Greenzeiger

Welcome!

Hello, Greenzeiger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Your request at Files for upload

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, we do not have enough licensing information to upload your file. Please check the comment made at your submission here. Your request will remain open for seven days while pending a response. Regards, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans (September 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Greenzeiger, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 TT me 13:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Your request at Files for upload

Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 02:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 08:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks for your additional guidance. As I'm still new here, I'm not sure what the proper etiquette is regarding what place I should respond, but hopefully this is an acceptable place :-). I've tried to revise the article based on what you were saying and have limited citations to one or two per fact. Regarding what you said about the reference needing to contain both the name of the article and the fact itself, one point I am not completely clear on is whether or not it is sufficient for the fact itself to be stated indirectly. For example, I cited an article which refers to the sanctorum / division / supreme organization of the group, but it doesn't specifically say "AMOS is organized like this..." Rather it mentions each of the levels distinctly and it is (IMO at least) clear from the discussion what the levels of the organization are. Does this make sense? Please Let me know if I'm at least getting more on the right track. Greenzeiger (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You are on the right track. Once you have the trick to referencing it will amaze you how few items are really references. Let's look at your example, and do so from first principles.

• If the fact (whatever it is) is defined elsewhere on Wikipedia, a reference for that fact is not required of itself and a wikilink must be used (though only for the first occurrence in an article)

The exception to this is for a fact susceptible to challenge that requires an absolute reference. Stating that "John Doe is Bisexual," for example, requires a link where John Doe may be quoted as stating explicitly that he is bisexual, despite the fact that Wikipedia has an article on bisexuality. Paradoxically, this is a primary source, but this is a fact that we may only record if this source is present. I am sure you can se how this carries forward to less contentious matters.

• If that fact requires a reference then you need to work out what is to be referenced. I'm trying to think of an example. Ok, I have blue eyes. Referencing "blue eyes" is useless. The reference needs to show that I have blue eyes.
• However, that I have blue eyes is a fact about me that is unlikely to be susceptible to challenge. We can argue that it does not actually need a reference at all, or we can use a primary source for that confirmation. But primary sources do not verify notability, they only verify simple facts.

Looking at your example, I wonder if it does not fall into "a fact that is (or should be) elsewhere on Wikipedia." This is a matter of judgement, no more and no less. Does that fact belong in this article or does to belong elsewhere? If it belongs in this article in your view, does it widen the scope of this article beyond that of the actual and precise topic declare din the title and the lead section?

AMOS is the topic of your article. To me this means that, if I strip it to the bare bones, the only facts in it must be about AMOS. Anything else must vanish because it is about some other organisation or concept that, while relevant to AMOS, os not a fact about AMOS. Hmm, I'm getting circular! If that fact is absent for Wikipedia, something not unusual, it may be pointed to by use of a link to the yet-to-be-created article on it. That link becomes coloured red. In our parlance, unsurprisingly, it is a WP:Redlink

Is this becoming clearer? Fiddle Faddle 10:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Thanks again for the continued advice. I think I'm getting a better sense of the referencing guidelines. I'm going to spend some time looking at other more well developed articles on similar topics and study how they have approached referencing to help me see more examples. In the meantime, I think I've got all the easy to find references on the topic at hand, which as I understand it should be enough now to demonstrate notability, so I'll resubmit it for creation. I'm hoping that once I get the hang of this I can do a bunch more articles on fraternal order and secret society types of topics since according to the Wiki Project on the topic there's quite a lot that still need significant work. The general topic is a pet interest of mine and many people involved with it aren't so tech savy! Thanks again. Greenzeiger (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Use only articles in the WP:GA list as any sort of guide. Those have had enormous scrutiny. Fiddle Faddle 06:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

Hello, Greenzeiger! I'm Timtrent. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 08:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Reply to your Articles for Creation Help Desk question

Hello, Greenzeiger! I'm Timtrent. I have replied to your question about a submission at the WikiProject Articles for Creation Help Desk. Fiddle Faddle 17:36, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans. Thanks! Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse reply

Hello, Greenzeiger. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Cordless Larry (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans (October 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Happysailor was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ancient Mystic Order of Samaritans and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- Happysailor ^(Talk) 22:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Happysailor: Thanks for reviewing my draft. The article was created by another user in the interim between when I submitted my draft and when you reviewed it. The user has asked me to move my content into the one he created, so I'll just go ahead and merge them. Greenzeiger (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)