User talk:W.carter/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hi w.carter — Thanks For Your Help

Hi w.carter, Thank you for your offer of help with the article while GrammerFascist is unavailable. I’m very appreciative of any assistance from experienced editors, and I look forward to hearing from GrammerFascist POV when they return. Perhaps it would be helpful for to you to know what transpired with the article so you have a full understanding in context for you to advise accordingly. I’ve always wanted to try writing a Wikipedia article, and one day as I went through a stack of old magazines I came across an article on an artist from South Carolina and decided he would be a good subject. I originated the article about a year and a half ago, and the main issues I’ve had to deal with have been copyright concerns in regard to images and my learning curve. The article has been published on mainstream Wikipedia for a year. A new editor challenged the biography I created on the SC artist by incorrectly asserting it was an autobiography (October 14, 2015). This new editor’s only activity on Wikipedia was to get the article deleted. Unfortunately, it appears very likely that my first article was a victim of vandalism.

In good faith, another editor advised the new editor on how to get the article deleted and directed them to Teahouse. The advising editor began to extensively edit the biography on October 14, and then nominated the biography for deletion on October 17th and started the deletion discussion ( archived here). The same day (Oct. 17), the new editor requested help on getting the article deleted in Teahouse by asserting additional false opinions regarding the subject of the biography. I looked into the allegations by the new editor about the subject of the biography; and the facts I found completely contradict the new editor’s assertions. They are all just the personal opinion of the new editor about the artist that is the subject of the article.

The few editors that participated in the deletion discussion may have done so in good faith, but it plainly appears their perspective on the article was negatively tainted by the unsupported assertions of the new editor in Teahouse and elsewhere; and without confirming the accuracy of the allegations by the new editor they simply followed the leader — except for GrammerFascist. While GrammerFascist made the important counter point that the sources and referencing of the article was within Wikipedia policy, this was ignored. The final post in the deletion discussion was on October 18 (just 4 days after the article was first challenged by the new editor, and the day after the article was nominated for deletion). However, it appears the new editor did an additional post on the 19th that they removed for some reason. The new editor that challenged the article hasn’t made any edits since October 19, 2015. On October 25 (just nine days after the nomination), the Administrator closed the discussion and deleted the article.

When I returned to Wikipedia to begin writing a new article, I learned of what occurred to the first article I created, and as per proper procedure, I contacted the Closing Administrator (see discussion here) on December 19, to address potential inconsistencies with Wikipedia policy and mistakes that may have occurred in the deletion of the article. My inexperience with Wikipedia talk etiquette appears to have unintentionally irritated the Closing Administrator, which seems to have not helped me in correcting mistakes they may have made in the interpretation of the deletion discussion. Which as the Closing Administrator suggested has brought me to GrammerFascist, and in turn you, for help improving the article.

I left the article as it was "tonally" edited down to in the deletion discussion, and edited the article further yesterday based on the criticisms of the Closing Administrator. In looking into the new editor's assertions, I’ve found additional pertinent information on the subject of the biography and will be including it in the biography within the next few days. If you could look at the current state of the article and give me some constructive feedback it would be very helpful and much appreciated. Niknakc (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Niknakc: Aha, so it's about an artist. I didn't know that, but it's right up my alley as I have written many articles about artists. I see that there has been a lot of back and forth and loads of 'opinions' (something best avoided on a website that rely strictly on sourced facts). I'm not interested in all the previous bickering, only in the article. I will take a look at it and see what can be done and what problems there may be. I can't guarantee that it will result in it being kept, but I will do my best and at least try to explain things to you. I see that most of the previous editors have given you the usual "coded messages" with links that very few newbies understand at all. I will get back to you as soon as I have something for you. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 19:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi w.carter, Thank you so much for anything you can do to help in refining the article. Glad to hear you're not interested in previous bickering and will look at the article with fresh (and experienced with artist biographies) eyes. It is not easy writing on an artist because people are so descriptive when writing on art, and all the 'personal opinions' about art and artist. LOL The main critique of the article was it had a "promotional tone" —( i.e. the mentioning of other artists that have influenced the artist that is the subject of the article). This comparing and contrasting of artists is a common and appropriate approach in writing about an artists work, however, I chose to remove them for now so the content would just be about the artist. The only place I may indicate comparison/contrast will be at the end of the article in the artistic style section that the artist practices.

My sources are mostly from magazine and newspaper articles about the artist in publications over the span of almost 20 years. Because most are pre-digital age internet archiving they are not readily available online. When I originated the article over a year ago, an editor suggested I reference the source material in the notes section of the article because the information isn't online. I followed this recommendation in accord with Wikipedia policy (as GrammerFascist pointed out in the discussion), but now these writings of other authors are being labeled as "written like an advertisement". I'm at a loss as to what to do when these few editors see the 10 different authors writings as reading like an advertisement. How is this possible? Any suggestions on this would be much appreciated! Thank you, Thank you!!!! Niknakc (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Answer

@Niknakc: Ok, here we go. To make it easier for both of us to see what was going on, I copied the article to one of my sandboxes and did a total remake of it. You can see it here. (Original version: Draft:Anthony Conway) This is what it should look like. I would also suggest that you took a look at another article about a living artist, Caroline Schlyter, and see how that one is written. I will take you through the steps I made and explain along the way.

