Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

I would not normally contact you here regarding TSW matters, but circumstances prevent normal action!

Were you aware of any TSW server issues at present? On and off over the last 4-5 days I have been unable to open the site at all. I was fortunate at lunchtime today, as you'll see from the updates I made, but just as I was about to leave a message for you concerning these server problems, I encountered server problems! (As I write this, I cannot access the TSW site). (Grrrr!)

EdJogg 14:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Inexplicable and severe, and we have changed nothing there. We've been working on solving it for a few days. Fiddle Faddle 16:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion.Cholga^talK! 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that you've had a chance to do substantive editing on this article, perhaps you see what so irritates me about this editor (Cholga) who is primarily responsible for the mess not only in this article, but in numerous nearby articles (e.g., Richmond, California and practically any others related to that locale). You're familiar with the concept of a vexatious litigant? Well, she (Cholga has told us her gender) is what I'd call a vexatious editor.

My primary beef with this editor is, basically, that she's a practically illiterate idiot who has no business editing an "encyclopedia". Actually, she shouldn't be blamed so much here: it's more that entire hubristic concept of Jimbo Wales that's at fault here. To put it in as few words as possible, most of the people editing here should be reading encyclopias, not writing them.

Anyhow. There's a history here, hence my irritation and frustration. I've been battling her over the inclusion of that shitty photo for a couple months now. I will give here one thing: she's tenacious as all get-out. But you can see the results of her editing in spades here.

Hope that helps explain. In case you're wondering, I'm not seeking a pardon or absolution for my part in this. I've done nothing wrong here in my view. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be charitable and suggest that English may not be this editor's first language. I've met other editors where this has been a difficulty, and they generally either ask for help or find it escalates into a major issue. It is infinitely preferable to treat them well, however frustrating this may be, and thus be able always to be certain of what some might call the moral high ground.

Our role with difficult editors is to encourage rather than to chastise, however challenging that may be at times.

The article is a dreadful mess. I'm seriously tempted to AfD nominate it, but I have chosen not to in order to give others who care about it the change to get it into order. I'm not going to edit it myself, but I am going to watch it and consider whether it is improving. I hope it does. I fear it will not. Fiddle Faddle 22:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

would you mind commenting here please? [1]Cholga^talK! 02:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I would mind. I have nothing useful to add here. Fiddle Faddle 05:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes,I think that that might do - but, again, I would be unsure how to implement it. Could you help, by perhaps just putting in the first task or something? Cheers, Bluegoblin7 15:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I was sure. Now I am not. I am asking for serious help to undo the thing and make it work. It was so simple last time I did this! Fiddle Faddle 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks a lot anyway. What might have confused you a bit is, to save time, I created one page, the page you edited on, and then used {{these things}} to put it on the portal and the project page. Maybe I should have made that clearer? anyway - a bit of expertise is what we need ey? they might bring even more to the project! Bluegoblin7 17:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

copied to my talk page

Thanks a lot - it looks great now, and I am really grateful for it - who cares if it got screwed up first? Thats the beauty of collaboration! and {{help-me}} tags!

{{helpme}}

To help you will either be good at debugging what I have done and enjoy a challenge, or you will be familiar with {{todo}}

I started off in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Trams and added {{todo}} to the "things to do" section, once for ongoing and once for one off tasks

For reasons I do not understand at all, the to do lists, intended to be in the wikiproject have ended up as Portal:UK Trams/Opentask. But Portal:UK Trams, while it displays the TO DO framework, does not display the task list.

I am totally confused to the extent of wishing I hadn't started! I only did it thinking it was going to be straightforward, and as a favour to the project creator.

The help I would love is for someone to pick this up, understand what has happened, and solve the mess. I'm not even sure it was of my creation! I never even knew there was a Portal - where did that appear from?

