User talk:Olgabaird
Welcome!
Hello, Olgabaird, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Sara Page, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.
You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.
Thank you.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Articles for deletion nomination of Sara Page
[edit]
I have nominated Sara Page, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Page. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
September 2009
[edit]
Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Joseph Barney worked, and it has been automatically reverted. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here. Thank you.
SoxBot III (talk | owner) 15:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Guide to referencing
[edit]Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.
| Using references (citations) |
|---|
|
I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. If you need any assistance, let me know. -- Ty 08:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.
The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:
The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):
Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.
Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:
(End of text to copy and paste.) It should appear like this:
You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:
Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets. The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead.
You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Here is an example for a book:
When uploaded, it appears as:
Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.
These formats are all acceptable for dates:
You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference
The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:
The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:
You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. The quotes around the name are optional unless there is a space in the name. You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are three sources and they are each referenced three times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.
The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair.
More information can be found at: |
Speedy deletion nomination of Sara Page
[edit]A tag has been placed on Sara Page, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the topic is notable, but the outcome of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Page was otherwise. You might take this to WP:DRV. Meantime, I've again deleted the page owing to the AfD. Please feel free to ask me further questions if you have any. I believe this article can be brought back swiftly if more independent sources are shown. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Follow-up to Sara Page, take 2
[edit]I wrote a response to your explanation on the Sara Page talk page but by the time I tried to save it, the article had been re-deleted. So that you have a more elaborate explanation than the one I gave you on my own talk page when you wrote to me there, here are your explanation and my response. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
'Sara Page': I accepted and agreed with almost all opinions which were espressed while discussing the article. Thus I significantly re-wrote it, trying to address expressed issues. I believe that I have established notability of the person: professional training, life-time exhibitions; artworks; connections in artistic world; artistic legacy. The person is closely associated with the Academie Julian which is under-researched subject in history of art and is at the moment 'work in progress' in Wikipedia. As such, it adds information to the history of Academy Julian and our idea of female education and female professional careers in the late 19 - early 20 century. Compare with the article on Anna Klumpke - she is the artist on the same scale and as under-researched as Sara Page. The absence of publications or unknown location of artworks does not mean that the artist has no notability. I hope that readers/art historians will be able to add information, which otherwise is scattered around and disconnected. Olga Baird Olgabaird (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- The use of the word "notability" on Wikipedia is deceptive and unfortunate. What you have tried to do, as you indicated to me on my talk page as well as above, is to show by appeal to the reader that Page is worthy of note or deserving of note, which is the conventional meaning of "notable". But on Wikipedia, I suppose because that concept of "notability" is subjective, notability in general and for people in particular is taken to be a quality that must already have been demonstrated by the existence of multiple objective, third party reliable sources serving as documentary evidence that the article's subject has been found notable. You haven't done this (Sara Page's own letter is not a third-party reliable source!), and in your own original article you observed that
Sara Page did not leave any long-lasting impression or significant artistic legacy. Today she is practically forgotten. Her works remained unsold in her studio for years. The present location of most of them is unknown.
- which was the basis for the deletion discussion.
- Regarding Anna Klumpke: please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Either it's a significantly different case and meets Wikipedia's criteria, or else it may also qualify for deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, please don't take any of this to mean that I don't appreciate your admiration for Sara Page or the effort you put into writing what is a perfectly fine article. It's just that Wikipedia isn't an appropriate home for it. Should it happen that a new show of her works generates interest and a wave of significant coverage in the press should occur (by which I don't mean mere inclusion of the show in general listings of current exhibitions), by all means bring the article back with supporting citations. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Joseph Vickers de Ville
[edit]Hello there,
Many thanks for your traffic contribution to de Ville wiki article.
It has been an interesting read to learn more about the artist i couldn't find much about!!
Keep up the good work!
Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.83.26 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
L.W. Tepper de Ferguson
[edit]Hello "Olgabaird",
I recently fell on your article on Tepper (and the Teppers), have in the last few days added some information and source notes, and done some English editing on it (I hope you don't mind), and see today that you have found some additional data on that elusive man (diplomatic career and travels, albeit for the moment without sourcing), what fun! You have done a marvellous job pulling together information from widespread sources (Russian, Polish, even Portuguese - I printed that one out today), each of which seems to know only a tiny aspect of his life. I have also found some new data (the Hamburg Boué marriage date of his brother) and will enter that eventually. I had already thought of checking out the Université de Strasbourg sources (Library and Bas-Rhin archives) for his passage there - you seem to have preceded me in that. Anyway, congratulations on a thorough job!
My own (and very recent) interests in him stem from his two-year passage at the Stuttgart "Hohe Karlsschule" (HKS), where one of my GGGGFs probably was one of his math instructors (himself an "elève" out of the underclass from 1771 {in roughly the same age cohort as Friedrich Schiller, of similar origin, their mutual evaluations to Duke Karl Eugen, a truly proto-Nazi school-head, are preserved in the HKS archives}, then teacher 1779-90 there before he moved on to other engagements, founder of the Artillery Corps of Hesse-Darmstadt, where I come from).
One interesting aspect of the Stuttgart education of the 3 brothers Tepper is that each was assigned by the tyrant papa Piotr to a specific discipline, the oldest to "commerce", the second to "military science", our third to "law and diplomacy"; only the oldest followed the fathers intentions (became a Hamburg banker, not much yet found about his career); the second also pursued banking for a while (in Edinborough), but then seems to have come back to Warsaw into an administrative career (as evidenced by the designation in the Polish burial record as "radca kolegialny", "kolezhskii sovetnik", 6th level of the Petrine Table of Ranks, with address "Most well-born", implying a Tsarist administrative career after his return); the third, as we know, pursued his music. The "military" brother got into trouble at the HKS because he whipped a sergeant who had badmouthed him, with the argument he (at the age of 14 or 15) had needed to protect his status - after all he had been a sub-lieutenant in the Cadet Corps of Catherine II!
All of this emerges from W. Gebhardt's HKS Lexikon (the HKS archives) and the WLT memoir published 1914 in an obscure French local history journal. I am now under pressure to translate this into German - and may do it. The author/editor of the article (E. Longin) doesn't even mention the Tepper name ("I am not authorized"), surely because at the outbreak of the 1914 War it sounded too German! But it seems to be an extract of a much more extensive L.-W. Tepper autobiography MS that still has to be tracked down - if it survived the perillous times that followed. I am on to this.
I do not know what drove you to LWT. If you were to be interested in all of the above, why don't you contact me at "firstname.lastname (at) swissonline.ch", lower case throughout - I am not presently registered at the UK Wiki (perhaps I should do that one of these days). With best regards,
85.3.134.229 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Claus Wittich (Geneva)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)