CaraSchulz

Welcome!

Hello, CaraSchulz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DThomsen8 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Paganistan

Hello - just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia protocol generally calls for no more than one !vote in a discussion. Comments are unlimited, but once you've stated your basic position (keep, delete, etc.), it's best to just state it that once. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cara, thanks for helping, now that I've put up a 'keep' statement I'll just be commenting too. Thanks for your help and I know JDog appreciates it.Rev. Jack Green (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Dohn joe for the tip!

Jack - the process is fascinating and I've started editing and adding citations to other articles. I can see why people find this addictive.CaraSchulz (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see that you are editing in other areas, and so I will no longer call you a "single purpose account". It seems like there may be a compromise developing regarding Paganistan, and I will be pleased if that is the result. I've made some comments at Rev. Jack Green's talk page, and invite you to take a look. I do hope that you will stick around, and help make this a better encyclopedia. I would like to respond to some of the points you made in the debate, but outside the context of a disagreement. However, I do not want to bother you. Let me know. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Thanks for your question. I suggest that you read WP:RS carefully, and also review relevant past debates on the reliable source noticeboard in detail. My very preliminary opinion (based on very little experience in this specific area) is that a news service itself is unlikely to be judged an inherently reliable source, but rather that would be determined by the character of the publications that actually use the material in question. That's because there is an additional layer of editorial control involved. Let's say for the sake of discussion that the Associated Press put out a story on some obscure topic in 1960, and not a single newspaper ran the story. Then, that material from the AP archive might not be considered a good source for that topic. People might ask, "What did those editors back then see in this story that led them NOT to publish it?" So, my preliminary thought would be to identify the most solid and professional of the publications that use your material, and have those publications discussed as reliable sources. Hope this helps. Cullen328 (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that I may be wrong, and there may be precedent for designating niche news services as reliable. If so, then study that precedent, and go for it. Cullen328 (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles to create or assist with for NeoPagan Wiki Project

BIOS of LIVING PERSONS: Jason Pitzl-Waters, Star Foster ORGANIZATIONS: PNC, Sacred paths Center EVENTS: Veterans Pentacle Quest

Notability vs. reliability

Please don't assume that a publication that has its own Wikipedia article is thereby assumed to be reliable. Some very notable publications have articles but are considered totally unreliable. Weekly World News and Der Sturmer come immediately to mind. On the other hand, there are certainly publications that don't have articles here yet that would be considered reliable. Examples might be journals of long-established state historical societies or major 19th century newspapers long out of business. The more controversial the topic is, the greater the chance that a source will be challenged. The experience and reputation of the editor using the source also affects how likely a source is to be challenged. For example, I often write about the history of mountaineering. Editors who follow this field tend to trust my work, and rarely challenge my sources, even I reference an obscure and defunct climbing journal. However, I did misread a source a while back due to an ambiguous photo caption. When the matter was questioned, I checked, corrected and apologized. If anything, that improved my reputation rather than harming it. Good editors here are very suspicious of those they perceive as promoting a cause or grinding an axe or digging in their heels. Cullen328 (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

belief rebirth!

Dear Cara Schulz,

I'm reaching out to researchers and writers interested in the emerging, or re-emerging, movements inspired by ancient culture in the areas of religion/theology/mythology/culture...I spare-headed an artistic collaboration between a music professor, rock-vocalist and poet to create a modern multi-media experience of the cathardic journey inspired by ancient pagan poetic traditions; A romance to nature seen as a beautiful, divine and omnipotent woman.

It has singularly been my goal to respect tradition while allowing a free and spontaneous interpretation...I believe the utility of a quasi-rebirth of some aspects of the ancient religious tendancies would be achieved in an increase of tolerance, sympathy, and freedom of expression in our modern discoures on religion...so much needed. Until we have a cultural revolution tantamount to the politcal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries [aiding the rebirth of a government of, by and for the people] in the area of religion, I will not rest. Until the rebirth of religions which are of, by and for the people, as fluid as art, as deep as mythology and theology and as powerful as culture, I do not believe we will be truly free no matter what economic or political conditions surround us. Democracy without a democratic cultural is as frustrating as it is ineffectual.

If you have a moment could you peruse the poetry project site. http://www.misbeliever.net As you are a worker in these areas, having ebhanced the Wikipedia, the world's greatest encyclopedia, I would be very honored with any remarks or critisms you could offer either me or my collaborators.

thanks much,

sincerely

Pdiffenderfer (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

paul m. diffenderfer

düsseldorf germany +49 (0) 178 178 2117 http://www.misbeliever.net pdiffenderfer@yahoo.com

Survey

Hi Cara!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Germanic Heathenism

Hi Cara Schulz, as a Heathen scholar I think you might be interested to take part to the latest discussions about the Heathenry article. Help from you would be relevant. --Bhlegkorbh ^Talk 15:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello Cara, thanks for your recent helpful posts on this page. Rather than replying to you there you'll probably see from your watchlist that I've made a suggestion about closing this down in a day's time. The discussion has been very civil after a slightly rocky start so I am hopeful that we might get a reasonably stable result this time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't much help and I'm under deadline for another news article so I won't be much more help. The 24 hour time is reasonable and have an outside editor look it over is an excellent suggestion. Like you, Kim Dent-Brown, I don't have a dog in this fight, but find the naming conventions within groups to be extremely interesting. Especially with this one coming right while I'm writing the stylebook for Pagan media and press organizations. serendipity at its finest. --CaraSchulz (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)CaraSchulz

A note on citation style and formats

Hello Cara. I see you've added useful, sourced material to Hecate. Unfortunately, your citations seem incomplete. We need to offer not just the author's name, but the title, publisher, edition, date, and the page number on which the sourced information is found. Readers and editors can then verify the article's information, and find more on the topic via those cited sources, should they so wish. If you need a model for guidance, take a look at the reference and citation formats already used in the article; and you'll almost certainly find Wikipedia:Citing sources helpful. If you've any questions, drop me a note. Best, Haploidavey (talk) 15:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm still learning citation rules on Wikipedia. However in citations such as Aristophanes (Plutus, 594) that is everything as it is an original source. There weren't really any publishers in ancient Greece or Rome. In the example shown it is from the play Plutus by Aristophanes in 388BC. 594 is the line number. So should I just add the date or what do you suggest?CaraSchulz (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, and I thought I'd covered this, but I didn't; so my apologies for being less clear than I should. Aristophanes and other ancient literary and historical sources are considered primary sources, and should be used with caution. If you're offering a line from Aristophanes, then "Aristophanes, Plutus, 594" (Author, play, line number) is sufficient. You don't need a date, unless its provision clarifies the issues under discussion, or a historical sequence whose chronology is essential to a grasp of the subject. In Aristophanes' case, a date range suffices. But here's a caveat or two. Whose translation are you citing? And whose interpretation? Translations and interpretations of primary sources can vary broadly enough to be a basis of contention among scholars and their peers. So in general, I prefer to filter primary source material through its use by reputable scholarly sources, and cite it thus (stretching your example) within the footnotes/references; Aristophanes, Plutus, 594 (trans, Henson, Loeb, 1924), cited in Humdinger, A, The Blah and Blah of Blah, Lovely Publishers, 2010, p.100. Assuming one has actually followed "Humdinger"'s line on the meaning, this also helps fend off any accusations of the dreaded phenomenon, WP:OR. Haploidavey (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How strange. That's opposite of what I'm used to. In looking at historical events and practices we try to always go to a primary source as it's seen as closest to the source and less biased. For instance, in an article on what Hekate looked like, as imagined by Athenians, we'd be more apt to look at contemporary (of the time period) descriptions than we would a modern writer talking about what those contemporary authors wrote. As for translations, unless we are pitting one translation against another or there is a substantive difference between them, we generally don't cite them. We cite the line number and readers can either use the translation they prefer or look at multiple translations of that line. I can see where you don't want people citing a primary source saying "bright coiffed" and the wikipedia article using that to say "Hekate had blond hair" but wouldn't you want to cite the primary source if you were saying her hair was "bright"? Hmmm....I can change the primary sources to secondary sources, but it seems a loss for the reader. However, I know from past and recent experience that articles and sections touching on minority religions are challenged and nominated for deletion often. So thank you for explaining what type of citation is preferred!CaraSchulz (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I'd go for "bright coiffed" over "blond hair" any day of the week; yes, some Wikipedia articles are lethally dull but we're not obliged to transmute our gold into lead. You can use whatever translation you like, as long as it's acknowledged as sound and scholarly. And you don't have to change your primary sources to secondaries, you simply need reference their translation, and refer to the secondary sources that discuss them. Yes? Haploidavey (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Libertarian party of Minnesota Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Libertarian party of Minnesota Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 00:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)