User talk:JoannaSerah/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rebecca Lard

Thanks for your help. Quick question... can we change the wordings of resources cited to make it sound better? --David Holmer (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The section heading is "References". That's pretty standard. Your citations are named correctly. Really, though, I don't think "better" would be an appropriate term. Sounds only like puffery to make citations sound more authoritative than they actually are. That is not really appropriate. You just have to put what the info/titles really are and leave it at that. I'm not certain about the use of some of the genealogy sites. Some of the info on the referenced cites is conflicting. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. Instead of just the website addresses, you should use the titles of the actual pages, along with the organization name, etc. That I can fix. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was referring to the wording in the wiki article. I didn't want to undo your work because it sounds better, but the original wording comes from the resource cited. Also, I don't know what to do about the disambiguos link to cherry valley, I cant dicern whether the source is talking about the village or town. Should we just not link it to the other wiki article --David Holmer (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning Cherry Valley, I will see what I can find out. Just not linking it is a possibility, but I think stuff like that probably should be wikilinked. As far as the original wording coming from the sources cited, you'd better be careful not to violate copyright. You can't just copy a sentence or two from a website and paste it into a Wikipedia article. It is better to reword the information. See WP:COPYVIO. Concerning making that sound better, that is somewhat subjective, but I will see what I can do. Just have to make sure to avoid peacockery or puffery. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you advocating plagarism? I am now uncomfortable with this project. --David Holmer (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop working on this project. Your work is conflicting with my changes and its now a mess... Are you purposely vandalizing the article I started? --David Holmer (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I had stopped working on the article already by the time you posted that, I think. Edit conflicts just happen sometimes. I run into those with other editors as well. Please do not think I am trying to vandalize the article. I do not know where you got the idea that I was advocating plagiarism. In my previous comment, I was warning against plagiarism and copyright violation because your comment seemed to imply that you just copied from or used wording directly from some sites. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the tag. I do like your editing very much, everything you have edited so far has been an improvement and greatly appreciated. About the plagarism, I was using quotes but they got edited out, and I wasn't sure what to do about citing sources. The WP pages are very confusing. To be honest, I was leaving it all up to you. You've been here much longer and I really like your style of editing anyway. And, I like the research part more. Speaking of which, could you check out Dunes Review and see if it is worth saving. It was hacked apart yesterday and went from class-start to up for deletion. --David Holmer (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to clarify this discussion since it has been used inappropriately by other editors. JoannaSerah did NOT vandalize the article Rebecca Hammond Lard. In fact, she has made significant improvements to this article. My use of the word vandalize came from poorly worded WP pages that use the word too often to describe too many happenings. In this specific situation, I failed to use a proper WP:tag to do a major update. This caused a server conflict that temporarily messed up the article. I have continually admired the WP:bold and WP:good faith and editing style of User:JoannaSerah. --David Holmer (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Wilkes and NC edits

Can you please tell me what incorrect things I said on the North Carolina wiki? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.249.7 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I took out a couple things that were uncited. Some of your other edits while I think they were probably unnecessary, were not wrong, per se, so I left them in. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Templates

Hi Joanna. I've seen your name on a lot of political wiki pages and had some interaction with you. I'm working on expanding pages for members of the NC General Assembly. Do you know if there is a template for a campaign finance report table similar to an election info box or the polling table I created on Pat McCrory and Walter Dalton's pages? I uploaded jpg's of campaign finance charts I created in excel, but I would like to create something that is editable and citable. Thank you.Vitocmarda (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen your edits. Especially those adding the infoboxes to officials articles are definitely needed. I was starting to just go down the line as well and expand many of those articles, but have gotten sidetracked. Sorry to take a while to reply. Have been busy with family and other things and haven't edited much this past week or so. Will look into that. I don't know of any templates like that, right off-hand. Don't really know that campaign finance reports are really needed on the individual officials/candidates webpages. Have seen those on the articles for certain elections, but for officials who have been around office for a long time, that could get tedious. Will have to see what it looks like. Would be happy to help make some templates if those are needed. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

More Wilkes Vandalism

Hey! Just thought I'd let you know there's been more vandalism on the Wilkes County page - more altering the population figures to absurd numbers. I've changed some of them, but I'm not sure how to change the Demographics section back to the correct figures. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Will look into it when I get a chance. Haven't been on very much lately, but will check it out. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox election

Hi Joanna. I noticed you've worked extensively on formatting the Template:Infobox election. There's a bit of a problem with the infobox in question on the Somali presidential election, 2012 page, but I'm not quite sure how to fix it. The issue appears to specifically involve the party1, party2 etc. parameters, fields which I am unable to adequately fill out because none of the main running candidates belong to any party. They are instead part of a Transitional Federal Government. If and when you have the time, could please help fix this? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am looking into it. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed infobox linking. For now will have to be "Independent". But see discussion on Template talk:Infobox election#Election without parties. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Many thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Rick Hendrix

Hey Joanna I see on your talk page folks get a little testy when you make corrections :-) I am actually blessed to have you help us newbies out. I added a ref to the only citation to my page and added Rick Hendrix Long Leaf Pine back. The founder and Manager of the Long Leaf Pine list Phillip T Fisher emailed us and said Rick Hendrix was going to be added back to the list when it updates in a few months. It was a clerical error. He also stated anyone could email him info@longleafpinesociety.org or call 919-854-7917 and he would clarify Rick Hendrix did receive the award in 1993 from the Governor. I am loading a ref page for you to view the award as well. Thanks for your help...

