Hello, Kirk Leonard, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for the warm welcome, VegasCasinoKid!

Hello! I saw your help desk post looking for someone to show you the ropes, and saying you had questions about notability. I'd be happy to help you out or answer any questions you may have. In addition there are a variety of resources for new users, like the teahouse, adopt-a-user, editor assistance, and other mentoring schemes.

At any rate, I'm happy to help you and show you the ropes. What questions do you have right now? What about notability are you having trouble with? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving

Thanks for your willingness to help me, ONUnicorn. Right now I'm a little confused about notability. I assumed that anything discussed in a reliable source would be notable, but Anne Delong told me at help that we needed several sources before starting an article. That's what's confusing. Is it okay to start articles with only one or two sources, or do we need more than that? Another question I have is why is my name red? I see most others names, like yours, are blue or another color.

Anne is correct that you need several sources before starting an article. Even reliable sources sometimes have conflicting or incorrect information, and notability isn't established by one person talking about a thing, but by multiple "reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (quote from the General notability guideline. The guideline goes on to say, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic."

That said, it is ok to start articles with only one or two sources, especially since that often makes writing easier, and then expand and fill in the gaps with multiple sources as necessary. For example, J.M. Villars, one article I wrote, only cites 3 sources. There are other sources out there that talk about him, but I haven't yet been able to find anything in those sources that isn't said in the 3 I used. On the other hand, Hammerton Killick cites 23 sources currently, but if you go through and look at prior versions of it, it started out citing one source, and then I went and found a second and used it to revise and expand, and then a third, and then a fourth, etc. I'd like to expand it further with more information about his earlier life and career, but I haven't yet found sources that discuss that. Der Ruf (newspaper) cites 4, but again, go through the article history, it started with one, then two, etc.

The problem with starting with only one or two sources, especially when you are new, is that some people are a little over-zealous when it comes to deleting vandalism or sub-par articles. This is a bigger problem when you are dealing with more modern topics, especially music groups, companies, and living people. If you are writing history, people aren't as zealous. You need to clearly show why the thing you are writing about is important, and that other people have written about the thing. For example, if you wanted to start an article about Neil Armstrong, but work on it gradually over time, the most important thing to say about him is that he was the first person to walk on the moon, and make sure that's sourced. If you just say, "Neil Armstrong was born in 1930 in Ohio. He worked for NASA." and save the article without citing any sources, that's libel to be deleted.

As for your name being red, that can be fixed by creating your userpage, which is User:Kirk Leonard. Use it to tell us a little about you and what you are interested in. You don't have to reveal any personal information if you don't want to, but if you do want to, feel free to. Take a look at mine (click on my name), and some other people's to see what they do with theirs, and feel free to copy the code for any boxes that interest you. Or feel free to leave it red if you prefer (some people do). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very helpful. Thanks. Do you think there are enough reliable sources to start an article on Isaac Stearns, one of the first settlers of Massachusetts? https://www.google.com/#q=isaac+stearns&tbm=bks I also noticed that my comments aren't getting signed, but I'm using four tildes as the editor interface suggests. What am I doing wrong?

For Isaac Stearns, I would say probably there are enough reliable sources out there to start an article on him. Looking at the google search results, I'm seeing a lot of genealogy resources, which don't provide a lot of biographical information, but I'm also seeing some histories of Massachusetts which provide more context to him/his life/his importance. A trip to a major research library would probably help more than internet searches, and while building out the article you want to avoid the trap of relying too heavily on primary sources (I found something online which appears to be excerpts from his journal). Contrary to what some people will argue, that does not mean you can't use primary sources at all, just be careful with them and don't impart your own interpretation to them.

As for the signing thing, if you are typing ~~~~, I have no idea why your signature isn't showing up. that's really odd. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've figured it out. You are typing the tildes in the edit summary box, instead of at the end of your post. Try typing them at the end of your post in the main edit window. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for all the help, ONUnicorn. You were right, I was signing in the wrong place. Should I create the Isaac Stearns article in my sandbox? Kirk Leonard (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can, but there are technical reasons why your sandbox is not the best place for draft articles. It is better to put a draft article either in draft space (e.g. Draft:Isaac Stearns) or in your user space (e.g. User:Kirk Leonard/Isaac Stearns). You can also create it directly in main space at Isaac Stearns, although I don't recommend that for your first article. Which you choose depends on how much help/collaboration you want from other editors, and how much criticism (of both the constructive and unconstructive varieties) you are willing to accept.

• • If you create it in userspace, people will be hesitant to edit it unless you specifically invite them. This is fine; it can give you a chance to gather sources all on one page, write one or two sentences that maybe don't make sense, work on it at your leisure without worry about other people interfering before you are ready.
  • If you create it in draft space people will feel more free to edit, collaborate, and fix minor things, and you may get more feedback, especially if you use the articles for creation process.(Be aware that AFC is time consuming and very backlogged when it comes to reviewing articles. They also hold a high standard for approving articles. The end result is that articles that are approved through that process are better quality, but a lot of people get frustrated with the bureaucracy and give up.)
  • Creating an article directly in article space is good if you are confident in the quality of the article you've created, the sources you've used, and the notability of the topic. However, it subjects your work to immediate scrutiny by New Page Patrol, which is the first line of defense against spam, vandalism, and hoaxes. Some (not all) NPPers are overzealous, seeing deletion (rather than improvement) as their main raison d'être, and preferring to tag articles for clean-up rather than fix problems themselves. Also, the work of new editors receives a higher level of scrutiny than that of established editors, which is why I don't recommend it for your first article. The last danger of creating it directly in article space comes if you want to build the article over more than a week. You may have noticed the Did you know section on the main page; that section highlights new articles. Articles must be nominated within 7 days of their creation; defined as the day they entered mainspace. So if you work on the article in userspace or draft space, then move it when it's ready, you have more time to get it ready and have it be eligible for DYK.

Personally, I would recommend Draft space. It provides the benefits of more comfortable collaboration, while still giving you time to build the article before subjecting it to the intense scrutiny new articles tend to receive. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's great. Thanks a lot for all the help, ONUnicorn. Kirk Leonard (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC) I started the article in draft space, as you suggested. When you have time, please take a look and let me know how I'm doing. Thanks again. Kirk Leonard (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start. One thing that concerns me is several sentences are taken verbatim from the source text. Generally speaking, that's not something you should do because it could be considered a copyright infringement. In this case, the book you've taken them from is old enough to be in the Public domain, but it would still be better to use your own words, or at least alert people by using a template such as Template:Source-attribution. I've added a note by one sentence in particular that you should rephrase, because in addition to being a copy from the source, it's confusing. That said, you have a good start to build on. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done a more thorough paraphrasing had the source not been public domain, but I'll still try to vary the wording some, and I'll also add a notice that the Van Wegenen source is PD. 20:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC) ONUnicorn, do you think I should move the draft to article space yet? Kirk Leonard (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirk Leonard. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
Message added 23:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Stearns, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the .
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 78.26. Kirk Leonard (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kirk Leonard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

musical phrasing

Thank you for quality articles such as Isaac Stearns, for improving articles such as James T. Kirk, for small changes in phrasing that make a difference in clarity, for "I hope to eventually develop my editing abilities", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks, Gerda. That was unexpected and very much appreciated. Kirk Leonard (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1668 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Kirk Leonard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]