GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup!
Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck!
Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia.
The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Greetings, all! We hope that everyone had a nice summer.
Saturday saw the end of Round 2. Things went relatively smoothly this month. The top 2 from 4 pools, plus the top participant (the wildcard, or "9th place") of all remaining competitors, moved onto Round 3. We had one withdrawal early in Round 2, so he was replaced by the next-highest scorer from Round 1. Round 2's highest scorer was Pool D's Tomandjerry211, who earned an impressive 366 points; he also reviewed the most articles (19). Close behind was Zwerg Nase, also in Pool D, at 297 points and 16 articles. The wildcard slot went to Good888. Congrats to all!
Round 3 will have 9 competitors in 3 pools. The key to moving forward was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates, as it has been in every round up to now. For example, 2 competitors only needed to review 2 articles each to win in their pools, and each article were either from the pink nomination box (20 points) or had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup continues to be a success in many ways, even with fewer competitors this time. For some reason, the competitors in the 2015 GA Cup have reviewed fewer articles in Round 2, which has made the judges scratch their head in confusion. We've speculated many reasons for that: the summer months and vacations, our competitors are saving their strength for the final rounds, or they all live in the Pacific Northwest and the heavy wildfire smoke has affected their thinking. Whatever the reason, Round 2 competitors reviewed almost 100 articles, which is a significant impact in the task of reviewing articles for GA status. We've considered that the lower participation this competition is due to timing, so we intend to discuss the best time frame for future GA Cups.
For Round 3, participants have been placed randomly in 3 pools of 3 contestants each; the top editor in each pool will progress, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on September 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on September 28 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
Good luck to the remaining contestants, and have fun!
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
The 3rd Annual GA Cup has officially begun, and you can start reviewing your articles/reassessments now! However, sign-ups will not close til March 15th if anybody (who wishes to sign up) has not signed up yet. We currently have 1 group of 33 contestants in Round 1, and we will have 16 Wikipedians left in Round 2. Please be sure to review this information and the FAQ if you haven't already,
If you have any questions, please ask us here where all of the judges (including our newest one, Zwerg Nase!) will be answering any questions you may have. You can also feel free to ask us on our talk pages/send an email to us (information is here).
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
We would like to announce the start of the 3rd GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been two GA Cups; both were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 500 nominations listed and about 450 articles waiting to be reviewed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 3rd GA Cup will begin on March 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on July 31, 2016), but this may change based on participant numbers. There will be slight changes to the scoring system, based upon feedback we've received in the months since GA Cup #2. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same. We're also looking to spice up the competition a bit by running parallel competitions. Finally, there's a possibility of assisting a WikiProject Good Articles backlog drive in the last three weeks of February, before our competition. Please stay tuned for more information as we get it.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on February 20, 2015. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
It has been brought to our attention that we made a mistake in the last newsletter. In the last newsletter, we said that the "4th place" overall would make the Final along with the top user from each pool. However, the users who will advance will be the top user from each pool along with "4th and 5th place" overall.
We apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that we caused.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Thursday saw the end of Round 2. Sainsf once again took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 996 (a higher score then he received in Round 1!). In second place, MPJ-DK earned an astounding 541 points, and in third place, Carbrera received 419 points.
In Round 2, 142 reviews were completed! At the beginning of April, there were 486 outstanding nominations in the GAN queue; by the end of Round 1, there were 384. Another demonstrable way in which this competition has made a difference is in the length of time articles languish in the queue. At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 9 months [1]; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased significantly, to a little over 5 months.[2] It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep lowering the backlog as much as possible.
To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. We had an unusual occurrence happen in Round 2: because only one contestant submitted reviews in one pool, we selected the contestant with the next highest score to move forward to Round 3. (There will be a rule change for future competitions in case something like this happens again.) For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 will start on May 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on May 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hi CaroleHenson. I'm an editor (not very active till now) of the Italian Wikipedia, where the gender gap is a real issue. I'm trying to participate to an IEG with the project "Women are everywhere". You will find the draft at this link https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Women_are_everywhere It would be great if you could have a look at it. I need any kind of suggestion or advice to improve it. Support or endorsement would be fantastic. Many thanks, --Kenzia (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm reaching out because I'm having quite a bit of trouble finding an editor to review a new draft I wrote for the Uproxx article. Would you be able to take a look? The draft and my notes are on the Talk page here. I understand if this does not interest you, but I figured I'd ask. To be clear, I have a financial conflict of interest with the subject and will not edit the article myself. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I was trying to figure out how to divide the article in sections (i.e. Personal Life, Career, Published Works, etc.). Now I know how you did it - THANK YOU! I'm going to search for a few more references and external links to add to this article, then tackle the photos.