http://i1057.photobucket.com/albums/t393/editorreview/RickHendrixLongLeafPine2_zpse3c25854.jpg

http://i1057.photobucket.com/albums/t393/editorreview/RickHendrixLongLeafPine_zpsb182d558.jpg

Dalestorian (talk) 08:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The photos are interesting. Seems pretty official. However, I am still put off by the fact that we haven't been able to find any mention of it anywhere else yet. Plus, even assuming good faith, you have stated before (and a good while ago) that the list would be updated in a few months and that it was just a clerical error. Honestly, it doesn't take months to put an entry in a database or spreadsheet (and it has been months already). Unfortunately, just saying call or email someone is not a valid, acceptable reliable source on Wikipedia. I'm not really even sure that uploading the photos of the award you have to WP would be acceptable because anyone can create a document and call it official. I will have to look into that more. You may want to consider reading WP:PSTS. Perhaps pose the question of whether that would be considered reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard. Others may see this discussion and comment, but you could also post the template {{helpme}} on your talk page and explain the situation so that administrators could answer you (I'm not an admin) or pose the question by opening an OTRS ticket. If those documents are accepted, you will probably need to scan them in instead of taking not-so-great-resolution pictures of them. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

how do I stop this dennis from vandalizing my article

Joanna how do I report this to an administrator ? This guy has butchered my entire entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalestorian (talk • contribs) 21:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) is an admin, I believe. My edits gave the benefit of the doubt to Rick Hendrix, but you have to realize that I probably should have been more strict about adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. I asked him to take a look at the articles and see what he thought. I do not consider his edits vandalism, but trying to make the article follow WP guidelines on notability, etc. better. What is needed is more third-party and reliable sources to put the information back in. See WP:3PARTY and WP:RS. Most of what was cited there before came from press releases or the article subject's own website. Some other stuff is not really that notable. I had left a good bit of it in (mostly because I just got interested in editing other things), but understand that the article doesn't really belong to just one person, there are a lot of Wikipedia editors who would run across that same article and do the exact same edits.

Again, you can always use the {{helpme}} tag on your talk page and explain what the issue is and an admin or someone will come by and give you some advice or possibly take some action. In the meantime, I am trying myself to see what reliable sources I can find on this subject. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to use some new tools Dr. Blofeld gave me to dig up sources. And I assure you, Dalestorian, my edits weren't vandalism. Instead, I was stripping the fluffy parts out and trying to get to the root of the article. Many editors stumbling across that would just send to AFD, which is still a possibility if we can't find something cited. Biographies are very strict when it comes to sourcing, and I did a great deal of looking for the Kentucky Colonel and NC awards and only found citations that demonstrated they weren't given. At the end of the day, I don't hold the article to higher standard than any other article, but I do hold it to the same standard. I will try one last time to find sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no singular list of all Kentucky Colonels. As a matter of fact, we only have one listed at Wikipedia, Col. Sanders, in the Kentucky Colonel article. I can only conclude that being a recipient isn't nearly enough to establish notability, although it is perfectly fine to add as a fact to an existing BLP if properly sourced. You can probably see where this is going. Being a recipient of the NC award is not enough to establish notability either, and in this case, neither is verifiable anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I've sent to AFD. Perhaps someone else can find something, but at this point, I've actually found evidence that completely contradicts the "facts" as stated, and exactly zero to establish notability. I feel obligated to go to AFD with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Regrading Ryan Jones Author

I wrote a book report on him when I was a freshman in college. I have written several other Wikipedia articles that I believe are very well written. I believe your last message to me was degrading to my work but I respect your opinion and hope to add more great articles to Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by N2jesus87 (talk • contribs) 09:42, September 20, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I never intended to be degrading and fail to see how my comments did that. I merely pointed out that it was inappropriate for you to simply recreate an article that was deleted without adding anything that shows how this person is notable. It appeared to be a vanity article by the author himself. If you are truly not Ryan Jones, I appreciate the fact that you really like his work. That is perfectly fine; I have nothing against him, personally, and wish him well. As far as Wikipedia goes, that is not enough to have an article here. Nothing on that article showed notability. Having pretty much self-published a couple of chapbooks is not really enough. Sorry. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Jones was picked up by a publisher on his second book Red Ink. The original article provided that information but like I mentioned; it was worked on for a few years by several contributors but was deleted in a matter of seconds. The only reason I believed you were being degrading to my work is because you accused me of writing a vanity article. It is my hope to add quality information to Wikipedia. (N2jesus87 (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

Why?

I believe you are purposely attacking my articles. I want to know what I need to do to write better articles?

On the author from Baton Rouge I gave you sources like Barnes and Noble/Amazon. It was a simple stub on a real person that is fairly well known.

On Oak and Gorski, a less known band from California, you still say some things are lacking but I added even more sources.

I did not create any of the two pages but worked hard to add value to both pages.

I also worked on Arena Football League and Cell Phones.

Those two you have yet to destroy but you are making this experience less enjoyable. Everything I have worked on you have questioned and even originally thought I was one of the people I was writing on. I don't appreciate you attacking my work, you should at least try to improve them instead of deleting everything. Again, I know I haven't created any of the pages but still worked hard to add value to them.