• I removed all the "Notes". These are totally useless. It does not matter how old the sources are as long as they are properly cited. I have used 18th century manuscripts that only scholars can look at and they are perfectly fine as sources, no need to include any of the text in the article itself. It is the job of the Wiki editor to scan through all the colorful and subjective art-talk and find only the very dry facts. Including all these opinions was what got you in trouble in the first place. An article here should be completely neutral with no words that describe an opinion of any kind, this is not an art review. "Flowery" language is also a no-no. This is why it is so hard for someone close to an artist to write an article about them. The dry language used here cuts like a knife in anyone artistic. There are descriptions of what words and expressions to avoid in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style a huge text about how articles should be written. You can read about those words in these links: WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. I also removed all text that did not include pure facts, such text is called "fluff" here.

• The picture of the artist as a child that you uploaded as your own, also got you in trouble since such pics are mostly only available to persons very close to them. That is why you are thought to have "a conflict of interest", that you are too close to the artist to write the article. There were also too many pics in the article, there should always be a balance between the amount of text and the number of pics. Pics are accessed through a link to Commons at the bottom of the page. I have included that and removed the excess pics including the childhood one, that is unimportant for such a minor artist.

• I reduced the chatty captions at the pictures. An encyclopedia should always be as brief and condensed as possible. This goes for all texts.

• I tidied up the infobox. There were some things added that does not belong there, and other things should be written another way. All infoboxes have descriptions about what can go into them or not. The description for this is at Template:Infobox artist. You had added some things that are not listed there and therefore they did not show up in the box.

• The thing at the bottom "Persondata" is not used anymore. You could not possibly know that. :) I have removed it.

• Cleaning up the references, I noticed that you had misunderstood one of the parameters, the "|location= |". This does not mean what section in the paper, book or journal, but what town it is printed in. You had written "Introduction, Essay or Beginning" when it should have been "Greenville, Augusta or maybe Long Island". I filled in those I could find and left the rest blank for you to fill in.

• There were way too many section headings, like every school or art form was an huge event. I reduced all of those and made more normal section.

• An article about an artist should always include sections where their works and exhibitions are listed. You had completely missed that. That is one way of showing just how "famous" they are. "Famous" is another word that should never be used in articles, we say "Noted". You had mentioned some exhibitions in passing, so I started a list for you to fill in. Same goes for Works.

• Last is the big question: Is this artist famous enough to have an article here? This is where you still have to prove things. Even if the WP is an online encyclopedia, there are still basically the same criteria to be included here as it is in say the Encyclopædia Britannica. This is called "Notability" here and there is a text describing what those criteria are for an artist. Here they are:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

• So is he? Has he been described in books, newspapers, journals outside his hometown? Has he had solo exhibitions in any prestigious museums or art galleries? Has he set any new trends in the art world? Is he represented in any museums or art institutions? Do other artists write about him as their inspiration? These are some questions you will have to answer. Right now it is only apparent that he is a very local celeb in Greenville, and unfortunately, that is not enough for an article. Sorry. Looking at the sources right now they do not support the "notability" criteria. An interview is always bad source. It is called a primary source even if it is in a big paper or in a TV show. "Primary" means roughly that you are not famous just because you can talk about yourself. The last links to his art classes are not enough either, they don't mention anything about him as an artist. I have looked for good sources online, but unfortunately I have not found any. Sorry. Remember that the WP is very strict about articles, even for very "famous" persons or things. I can tell you that there was in fact a debate about if there should be a special line on the first page about the death of David Bowie, since that might not be "notable" enough. This while media in the whole world was talking about it! The article about the phrase "Je suis Charlie" was also nominated for deletion at one time. So if your article don't make it, you are in "famous" company...

So a very long answer, but I hope that reading it and looking at my version of the article you can move on in some way or other. You can use as much of my version as you want to. I can even update your draft by posting it there if you want. For now, w.carter-Talk 23:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

• In the media: War and peace; WMF board changes; Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedias

• Community view: Battle for the soul of the WMF

• Editorial: We need a culture of verification

• In focus: The Crisis at New Montgomery Street

• Op-ed: Transparency

• Traffic report: Pattern recognition: Third annual Traffic Report

• Special report: Wikipedia community celebrates Public Domain Day 2016

• News and notes: Community objections to new Board trustee

• Blog: Inside the game of sports vandalism on Wikipedia

• Featured content: This Week's Featured Content

• Arbitration report: Interview: outgoing and incumbent arbitrators 2016

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

formatting questions

Here is a link to a Wikipedia article effect on gases but it looks like an external link. I suppose that has to do with the text being different from the article title. Can I prevent that? (I'm guessing "yes, but it will be a hassle".) Is it important to fix it? (I am inclined to leave it.) Also, how do I insert subscripts? For example, in the formula for molecular nitrogen, N2. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: On talk pages you can link to articles any way you want, but there is a way to do it "the correct way". Any page can be linked to using the url for the page in the manner you did above. To link to an article in the WP you simply insert the name of the article inside double square brackets like this:

[[Intermolecular force]] resulting in: Intermolecular force. If you want to link directly to a section on that page you add a # and the heading of the subsection, like this:

[[Intermolecular force#Effect on the behavior of gases]] resulting in Intermolecular force#Effect on the behavior of gases.