Will be in touch,
PenslipsPenslips (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole - Been sick with the flu for two weeks, and just getting back to the living though slowly. I reviewed again your last message to me with your suggestions and believe I was able to make some headway, though struggled with coding. If you could review what I've done I would greatly appreciate it. A few things... 1) re Southern Living: I contacted the magazine in order to obtain a reputable citation for the article(s) Dean wrote (and confirm that she wrote them) for the magazine. Hopefully I'll hear back soon. According to Southern Living, my inability to find anything online could be due to the fact that they might've been written too many years ago to find -- but they will look. If they DO NOT find anything, should I remove Southern Living from the article? I'm thinking not entirely since they did interview her just months before she passed away related to her new book. 2) Larry Wells does not have his own website, so I was unclear how to add a citation for him without one. However, I was able to find in the history section of the Yoknapatawpha Press that they indeed started that Press. 3) I believe I made the first paragraph a little more clear re when Dean was born and when her father died. Let me know what you think. Thank you, PenslipsPenslips (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that you've been sick, Penslips. I see some of the updates and can step in and help a bit with formatting. The best way to start an article is to find sources and build the article from there, rather than the other way around. Yes, you either need to find specific articles from Southern Living or a source that mentions a Southern Living article to include it in the encyclopedia article. I'll pick some sources from the search I mentioned earlier (now in my archived messages), format them as situations, and then get a good start that way. Then, you just need to build the article and tag content from there.--CaroleHenson(talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaroleHenson. I am interested in being adopted by a experienced Wikipedian, and I thought you were the perfect person to partner with! I would like to be your assitance and learn how to use Wikipedia, the templates, and so much more! I am excited to see what you have to offer. Please reply with Agree or Disagree
CookieMonster755 I Agree , what kind of article would you like to work on? Or, do you already have one in mind? Do you have a particular interest: history, art, science, other?--CaroleHenson(talk) 21:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson I like articles related to Architecture (mainly Skyscrapers), Politics (German and American politics), and History (American 1700-1800s history). Currently. I don't have an article in mind to work on, but I will see if any of my articles I created really need some constructive work. CookieMonster755(talk) 21:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson —— I have joined WikiProject Architecture, but I will join the other groups you suggested. I think that's a great idea, I will look on the project to do list, to see if their is anything I can help with. At this moment, I don't have any articles to work on at the moment, but when I do, I will surely get in touch with you. Thank you so much for being my new Wikipedia Parent! CookieMonster755(talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole, you have such good sense and know how to write a good article that I thought I'd ask for you to look at the Minnehaha Falls article (I mostly wrote the geology section). Looking at the way it is set up, it seems a little topsy turvy to me since the falls is within the park, not the other way around. My best guess is that the article started out that way because locals generally call both the park and the falls "Minnehaha Falls" rather than Minnehaha Park. Anyway, I'd like to get another's opinion as I'm not sure if maybe I'm just being a little too persnickety. What do you think? Is there a way to put the info box at the top as in most articles? Does it matter? Gandydancer (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you, Gandydancer, it does seem to be backwards. It would seem that there should either be a separate article for Minnehaha Park / Minnehaha Historic District (see this) - or Minnehaha Falls should be a section within the Park article.
I think the infobox was put down with the Park section, because that's where it's applicable. But if the article moved to Minnehaha Park and reorganized - or created as a new article, then the infobox should be at the top of the article.
You did a great job on the Geology section. It's very interesting.--CaroleHenson(talk) 00:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks re the geology section though I'm aware that it may be a little difficult to understand for one that has not visited the park...or plans to. I spent many hours below the falls looking at the geological history and picking fossils that had washed down onto the Mississippi River shoreline. I wrote a trail guide using an imaginary journey back through time to the Ordovician period. It ended on the banks of the Mississippi - where many majestic old growth cottonwoods stand - where I was able to refer to the Native American belief that cottonwood trees have a deep spiritual meaning to the First Nation people that lived there. But it was my girlhood in Colorado that first got me so interested in geology. How could it not when I was living right in the heart of such a rich geological area? We went with our dad and mom to old mine dumps looking for specimens, to Ruby Mountain to hunt for "rubies", and to Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument to collect the imprints of leaves and insects.
OK, as for the falls article, I'm glad we agree. They should remain together and I am thinking Minnehaha Park...or are you thinking perhaps "Minnehaha Park / Minnehaha Historic District"? BTW, your link led to another link with info on the Stevens House which contains a lot of very interesting info about how it was moved - I am considering a rewrite which includes some of that information even though it does have its own article. Carole, as inexperienced as I am it would take me many hours to do the changes - could you do it rather quickly? If so I would be glad to do any grunt work like reorganization of the article but I'm not sure how to go about getting the Park stuff moved up to the top. What do you think? Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! I'm now going to do a complete article overhaul in an attempt to improve the article. I'll give you a ping if I need more feedback or assistance. It is so good to have run into such a good editor. :) Gandydancer (talk)
Thank you for the welcome message, and the delicious-looking cookies! I am wondering how you discovered me as a new editor? Am I, along with other new editors, on a list somewhere? I asked a friend of mine who also sometimes works on Wikipedia if she was ever welcomed, and she said no. I think its a great idea. Can I think of you as my go-to editor when I have a question? I have used the "Help me" tag from time to time, but having a personal "trainer" would be more fun and productive, I think.