I hope we can work together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N2jesus87 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Um... I'm not sure exactly what you are discussing here. I am not attacking your articles and have nothing against you. You mentioned Oak and Gorski in one of the discussions about Ryan Jones that it should be deleted too. However, upon looking at the article, I see that they have released multiple albums, have worked with notable people and have coverage in multiple media sources. I absolutely did not "destroy" the article. I corrected some formatting and actually added information to it, adding citations for some info that was there, as well as corrected the official website link. Putting a {{refimprove}} maintenance tag on an article doesn't mean it is tagged for deletion. Maintenance tags are just there to notify other editors that a page needs some work. Frankly, the Oak and Gorski article does need some work as much of the info there is uncited and we generally need more info on the band. I actually improved the Oak and Gorski page; I didn't delete it. As far as me thinking you were Ryan Jones, it wasn't hard to imagine since your user name is N2jesus87 and his article said he is a Christian poet and was born in 87. That's not a difficult leap of logic to make. I will stop assuming you are Ryan Jones. Regardless, however, the Ryan Jones article shouldn't be recreated until there are many more reliable sources that can show his notability (see: WP:NOTE). You didn't add anything like that when you tried to recreate the article. Please consider going through the Articles for Creation process. That will give you time to work on the article and add better sources. Try to show coverage in more media sources, if there are any. For instance: How did you first find out about Jones? Was it through a magazine article or some website? If so, try to find that again. It might be able to be used as a source. Even at that, just a couple of chapbooks and no mentions of any notable awards won, it still doesn't really show notability. Thank you for your interest in Wikipedia, though. I hope you will consider continuing to edit according to WP guidelines. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see now how you could make that correlation, however, I don't believe Jones is a Christian and it was never stated in the article. Thank you for not deleting Oak and Gorski and I apologize thinking you were going to do that. I just assumed you were going to delete the article since the same tag was added before Ryan Jones was deleted. I don't believe Oak and Gorski should be deleted either I was just stating my opinion that they are less notable then Jones. It is possible that I am biased as a english teacher and admit I may not fully understand the notability requirements.

My biggest question about Wikipedia is why there are no checks and balances. For example, a page was created on Ryan Jones and I added more information to the page. Over the course of a few years several people contributed to the page. Then a person steps in and says this page doesn't meet requirements and it is deleted before anyone could fix anything.

I will read the links you sent me to add more articles that meet requirements. I will add the links you are requesting for Oak and Gorski as well.

Thanks (N2jesus87 (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC))

I understand. As far as notability of Oak and Gorski vs Jones, I was easily able to find mentions of the band online. Compare that to Ryan Jones who I haven't found anything on yet. There are several Ryan Jones' out there, but none of the things I found really talked about this person. To Wikipedia, that means Oak and Gorski has more notability since the info on the article is verifiable. Concerning checks and balances, perhaps the article could have gone through an article for deletion process instead of speedy deletion, but I seriously doubt that would have resulted in a different outcome. The article was about a real person that made no real claim to notability (having just a couple of chapbooks, even if they were not self-published, doesn't speak to notability, unfortunately). That fit Speedy Deletion category A7 perfectly. Someone puts a speedy tag on and an admin comes around and checks on it to verify and then deletes or denies the speedy. A few people had done some edits on the article, true, but those were not major edits and they didn't add a lot of verifiable or note-worthy information. Before I placed the speedy on there, I tried to find what I could on the poet, but was not able to, so I put the tag on. Not finding any info and the fact that it appeared, to me at the time, to be created by the article subject prompted me to put a speedy tag on instead of just an AfD. Again, going through the articles for creation process might be beneficial since it allows more experienced editors and admins to comment on the article and point out what deficiencies there are as far as info and sourcing before it goes into the article mainspace. Thank you. I hope you will continue to contribute to the Wikipedia project. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I was able to find a great deal on him by a simple Google of Ryan Jones Author. Regradless, you make a strong case and I thank you for taking the time to explain the process with me, it makes more sense now. I also looked at the links you sent, I'm putting an honest effort in adding more and better quality work to Wikipedia. I will continue to contribute and I appreciate your work to the project; you have added a great deal of quailty work to Wikipedia.

Thank you (N2jesus87 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC))

I probably shouldn't keep this going, but you keep bringing up stuff that I feel needs to be answered. You imply that I didn't do any research since you claim a simple Google search of Ryan Jones Author brings up a great deal of info. It does bring up a lot of info...which has absolutely nothing to do with the Ryan Jones we are talking about! Please stop making any specious claims like that. Ryan Jones is a fairly common name and there are several more notable people out there named that. I have gone several pages deep in the searches for him and not getting anything reliable or very informative apart from some possible facebook pages or Wikipedia mirror sites. Add to that the fact that there appears to be multiple Ryan Joneses who write poetry.

There are thousands upon thousands of articles on Wikipedia that could use some more research and verification. Please consider contributing to them as well. If you want to do an article for creation for the Ryan Jones you admire, then feel free to really focus on researching him and build a good article that is well-cited. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize, I did not mean to imply you didn't do any research. I was also praising your work and thanked you for your honesty and help. A google search of Ryan Jones Red Ink may be a more appropriate search and that is what I meant to say. There are only two main Ryan Joneses. The one we are talking about and the one who wrote the Lebron James book. I do wonder why he's on here? All it says is that he wrote a book. I would like to add I have no plans to recreate the article; I didn't add the very original. It's apperent he lacks the requirements to be on here, however, he is not the only one.