Or even better [[Intermolecular force#Effect on the behavior of gases|effect on the behavior of gases]] resulting in effect on the behavior of gases.

Links that are, or look like, external links should not be used in articles. I'm afraid you must fix it.

For formulas and such where a number or something is to be written lower or higher that the text, you surround that text with a code. Here are the three most used:

• Subscripts: N₂ resulting in N₂ or for a longer formula (CH₃)₂CO resulting in (CH₃)₂CO

• Supscript: n² resulting in n²
• Equations where the number is "up": <math>a^2 + b^2 = c^2 ,</math> resulting in $a^{2}+b^{2}=c^{2},$

• Small text: <small>This text is smaller</small> resulting in This text is smaller

I think these pages could be useful to you: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts, Help:Cheatsheet and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry. Whenever you like, I can take a look at your sandbox and help you correcting things, but I think you should try yourself first. w.carter-Talk 17:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Carter. Fortunately, the link fix is easy, so I will get right to it. After a quick glance, the manuals you linked to look like just the type of thing I find helpful. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: Glad to be able to help. The whole manual on how to write things starts at Wikipedia:Manual of Style, more commonly known as MOS here. I also, in a way, acted on your proposal on Talk:Thermodynamic temperature. Hope you got my 'ping'. w.carter-Talk 18:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. I can not make the link work, after trying multiple perturbations. You wrote "using the url for the page in the manner you did above" but you don't do it that way. Sometime the double square brackets just gives me superfluous brackets. Same for the vertical bar. And nothing I try works. And the first time I posted this, I got an incoimprehensibel message about an edit conflict and had not choice but to close the page and loose my work. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: Sorry if I was unclear. When I wrote that, I meant that that can be used on talk pages to provide a link, in articles the formatting with double brackets and maybe the vertical bar must be used. I will go to your sandbox and provide you with a few examples, I think that is the best way. The message about an "edit conflict" was because you and I were both posting here at the same time. It really is a huge bother when that happens, but not much can be done about it, unfortunately. You have to try again. To make sure that does not happen when I fix the links in your sandbox, can you please not edit there for say 10-15 minutes until I sound the all clear?. w.carter-Talk 18:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof:  Done The links are now fixed and the sandbox is all yours now. Since you had an external link to the NIST Chemistry WebBook I also had to introduce the concept of references. There should be no external links in the text, all such are to be included as refs. Since you used it twice, you can see that the first time it is used, you write it all and the second (third, fourth, n^th) you only write the designated name for it. This new coding may be a bit too soon for you, but if you want to read about it these pages are good: User:Yunshui/References for beginners and Help:Referencing for beginners.

I have to sign off now as it is getting late here in Sweden where I live. I will be back tomorrow for further questions. In the meantime there is the Teahouse and perhaps @Dolphin51: if you need help. See you later, w.carter-Talk 19:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

formatting questions (part 2)

Thanks yet again. The link seems simple enough, I don't know why I couldn't get it. I actually managed to put references in a previous article I edited, but I did not realize that I had to use that for a link. I've got my subscripts in, so all that remains is two more figures.

I know I am supposed to put the figures in categories, but I could not figure out how to do that when I did the first one. I put it in by clicking on the icon while editing source and uploading it. (To the commons, to my surprise. I thought what I did in the sandbox would stay in the sandbox.) Mostly pretty obvious, but there was a box for categories and I had no idea what to do with that. I am tempted to just ignore it again when I upload the last two figures. Triage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retired Pchem Prof (talk • contribs) 21:30, 17 January, 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: No problem. I'm glad that you are making progress with figuring things out here. I have seen too many scholars being discouraged simply because they found this initial mentor/learning phase like being sent back to school.

On all Wikimedia projects, what you call "figures", pictures, images, etc. are all known as "files". The categories both on the WP and at the Commons are a bit tricky for "newbies". We'll take that later. For now, just upload the files and give me a ping when you have and I'll sort out the Categories for you. I have assigned a Category for the first file you uploaded. It is now in Category:Compressibility factor a subcategory of Category:Thermodynamic diagrams.