First question: How can I get my signature to be in an interesting font, kind of like yours is on my user talk page? Thanks! Donna Helene (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Donna Helene I saw you were a new editor because your name and talk page appeared in red on my watchlist, meaning that there was no user or user talk page for you. If you give me your friend's username, I would be happy to welcome him/her.
Absolutely, if you have a question, please feel free to contact me. There's also Teahouse where you can post a question and users will also respond to you there. And "Help me" works, too. Of course, as I say, I would be happy to help out.
Regarding changing your font, you can go to "Preferences" at the top left part of your Wikipedia page. And on the first tab there's a place to enter the formatting for your name. For instance, if you want something like mine, you could copy and paste this: <span style="font-family:Segoe print; color:#CC4E5C; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">[[User:Donna Helene|Donna Helene]] [[User talk:Donna Helene|''(talk)'']]</span> into preferences for your signature.
Then when you type --~~~~ at the end of a message, it will format with the signature from your preferences.--CaroleHenson(talk) 22:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole, first of all, thanks so much for all your help recently in reviewing my suggestions. I'm afraid that I'm writing with another request for you... I wondered if you would be able to review another new section draft I've prepared for the Citrix article. I left a note on the Talk page a few weeks ago with a link to my draft for the Products section, but have yet to have any response, so I'm reaching out to editors who have worked on the article in the past. If you have time, do you think you might be willing to take a look? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 11:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! I really appreciate you taking the time, so here's a delicious cookie to say thanks. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, CaroleHenson. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Can you help with some identification? I realize you didn't take either of the photos I'm going to discuss, and may never have been to Lincoln Pioneer Village. In your recent Lincoln Pioneer Village article , you used two photos, I'll call them photo 1 and photo 2. Both are identified by the uploaders as Lincoln Pioneer Village.jpg, but I'm not sure about photo 1. Photo 2, by Nyttend, matches google street-view photos of the type of fence around the property, and the chimneys match - partial stone. You have it captioned as "Little Pioneer Village". Why little?
Photo 1, from an inactive user, is a cabin that isn't shown in a list of renovations on [3], though that site is from 2009. The chimney stone is wrong, and the fence is wrong. I don't think it is of Lincoln Pioneer Village. Can you say one way or the other? Thanks. Generic1139 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the photos themselves, I've pinged Nyttend about the photo they've uploaded... there's a red link for the user page and I cannot find a user talk page for the other user.
I fixed the caption for one of the images - thanks for the heads up!--CaroleHenson(talk) 23:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The upper image doesn't look right; I suspect that it's from the Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial, across the county from Rockport, which does include simulated (or authentic? I can't remember) log cabins from the early 19th century. In contrast, the site in Rockport was built by one of Roosevelt's Depression-era alphabet soup entities, and its log cabins have a distinctly different appearance, not to mention the fence around the property. Finally, you can see that my photo really is in Rockport from the timestamps alone :-) — File:Mathias Sharp House.jpg was taken eleven minutes before File:Lincoln Pioneer Village.jpg (and File:Carnegie library in Rockport, Indiana.jpg was taken just five minutes before), so it's not possible for this to be anywhere except in Rockport. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Nyttend:Yes, photo 1 is Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial/ I'll make the all the necessary corrections. Thanks. Generic1139 (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the granddaughter of the illustrator Elenore Plaisted Abbott, whose bio I believe you either wrote or contributed to on Wikipedia. I have noticed a few errors in the entry and would like to get them corrected, but am a little daunted by the idea of creating an account, logging in and then trying to deal with code in order to correct them. So I thought I'd contact you as a first step. I would love it if you would reply to my email address, bharvey536@gmail.com, but will check this space periodically to see if you have left a response here.If you don't, I'll try again, creating an account and logging in.
Brett Harvey
Elenore Plaisted Abbott response to your message[edit]
Dear Carole:
Thanks for your message. I accept your revision of my birthdate chance. However, the title of the work in the Brandywine River Museum is completely incorrect on several counts. I don't care how you fix it, but fix it you must. When I first saw the title, I immediately contacted Virginia O'Hare of the Brandywine to explain that the title was incorrect because I was not born until 1936 and Elenore died in 1935. I asked her to send me a scan of the painting so that I could confirm that it was even painted by Elenore, which she did. We had an email correspondence, which I would be happy to share with you, but I guess that can't be done in this format. Here is her first message:
"In 1976 two paintings by Elenore Plaisted Abbott were donated to the collection, of which one was “Portrait of Peggy Harvey and Daughter Bret [sic]” with 1936 as the date. The early paperwork on the donation has this title, which I assume came from the donor, Mrs. William Butler. The painting itself has on the back and undecipherable notation-looks like [B. Molner”] and a child”]. Later, noting the artist died in 1935, and that the painting itself is not dated, we changed the date to “circa 1930.” I assume that whoever entered the information in Wikipedia (and it would not have been museum staff) would have picked up the information from our collection catalogue where the information on the painting was published in 1991. If you were not born until 1936, and this is in fact a portrait of your mother and yourself, Abbott could not be the one who painted it. However, it may be miss-identified, and not you in the picture at all but another mother and child."