Anyway, I sincerely apologize. I have respect for you and wish to stay consistent in praising you and your work. You have added great value to our community here on Wikipedia and thank you for it. I'm trying to get better and would like to add work that would be considered on par with you and many others who are adding great articles.

Very Sincerely, (N2jesus87 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC))

You do make a valid point about the other Ryan Jones (writer) who has an article here. Will look into that one as well. Right now it doesn't show much notability apart from writing a book about a notable person. I will continue to keep my eye out for notable info and reliable sources for your Ryan Jones. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Shelby/Page edit

I replied to your last message at 13:37, 22 September 2012 on my talk page and no reply from you.

Am I useing the talk page correctly?Nonconnah77 (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you are using it right. I just haven't replied yet. Conversations on Wikipedia can take a while. Shouldn't expect an answer on most things immediately. Discussions on article talk pages can take place over months sometimes. It's only been one day or so. Just be patient. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Rick Hendrix

I am not sure how to leave a message for the other two or three working on this. This is the only page I have ever built or attempted to run. I guess what I fail to see is everyones opinions of notable or how to write a true biography. I think wiki has too many people that continue to cut and hack this article. Hendrix is a musician and writer with several number one songs and IS on the Order of the Long Leaf Pine website for receiving the award in 1993 ( I just checked)!!! I keep getting called a liar and vandal. I don't personally care about Rick Hendrix, I just do not wanna be called a liar and vandal. Charlotte Observer wrote an article calling him a HERO as one of their reporters witnessed Rick Hendrix homecoming to Granite Falls to receive the cities first key and a gold record from Diamond Rio. Streets were closed,business were closed, WBTV WSOC TV all were on hand for this and ran local news stories about his homecoming. These articles are in Charlotte Observer archives 12/11/1994 Reporter April Spann talks of a Family Channel special about Rick Hendrix by Pat Robertson in Charlotte Observer and his receiving first gold record for promoting Diamond Rio. Washington Post ran Rick Hendrix is the Democratic parties biggest evangelist and strongest arm to seat Obama. This is a guy that sat on Hillary Clintons faith board for her run for US President and it isn't notable? Billboard ran he was nominated for album and song! ALL of this keeps getting removed. I am not sure how to even win with these sources being called UNRELIABLE!! At some point I have to believe its more than just wiki here. One person said being nominated and NOT winning an award isnt news. OF COURSE it is!!!! They all tag if they get a website update banner or sticker on wiki and they think being a top 5 nominee out of 4500 songs in a year isnt news from Gospel Music biggest organization in the world GMA? This guy is the national promoter for Bill Gaither and Gaither Vocal Band and on and on. He was in Country Weekly for bringing Elvis Back to the market and that was removed as fluff. I didn't say it Country Weekly did...What else can I say?

Dalestorian (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to take a while to respond. Haven't been on the last few days. I want to believe that they were not calling you a liar, but can see how that impression could be made. Please don't get that impression. I don't think you are a liar, just a little eager to have this info put in. Things have to be verifiable and reliably sourced, true. They also have to be notable for inclusion. Evidently some of the stuff put in, other editors did not think was really necessary or important for the article. Other things that might possibly make him notable were not sourced at all, really. So that couldn't be included. With living persons, it is especially important to cite info well. I will continue to look into offline sources of info to see what I can come up with, if anything. The article can always be recreated/undeleted if more notable stuff is found. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Thank you for participating at AfD. Please take a note of the outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Hills Elementary School. Do take a moment also to read WP:DELETION and WP:NOTABILITY, and if you need any help or advice interpreting the policies, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I see the result. I have read those already, but thanks anyway. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative

WikiWomen Unite!

Hi JoannaSerah! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative. As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by: Liking the WikiWomen's Collaborative on Facebook and share your tips, projects, and connect with other WikiWomen Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved! Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame

CAN YOU RETURN THE PAGE OF THE POETS NAME BECAUSE HIS NAME IS Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame AND NOT HADRAAWI WHICH BY THE WAY IS HIS NICKNAME AND HHIS REAL NAME IS Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame .P.S THE POEM THAT YOU DELETED WAS GOOD FOR OTHERS TO READ HIS WORK THANKS— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi (talk • contribs) 17:50, October 12, 2012‎ (UTC)

This discussion really belongs on the article's talk page. The man's name is Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame, but evidently, he is more commonly known as Hadrawi. That is why the article is named that. His actual name is listed in the article and the redirect which has his actual name goes to this article, so I don't see a need to revert that. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the poem, see WP:L&P. Including poems like that is not appropriate and was copyvio. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

nickname not the real given name .

hope now you understand the diffrence between the two . First: his given name is Mohamed Ibrahim Warsame his birht name second his nickname is Hadraawi . and if this is to be done in this article so it must be done in : Manfred von Richthofen nickname :The Red Baron Margaret Thatcher nickname:The Iron Lady. John Wayne nickname: The Duke. benito mussolini nickname:el duce. and much more P.S do know what Hadraawi means in Somaliland language .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi (talk • contribs) 19:02, October 12, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Please see my reply on the article talk page. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Poet list

Keep up the good work! Horis (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. You too! I see you have done a great deal to add names to the list. Thank you for that. After I get through adding dates and short descriptions I was planning to see who I could add as well. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JoannaSerah. You have new messages at Talk:Kyrsten Sinema.
Message added 19:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've provided a preliminary third opinion per the request. Go Phightins! 19:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do that. I must admit I find it difficult to assume good faith in that. I have been avoiding that talk page the past couple of days to not feed the fire. OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks (talk · contribs)'s proposals might have a sliver of factual info, but it seems they are more interested in just suggesting negative info and "defending" their proposals with hyperbole, accusations and ranting. I'm not really sure how much of it is actually notable to Sinema herself. Most of it is purely antagonistic and some is only tangentially to Sinema. I look forward to your suggestions. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Right to left text.