At least this ought to be more fun that a run of the mill {{helpme}}

Fiddle Faddle 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed; the problem was that you (or someone else) used a relative page name rather than an absolute page name when linking to the templates, which meant that the todo lists displayed correctly on Portal:UK Trams/Opentask but nowhere else; changing the . at the start of the name to Portal:UK Trams/Opentask solved the problem. (If a page is transcluded - that is, used as a template - relative references starting / or ./ or ../ will usually break on one page or the other, unless the page on which the template is used and the template itself have both been designed to avoid the problem.) --ais523 17:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am grateful. I was so far out of my depth that, as Stevie Smith said, I was not waving, but drowning. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, TSW seems to be going really slowly - I was adding some pages, and it took 10 minutes for the page to go from me pressing save to coming up. Also, could you contact me off WP about TSW. I want to ask you something. Bluegoblin7 11:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I left in the comment, I don't think there's a pressing need to remove it - it was only made 3 minutes after the TFD closed. --Coredesat 08:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

After your first message about needing an explaination(sorry about that!) I did explain the reasons for removing Lyndon LaRouche from the list of 9/11 researchers in my second edit--he is not considered on and has never been to the best of my knowledge. And still the edit was removed.

I also included this link in that explanation:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2143

As you can see, no one is rushing to defend LaRouche as a part of 9/11 Truth. His inclusion in that template is misinformation.

On another note, I am new and I apologize in advance for my ignorance in all ways wiki. To clairify, do ALL edits require an explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregon911truth (talk • contribs) 22:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Require an explanation? Well, no. But, and especially when editing an article deep in a hotbed of different beliefs, it is much wiser to explain an edit than not to. There are many pages where one might happily edit with no edit summary (though it is considered bad form to omit it). But "difficult" pages really do need one. You just hit a difficult page :)

As to the second removal of your edit, while you are sure the person is irrelevant, another editor considers them to be relevant. This is where consensus building comes in. Argue your case on the template talk page and accept winning it or losing it. Also do, as a matter of importance, read WP:3RR to ensure you don;t fall foul of that rule - easy to do when you are new. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please spend a moment to add your 2 cents to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Sections vs. collections and also Wikipedia:Requested moves#September 12, 2007? I think that you had strong opinions on this matter on Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:Trivia. I understand that you are in favour of trivia on Wikipedia, but I may be mistaken. I am the direct opposite, but in the interest of community consensus I'm letting you know of these two pages where debate is continuing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a simple opinion regarding trivia. There are places where it is valid and places where it is invalid. I believe that each occurrence should be treated on its merits. So I will look and consider contribution. Fiddle Faddle 19:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are not routinely undeleted at DRV, because they often contain irrelevancies; however, I'm happy to undelete them upon request, and I have done so. Best wishes, Xoloz 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, could you include your actual username in your sig? I got might confused when I clicked on that link. Just a friendly request. - 210.49.15.96 14:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I fear this is a wikimedia thing. It confused me, too, the first time. Fiddle Faddle 15:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed this. Actually, it's because you modified your signature in Special:Preferences. Be aware that you risk being blocked for a misleading username. If you need help changing it, please let me know. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I risk being blocked because I followed an established process pretty much as soon as I joined? Well that would be amusing I suppose. What help do you believe I need on this? I have a user name and I have a nickname, like many other Wikipedians. How is this in any way misleading? I am sorely confused. I know of no rules that say that the username and the nickname must be identical. So yes, inform me, please. Fiddle Faddle 22:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Having looked closely at WP:Usernames#Inappropriate_usernames under the section for misleading usernames I really can't spot what you mean here. It is not in any way that I can see "inappropriate". So please explain what you mean. While doing so please look at the various talk page entries here and in in my archives, note the number of admins I've corresponded with and the fact that no-one else has commented except the IP based user above. Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Please see this diff and the edit summary. The image exists on http://ig.wikipedia.org and it seems foolish, unless those are the rules, to download it and upload it. As we can see one may link to the image, but how does one embed the image in the en WP?

I've tried looking at the mediawiki site, and no luck. I'm probably not looking for the right thing, though.

If this is soluble, obviously the image is in the wrong place in the article!