One of the reasons for the Commons is purely practical. There are currently 280 active Wikipedias in different languages, all under the aegis of the Wikimedia Foundation. Each language's Wikipedia has it's own set of rules and regulations for texts and articles. The Commons is the common repository for all files (pictures, video, sound) that can be used by all Wikipedias. While Wikipedias are language-based, the Commons is international and multi-lingual. This means that your diagrams can not only be used here on the English Wikipedia, which is sometimes perceived as being "the international WP" but in reality is just for one language, as well as on the Japanese, Hindi or Latvian WP. Some pictures are very well used. If you look at this file for example, you will find a list of all the WP's it is used on at the bottom of the page.

I can help you with the formatting, writing and finding thing and so on, but even if I have studied both physics and chemistry, I am far from the expert you are. I specifically flunked thermodynamics, I'm sorry to say. The different areas of the WP are divided into Projects. All these projects have talk pages where likeminded meet up. So if you have any questions, need an opinion on something, advice or simply want to introduce yourself, here are links to the Projects you might be interested in:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry about the project, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry where you meet and discuss.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics about the project, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics where you meet and discuss.

Until the next question, best, w.carter-Talk 17:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks yet again. I have uploaded the final two files for the article: N2_Compressibility_Factor_Low_T.png and N2_Compressibility_Factor_High_T.png. I would have given the earlier file a more descriptive name, N2_Compressibility_Factor_Overview.png, had I realized that it would not just be in my sandbox. I think I am done with this chunk of work; I will let it sit a bit, then give it a final proofreading and move it into the Compressibility factor article. I managed to do that once before with a copy and past, so I will try that again. If it doesn't work, I'll be back here for more help. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: I have added categories to the new files. Don't worry about the file name, it is quite unimportant, it is the description of the file that matters. If you are only expanding an article, the copy/paste method works just fine. I have taken a look at what you have been up to, we usually keep an eye on new editors to help or correct, and you seem to be doing rather well. Very good! I have left some comments on some of the talk pages you have posted on. You are always welcome here, w.carter-Talk 21:32, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I put the new section in and it seems fine. But when I link to the new section, the link goes to the middle of it, not the start. The link I inserted is compressibility factor. I tried logging out, exiting my browser, and returning to see if it was a cache problem or some such, but it made no difference. And it seems to behave here in the same way. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 04:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: The formatting of the link is perfectly fine. The problem is that browsers sometimes can be a bit erratic when opening a page to a section. I tried the link too and eight out of ten times, it opened with the heading at the very top of the screen, the other two it opened as you say "in the middle of the section". I suspect it has to do with the last file in that section. The code for the file is located "within" the area of the text shown on the screen, but the resulting picture is displayed a bit below and the computer tries to compensate for this by shifting the text a bit. There is nothing you can do about it, just leave it. I also took the liberty of adjusting some of the links on your user page. They were displayed correctly as in-wiki links, but since they were derived from the http-address they had the internet coding for the hyphens which is not used in-wiki. Use the hyphen from the article title instead and loose the underscoring of spaces.

• [[Joule%E2%80%93Thomson_effect#Description|Description]] vs [[Joule–Thomson effect#Description|Description]]

The easiest way to get the name of a link absolutely correct is to just copy/paste the name of the article. This is always best when a title includes other characters than the most common letters. For example, we use about three different kinds of "hyphens" (or more correctly dashes) here, see Hyphen. And just try typing out some of the Serbian names without copy/pasting... (Nebojša Vučićević) w.carter-Talk 08:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

User Box

Hey there, would you mind creating a user box for me please similar to the following USB. It's for the Opals in green and gold. Saying "This user is a fan of the Opals basketball team", with a basketball in the left hand side box. If you don't have time, that's OK. Just let me know either way. Regards, Spy007au (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

BOSThis user is a fan of the
Boston Red Sox

• @Spy007au: No problem! Here is a box and the code for it.

Code	Result
{{User:W.carter/Userbox opals}}	This user is a supporter of the Opals basketball team	Usage

Is this ok? I took the colors from the article and the photos of their uniforms. They were not specifically green, more sea green. If you would like some other nuance/color, or the colors switched or something, please just say so. You can find all the names and numbers for the colors at Web colors and I'll have no problem tweaking it. Same goes for the ball picture. There are plenty more to choose from here, I just chose the most "basket-bally". Just let me know. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 16:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's perfect, exactly what I wanted. It looks great. I really appreciate your help. Thanks again. Spy007au (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) w.carter-Talk 22:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Moved to User:W.carter/things I have received

Oh wow! That was very random and unexpected, thank you! I appreciate it very much. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 19:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Archives and sandbox management

Three related questions: (1) How do I move stuff from my user talk page or my sandbox to an archive? (2) How do I recover something I deleted from my sandbox? (I should have archived it) (3) If I want to solicit comments on proposed content, can I invite people to visit my sandbox and leave comments on the sandbox talk page? How would I give them access? Is that a good idea or a bad idea? I presently have a proposed rewrite on my user page; no comments yet (not surprising) but I figure I should give people a fair chance, if only to minimize the possibility of a reversion war. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof:

• (1): There are two ways of archiving things: manually or automatic with the help of at "bot" (program). My talk page is very much an ongoing help-station so I let a bot archive everything automatically after 30 days. Your talk pages are more like notice boards and it would therefore be unpractical to let a bot do that based solely on the date. You will have to create the archiving pages yourself, or if you want me to do the first ones to get you started I can do that. A small code called a "Template" will have to be placed on the page you archive to give you easy access to the archive, similar to the "Archive" I have here at the top of my page. After that it is simply a matter of cut and copy/paste the text you want to archive from the talk page to the archive page. Your archive pages would be called User talk:Retired Pchem Prof/Archive 1, User talk:Retired Pchem Prof/Archive 2, and so on.