Where do I look on WP Guidelines (or anywhere, really) for info on handling Right-to-Left text? I was trying to correct some date formatting on Noon Meem Rashid, but when trying to edit the dates in the lead, the bidirectional text markup, or something, causes the formatting to be off. I know I could post in the article talk page, but really wanted to know more about how to handle that kind of text. Style and technical info. It is more than just an article-specific question. Tried looking through the MOS, but wasn't finding anything that I thought would help. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If your request is specific to date formatting, I'd anticipate that the section 'Dates and numbers' in the encyclopedia's Manual of Style should provide extensive stylistic and technical information, and that the date template may also prove convenient. Regards, Mephistophelian (contact) 04:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for your help, but it really isn't more about date formatting than my question is about the right to left text. Where the right to left text is located in the lead prevents me from putting in numbers and punctuation correctly. I just noticed it when I was correcting the date formatting. I am familiar with WP:MOSDATES, but I didn't see anything that would really help me there in this matter. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Although I couldn't replicate your difficulty when editing the Noon Meem Rashid article earlier, the Manual of Style nevertheless includes examples and instructions for the application of Arabic, Persian, and Urdu characters in a lead paragraph. Mephistophelian (contact) 21:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC).

I see where you edited. Basically, the "b." shouldn't be there in the lead. Taking that out, though, made the right-to-left script continue on until it reaches the first English letter. So, we wind up with )1 or whatever on the other side of the text when writing it in dmy format which is what I was thinking was the correct style since it was already written. I tried taking the b. out. It threw the formatting off. I appreciate the links to the Arabic, etc. MOS pages. That could definitely help answer my questions. I guess the dates just need to be in mdy format in those cases. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Musician infobox

Just to let you know: The "background" field in the musician infobox uses a set of about half a dozen pre-defined value tokens, each of which must be spelled and punctuated exactly according to the specification; part of this is that multiple-word values are linked by underscores, as in "solo_singer" and "non_vocal_instrumentalist". It is consequently one of the few places in the wiki that changing underscores to spaces, as you did at K-Rino, is the wrong thing to do. — Paul A (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I see that now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

your sandbox on a tracking category

User:JoannaSerah/GenericStateHouseSandbox and User:JoannaSerah/GenericStateSenateSandbox are on atleast two tracking categories. Could you fill something in for "NAME" and "SHORT DESCRIPTION" in PERSONDATA. That will remove the pages from the tracking category. This has nothing to do with me staring at your name on the tracking category page and wondering why you have "Serah" and not "Sarah". Were your "kinfolk" Carolina ridgerunners and didn't know how to spell Sarah? One of your parents loved Thai cooking and named you for a Thai word meaning Lemon grass? You were a blight or stain on your sweet parents life like the Serah disease is to sugar cane? Nope, I haven't been wondering at all. Bgwhite (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Better yet, I will just nowiki the persondata section. Sorry. Didn't realize that showed up on tracking categories. Thank you for the info. This is fixed now. As far as my name, I'm not really sure where parents got it from. Might be closer to the first idea. I am from the mountains anyway... :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Kyrsten Simena

Hi. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, including your comments on the Kyrsten Sinema article. I thought I'd let you know that if I'd been seeing the comments you were responding to on that article and its talkpage, I would have filed a report on one of the noticeboards much sooner. The violations of our biographies of living persons policy through irresponsible speculation and mudslinging were egregious, and since User:OneWhoDoesNotLikeCrooks was doing nothing but editing this article by adding negative comments about a living person, even the username should have been reported and blocked on sight. While it's important to be friendly to new editors who come to Wikipedia and may not be familiar with all our policies, this was obviously not someone trying to add encyclopedic content in good faith.

Anyway, this is just a thought in the hopefully unlikely case that you encounter such a situation again. Thanks again for all of your work. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I wasn't really sure where to begin in that situation and had tried to assume good faith, but they just kept going on and on. I didn't want to bite the newcomer and didn't want to edit war, so I avoided the page a while. Will be more proactive in some of those situations from now on. Thank you for the information. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and happy editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Rock Hill Page

Hi! You edited my citations on the Rock Hill page earlier today. Can you explain your changes a tad? I'm new at all of this and I've never seen them done that way before. As a user, I wouldn't know to look at the text[5]23 and realize that it meant page 23 of footnote 5. Also, I don't know how to make those footnotes work that way for future edits I do on that page. Can you point me to the right help page on this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoricMN44 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I consolidated the duplicative citations. I understand that it might not be readily apparent that the 5:23 really means to look at page 23, but that style is an accepted standard on Wikipedia. I primarily thought that having "Notes" and "References" sections were redundant, especially since most of the Notes were actually references. How to use the reference pages template can be found here: {{RP}}. Info about reusing citations: WP:NAMEDREFS. Since these were all really pointing to the same work, I put a "name" to that reference. Basically, to reuse that specific reference all you need to do is put in <ref name=Willoughby /> (note the closing forward slash within the ref tag and then adding {{RP|23}} immediately following the named cite (page 23 or whatever page number(s) you want). I will change it some to make the "p" show up. That might clarify things some. Hope that helps. Thank you for your editing and interest in Wikipedia! -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Blood Done/ Henry Marrow

I'm not sure what's going on here. It seems like everybody is trying to cover up Tim Tyson lying about Henry's military record. The POW networks states he received a "dishonorable" discharge. Everybody is discharged, whether it is honorable, dishonorable, medical discharge. or other types of military discharges. Henry was not a Vietnam Veteran!