Fiddle Faddle 10:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid there is no way to embed an image like that. The only way to include it is, as you say, download the image and then upload it to Wikipedia. However you shouldn't do that just yet, as that image has no information about the source of the image or the copyright status. On the english Wikipedia we need to know where the image came from and what license it is under before it can be uploaded here. Raven4x4x 12:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Somehow that is what I feared. That same image has proliferated into other language versions of this article. When (eventually) it is properly licensed, would Commons be the right place for it? I have zero experience with Commons. Fiddle Faddle 12:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Commons IS the right place for WP images. Don't worry, Commons isn't as fearsome as it first appears. I've managed to get the hang of it (see GDSF), if only 'twere available directly from TSW...

EdJogg 14:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the next question is how to make Commons available to non WP wikis! Fiddle Faddle 15:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, and others, for your efforts in this matter; that has answered a lot for me. While the answer isn't the one I'd hoped for, I nonetheless understand why it is that way. Gartnait 21:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(Since the other wiki wouldn't let me edit your talk page, I am posting here.)

It is not necessary to host an IRC server at the datacenter, just an IRC client. It is actually not even necessary to do that. The IRC client could be located elsewhere accepting UDP packets from the wiki (that is how MediaWiki transmits its recent changes feed). -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 05:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We were being killed with vandalism, so I had to slam the door on unregistered users. That has quasi-solved the problem.

My challenge is that all the data centers our operation can use (cost, etc) have contracts that expressly prohibit any and all IRC activity. I'll get my technical genius to look at it some more because I may be mis-assuming. Fiddle Faddle 10:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA, which unfortunately didn't succeed. The majority of the opposes stated that I needed more experience in the main namespace and Wikipedia namespace, so that is what I will do. I will go for another RfA in two month's time and I hope you will be able to support me then as well. If you have any other comments for me or wish to be notified when I go for another RfA, please leave them on my talk page. If you wish to nominate me for my next RfA, please wait until it has been two months. Thanks again for participating in my RfA! -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Was a total pleasure. You ought to have succeeded, but I think people take WP sometimes rather too seriously. While creating a good encyclopaedia is a serious business, nothing should prevent people from enjoying it. Fiddle Faddle 06:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You warned 70.90.102.1 (talk · contribs) that if they vandalized any more articles they would be blocked. The have made SEVERAL since then. IP4240207xx 17:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Then report them yourself, please, at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This is every editor's responsibility. Fiddle Faddle 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging comment. I sailed Bosuns years ago and when I was looking through the dinghies I noticed its absence. Nshimbi 10:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I did too, taught kids to sail in them as well. "ours" were triple thickness laminate and wer amazingly heavy Fiddle Faddle 20:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim. Thanks for the contributions to the page on PSC. I started the article with limited knowledge in the hope someone who knew more would jump in. Pleasantly surprised to see such interest. --Arosewarne 22:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Sea Cadet Corps in Canada, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed the PROD and given a substantial rationale on the article's talk page. I can see why you considered it for deletion and hope my rationale convinces you otherwise. Fiddle Faddle 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Please look at these two articles Epsom College and Maley & Taunton in Firefox and in IE with special reference to the "Notes" section in each.

• In IE (at least in my IE 7.0.530.11) the notes section of EC is a single full width column in a scrolling box. In FF (2.0.0.11) it is two columns that scroll.

• In IE M&T the notes section is a single full width column in a scrolling box. In FF is is two columns that do not yet need to scroll, BUT that sometimes revert to a single half width column that scrolls!

The M&T code was taken from EC.

The design intention was for two columns that scroll (or in the case of M&T are ready to scroll when they overflow the box constraints)

I am perplexed. This may be a CSS issue, with IE being a special case, of course! This is the first time I've looked at either article in IE and I have no idea where the problem lies.

Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a CSS issue. The notes specify column-count (a CSS3 option that many browsers don't support) and -moz-column-count (the Mozilla-specific version of the same thing), to set the number of columns to 2 (IE supports neither option), and overflow:auto to set the scrolling if needed (which all common browsers support), among other things. So you get scroll-if-overflow behaviour on all browsers, but two columns only on browsers which are either very modern, or which are Mozilla-derived (such as Firefox). The only unexpected behaviour here is the 'sometimes a single half width column that scrolls' one; I'm not sure what would cause that. I don't think two columns is easily possible in IE; the code is designed to fall back gracefully in that case. Hope that helps! --ais523 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well I feared as much, but it was worth asking for an expert opinion. The oddity was repeatable, but ctrl/refresh appears to have stopped it, so I suspect a gremlin. Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a tech problem which I've been trying to solve. I found this link for Haslam - http://www.templeofsaintnick.com/articles/EveningStandard_042106.htm - it has relevant quotes from him about his life during his Warhol days before Ritz and also references to his party giving. (I could use his quotes for the RN article and for the H article). Snag is, I don't know how to do the coding for newspaper articles which have been published on another site, as in this instance. Also, I am unsure what is the title for this site. And, on this site, the Evening Standard doesn't have an author. I did ask my adopter for advice, but I forgot to ask him how to do the coding for the quote. He was helpful and showed me how to ref the actual link (which I knew how to do). After I then asked him for more details on how how to code the ref, I sent him another message - informing him I was working it out. But, I can't! I appreciate you are busy, and apologise for querying you about this, but any tips on how to do the ref. coding for a quote from this newspaper article, which has been published on another site would be invaluable. Frances Lynn,author 10:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are citing a website, so use {{cite web}} (I think you got there already)

I see my adopter is 'depressed' at the moment. As soon as he is 'happy' again, I shall ask him to help solve my coding query. Frances Lynn,author 13:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one will object of you ask for another adopter. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have just expanded the Haslam page. I did the coding without help! But, on the ref's website's url, which I used - the article didn't have a byline. I found the article's uthor on another (encyclopedic link). So, would this be Wikipedia legal? My adopter is still 'depressed', but shall ask him this as well Frances Lynn,author 15:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea, bt I think it ought to be borderline ok. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I see there is some coding showing in The Warhol ref. i.e. "=". I can't see how to rectify this. My adopter is still "depressed". When you have time, could you please look at my coding on the Haslam page. Apologies for this. Want to get it right. Frances Lynn,author 16:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorted it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers! Frances Lynn,author 20:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

(this was pasted here from user talk:Palx, thus the context is rather missing. It refers to the page Leonard and an entry I made there, which happened to be a redlink, for Leonard a 1970s society hairdresser) You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. However a redlink encourages an article to be contributed by illustrating a lack. In addition your reversion was rather clumsy. I did not just introduce a redlink, I sorted that segment into alpha order. Please revert more carefully if revert you must. I shall, however, be reinstating my edit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) fine if you wish to add this person, show who he or she is then please and establish the notability required. nothing on google to support your entry. http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=Leonard+%28hairdresser%29%2C+London+high+society+1970s+hairdresser+&btnG=Search&meta= I am removing it. please don't reply. thanks PalX 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I keep replying in this user's talk page, but the user keeps blanking the replies. They are, of course, in the edit history. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. Thank you PalX 23:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest, now, in attempting any communication with you of any description. The banner on your talk page see this diff was extremely discourteous. I attempted to enter into sensible dialogue with you and my opinion of your behaviour is that it became insulting. But life is too short and wikipedia large enough that I expect never to need to interact with you again. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No offence was intended. I dragged up an old banner and I apologise if the implication was perceived as having been directed at you personally. It was not although I accept your point. Thank you for stopping posting me messages. I am off to bed. Good night. PalX 23:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to accept your comment about the banner and your apology. I do not, even so, have an interest in trying to reopen a dialogue with you on the matter of Leonard the hairdresser, nor about the value of redlinks which I perceive as a positive asset to WP, unless you indicate that you are happy to have that dialogue in a spirit of open mindedness. I am always open to persuasion, though this will be a difficult point to persuade me on. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Advice please (or do I approach my adopter about this?). I am tempted to put in the RN article that Lynn once appeared in a Leonard ad with the caption: 'Who else would listen to me bitch?" (I could try and find the issue where the ad appeared), but although relevant to the article, I suspect this could be seen as puffery, considering I started the article? Frances Lynn,author 15:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