When I saw the scan of the painting, I saw that it was signed EPA, so that settled that. However, because of the date problem, it was clearly not a portrait of me and my mother. Ms. O'Hare and I came up with the revision. Feel free to contact her directly at VOhara@brandywine.org. I don't care how you want to handle it but please do not let the title Peggy Abbott Harvey and Daughter Bret (portrait) 1930" stand. It is not a portrait of my mother and me (Brett, not Bret!), but most likely a portrait of someone named Molner and an unidentified child). I would love to either talk with you or continue this conversation by email because this format is frustrating. Whenever I go back to the original Wikipedia entry, I lose my message to you and have to start all over. My email address is bharvey536@gmail.com and my phone number is 718-768-8935.
Thanks
Brett Harvey
Elenoresgranddaughter (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Elenoresgranddaughter: - I put the information into a note, with the source of the painting information and the information from the curator and you about the dates and that the painting was likely of another mother and daughter. Hopefully that works out. Thanks so much for helping to square this away!
I'm not quite sure what's happening with the loss of the drafted message, but it may be that if you open up two windows, one to look at the original Wikipedia entry and another where you type the message, then you can toggle between both without losing your message. I'll send you an email, too.--CaroleHenson(talk) 17:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings! I noticed that you added the infobox image for Jo Frost, which makes use of WP's cropping function. It looks so nifty, and I haven't seen that done before! With that said, I've tried to crudely emulate the technique for the infobox image at Emanuele Blandamura, but it doesn't look right at all. Was wondering if you could help out by cropping it in a similar way? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that—discovered CropTool. All the best nonetheless. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CaroleHenson, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 03:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikimom! I am so glad to see you on Wikipedia again. I am now back on after being unblocked due to sockpuppeting! CookieMonster755📞✉✓ 22:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Carol - I am distressed to see that "Hubbard" as a middle name for Mary Foote, Painter and Jungian, has crept into several online postings and now I am trying to undo that. I am her namesake and and my first cousin and I are the family historians and we cannot figure out where the Hubbard came from. She was always MARY FOOTE - and her passport applications and everything else we can find on her are simply Mary Foote. My aunt and I were named after her and suffered (loudly) about not being given a middle name. Could you remove the "Hubbard, please? I have also written to Sharon Olson, who wrote a Find a grave age with Hubbard in it.
Hello Mary, I am sorry but I am not seeing "Mary Hubbard Foote" in the article. I just see "Mary Foote" throughout the article. What am I missing?--CaroleHenson(talk) 16:06, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole, I need help with my first article, can you help edit my first article after I publish it? Phd.dr.candidate (talk) 16:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carole, I thinking on contributing on the topic on happiness economics. It is a new research area and I see some article that are inaccurate or incomplete, but I do not want my edits to step on other people's toes, so I would like to start a new article and provide references and maybe you can validate and help me refine it. Do I post the article to my sandbox first, or just create it? Also if I post the article to sandbox, can it be viewed by you and others who want to help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd.dr.candidate (talk • contribs) 01:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Phd.dr.candidate Yes, I see that there is an article Happiness economics. When you say that you want to start a new article - I am a little confused: Are you looking to rewrite the current article - or start a new article with a different title that is related, but not exactly the same, topic?
If it's to rewrite the article, you could move the current version to your sandbox - and I think it would be wise to mention that you're looking to expand the article (vs. rewrite) and discuss the ways in which you'd like to expand upon the existing article on the article's talk page - and provide the link to the sandbox page. If you contest some of the content, I would open up a conversation on the talk page about the information that you believe should be removed, particularly if the information is cited, - so that others can contribute to the discussion.
Whether you're creating a new article or modifying an existing article in your sandbox, others can view the work-in-progress - but won't know it's there unless you alert them of it.
The next step, then is to start working on a list of reliable, secondary sources... and then start to work on the content. Some people start diving into content without having reliable sources first, which makes it harder in the end. It should really be the source info that drives the content.--CaroleHenson(talk) 04:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Carole, it is related article, not same article, but the advise you gave me was valuble, I will write it to my sand box and alert you to it. - Much appreciated!!! Phd.dr.candidate (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need adopting and to find a good home. I'm well behaved and have a good temprement, and am v.friendly. Please help me!!! or else... ... something .. hrm.. anyways User:Myrvin suggested I seek mentorship for my own benefit, are you a skilled mentor? Whalestate (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole, thanks so much for your help on Tom Graves last month. I've proposed a few new changes to the article, in a different section than the one you helped me with, and I'm wondering if you could take a look and tell me what you think. The changes are presented here. Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole, hope you've been well! I've been working with another editor to continue making section-by-section improvements to the Tom Graves article, however this editor has now been off-wiki for a few weeks, after asking me to propose a solution to an issue on the page. My suggested replacement text, and explanation for it, has sat on the Talk page for about 9 days now without any response. Would you have the time (and energy) to give it a read and see what you think? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:05, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole, how's your summer going? I know you to be a thorough and helpful editor when it comes to reviews, and I wonder if you would be able to help me over at MetLife where I think that's needed. A couple of weeks ago, I posted some suggested edits for the article's History section here, but I haven't had any feedback on it as yet. Could you possibly spare a moment and take a look? Thanks so much, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CaroleHenson! Come to my Cafe! The Cafe is here. Ask me what you want, I'll serve the WikiLove to you! or I can serve a free WikiLove cookie to you!