Instead of everyone assuming , you need to ask some questions. This number { SFW 21BVU } from what I have been told means Dishonorable discharge. Someone can check with the military to see if that is correct.

JoannaSerah it appears you are representing / supporting Shelby NC and you don't see a problem with advertising material about a Vietnam Veteran when it's not correct? You keep using the word reliable and controversial. You can check out WRAL media link here http://www.wral.com/news/local/wral_investigates/story/7785923/

And what's controversial about Henry's military status?

I believe documented sources are acceptable on Wiki. If you have a problem with the website showing the missing thesis papers, I believe I can supply you with a copy.Just send me your address. Or you can request them from Tim Tyson himself.

I'm going to leave you with this thought, search James Frey on Wiki and check out the various websites and links. Do we have double standards here? I will be reverting your edits.Nonconnah77 (talk) 22:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

JoannaSerah , the more I think about it the more I'm disappointed in your comment yesterday Oct, 26, 2012. You state "I took out the paragraphs that are purely POV-pushing by Nonconnah77 (talk · contribs) about Tyson's thesis papers. This is a controversial opinion that isn't widely held and is only sourced by a self-published attack site against Tyson. See WP:SPS and, since Tyson is still living, WP:BLPSPS. It has no place here unless you can show credible third party and reliable sources."

1. 1

I am not POV pushing. Joan , do you have some type of vested interest in hiding the facts from the public?

First and most important Henry Marrow was not a Vietnam Veteran. If you look at the form provided under the Freedom of Information Act . It clearly shows he never left the United States. The P.O.W network would not state he never served in Vietnam and received a dishonorable discharge if it was not true.

My edits were on a book Blood Done Sign My Name that's a book , not a living person. The website is not attacking Tyson, it's showing Tyson's own thesis, and Tyson blames the public for vandalizing his thesis. When in fact that's not true. The author even made the claim he could have replaced those missing pages but choose not to do so. He was trying to hide from the public that beer was being consumed in his original thesis.

And on page 294 & 295 BDSMN Tim states the Oxford Public Ledger Newspaper is missing when in fact it is not.

The Granville County Library system has confirmed that the micro film from 1970 is available. So I'm still disturbed as to why you say the website is a attack site, It is showing that the author lied about various information and is supported by documentation and newspapers from reliable sources.

As I said again I will be reverting you edits, unless you want to be so kind and put them back the way they were.Nonconnah77 (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you can't understand why pushing this agenda is not POV editing. First, my most recent edits did not take out info about the POW network's info. Although I am uncertain about the reliability of some info on their site, a lot of it seems reliable. That isn't really the issue for my most recent edits. Taking out any mention of the filming of the book on the Shelby, North Carolina page was highly inappropriate. Some of the info you have put in before, including information mentioned above about missing newspapers and missing thesis papers is based either on original research (it is you claiming what the book says and what the library says, not a third-party, reliable source website) or a site that was set up purely as an attack site against Tyson. What I took out related to that info, not the POW network info. Basically, while Marrow's service record may or may not be controversial, your insistence on calling Tyson a liar is. In order to keep info related to that in, you must have more reliable sources than an attack site. Wikipedia is not an investigative journalism organization. We are not here to whitewash or to muck-rake. Especially regarding biographies of living persons, info and sources are held to a high standard. While the book isn't a living person and Marrow is dead, info about Tyson (still living) does relate. Please try to understand, I don't have anything for or against Tyson, Marrow, the book or you. Articles just need to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to promote an idea about Tyson's credibility. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also sorry you don't recognize the anti-Tyson site is an attack site. The site is filled with info criticizing Tyson. The pages linked for sources about the thesis papers are not backed up by any reliable source. Just the son of one of the people mentioned in the book who claims to have found the missing thesis papers. Can't say there is any reliability in that. It is not "backed up by documentation and newspapers from reliable sources". Pictures of what they claim to be thesis papers (which has spelling and grammar errors in it, by the way) isn't really reliable considering the source has a blatantly anti-Tyson agenda. Furthermore, it honestly doesn't matter to the Wikipedia article whether beer was consumed or not. So what? Pointing that out is irrelevant to an encyclopedia articles related to this. It is nothing more than you trying to stir up controversy related to the book and Tyson. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Joanna, Thanks for your reply. Removing Blood Done Sign My Name from the Shelby page you said it was highly inappropriate. I look at it as distancing and not tainting Shelby from shady unreliable characters that have anything thing to do with this book ,movie or Tyson. Anybody that would stoop so low as to portray a deceased person as a Vietnam Veteran, when they were not. is highly unethical and immoral. Tyson uses a reliougious and educational background to deceive the public. As to your mention of the thesis papers about the spelling and grammar errors . That was the way Tim submitted it to Duke Nonconnah77 (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up

I made another pass through Nonconnah77's edits and it looks like you caught the few that I didn't. Thanks for raising the issue on Dennis's page, and nice work on the reverts.