You find it and a reference, and I'll add it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and find it. Frances Lynn,author 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please advise me on this: I have just added an External link (http://www.schumi.eu/) for Schumi to the RN article. It's his website displaying his paintings. Is this considered advertising? If so, I'll delete it. Frances Lynn,author 18:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the Schumi External link from the RN article .... Frances Lynn,author 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In an article about him I see it as fine. As a citation about him, since it is self published, it would not be. As a citation for someone or something else, it is fine. Break the problem into compartments and generally the right answer arrives by "magic" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

A logical answer ... I shall leave it off because I don't think the link is strictly appropriate for this article. Frances Lynn,author 20:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem. I've been left a warning notice on the RN article saying the Celebrities need citation. I have done one for Paul McCartney (in Ritz newspaper). I'm now trying to code a citation for Sammy Davis, Jnr. and Robert Mitchum, but might have to leave it until the morning .... could you please tell me - will that be too late? Frances Lynn,author 21:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The only time constrained actions one needs to be comcerned about surround deletion of articles. One may work carefully to cite other areas, accepting that they may, temporarily, be removed while uncited.

Do not let it pressure you. The article, a good article, would not exist at all if you had not created it. The citation required tags are not just for you but for any interested editor. They place the article in a category that effectovey asks for help. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks for this ... I'm so tired that although I have tried to supply the coded citation for Sammy Davis Jnr. I have made mistakes (I managed to cite Paul McCartney though), so shall try and cite the others tomorrow. And when I do cite everything, should I then remove the warning messages??) Frances Lynn,author 22:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you trade a citation (or more) for the individual warning messages. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've managed to do one citation in the Celebrity section (I have more to do still), does this mean I can remove the warning messsage in that section - or shall i wait until I do more? Frances Lynn,author 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Be a politician. Satisfy the tag as fully as you can before removing it :) People appreciate that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Good advice. I do see that my citation which I supplied for Leonard earlier today is no longer there. but shall work on it tomorrow. Frances Lynn,author 22:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the edit history says "it identifies who Leonard is but not that he advertised. It is easy to cite the "wrong thing" by accident. Festina lente Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

for the RN article, does Leonard need to be linked to Ritz in a url for a citation? Frances Lynn,author 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Look at it this way: We are creating an article about RN, so any citation has to validate both RN and the other "thing" cited.

So, with Leonard as an example in the RN article, his birth certificate is useless, because it proves simply that he exists. An invoice from RN to Leonard for the advertising shows that he advertised. It links RN and Leonard.

In an article about Leonard himself, his birth certificate is a valid citation

Think in compartments. Ask yourself "What is this article about?" and "How does this fact relate to the article?", and "How does this citation link the fact to the article?"

This is wholly different from journalism, and this may be the part youi are finding challenging. A journalist writes a mixture of citable facts, own (or common) knowledge, and speculation. An encyclopaedia editor writes only citable facts.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I get it! I shall have to now edit the article carefully tomorrow and of course provide the citations. Frances Lynn,author 23:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for the Cat Villiers citation. I'll just have to delete stuff that I can't find citations for. Frances Lynn,author 23:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

((reset indent)
There is probably no need yet to delete things. Remember that there are currently just under 6 million Wikipedia editors. If you look at Talk:Ritz Newspaper you will see that there are two of us who are interested in the article apart from you. Others will also arrive. Each editor's role is to add or take away elements of the article that enhance it. None of us owns it, though we may feel emotionally attached to to it. We have to "father" articles, not "mother them".