It is a bit unusual to archive the sandbox, but you can always do that too using the same technique. Those archives would then be called User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox/Archive 1, User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox/Archive 2, etc. The entry to that archive should not be placed on the sandbox page since the code for it might be confused with the text in the sandbox, but one can be placed on the talk page of the sandbox if you like.

• (2): To recover things from your sandbox you have to "go behind the scenes", this is where we all can see what is going on, who is editing what and when etc. At the top of any page is a tab marked "View history". If you click on that you will see a list of all the "Saves" that has been made on that page. On the left side is a row of "(cur | prev)". If you click on the "prev" the page will open and show how the page looked at that "save". In the middle of the is a row of the editors who have made edits on that page. Every edit is marked with name, talk page, contribs, a timestamp, a chance to revert that edit (do not do that yet!) and if the edit is made by someone else, an option to thank that editor for the edit. Looking behind it all like this is how I have been able to follow your doings here.

• (3): You can certainly invite people to leave comments on the talk page of your sandbox! It is a very common practice. We help each other out like that all the time. You do not need to grant them access, anyone has access to any page here (with the exception of a few protected pages). The WP is completely transparent and open, which is why we value good manners and civility so highly. We stay away from each other's sandboxes and projects, not because we can't write there but out of respect for other editors. Break these rules of civility and you can get permanently banned from the site.

• (More): I think it might also be appropriate to add a few other notes here. Working on several projects, you can have as many sandboxes as you like, and name them in whatever manner you choose. Some editors use number, other colors or letter etc. Here are some examples: User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox 2, User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox Blue, User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox Epsilon.

• To keep track of all the pages you are interested in or are working on, you add them to your "Watchlist". Your list is accessed via the link at the very top (right-hand side) of any page as long as you are logged in. You add a page to that list by clicking on the little star next to the "View history" at the top of a page. If the star is white and only outlinded, the page is not yet on your list, if it is blue, then the page is on your list. Click on a blue star if you want to remove the page from your list. If you create a page (like your user page), it is automatically added to the list.

• You invite people to whatever page you are working on, by 'pinging' them, leaving a message on their talk pages or posting a note at some Project talk page.

A lot of information to digest, please let me know when you are ready for the next step. Best, w.carter-Talk 19:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: On second thought, having had a look at the archive boxes available and how your sandbox is maintained, I think it will be possible to add an archive box to your sandbox or any page you want it on. w.carter-Talk 19:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, so I need a template for archiving and instruction on how to create multiple sandbox pages. The latter sounds very useful. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: Ok. I will start up an archive for your talk page and one for your usual sandbox. What kind of naming system would you like for your sandboxes? w.carter-Talk 20:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that for the time being something generic for the sandbox pages, like sandbox01, sandbox02, etc. Will I be able to look at what you do and replicated it? I've found Help:Archiving a talk page and am not finding it at all helpful. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

p.s. I will leave my pages alone until I hear from you that you are done.Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof:  Done Help:Archiving a talk page is mainly for automatic archiving, and I agree, it is very confusing. The manual archives are now installed on your talk page and in your sandbox. As you can probably see, you can access them by clicking on the link in the little box. There is also a searchbox for later when they have grown vast and you need to find something in them. Installing them is very easy. You just copy the code I have placed at the top of the page:

{{Archives}}

<!-- EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->

on any page where you want an archive and hit save. After that you click on the text "Archive 1", which is red at first, and a new page for creating the first archive page will open. You write something, anything, on it and hit "Save". After a couple of minutes the new archive page has been accepted by the system and the text "Archive 1" will turn blue and is ready to be used.

You create more sandboxes by writing the name of it in the normal seachbox (upper right-hand side) and hit Enter. That will take you to a page where you are invited to create the page. OR... you can do it the easy way: Just type the name of it somewhere and put it in double square brackets and hit save. The name will then appear as a red link. Click on that link and you will instantly get to the page of creating the sandbox. Here are some such links for you to start with, look in the editing window how they are written. Just click on them, write something just a letter is sufficient, and hit "Save". After that the links will turn blue and you have your new sandbox.