Gotta take orders now!ScarlettCoffee (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am volunteering for COSA (Committee on Sustainability Assessment) and have been asked to help update their Wikipedia page. I've read the Talk page to get up to speed with the progress that you and COSAsb made. I'm new to Wikipedia and hope you can help me clarify how to update the page. Once I have the revisions identified and have done my best to ensure they meet Wikipedia's requirements, do I simply use the EditSource tab to edit the article page? Alternatively, is their a pre-publication editing process for content or composition (or both)?
Many thanks in advance for any insight you can share.
I'm sorry, I took a long break and haven't seen this. If you still would like some help, I'd be happy to help out. Have your written or edited any articles lately? How can I help?--CaroleHenson(talk) 19:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great article! I was hoping someone had created one on this topic and I am glad to have found it. I would like to know if you could take a look at the Rape article and let me know if you see anything missing from your perspective. Best Regards,
Hi Carole, I hope this note finds you well. It’s been awhile since I last reached out, but I wondered if you might be able to help me out on the MetLife article? While there have been some positive changes made to the page since I last posted a note to you in June, I’ve had had some difficulty getting editors to discuss the edits being made to the page. Currently, there are some new issues that have been introduced and some outstanding problems I would like to address in the article. In particular, I'm hoping to correct inaccuracies and bring the page inline with Wikipedia’s citation guidelines. I posted a note to the Talk page back in November, to summarize and clarify the outstanding requests, but so far I haven’t had any replies.
I would love your help in reviewing the current issues and my requests if you have some time. I’m watching the Talk page and will gladly respond to any comments or questions there. Many thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a set of Paintings by Jane Hawkins - one of Mary Catherine Stanley, Lady Derby and I would be delighted if it was possible to upload them to commons and use them in the articles - but I don't understand the rules about if they are possible to use or not. I noticed you use a National Trust image which you uploaded and thought you might be the person to ask about it? The paintings are referenced on the page about Jane Hawkins if that helps? 🍺 Antiqueightchat 00:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll double-check the UK copyright laws, but I don't think that the images are eligible yet for use based upon the artist's year of death. We could use one image under fair use for non-free content, which will have to be uploaded on the Wikipedia site (vs. commons). Since you called out Mary Catherine Stanley, that might be a good one to use. Sorry I've been out of touch for awhile, I took a longer than usual break. I'll work on it tonight.--CaroleHenson(talk) 03:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about delay - I've been away alot myself recently. At the time I asked this I didn't know there was a fair use policy since I usually uploaded to Commons. So I have added the Lady Derby painting to that page but I'm not sure if it is possible to link to the Jane Hawkins page too. Somewhere I have an email from the national trust who said they'd see if they could send any other information about Jane Hawkins (I think it was that request they replied to...). ☕ Antiqueighthaver 06:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it cannot be used twice as a fair-use image, so I'll need to get another one. Sorry, I got side-tracked last night when I hit that bump. Oh, cool, it would be nice if there was more info about Jane Hawkins!--CaroleHenson(talk) 19:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:
Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.
Hi Carole, Sorry to bother you, but I am hoping you might be able to help with a request to update David Harding (financier)'s Wikipedia article that I'm having trouble finding someone to assist with. You might recall that a few years ago, you reviewed requests from User:WWB Too (my colleague) for the page and I'm wondering if you'd be willing to help out once again? While most of the updates are fairly run-of-the-mill adding new information and correcting outdated details, there is one part to the request that I am particularly keen for your eyes on given that you've worked on a number of BLP pages: some family details are currently incorrect is causing Mr. Harding and his family some upset. This is the current mention of his older children, who the article notes are from his first wife, but this is not correct.
As disclosure, I'm working on behalf of Mr. Harding, so I won't make any edits myself and I'm looking for uninvolved editors who can review the request for me and make the edits that are most appropriate. Can you help? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Just wanted to pop back here and let you know that someone was able to look at this. There's just one thing left, adding a new photo, if you get a minute. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Colorado Wiknic 2016 has been rescheduled from June 26 to August 7 due to a conflict with Wikimania 2016. My apologies for the inconvenience. I hope you can join us on Sunday afternoon, August 7. Yours aye, Buaidh 21:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When: Sunday afternoon, August 7, 2015, from 12:00 to 4:00 pm MDT.
Where: The Wiknic will be held at our home in Arvada. Please contact Buaidh for further information or assistance.
Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many folks to expect. You can subscribe to our Wikimedia Colorado e-mail list to receive e-mail notice of future Wikimedia Colorado activities.