Others may cite elements, or may remove them, or may add real rubbish. You may choose to police this article to keep it as clean as possible, or may move on to another. Both approaches are valid. I stay with articles myself while I am adding value, and then I move on. I pop back if they still interest me Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That is interesting, especially as two people who were involved with Ritz say they intend to edit the article further. Frances Lynn,author 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent news. They, too, will probably need help to understand the diff between this "place" and journalism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure they will. And, thanks for adding citations for Young and Bailey. Frances Lynn,author 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(pssst one more colon than the para above indents it properly!) I'm just plugging away. The main thing is that each citation I'm adding cites the relationship between the thing and RN.

There ought to be a party after this article is seriously cited! The question is, "which gossip columns will it appear in?" ~giggles~ Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny! But, I have now cited Sammy Davis, Jr. and Gore Vidal. When you have a moment to spare, could you please look at the RN page - there is a box round the celebrity names in the Celebrity section. The same thing happened to me last night. I can't see where I have gone wrong .... I'd like to know what I've done wrong, coding wise - so shall leave it up there for now for you to look at. I think this is for my adopter to look at? When I tested the ref coding on my User Page, this didn't happen. Frances Lynn,author 08:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please ignore my last message. I've solved my coding problem. Frances Lynn,author 09:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done all the citations on the RN article. I did a citation for (Amanda) "Lear" and (Stephen) "Lavers". I couldn't source a couple of things so edited them out. Creating this article was certainly a learning curveFrances Lynn,author 17:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have this link which confirms that Stephen Laveres worked for A & M http://www.onamrecords.com/Britain_AM_Staff.html but it doesn't relate to Ritz. I don't think I could use it as an External Link??Frances Lynn,author 18:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I intend to now move on to create my next article, but shall keep an eye on the RN one. And again, many thanks.Frances Lynn,author 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's quite an experience, isn't it! You'll soon be helping other new editors! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had said this to me a few weeks ago, I wouldn't have believed it!Frances Lynn,author 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And Good luck with all your articles .... Frances Lynn,author 20:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll meet again! If you need any help do ask. If I can I will. Heck I feel I know you! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I shall need your help in the future. You have been a brilliant tutor. A crash course! And Ditto to you! Frances Lynn,author 22:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there is one thing I want to clarify. Access date means the retrieve date? I see that the access date on the Marie Helvin autobiography ref on the RN article is the same date as the article was written. Is this a mishtake?! Frances Lynn,author 23:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Accessdate is the date the data was viewed by the person doing the citing. It is not an error if the article was genuinely written that day. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure I haven't made mistake, in all my refs. I said the access date was today's date. I think I'm correct? Frances Lynn,author 23:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

100% Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm working-in-progress on my Ritz Newspaper article now, but see my adopter has wikibonked! Have asked him a tech question, but I can wait for him to respond until I finish the actual writing of the article. Frances Lynn,author 14:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(Although I copied your coding on how to Reference, haven't mastered it. Want to finish my article in order to beat the deadline!Frances Lynn,author 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you have got the hang of how to use references, and how to use layout, too. Without being patronising, this is 1000 times better than Frances Lynn because it shows thought and structure.

Now, let's look at references:

You have referenced the paper that you are documenting. However the references should be to external elements that refer to the paper you are documenting. So, if, for example, there is a reference to Nick Haslam's work at Ritz being written about in The Tatler, then we reference The Tatler, ideally using {{cite web}} or {{Cite journal}} (etc) inside the ref

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I confess I am finding this very difficult to do, but no doubt I shall eventually get the hang of it. IF Nicky ( Haslam's work is mentioned in other periodicals too - how do I do that?(My adopter is still Wikibonked). I wanted to get my article up tonight but it's not nearly finished. Frances Lynn,author 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's easier than you think. Lets assume nicky haslam is mentioned in a piece in The Tatler on page 19, by Fred Fandango, with the article named "Nicky Goes to Town", and it was pubolished on 28 September 2006.

The article goes like this:

We want to add a reference to the sentence "...and Nicky really went to town."