User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox01

User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox02

User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox03

User:Retired Pchem Prof/sandbox04

All yours! w.carter-Talk 20:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Goodnight for now

I will be available again tomorrow. Best, w.carter-Talk 21:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alfred Worcester article

Dear W.carter: Thank you very much for your kind attention to my entry. I appreciate all the edits. I have a technical question about the quote that I added yesterday. In Paul's book, this quote is itself in quotes and is spoken by a character other than Paul or Worcester. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to keep the quotation marks. Perhaps this is immaterial to the general reader. Thank you.AgedCare14 (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure AgedCare14, I always like fixing up articles so that they look their very best. The photo was over 100 years old, so the copyright for it had expired and it was therefore no reason not to use it in the article instead of just a link. How to write a quotations vary from publication to publication. In many printed publications the most common way is by enclosing the quote inside quotation marks. This is also done here on the Wikipedia when the quote is "in" the text. But when the quotation is given a "place of honor" such as is done in the article, the extra space and the "stand-alone placing" of the quote (plus the coding of it in the editing window) replaces the quotation marks. This is all described in Manual of Style - Quotations. To put 'marks' around them in the article would be like "doubling up". Even if it is within 'marks' in the book, that does not affect how it is written here. The Manual of Style specifically mentions this: "A quotation is not a facsimile, and in most cases it is not desirable to duplicate the original formatting." Hope this has made things clearer. Best, w.carter-Talk 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you.AgedCare14 (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

New photo for architectural endoscopy

Helle W.carter - back from Paris with a new photo - take a look. Best.--Maxim Pouska (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC) PS Architectural endoscopy Critic--Maxim Pouska (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Allô Maxim, comment ca va? Welcome back from Paris. How I envy you! :) A very nice picture, I corrected the caption a bit. The name of the photographer is never mentioned in the caption, unless it is a pic by some very famous photographer or maybe some historic event. The credit for the photo is revealed when you click on the picture. I'm also glad that you skipped the translation of the name for the building complex (Orgues de Flandre), try to avoid that in this article unless you want a lot of giggles or blushing readers. Or use the translation I used when I copy edited the article, "Church organs of Flanders", to avoid too much confusion. You may not be aware of it, but in English the word "organ" can refer to the musical instrument or "organs in the body" as well as "penis". Since the article deals with four skyscrapers, the double meaning of the translation into "Organs of Flandre" is a bit dangerous since it can be read as "The Flemmish Penises". I would avoid that in an article about architecture. ;) Cheers, w.carter-Talk 07:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Alerts?

What does it mean when I get an "alert" saying that "the page .... was reviewed by ...."? In this case, the page being one of my sandboxes. Is it just to let me know when certain pages have been visited? If so, what determines those pages? Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: I suspected that you would be asking that soon. All pages, without exception, in the WP get reviewed or patrolled at some point by another editor. This is just to verify that there is nothing harmful on that page, that all is ok. You would be surprised at what people try to post here... All new pages can be viewed at the New pages feed. There are constantly editors watching that. Remember that we are several million users here, all with our special area of interest or expertise. We all chip in and check pages whenever we can. A page that has not been checked has a small text at the bottom right saying "Mark this page as patrolled". That text is visibel to anyone except the user who created it. I was checking that you had got everything right with your new sandboxes, saw the text and marked it as ok. When that happen you get notified. You can do the same favor if you come across that text on a page. Check it for trouble and if no such is found (which is most of the times) click on the link. I'll see if I can find such a page and send your way.

Otherwise you can never see who has been looking at your page, but you can see how many visitors it has had, how many times it has been viewed. If you click och the "View history" on a page you will find a link to "Page view statistics" a bit down on the page. click on that and a diagram will show you the number. Looking at your talk page, I can see that it has been viewed 208 since it was created. That is normal. Other pages such as Chemistry have more traffic with about 1,500 visits each day. w.carter-Talk 18:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Retired Pchem Prof: This talk page had not been patrolled when I looked, open it and see if you can find the text. The page is ok. w.carter-Talk 18:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I had noticed the "Mark this page as patrolled" and wondered about it, but always had bigger concerns. Retired Pchem Prof (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

• News and notes: Vote of no confidence; WMF trustee speaks out

• Op-ed: Not a pretty picture: Thoughts on the "monkey selfie" debacle

• In the media: 15th anniversary news round-up

• Traffic report: Danse Macabre

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Blog: Fifteen years ago, Wikipedia was a very different place

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Addition of gaps to headings

Hi, with regard to this edit, what purpose do they have... Firebrace (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Firebrace, the spaces are optional. They do not affect how the heading is displayed, they simply makes it easier to read and edit the heading in the editing window. The change is included in a script I use to tidy up articles I edit. It searches for small and hard to find formatting errors in the article and fix it up according to WP:MOS. Sometimes, as in this case, the article is tidy enough and only the spaces in the headings are added. I prefer them myself so I usually leave them in. w.carter-Talk 08:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

• Op-ed: Lila Tretikov: the WMF needs your input in developing our strategy

• News and notes: Geshuri steps down from the Board

• In the media: Media coverage of the Arnnon Geshuri no-confidence vote

• Recent research: Bursty edits; how politics beat religion but then lost to sports; notability as a glass ceiling

• Traffic report: Death and taxes

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jonas Åkerlund (politician)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A Huge Thank You!!!