Don't you think that the template for Feminist Art Movement requiring additional references could be removed. It seems like there are plenty.--Sue Maberry (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Badge-cbi@2x.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was in the middle of something and just saw that it was already fixed. Thanks for the heads up!--CaroleHenson(talk) 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was accidental I had started the page as Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations/List of sources and when I moved it to a talk page, I put a speedy delete tag on the DT / non-talk page. It looks like it was an accidental deletion. I'll recreate it, thanks!--CaroleHenson(talk) 09:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This section has been removed, Sitush (when you're back online), there is no longer a need for the kind of guidance that I got on the Help chat line and this is spinning my talk page out of control. Thanks, though Sitush, for all your great advice over the years!--CaroleHenson(talk) 20:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Soham321, as you know by now, I have posted the link to my edit that created this section to your user page, and if you, even after reading WP:Canvassing, think you have a claim, I suggest that you post that to the guideline's talk page. It is not my habit or experience to remove things from my talk page, but I don't want to discuss this anymore and the person I pinged has been offline.--CaroleHenson(talk) 20:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re [5], is there any way we can use active voice without paraphrasing too closely? "Republican detractors have called on him to drop out of the presidential race"? Note that WP:PARAPHRASE is an essay. ―Mandruss☎ 05:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mandruss yep, I see that I contributed 21.7% of the content.
The problem is order - sounding close to the same wording - and using the same words. I was hoping you could help out! I gave it my best shot.
Ok from "Republican critics asking him to drop out of the race"
Your thought: "Republican detractors have called on him to drop out of the race"
A little further away: "Republican detractors have called on him to withdraw."
I worry so much about close paraphrasing, I rarely get as far as the desired active voice. But it's a good muscle to build!--CaroleHenson(talk) 05:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss The more I look at it - the more it's an example of how not to paraphrase. I might be too tired. I'm stumped.--CaroleHenson(talk) 05:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We could try totally backing up and getting more info from the source. How about if I try that tomorrow when I'm fresher?--CaroleHenson(talk) 05:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I added "presidential" here, as an afterthought, to get us one degree further from the source. I do like "critics" more than "detractors". How about "Republican critics have called on him to withdraw from the presidential race"? As an aside, have you ever actually seen oor heard of a source claim Wikipedia copyvio for something as close as my original edit? It's possible to overthink stuff, and in fact, in my opinion, it happens fairly often in Wikipedia editing. ―Mandruss☎ 05:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mandruss It resurfaces from time to time - when there was an attempt to bring Wikipedia down for copyright violations. Of course, the worst of which is copy and paste. Go with what you think. I'm still going to try to avoid CP when I can, it's actually a struggle and I don't always feel comfortable that I've done a great job - but it's something I feel is right. I worked on the CP article because I was getting comments that my writing was too CP, and at that point the article was not helpful at all. Anyway, I think if the "critics" saw my work today they'd say I'm still too CP. Even so, I'd vote for better attempts and paraphrasing than an active voice - which I absolutely know means the quality of the writing isn't as good.
I am tired... I'm especially verbose. Go with what you think is best now. I may reread the source tomorrow and see if there are some additional salient points - so that there's more content to work with.--CaroleHenson(talk) 05:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation on Second Presidential Debate videos and images[edit]
It surprised me when I saw that all files from Voice of America on the Second Presidential Debate were taken down apparently because it was a copyright violation. According to the administrators on Commons, it was taken down because they believed the media actually was owned by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is a private non-profit. If it was just that one video I uploaded, I probably wouldn't care, but I think media from the CDP in general on Wikipedia could prove very useful. It seems to me that if the Commission on Presidential Debates own the rights to the videos, it would be in their best interest to allow use of them on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if this issue regarding the CPD has ever come up, but I'm going to email Wikimedia Foundation and the CPD and see what they both say. I want to ask the CPD if they can give Wikipedia (Commons and the rest of the Wikimedia Project too) access and/or permission to use all content produced by them, or at least videos and transcripts of debates. I may need the help of somebody who actually works for Wikimedia to make anything official, and hopefully I can get this approved, or partly approved, by the next debate on October 19. I didn't really know where to post this first, but I figured this involved two articles you've been working on. You may not know anything about copyright, but as an editor do you think this is something worth my time pursuing? I think the CDP would say yes, as their goal seems to be to get the debates as many places as possible. Thanks and sorry if this seemed too random. WClarke (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WClarke, Absolutely that sounds like something worth pursuing! And, it seems like it would be for the common good. Great idea!--CaroleHenson(talk) 03:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave you to re-add the content on the pageants and the Jane doe case. I was just sourcing the content and adding to the page. I'll leave it to the community to decide if they shall keep what has been sourced and added or not. Al-Andalus (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Al-Andalus, I'm just about through with the articles that have been recommended to use. I was going to go after more articles from NPR, LA Times, and Fox News - since we're trying to use as unbiased sources as possible. That was my next step. I am guessing that a lot of your points will come from those sources, too, so we can see what remains out of the sources you've identified after that. You definitely have mined a lot of info, so that will be a good resource to come back to. Anything more you want to mine and put there would be great - especially if you could find NPR or Fox News articles.--CaroleHenson(talk) 10:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Smear Campaigns - Donald Trump / Bill Clinton[edit]
I've reversed your deletion of my content about smear campaigns.