The article will look like this:

...and Nicky really went to town.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Fandango |first=Fred  
|year=2006 
|month=September 
|title=Nicky Goes to Town 
|journal=The Tatler  
|issue=28 September 2006 
|pages=19  
|accessdate= 2007-12-06 
|quote=Nicky really went to town that day! }}</ref>

This will look like this in the article:

...and Nicky really went to town.^[1]

And it will appear thus in the references section:

Now one important thing: The reference must refer to Nicky's work at Ritz Newspaper. Just referring tio Nicky is no use, unless thsi is an articl eabout him

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this help. I shall study it and apply it. Frances Lynn,author 17:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll get there. It's a lot to learn at once. However there is an upside. Polished articles, esp by new editors, tend to pass inspection immediately. There is no review process, but people "patrol new pages" and mark obvious drivel for deletion.

I just created Maley & Taunton, about a defunct engineering company. As artyicles go it is not very full of stuff, but it passes muster because it's done "professionally". In due course another editor and another will add to it. Or it may yet be proposed for deletion.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

PS, have you wondered how the messages get indented on talk pages? Look at the top left of an indented para next time you edit (eg) here. the ":" char does it.

PPS "Wikibonked"? as in "is not around? They probably have a real life too :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I shall study your Maley & Taunton article! Thanks for the indent tip. I didn't realise how fascinating Wikipedia is. Yes, my adopter isn't around. I shall return to my Ritz article tomorrow .... and again, thanks. Frances Lynn,author 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC) PS. Your article looks Wikipedia-perfect to me!Frances Lynn,author 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maley & Taunton will give you a great idea of how to use references, though the article body does not yet contain enough meat (thus is a stub). So will Epsom College in the alumni section. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, I can't find the time to work on my article - can I keep it on its sub- page as long as I want? (Maybe a week?)Frances Lynn,author Frances Lynn,author 17:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

While user pages and subpages are not private, they tend to be treated as such. It would be very unusual for someone to go in and try to delete something there, because it is considered to be discourtesy.

There is a turn of phrase that will rankle some WP editors btw. "My" is a word we use at our own peril. It raises hackles of some folks. See WP:OWN. WP is not a gentle place, nor particularly friendly. It's people in the raw, most trying to be decent, but Lord of the Flies can take over.

Now, that indent. Go into edit mode (on this page) and see what we mean by use of the colon. No quotes. Multiple nested levels are by use of multiple colons. No " marks, just the : as topmost leftmost character of the paragraph.

Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a lot to learn!! Frances Lynn,author 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You learnt how to be an author, you learnt how to be a journalist. This is just a weird pseudo-place in cyberspace with arcane rules designed by the community that forms it. And, just to make life complex, it doesn't always keep to its own rules! See WP:IAR! You'll master it. Fiddle Faddle 20:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(I'm still learning how to be an author). I'm now working at trying to study the reference coding (shall master it) - and thanks for adding the ancient Zappa interview to Frances Lynn's page - looks much better. Frances Lynn,author 22:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(pssst - one extra colon than the thing above had!)

The only way you know if you are any good as an author is from reader feedback..

Reference coding is easy enough. Just take it a step at a time. I think you probably mean the citations inside the references. You see the trick now. It is to use the reference to enhance the article

Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've just looked at my saved page (see my Talk for my thank you message). Crushed is distributed by Exposure (I see it's spelt wrong too!) and is published by Eiworth Publishing) - can I alter that? Or, do I have to get another editor to change this? Frances Lynn,author 08:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to indent my last message! Frances Lynn,author 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it be considered puffery if I used a quote by Amanda Lear from a published Ezine article (on the net) I wrote about the Seventies? I haven't yet found any other references for Lear referring to Ritz. Also - I hope this isn't puffery: I used the Barry Fantoni article Ref. from my page. Frances Lynn,author 22:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is relevant then it os not puffery. A tightrope to walk, though. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If I don't find any Ritz references for Lear - I shall resort to using it (tomorrow). Frances Lynn,author 23:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing I'd add to this thread. I think it's fair to point out that opinion is divided on reference formats: many editors (not just me) view the full citation formats such as {{cite web}} as cumbersome. And the sliding reference section with verbose quotes, as in Maley & Taunton and Ritz Newspaper is uncommon to the point of being unencyclopedic. I just checked further, and (I didn't know it was explicitly mentioned until just) WP:CITE says not to use scrolling references - Wikipedia:CITE#Scrolling lists - because of various readability, printing and display issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea scrolling mentioned explicitly either. That is interesting. I do take issue with the phrase you used "uncommon to the point of being unencyclopedic" because I don't think you can draw that conclusion, or ,if you quoted elsewhere, that conclusion can be drawn.