Hi w.carter, I'm speechless. I can't thank you enough for the effort you put in and how much I'm learning from you. Simply thank you, and the perfect person to help. I tried to create the article by looking at other biographies, but obviously there's a lot of poorly done articles on Wikipedia and I didn't have the best examples. No need to move it - we can keep working on the article in your space if that's okay with you. It looked like I was overwhelming your talk page, so I started this new section as we continue working (Is this the easiest way to do this by starting new sections? I don't know - still learning so let me know what works best for you).

I'm busy with exams so it will take me a few days to look into getting answers to your questions. Off the top of my head from what I recall from the published materials, the answers to most of the questions is yes. I just have to find where I put the file (it was over a year ago, and I've been concentrating on school). Regarding the photos, I originally used photos I took of the artwork I found in the articles and they were deleted. An editor let me know I couldn't do that for copyright reasons and that I had to get permission from the artist (author). Luckily, the magazine article had contact information for a representative of the artist, and I was able to get more information from them and his email address. I emailed the artist and asked if I could interview him and get some photos and his permission to use them. He politely declined to be interviewed, but sent me some photos I could use and his written permission (which is on file with Wikipedia). That's how I got the childhood photo and other images (accept the picture of the Art Students League, that was already available on Wikipedia). I don't know the artist, but his representative told me he's a very private person and doesn't give many interviews. They said he just spends most of his time in his studio painting and is only seen at an occasional lecture or exhibition.

Most of what I found written on him was prior to the prevalence of things being published online (such as his Olympic work 20 years ago). When I originated the article I couldn't find a website on the artist, so I assume he doesn't have one. All I found was he is listed with two prominent 19th and 20th Century galleries - one in New York and Palm Beach. I'll do some more research on my end to see if I can find the answers to your questions. Again, I so very much appreciate all you have done and wish there was some way I could buy you a glass of wine, beer, or cup of coffee (whichever you prefer). Talk again soon. :) Niknakc (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Niknakc, I'm glad you liked my answer. You learning is reward enough for me. :) You are welcome to work on the article in my sandbox if you prefer that, I'll leave it there for now. In a way it's lucky you did not get the interview with the artist since that would have been totally inadmissible in the article. Here we edit what others have written, that is why those working on the WP are called "editors" and not "authors". There is absolutely no problem with offline material! You just need to gather as much as you can get your hands on and use it as sources, especially material about exhibitions and places where he is represented. But please prioritize your studies and exams, they are much more important that the article. :) Take your time. As wiser Wikipedians than me have said before: "There is no deadline on the Wikipedia".

As for your question about talk page etiquette, you use your common sense. If a thread tends to get too long or if time has gone by and there are several new threads after you last post, you start a new section. Or if you just feel like it. You are always welcome on my talk page. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 08:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi w.carter, just getting back after exams. Excited that I did well in both the written and practical! So, I contacted a representative that was listed at the bottom of one of the articles on the artist. They haven't worked with the artist in a long time, but I learned a lot about the artist. They said the artist is very private and spends most of his time painting in the studio. They directed me to talk with his New York dealer which I'm trying to contact now. They said the artist has shown all over the east coast in the US, and is highly respected. One of the articles comments on this fact, but it doesn't list the exhibitions. Is there an alternative to an exhibition section because I've noticed that this section isn't used in a lot of biographies? I did locate the artist's resume/CV on Linked In, that which provides more information but I don't know if this can be used as a source? I noticed many articles on living artists on WP reference the artist's web site, which is confusing to me because isn't that promoting the subject of the article? It appears this artist doesn't have a web site, but I did find him listed for an upcoming exhibit where he was selected from artists in 12 Southeastern states by a juried panel of art experts— One the Curator of American Art at the High Museum in Atlanta, Ga. I'll let you know what I can find out when I speak with his New York representative. Hope you're doing well and staying warm!Niknakc (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Niknakc, congratulations on your successful exams! I'm very happy for you, I know how great you must feel. :) The exhibition section is optional, but it is sometimes used to establish notability for an artist since that option is in the notability guidelines. Artists don't need websites either, there are a lot of really big artists (Picasso, Rembrandt, Da Vinci) who got along just fine without them. ;) Anyway, such sites don't do anything for the article, their only use is to provide clues as to where you can find other sources and facts about the subject. About LinkedIn, unfortunately there is a lot of crap included on many pages (sooo many articles to check for unwanted, added stuff and too little time) but it can be used for minor uncontroversial facts. That is a primary source and such may be used if there are other sources to establish the notability. An editor who taught me had this to say about such sources: the information must be uncontroversial (children's birthdates are fine, unsubstatiated claims of acheiving cold fusion in the garage are not) Sources that may sound promotional can be used if you just pick the few non-promotional facts from it. Talking with the artist or his representatives can be productive but only if it helps you find written stuff about the artist since you can not include "talk" in the article. I'm warm for the moment, thank you, we're having a very unexpected sudden heat wave courtesy of global warming, otherwise winter sucks. Cheers, w.carter-Talk 09:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Swedish-article need some help