Best,

GaramondLethe 03:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to have others look at it to make sure it wasn't just my opinion. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Apollo 11 lunar sample display

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Lunar basalt 70017

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Apollo 17 lunar sample display

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Brazil lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Canada lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Cyprus lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Honduras lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ireland lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Malta lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Netherlands lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Nicaraguan lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Norway lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Romania lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Spain lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Sweden lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Alaska lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Arkansas lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for California lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Colorado lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Delaware lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Hawaii lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Illinois lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Missouri lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Nebraska lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for New Jersey lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for New Mexico lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for New York lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Oregon lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for West Virginia lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	For your copy-editing and other minor edits, and your work on literature-related lists. INeverCry 08:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! My first Barnstar. Just glad to help. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant idea

	'Why didn't I think of that? Facepalm '
	I award you the Egg of Columbus for your creation of the Lunar sample display Navbox. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Why, thank you. It is appreciated. Any other template you need, just let me know. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Now that you've asked, we need a template for Call of the Wild, including the book and the seven different movies. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Will look into that. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually almost got into (more or less) an edit war over that. And my opposing editor came up with that brilliant idea. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I was just looking and found that TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) recently created one already: {{The Call of the Wild}} Is that what you need or something else/more? Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I had in mind, although it is clearly incomplete. But I'll work on that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

E-mail

You have e-mail.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

North Carolina

At one time we lived in Ashville, North Carolina. Here are some NC articles I created:

• Folk Art Center
• Blue Ridge Parkway tunnels
• Julian Price Memorial Park
• Julian Price
• Moses H. Cone Memorial Park
• Moses H. Cone
• Cone sisters - The Cone sisters, Claribel and Etta, were two of Moses' younger sisters.
• Flat Top Manor
• This is my list of 200 DYKs on various subjects.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 21:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, neat! I had heard of Moses Cone, of course, but hadn't known anything about the Cone sisters. Interesting article. Some of those others were already in my watchlist. Will have to check out more of your work. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

yet another North Carolinian

Greetings JoannaSerah. I moved to Charlotte about 18 months ago. I wrote all of the articles in Category:Parks in Charlotte, North Carolina and wrote or contributed to many other Charlotte based articles. My main interests are theatre, parks, Charlotte, and mathematics. I wrote articles on two Charlotte poets and added them to your List of female poets. I plan to do more local poets. If you have any ideas about how to stir up interest in Charlotte articles and especially if you know where I could get more photographs for illustration (e.g. The Green, St. Peter's Catholic Church, Madeleine Ozeray, and many other actors, let me know. There is so much in Charlotte that should be included.--Foobarnix (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen some of your edits and articles around Wikipedia. Great to have more interested in NC here. I had been trying to re-kickstart an active WikiProject North Carolina a few months ago, but really have focused more on content creation and general copyediting. Thank you for your contributions. There are so many good (and even great) poets in NC that there definitely should be more articles about. Charlotte (and really NC in general) does have a lot more info that should be included. As far as photos go, it just takes time to go out and take some of our own a lot of the time. Sometimes I'm able to go on picture-taking trips, but, honestly, I'm not a photographer. Just rely on my digital camera and Photoshop to post pics here. Keep up the good work. Next time I go down to Charlotte, I'll see what I can do. You could always post to the WikiProject NC talk page for any specific idea/project you want help on as well. That might get some interest. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Peace College --> William Peace University Move

I just wanted to drop a line and see if you wanted to comment on, or had any opinion about my new Peace College move suggestion. As I stated on that Talk page, aGoogle search results show 458,000 results for "William Peace University" and now only 301,000 results for "Peace College". In fact, the only results on the first page of a Google search for "Peace College" are articles from prior to May of 2012, a redirect page for William Peace University's new website, and our Wikipedia article. It seems to me that Wikipedia shouldn't be the lone holdout in a sea of actual, palpable, permanent (for now?) change. All University websites and all North Carolina press now refer to the institution by its new name. See, for instance: http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/11/06/2466778/north-carolinas-congressional.html

Thanks! And let me know if there's anything I can help with that you're working on. I'm trying to get back in the swing of Wikipedia editing.Cdtew (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into that some more and comment there, but it does appear that they are more consistently using WPU rather than just "Peace College". Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweden lunar sample displays

Apparently by the last Reviewer there is a need for expansion on the Sweden article. I'm at a lost for words. IF you could add 100-200 characters to the History section that would help a lot. Perhaps you, as another editor, can find things I can not. Google search? Thanks.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 18:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Australia Greenland on Commons

Just to tell u someone had a question about that pic--Sanandros (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll look into it. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome, and actually someone else also asked a similar request for a pic NZ and GER on your talk page on commons.--Sanandros (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that now. I was having trouble creating that one and got sidetracked. Will have to revisit now. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on your first DYK :)

<-- Looks like you will need one of those here in a few days when your first DYK hits the front page [1]. They will put a template here on your talk page once it has made its run. Good job, no corrections were needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

HI

I HAVE JUST LEFT A COMMENT ON THE SUMMERY ,BUT THANKS ALOT ON THE HELP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadraawi (talk • contribs) 22:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Arthur Talmage Abernethy

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Time to update your user page :) Hopefully, this will be the first of many. Congrats again, you did a great job on the article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I just updated my userpage :) Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible edit warring.

