Msruzicka

Welcome

Hello, Msruzicka, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Links for References

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! How-to: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates Templates: WP:CITET The Interior (Talk) 00:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

Hi Msruzicka. Thanks for these new articles on gold rush locations. When naming your new articles, it would be great if you could follow the naming conventions guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles#Geography. In short, find out if your article is the only place by that name by searching within Wikipedia. If it is, the "British Columbia" isn't necessary. If there are more than one place by that name, the BC part is needed. For towns, it goes "Xtown, British Columbia". For geographical features like creeks, rivers, and mountains, use brackets instead: "XMountain (British Columbia)". If you have any questions, ask away. The Interior (Talk) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, if multiple streams in BC have the same name one solution is to use the name of whatever waterbody the stream is a tributary of. For example, Beaver River (Columbia River) and Beaver River (Liard River), or Little River (Cariboo River), Little River (Little Shuswap Lake), and Little River (Vancouver Island). This kind of thing doesn't come up that much though. Pfly (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving pages

To move a page, access the "move" option from the drop-down beside the little "watch" star on the upper left of the page window. Only autoconfirmed users may move pages, but I assume you've been a.c.'ed already. The Interior (Talk) 17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like you don't have autoconfirmed attached, is the move option available when you look at a page? The Interior (Talk) 18:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The move option is available when I look at the page. I didn't realize this is how you change the name of a page. Thanks Again. Msruzicka (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. The Interior (Talk) 18:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Albert Ostman

I can't see the reason for the Original Research or Ref Improve tags. I added a note asking for comments on the Albert Ostman talk page. We'll see if we can get some details. Good work. Plazak (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Msruzicka. You have new messages at Metricopolus's talk page.
Message added 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Metricopolus (talk) 06:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Msruzicka. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warmest regards

Happy Yuletides!

Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!) The Interior (Talk) 18:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Guides and Gurus

Hi,

Thanks so much for your article Guides and Gurus - looks like a very interesting show!

It seems that much of the information was a very close paraphrase of the plot summary on IMDb. With a little bit of rewording, I think this could be resolved pretty quickly, otherwise it could be considered a WP:Copyright violation. Some of the key issues are that it's virtually the same words as the plot summary with some words removed, occurs in the same order as the written material and sounds like the same "voice". You may want to look at WP:Close paraphrasing for tips on paraphrasing.

I hope this is helpful!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice call!

Thanks for adding Mazinibaganjigan to that template! SarahStierch (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I noticed a few things need to be added.Msruzicka (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Would you be interested in planning a restructuring of that template at Template talk:North American Indigenous visual artists? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I would like to help with restructuring. If I think of any ideas I'll join the conversation.Msruzicka (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do; just add your thoughts to Template talk:North American Indigenous visual artists. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Spam report

Look like someone closed it. [1] I think it was a mistake related to the fact that BCGNIS changed their address, which now has the spammy "apps." string in the URL. No worries about adding it in the future, I'll request it gets added to the bot's whitelist. As for the blackout, I'm not totally happy with us making a political statement, but the laws were poorly designed. I found this Globe piece on intellectual property a good read. The Interior (Talk) 06:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Rob Liefeld

Hi. Regarding your addition back in January to the Rob Liefeld article, how did Stan Lee's interview with Liefeld in The Comic Book Greats pertain to the business and production problems that were among the reasons for the conflict between him and his Image partners? Did Lee's interview with him touch upon that material? If so, what was said? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. For future reference, try to add your material to relevant sections. For now, I'll just move it myself. And if you never need help or have questions about editing (I notice you started here last year--Welcome!), feel free to let me know. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Agassiz Harrison Observer

The article Agassiz Harrison Observer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The company doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. The only source is the newspaper's web site.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolotta (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ilmakiur

The article Ilmakiur has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject of the article does not seem to exist. No reliable references on the internet outside of things linking back to this Wikipedia article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 22:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

"Ramp Walker" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ramp Walker. Since you had some involvement with the Ramp Walker redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Ben Salinas" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ben Salinas. Since you had some involvement with the Ben Salinas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 23:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"James Edwin McTeer" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect James Edwin McTeer. Since you had some involvement with the James Edwin McTeer redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of First Talk with Tamara Bull for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article First Talk with Tamara Bull 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/First Talk with Tamara Bull until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Cadborosaurus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cadborosaurus, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cadborosaurus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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 notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of My First Book Of Mormon Stories for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article My First Book Of Mormon Stories 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/My First Book Of Mormon Stories until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers 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/The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Please Sign at AfD

I believe you commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Forgotten Skills Of Self Sufficiency Used By The Mormon Pioneers. Would you please sign your comment there using four tildes? If you've contributed to any other Articles for deletion discussions, I would also appreciate if you'd sign those too. McYeee (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Mormon Temples In America for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mormon Temples In America 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/Mormon Temples In America until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Notability and sourcing

Hi! I wanted to give a general overview of sourcing as far as notability goes. I don't want you to feel too discouraged with the AfDs - I think just about everyone on Wikipedia has learned lessons about this the hard way, as there's typically a steep learning curve on Wikipedia.