I don't think the issues is whether the accusations are true or not. The focus of the section is that this is an example of a campaign tactic used by many campaigns. Readers can decide for themselves whether it is valid.
I think there should be a separate heading for this aspect of the issue. I posted similar content in the Bill Clinton sexual allegations article.
I would appreciate your comments. WSDavitt (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers.[1] Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.[1]
It looks like that section was removed again. Yes, of course, the tie makes sense - but has it been said in the media? Do you have a source?
I raised a related question yesterday on the talk page. Would you like to post the issue there and get input from others?--CaroleHenson(talk) 17:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time.
The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring.
Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on October 31, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now!
If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges.
To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
Hey there! I'm a new user and Randykitty said I should take a look at the adoption program. I saw that you share my interest in history and society so I was wondering if it would be easy to lead a nooby like me through the basics and first steps of being a Wikipedian. Spirtzis (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to Spirtzis - what are you interested in doing (writing an article, making updates to articles of interest, other)?--CaroleHenson(talk) 19:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Making an article seems like a nice final goal but for now I think editing articles would be a good start. I also do some minor heraldry if that helps. Spirtzis (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, Spirtzis! There are a number of heraldry articles that could use help, if that's of interest. The WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage page has a lot of helpful information and a to-do list. Their talk page is a great place to see how they manage the project and weigh in on discussions. Or, is there something else you would like to work on?--CaroleHenson(talk) 22:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Spirtzis. I thought I would check back. Are you still interested in working on some articles? How can I help?--CaroleHenson(talk) 20:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OMG sorry for not checking back I was really busy :( I was wondering how exactly do I pick an article to edit? Do I just choose one of the available ones? And after that do you know of any good sources or types of sources to get information from to expand/create articles on the Peerages/Baronates of the UK? Spirtzis (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spirtzis, I personally think it's nice to become a member of a Wikipedia:WikiProject, and if peerage interests you,WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage is a good place to start... and I have a couple of additional comments above. They have to do lists on project sites and other helpful information. Your points about selection of sources is an important one - and there's information on the project site about that there. You could ask a question on the talk page about what articles might need work. Folks regularly involved in the project would likely be a help. You could also scan categories, like Category:Peerage of England stubs or another one of Category:Peerage of England stubs.
I recently created an article for the wife of Thomas Anson, 1st Viscount Anson, and his article was in sad shape so I did a bit of work on it, but it could use expansion.--CaroleHenson(talk) 22:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll try to get on to work on the peerages. I might pass by your article and see if I can help. Thanks once again :D Spirtzis (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My first contribution to the Baronates! I updated Cuthbert Ackroyd with some more details! Spirtzis (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Books & Bytes subscribers. There is a new Visual Editor reference feature in development called Citoid. It is designed to "auto-fill" references using a URL or DOI. We would really appreciate you testing whether TWL partners' references work in Citoid. Sharing your results will help the developers fix bugs and improve the system. If you have a few minutes, please visit the testing page for simple instructions on how to try this new tool. Regards, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article Elyesa Bazna you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Elyesa Bazna for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carole! It's been a while since we've communicated. Hope all has been well. I'm reaching out because in the past you've helped review basic updates I've proposed to the The Bank of New York Mellon article. Would you have any time to do that again? I posted some requests a few months ago that haven't had much of a response yet. No worries if you're busy, just thought I'd ask. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that noone has picked up the request. I'll work on it the next couple of days.--CaroleHenson(talk) 20:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much!! Heatherer (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just wanted to see if you might still have time to work on this. I just read through some of the other notes on your Talk page—welcome back to Wikipedia! We're lucky to have you here. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've been enjoying some work on Colorado as I build my steam back up again. I'm in the middle of some articles that I've wanted to write for a bit - and really enjoying it - but I haven't forgotten you.--CaroleHenson(talk) 23:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'm actually due to prepare a new set of updates in the next week or two, so what I might do is just start a new request and ping you when those are ready for review. In the meantime, enjoy writing your articles—and let me know if you need another set of eyes! Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds perfect! Another set of eyes is always great!!! If you have the time, whenever it's convenient for you, to take a look at Death of JonBenét Ramsey theories, that would be great!. I've started a review of the article, but I'm so close to it that I don't always catch needed edits.--CaroleHenson(talk) 00:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow! This looks incredibly interesting. I can't wait to dive in. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article Elyesa Bazna you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elyesa Bazna for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Elyesa Bazna you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I took a very long break and just getting back in the swing of things and will be working on responses to the messages above. If anyone is seeing this, though, and still has a question, please chime in.--CaroleHenson(talk) 19:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say a quick thank you for helping out earlier with finding the references. I dont really edit that frequently, but I am making an effort to become more involved. Thanks, Vagbhata2 (talk) 20:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, @Vagbhata2: if you'd like some help along the way, let me know. Happy editing!--CaroleHenson(talk) 21:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
a Chaco source and NRHP reference comment and other[edit]
Hi CaroleHenson, I happened to notice your new Evergreen Historic District article (by a "notice" to me because it linked to some general article or list that I created), and like it.
