Maddow's opinionated little quips for it. If the Maddow quote were in the article how do you think it would play out? Because that's the secondary source. Note well that Maddow does not single out any individual Fox commentator so to say she did in the article space would be original research. --Wlmg (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they are gotcha clips, she still got them -- including O'Reiley. The fact is that they said those comments, and she just replayed them. The rest of the article doesn't matter; the video evidence from FOX news itself does. The rest of your comment is just groundless Maddow bashing and, therefore, ignored.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rachel Maddow has presented video evidence of FOX News shows where their corresponents(sic) -- including Mr. O’Reilly -- have a history of making remarks hostile to Islam and Muslims", wikipedia is not a courthouse. I've put Maddow's exact words in the article so let's let the chips fall where'll they'll be. As for Maddow she commentates on commentators I personally do not consider her a reliable source; she's more a newsentainment type, and I am not alone. That is another battle. Back on topic, find a better secondary source if making a mention of a pattern anti-Muslim bias amongst FOX commentators is your goal. --Wlmg (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maddow's comments on the clips REMOVED. Her thoughts on the clips are not relevant. Text reverted to my origional write-up; however, I did change "video evidence" to "clips depicting Islamophobia." If FOX is a credible source; Maddow is, too.--S trinitrotoluene (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2010 (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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation

The article you submitted to Articles for creation has been created.

Please 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

Wikipedian2 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Weeds Characters: Hodes, James, and Wilson Families for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Weeds Characters: Hodes, James, and Wilson Families 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/Weeds Characters: Hodes, James, and Wilson Families 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 good 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. Shadowjams (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hey... you wanna take a look at the AfD and maybe make a response? Shadowjams (talk) 12:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

The List of Weeds characters article is rip for seperation. There are over one hundred characters. The file has over 100,000 bytes of information (just before the seperation started). Seperating the article will make the child pages more manageable and readable.

There's an AfD about this. You should comment there. Shadowjams (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weeds Characters: Botwin Family Copyright violation? We need to know where all this came from!

According to the article's history, the first thing that happened was:

(cur | prev) 12:13, 3 October 2011‎ S trinitrotoluene (talk | contribs)‎ (24,093 bytes) (New page created from general character list)

Now, when 24,093 bytes suddenly turns up as a new page, with no references and no indication where it came from, this rings warning bells that it may be a copyright violation. So ... we urgently need to have this article really well-referenced. If someone, in the meantime, discovers this text anywhere else, this article could disappear without further warning! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips to help you out (and to avoid making mistakes!)

Hi S trinitrotoluene, I thought I'd drop a few notes on your talk page with some help on writing articles :o)

First of all, it may be best for you to do a bit of reading, starting with the Wikipedia manual of style, which will give you a lot of information about how Wikipedia prefers its articles to be written. It's not as hard to follow as it might look; quite a bit of the information there probably won't be vital for you at first.

Second, I recommend you make a user sandbox - which is just an area you can use to practise in, and to make notes in, and to get things ready in. If you click this red link: user:S trinitrotoluene/Sandbox, that will let you create that page (it gives you an edit window to start work in). Anything, anywhere, on the help and information pages which gives you an example, try it out in your sandbox until you're familiar with it.

For your article, the next thing you want to do is start collecting as much information as you can about it. Google searches (particularly in Books and Scholar) will be your best friend for this! Once you've found the information, the next most important thing is to start writing up each fact in your own words (very important, this), and make a note at the same time of exactly where that information came from. Build in the references as you go along; I'm going to copy in, down below this, a whole heap of help on doing references, which was produced by one of our best teachers (Chzz).

Here's another place that you'll find incredibly useful - citation templates which you can copy and paste into your sandbox, between <ref></ref> tags; you just fill in the blanks from your sources into the template, and you'll end up with nicely formatted inline citations :o) It all helps. Remember to add a references section to your sandbox (make a new line, and put ==References== on it, and type {{reflist}} on the next line, so that you can see how your citations look as you do them. Remember to save your page often! You don't want to lose your work.

Hopefully this will give you a good start and make life easier for you.

One last thing to keep as a motto: "It's better to write one good, well-referenced, nicely-presented article than it is to create fifty unreferenced one-line stubs!" Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How references work

Simple references

These require two parts;

a)

Chzz is 98 years old.<ref> "The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. </ref>

He likes tea. <ref> [http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com Tea website] </ref>

b) A section called "References" with the special code "{{reflist}}";

== References ==
{{reflist}}

(an existing article is likely to already have one of these sections)

To see the result of that, please look at user:chzz/demo/simpleref. Edit it, and check the code; perhaps make a test page of your own, such as user:S trinitrotoluene/reftest and try it out.

Named references

Chzz was born in 1837. <ref name=MyBook>
"The book of Chzz", Aardvark Books, 2009. 
</ref> 

Chzz lives in Footown.<ref name=MyBook/>

Note that the second usage has a / (and no closing ref tag). This needs a reference section as above; please see user:chzz/demo/namedref to see the result.

Citation templates

You can put anything you like between <ref> and </ref>, but using citation templates makes for a neat, consistent look;

Chzz has 37 Olympic medals. <ref> {{Citation
 | last = Smith
 | first = John
 | title = Olympic medal winners of the 20th century
 | publication-date = 2001
 | publisher = [[Cambridge University Press]]
 | page = 125
 | isbn = 0-521-37169-4
}}
</ref>

Please see user:chzz/demo/citeref to see the result.

For more help and tips on that subject, see user:chzz/help/refs.

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there S trinitrotoluene! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of Weeds characters into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

I have restored the content to the original article for now. If you choose to restore the split, please be sure to provide attribution and please move the article to a title that accords with WP:MOSNAME. I'm afraid that the title you propose does not meet naming conventions. It also seems to be entirely "in universe." Typically, the community does prefer that articles about fictional topics be contextualized (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction). Please consider adding a lead giving context if you choose to complete the split. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited In the Hands of the Prophets, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miles O'Brien (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) 12:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnnie Walker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law and Order (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) 11:03, 6 July 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) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]