User created reviews:

These are reviews created by general users on a site. These can be merchant sites like Amazon or BYU's bookstore, or they can be databases (like the libraries), or even places like Goodreads. It's easy for people to post there and there are typically few to no barriers for people to review. If barriers do exist, it's usually the requirement to sign up for an account and in the case of Amazon, they may limit you from reviewing if you aren't buying anything on their site.

Because it's so easy to review, many people do. It's not a bad thing, as it's a good way for people to share their opinions and (ideally for the publishers and sites) it will promote the book and site, bringing in more users. This unfortunately means that the site isn't selective at all, so the reviews are considered to be common and routine. What makes reviews in places like the New York Times or Deseret Times usable is that they are selective, because they only have a set amount of time and space to post a review.

Another unsaid reason why these reviews aren't usable is because they are extremely prone to campaigns aimed at swaying reviews to one direction or another. Usually it's a campaign to get people to say nice things about the book - examples of these types of campaigns can range from publishers sending out review copies to readers to more extreme situations like a group plotting to sway the reviews to one extreme or another. In the former situation, sometimes those campaigns can be notable enough to include in an article, as in the case of Saving Christmas where two campaigns were formed: one to post glowing reviews and one to post negative reviews. However in those cases, we can only mention those if there's a lot of coverage about the campaigns in reliable sources, as was the case with this movie.

With blogs, that's a situation where 98% of the blogs will be unusable. Just as with Goodreads and Amazon, anyone can create a blog and post reviews. The exceptions would be in cases where the blog is attached to a reliable source or the blog has been routinely cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources. An example of the first situation would be the blog The Uncommonwealth - this is run by the Library of Virginia, the state library for Virginia. As a former volunteer, I can verify that they do have a pretty good editorial overview. The process may not be as thorough as say, their editorial process for their Dictionary of Virginia Biography, but they do fact check and the writers are limited in what they can include or write about. The closest example I can think of with the second type would be the blog of author Kim Newman. He's considered to be such an authority on the topics he writes about that his blog is considered to be reliable.

Wikis

Wikis cannot be used as a source because by their very nature, anyone can edit and post content. This poses a verification issue, as we can't guarantee that the information is accurate. This is part of the reason why Wikipedia itself can't be used as a source, because we can't guarantee that the given page is 100% accurate at any given point in time. The only exception would be in cases where the activity on the wiki gained media attention, as in the case of the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. There's a long history of people trying to post hoaxes on Wikipedia. The Amelia Bedelia incident was so widely distributed via Wikipedia that there are still people posting the hoax as if it was real, even though that info has been discovered and removed.

Accurate representation

It's extremely important that you represent the sources as accurately as possible. With the pages you were editing, you claimed that several merchant sites had reviewed the books in question. It's extremely important that you make sure that the reviews are actually reviews and that they would be usable.

A good way to determine if something is a review or a publisher summary is to take a line or two from the synopsis and plug it into Google. If you see the same prose coming back word for word or nearly word for word, then it's all but guaranteed to be written by a publisher. Another good way to tell is to look for a name - if it's someone who works for the site, then they are going to attribute a name for it. For example, back in the day I worked for a major chain bookstore. They asked all employees to write positive writeups for their favorite books, which they would then post on their website as employee recommendations, along with our names. This actually leads into an issue with using reviews posted by merchant sites: they are extremely unlikely to say anything negative about the book because that comes into conflict with their desire to sell you said book.

As far as user reviews go, I've covered that above. But in general though, you shouldn't state that something is an official viewpoint of the given site unless it's a staff member. Even then that's still inaccurate because it's really only the opinion of that given reviewer, however in the case of citing reviews for a media outlet it's generally kind of assumed that the opinion is that of the reviewer - that's just an aside, though.

As far as other sourcing and stuff goes, I have some essays about notability and sourcing here. I also recommend these training modules - they're aimed at students, but are still extremely helpful when it comes to going over the basics.

Hope this all helps! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, ReaderofthePack, I was just on my way here to add something similar to what you wrote. Msruzicka, there are many resources to get up to speed on some of ways things are done on Wikipedia. I am confident you have things to add to Wikipedia, just remember that not everything you personally want on Wikipedia is going to be there. The Wikipedia:Teahouse is a good place to find people who want to help. Glennfcowan (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)