With regard to the family of citation templates, they are appallingly cumbersome, and yet hugely informative. I think what is required is a proposal for the enhancement of the cite.php mechanism such that it reads a table of references and article locations, and that they are formed in the "reflist" area of the document by the editor. Cite.php sghould then go on to format them.

I'm aware that cite.php simply deals with ref tags, not the cite templates currently.

I'm happy to work with you to formulate such a proposal, one that will meet your reasonable objection to their cumbersome nature, and meet my desire to deploy them more fully and well. IN thsi way we can do what we should always be doing - learning from the past and present and enhancing the future. What say you? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I admit I'm deeply uninterested in the coding side of things, which was why it took me so long to find there was anything explicit at WP:CITE. Best move would be to check out Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and Wikipedia talk:Citation templates and see whether any existing projects are ongoing.

It's difficult: I can see these things are informative and ensure that all relevant bibliographic information is include. And yet this specific syntax creates a tension with usability, particularly for newcomers.

By "unencyclopedic", emphatically no insult was meant - I used it in the sense of "not in the style you'd expect in this encyclopedia". I've no idea if there's some specific rule somewhere about the use of extensive quotation in references. But purely on the evidence of general non-use, these verbose references - even though informative - just aren't the current Wikipedia style for referencing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I "took issue" not "took offence" - an academic issue taking, not a personal offence taking.  :). I have no interest in the behind the scenes technicalities either, but, luckily, others do. If we could draft a sensible proposal for a usable mechanism for referencing, that might work to encourage a better Wikipedia. There are rumblings about citing sources (A cursory look showed me) but they seem, so far, to be kluges instead of solutions.

I share any rational person's hatred of the full citation templates. I persevere, rather than enjoy using them because they add (IMO) so much to the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I wasn't sure which talk page I should put this query (on the Talk:Ritz Newspaper page?). I thought it might be a good idea to have another heading on the RN article titled "Issue content" - then start off listing all the interviews with credits including the photographer credit. How does Wikipedia work in this instance? Does an editor just go ahead and edit first before seeking advice? Frances Lynn,author 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. My adopter is wikibonked again. Frances Lynn,author 15:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I think be bold and do it. I'd love to have an issue list, too, with details of cover picture where the picture is somehow significant. If the pic is mundane, ignore it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind looking at the RN article ... the image and the logo has been u/loaded. I hope this has been done correctly. Frances Lynn,author 00:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't upload the cover and the logo, so I am not sure if the person who did it left a sig. Frances Lynn,author 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My adopter answered my query saying if the person who uploaded the picture follows the image use policy, then it should be ok. It looks like he did, but I shall still have to learn how to upload images myself in future Frances Lynn,author 07:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is now going to be fun as I see other editors have now started to edit the RN article. So I shall keep an eye on this. Frances Lynn,author 11:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the hard part. "letting go" is now important. Correct factual inaccuracies by all means, but avoid stylistic differences. Generally, but not always, articles are improved by letting go. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Note the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy, and it particularly applies if there's a potential conflict of interest (we now have two previous staffers of Ritz Newspaper editing the article). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am going to let go of the RN article now unless I spot factual inaccuracies. Frances Lynn,author 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It's really hard to do that. I suggest you avoid going back to it for a month or so, and simply move on with the next edits to other articles, or creation of other articles. Remember alwasy that people will edit what we write just because they think they can write it better. And who are we to judge that? They'll change things "because they can" or because it is a genuine improvement. The thing is, none of that actually matters. And the reason is it is not a job. We don't get hired or fired because of what we do here, we just choose to do it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay.