Morgan Le Fay
Welcome! edit
I'm Tiggerjay, and I noticed that you haven't been welcomed yet, so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on 6,826,002 articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible.
Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-
You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.
I know it's a lot of information, but there are two more things I recommend you take note of while editing Wikipedia - cite references wherever possible, and avoid allowing personal biases interfere with your editing.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, – Tiggerjay (talk)
_
_
2013 messages, general
|
|---|
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. I'm very new to Wikipedia as a contributor. I tried using the Wizard to start creating an article, which was coming along nicely (I thought) a few hours ago. I can no longer find it even though I clicked "Save." Is there a way to find it so I won't need to start over? JoanWT (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
|
2013 messages, Constance Wagner
|
|---|
Your submission at Articles for creation edit
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner edit Hello Morgan Le Fay. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Constance Wagner". The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Your request for undeletion editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner. JohnCD (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Your submission at Articles for creation: Constance Wagner (January 14) edit
|
|
Hello! Morgan Le Fay,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
|
howdy edit
Hello Morgan, you can call me 74. Noticed your post over at the help-chat about Constance Wagner. From looking through the work you've done already, pretty clearly the person deserves to be in wikipedia. However, writing the encyclopedia article, organizing the sources, and making the tone completely neutral, is going to take some work. There are a couple options that I'd like to offer you, and figure out which option *you* want to use.
- First, we can leave your article where it is, in the articles-for-creation queue, where you can work on it in peace and quiet
- Second, we can trim your article down harshly, to just a few sentences, and move it to mainspace today, then invite other folks to come help write it collaboratively
The first option is gentler, but slower. The second option is considerably more abrupt, but also considerably more efficient. It is the wiki way. That said, if you are *happy* with the first option, and would rather gradually build up your skills at wikipedia-related things in the AfC queue, away from the hustle and bustle of mainspace and the search-engines and the readership, there is nothing wrong with that choice. The advantage is that you can do most of the revisions yourself, as you have time to work on them, and the article will stay mostly the way it was. This is a good way to teach folks about wiki-tools and wiki-technology. Of course, the downside is the same as the upside: you have to do most of the work yourself! Which takes longer than letting other wikipedians help you directly, by editing collaboratively with you.
From looking at what you have so far, and asking an administrator to take a quick glance over your article, I think you would be fine with option two (and of course option one will also work). So it's up to you. There is no WP:DEADLINE here, there is no rush. Wikipedia is for the ages. The choice should be based on whatever will make you most comfortable with the process, and on whether you think the readership will be better served by a brief article now, which can be expanded over time, or better by a completed article later, after early drafting is done in the AfC queue.
As I said, the WP:CHOICE is up to you. You can let me know what you decide, or ask me any questions you happen to have (about Constance or about wikipedia in general) over on my user-talkpage, if you like. Click the 'talk' button next to my name, click 'new section' at the top, type your message, and click 'save' to send it. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia, it's appreciated. p.s. You can also use the help-chat, which you know about, for quicker response; I also recommend WP:TEAHOUSE for such things. Feel free to contact me directly of course, but sometimes the chat-folks and the Teahouse-folks are quicker on the draw than me by myself. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Got your note, sounds good to me. Basically, your best bet is to start small, and find sources. You have a bunch listed in the excerpts-from-reviews section. You can also google for more of them, but blogs and such aren't any good, it has to be newspapers or magazines or television... something with professional editorial board that does fact-checking. Places that drop the name of the author are good, see WP:NOTEWORTHY. But to prove notability, what you really want to collect is WP:N sources, which give in-depth coverage SPECIFICALLY about the author, those are best, and necessary to satisfy WP:42. Independent newspaper/magazine/teevee reviews of the author's work are in the middle... they show that the publications by the author are notable, but for the author themselves, we want to have some sources about them. Note that Reliable Sources can be in English/French/Japanese/WarayWaray/anything. They can be offline, or online, does not matter. Just have to be fact-checked by professional editorial board (or peer-reviewed by academia is also good). Organize those sources, then try and write the article to reflect what they say. You cannot just plagiarize the sources (although you can give quotes if you give credit), since copy-n-paste violates copyright law. You have to write your own sentences, which summarize what the sources say. Just the facts is best. Stay neutral. Stay fair. Source says, author was something good X, and also something bad Y, but overall was decently Z... you have to summarize. "Wagner was Z, and in particular Y and X."[1] Feel free to drop in on my talkpage any time, if I get a spare moment, I'll come help you chip away at the article. Thanks for improving wikipedia, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Constance Wagner (March 5) edit
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .
contributions to Wikipedia!
- Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- I've read the article and Wagner sounds like a very interesting person. Maybe I can help a bit here, especially with references and things. First, though, I notice the article is an exact copy of the material at http://constancewagner.webs.com/. We can't copy something into Wikipedia that has been published elsewhere. Did you write that web page yourself? You can either rewrite it for Wikipedia, or if you are the author you can put a copyright notice on the page that allows it to be copied into Wikipedia. I can help you with that. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
StarryGrandma, thank you for your comments. The Webpage you have referred to is not an exact copy of the Wikipedia page though I did use it as a draft version for the Wikipedia submission and so some parts are indeed duplications. I wrote the Webpage myself and have tried to supply copyright information. Please advise me if I haven't done that correctly. It's at the bottom of the page.
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner edit
Hello Morgan Le Fay. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Constance Wagner".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Constance Wagner}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)