Hi friend! Can you help find some source for this article? It may have some coverage in swedish language sources which I cannot read. Please if you can help! Best, Jim Carter 11:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 February 2016

• From the editors: Help wanted

• Special report: Board chair and new trustee speak with the Signpost

• In focus: The Knight Foundation grant: a timeline and an email to the board

• Op-ed: So, what’s a knowledge engine anyway?

• News and notes: Harassment survey 2015; Luis Villa to leave WMF; knowledge engine background

• Arbitration report: Catching up on arbitration

• Traffic report: Bowled

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Short Wikibreak

I have to take a short Wikibreak. I may do some gnome edits, but questions and help queries will have to wait for a week or so. If you have an urgent question, please ask at the Teahouse. I'll be back, w.carter-Talk 14:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy the break! (unless it's a busman's holiday...). Ceannlann gorm (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done w.carter-Talk 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 February 2016

• Special report: New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

• In focus: An in-depth look at the special report's newly revealed documents

• News and notes: Another WMF departure

• In the media: Jeb Bush swings at Wikipedia and connects

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: A river of revilement

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation removes The Diary of Anne Frank due to copyright law requirements

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Emil Källström

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 February 2016

• Special report: Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov

• Op-ed: Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Super Bowling

• Technology report: Tech news in brief

• Blog: Antonin Scalia and the editor tracking his legacy

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your welcome.

[NOTE – As a result of receiving a message from Philg88 I'm now in the process of adding a PS to this message. Please give me half an hour to complete it before reading this].

You suggest I'm a new editor. Well, that's true in the sense that I've never started a new article, but I've been around correcting existing ones for over four years

I will be attempting my first article from scratch in a month or so. The subject will be Michael Macarthy Keane (1800-1873) who commanded the SS President on one return voyage between Southampton and New York in the closing months of 1840. At the time the President was the largest passenger ship in the world. When the ship returned to Southampton Keane was dismissed from his post on the grounds that the voyage had been too slow. He was the second commander to be dismissed on those grounds.† During the voyage undertaken by the third commander the ship sank probably in the same general area of the Atlantic Ocean as a better known ship sank 71 years later.‡ All on board were lost and the wreck has never been found. One of the passengers was an Irish actor known professionally as Tyrone Power. You will be familiar with his great grandson (1914-1918) and even perhaps his g-g grandson who was born in 1959. Both have the name that their ancestor adopted.

Keane was the son of Michael Kean (sic) and Irish painter who married into the Duesbury family of Derby and for a short time at the beginning of the 19th century ran the firm that became known as Royal Crown Derby.

I would have written more articles if the task weren't so daunting. Now tell me it's easy peasy!

† The first commander of the President to be dismissed was Lieutenant Robert J Fayrer RN. He also is worthy of having a Wikipedia article written about him. Time will tell but I haven't much of that left!

‡ Visit http://www.artflakes.com/en/products/a-achenbach-untergang-der-president to an artist's impression of the sinking of the President. Reminiscent of that other more famous ship?

P.S. I have been researching William Schaw Lindsay for well over five years and have accumulated a wealth of information about him. For about two years I’ve been intending to write a Wikipedia article but, for one reason or another, I never got round to it. I had mixed feelings therefore when Phil88 started one last December (btw that coincided with WSL’s 200th birthday when I wrote a letter to the Telegraph which they printed in reduced form a week after the event). I am now about a quarter of the way through WSL’s biography.

Fortunately Phil seems very amenable to my making wholesale changes to his Wikipedia article. You can see the draft of what I’m proposing in my sandbox. One of my problems is that an important source of information is housed at the Caird Library of the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich which I visit from time to time. I have photographed well over 500 of the transcripts that a certain Hilda Kirkwood made in the 1970s of WSL’s handwritten journal and which are housed in the library. I have converted four of their five volumes into Word form and will be visiting the library next month to photograph the final volume. I have also downloaded about 1000 newspaper cuttings relating to WSL as well as much other material. All the time I have been working closely with WSL’s g-g grandson, William Stewart Lindsay (Bill).

I currently have a minor problem. It’s the one about which Phil has suggested that I speak to you. The transcribed versions of the five volumes of WSL’s Journal are not online but I want to make reference to their pages in the Wikipedia article. I have therefore added them in the bibliography section at the bottom of the article. But I don’t think I’ve got it right. Please would you help me in this respect.

Regards, and thanks again, Robert Cutts (Bob)

P.P.S. I would dearly like to change my username which was not down to me in the first place.

--Bristol Filer (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Rob, see here for details on changing your user name.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)