At your User page or somewhere there is mention of your interest in Chaco culture stuff. I wonder if you have this NRHP source about "Chaco Mesa Pueblo III Thematic Resources" (readable in MicroSoft Internet Explorer or MicroSoft Edge browser but not Chrome, by the way) yet; it might be of interest. It is somewhat redacted not to reveal locations of archeological resources. At the end it mentions many separate NRHP listings of individual archeological sites; NRHP nomination documents for each of them will exist but are likely not available online, and if you could get them they would be redacted about locations, but if you're interested I could help see what could be available by request to NPS, if you're not familiar with that process.
Also in this edit i modify your reference to the NRHP document for Evergreen Historic District from
<ref name="NRHP asset">{{cite web | url=http://focus.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/79000611 | title=Evergreen Conference District | publisher=National Park Service | accessdate=October 7, 2016 }}</ref>
to
<ref name="NRHP asset">{{cite web |url={{NRHP url|id=79000611}} | title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Evergreen Conference District / The Evergreen Conference Complex| publisher=[[National Park Service]] |author=Sandv Crain |date=May 2, 1977 | accessdate=October 7, 2016 }} with {{NRHP url|id=79000611|photos=y|title=accompanying 12 photos from 1977}}</ref>
which adds a few bells and whistles, in the way I happen to do my NRHP references now. It adds an author and preparation date, and _yay_ adds accompanying photos which you might not have known were available, and is different in some other ways. The use of {{NRHP url}} twice is a trick to put in URLs that might be more permanent, or that can be centrally fixed, if the National Park Service changes where they put documents like this again, which they did a while back, breaking thousands of links. Hope you find this helpful, if not just revert please.
Oops, I see i might have messed up your article a little, because I replaced your reference to the Asset Detail page (which does show the photographs document i notice) when I meant to replace your reference to the NRHP nomination document reference instead. To avoid edit conflict I'll let you delete it or switch it or whatever. Sorry if this caused a bother. --doncram 23:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I notice your chat group and wonder if I might be invited to participate a bit? It looks like a nice thing, anyhow.
Keep up the good work! cheers, --doncram 23:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Hi! The formatting of the NRHP citation - and inclusion of photograph documents - is very interesting. I'll use that from now on, too. I'll take a look at the Chaco info in a bit, too. I have Chrome and Safari, hopefully I can view it on Safari. Regarding the chat room, I have been off-line for so long that it's lost the little steam that it had. If you'd like to post something there, though, maybe we can get it rolling. Thanks all the interesting input!!--CaroleHenson(talk) 23:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am using Windows, where Chrome's view of that document is garbled; if you have Safari maybe you're on a Mac and who knows maybe Safari or Chrome works. Or you could download it and try any other PDF file reader, isn't there a free reader from Adobe Acrobat? My downloading and emailing it wouldn't change it in any way, so would not be any help. Good luck. The document is 16 pages but odds are it probably won't be any big help to you, anyhow, though.
The corresponding reference for the Thematic Resources (TR) document (similar ones are often called Multiple property submissions (MPS)) would be:
<ref name=mps>{{cite web|url={{NRHP url|id=64000509}} |title=National Register of Historic Places Inventory/Nomination: Chaco Mesa Pueblo III Thematic Resources / Chacra Mesa Pueblos |publisher=[[National Park Service]] |author=LouAnn Jacobson |date=February 6, 1985 |accessdate=October 6, 2016}}</ref>
where there is no "accompanying photos" because there never is for TR / MPS documents.
Note this reference also uses the NRHP url "trick" and the NRHP reference number 64000509. TR / MPS documents have reference numbers starting with 64 or 65. Regular NRHP documents' first digits are the year, as in 1979 is the year for reference number 79000611. If I couldn't figure out what is the reference number for this document I would have set "url=" set to point to nonsensical-but-functional "http://npgallery.nps.gov/nrhp/GetAsset?assetID=0c74873c-6085-42f4-81b3-1ed0889a04f4" instead.
And the only way I could figure out the reference number was lucking out to find it listed in the partial list of MPS/TR documents that NRHP editors set up some time ago at wp:MPS, using some list once obtainable from the National Park Service. Where, by the way, the one other hit on "Chaco" is "Anasazi Sites Within the Chacoan Interaction Sphere TR", also possibly of vague interest.
Enough technical stuff. Righto about the chat, thanks. --doncram 01:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
The Wikipedia Library
Agree or 
Disagree
Agree , what kind of article would you like to work on? Or, do you already have one in mind? Do you have a particular interest: history, art, science, other?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
CookieMonster755 📞 ✉ ✓ 22:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Done Just wanted to pop back here and let you know that someone was able to look at this. There's just one thing left, adding a new photo, if you get a minute. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
; see Talk:Elyesa Bazna for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Elyesa Bazna for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vanamonde93 -- Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)