User talk:Samson22911

Who is "we"?

You say on your user page, " we hope to update the section on Pio Pico"; who is "we"? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Orangemike, Thanks so much for taking the time to write as I am new to this Wiki process with the first edit here in the Pio Pico section. My daughter and I are the "we" as we have co-authored this peer-reviewed scholarly medical article published about Pio Pico which is the basis for the Wiki edit on this topic. With your great experience I welcome any and all suggestions on how to improve what we have done. I am the registered contributor but "we" collaborate on the content.--Samson22911 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing references in Pio Pico

In case you didn't see it, you have received some replies to your question on the New Contributors' Help Page here. If you need further hep, please ask on my talk page. --Thomprod (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Samson22911, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! Thomprod (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Your message on my talk page

Thanks for the message, glad I could help. There is no way to create a private sandbox - one of the principles of Wikipedia is that all edits are open etc. If the edits that you plan to make to existing articles are non-controversial and supported by reliable sources, there is no need to put them in a sandbox first, just be bold and edit the article. If they are potentially controversial edits, you should discuss them on the article's talk page first and gain consensus. If you are planning to create a new article, it is a good idea, especially if you are a new user, to create it in a sandbox/subpage first. You can create as many subpages as you need - the easiest way is to add a link to the subpage that you need to your user page, something like User:Samson22911/nameofarticlehere. As the page does not yet exist it will be a redlink, so if you click on it, the page will open in edit mode and you can begin writing. It's always a good idea to add the {{user sandbox}} template at the top so that other editors know it is a sandbox/subpage. Hope this helps, let me know if I can help further. – ukexpat (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pio Pico

Samson, your message is still on the talk page (it is at the bottom) - I just re-arranged the messages so that they are in chronological sequence so that other editors can follow them. The usual standard for talk pages (likre this talk page) is that the latest edit is at the end (bottom). As far as changing it goes - I don't know if you are right, but you have provided your reason, you have made a comment on the talk page - so I would go ahead and make that change in the text.Emargie (talk) 15:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pio Pico wrong date

Dear Emargie, thanks for your insights. I did change the date in the caption of the photograph but I found that the description of the photo in the wiki commons section has a date of the photo listed as 1848 which is incorrect. If you go to the original url site for this photo there is NO place where the date of 1848 is listed as the correct date. In fact, there is no date listed at all, only that strange phrase, "...in the style of 1848..." As I wrote earlier, the image itself has the date of 1858. Is there a way to change the incorrect date of 1848 in the reference that someone placed in association with the image?Samson22911 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]