{{help me}} Have not posted to WP:ANEW before and wasn't sure if this rises to that level, yet. 24.238.92.20 (talk · contribs) keeps adding info into a couple of articles (Peter Hedges and Ahmet Zappa) about some non-notable book/authors which seems to try to imply that those article subjects weren't original in their idea and possibly infringed copyright. The paragraph is uncited and appears to be WP:OR at best. Their edits were reverted with explanation. They do not use edit summaries ever and simply re-reverted the info back in. I took the info back out citing the reasons and referencing WP:BRD. I started a discussion on the articles' talk pages and left a note to the IP. Even after that, they chose to simply re-revert back in the info. Is this type of thing enough for WP:ANEW or if anyone else could help in this matter, it would be greatly appreciated. I don't want to simply revert his/her edit again and possibly be accused of edit warring myself. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I took off the help me tag for now. Another user reverted the IP user's edits. Will wait to see if anything becomes of this. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing came of it is the answer. IP editor 24.238.92.20 just went ahead and reinserted the material, without any response on the talk page. Maybe you'd better put that help sign back up. --Bejnar (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• I went ahead and was bold and posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:24.238.92.20 reported by User:Bejnar (Result: ), even though the 3RR rule was not technically broken. I don't know how automated or how fast that process is. --Bejnar (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

24.238.92.20 has been blocked for 48 hours and warned not to add the material back in without a reliable source confirming that the idea was stolen. --Bejnar (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I had taken off the help me earlier because I wasn't sure if I was going to be online the next few days, but was able to for a little while today. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for North Carolina lunar sample displays

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

30-in-1 record

Wikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame#DYK hooks with 5 or more articles ----Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, amazing. Just went away for the weekend and then my inbox gets filled with messages. :) Glad I could help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you re-assess?

I'd be much obliged if you could (re-)run your ruler over articles I have an active hand in. Principally Bantayan Island which I have spent a lot of time on. And some others within its ambit, such as Bantayan, Cebu.

Thanks

John of Cromer in China (talk) mytime= Mon 22:09, wikitime= 14:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

You wouldn't know how I could speed-up the process of article creation for my new article at AFC: Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) would you? Thanks! Also -- I don't know how to link to an AFC request, so sorry if what I did there was too cumbersome. Cdtew (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You can disregard this. I figured out how to add it without going through AFC -- it's been a while since I've written an article! Take a look over at Fort Dobbs (North Carolina). Do you think leaving up the blank AFC request will hurt?Cdtew (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I see. Good job on the article. It is well written. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm trying right now to get a DYK out of it.Cdtew (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		This is just a simple token of my gratitude for your help with Fort Dobbs (North Carolina) and Hugh Waddell (general). Thanks in no small part to your cleaning-up of my inexpert writing, I'm on my way to DYK #'s 3 & 4! And thank you also for the expanded info re: the historic site! Cdtew (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and you're welcome. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You are amazing and the glue that holds Project North Carolina together. The momentum you are creating is inspiring. Thank you so much for all you do there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah now, Dennis, you make a girl blush. :) -- JoannaSerah (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You deserve more than a barnstart, that is for sure. I have so many projects but I am hoping to focus more on NC articles soon. What is so helpful is the organization you are adding to the project. That is often the weakest link. Good organization helps us remember what we need to work on, and what we are working toward. And it isn't easy. This is why I appreciate the efforts so much, and I know that many benefit from your efforts, including those that don't know it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Australian football

Hello Joanna. Thanks for doing some fixing on George Pape – (your diff). When I created the article I doubted anyone would even look at it, much less be interested in improving it!

We haven’t met before so I browsed through your list of interests. I was surprised to see you are a fan of the West Coast Eagles, an Australian rules football team in Perth, Western Australia, my home town. At first I was delighted by the possibility that enthusiasm for the Australian football code might have reached North Carolina, but then I realised it might just be a Wikierror. I did a little exploring and found the sporting teams associated with Winthrop University in Rock Hill SC are called the Eagles. No! Please tell me you are fan of Australian football! Best wishes. Dolphin (t) 02:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a Wikierror. I am a WCE fan! :) There's lots of college teams around that are called the Eagles, yes, but being on the East Coast here in the US, most of the time that I say that I'm an Eagles football fan, they think I mean the Philadelphia Eagles. I have enjoyed watching the best Eagles for several years now. Have had to only catch them play online since can't find it on TV around here often. Sometimes Fox Soccer Channel covers it. I just usually forgo trying to find it on TV and watch online. I have been focused more on North Carolina articles lately, but did do more with WCE articles before. Will have to look into more of those again. Don't really know why I picked them to root for. I had been a fan of Aussie Rules for years and around 2000/2001 started cheering for them. Maybe it's the colors, the song, Rick the Rock...who knows? Anyway, great to meet you, Dolphin. Any other wikiediting help you need, just let me know. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Great! That's the best news I've had all week. Many years ago I went to Mojave CA for a training course. When the class learned that I was from Australia one of them said "Tell us about the Flying Doormat!" They were talking about Bruce Doull who had very little hair on top but what was left around the perimeter was long enough to reach his shoulders. At top speed his hair flowed behind him like Superman's cape. I didn't know much about Doull but it immediately established something to talk about. When I enquired how people in California might have heard about the Flying Doormat the answer was that Aussie Rules featured on some pay TV channels late at night in the US. So I'm not surprised you have heard of Perth and the West Coast Eagles, just delighted. Dolphin (t) 04:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

POV

WP:DENY Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Funny how you can claim I'm inserting POV when the whole intro of the article was based on POV that isn't accurate, and was extremely bothersome. Why should one study outweigh findings of others? I'm keeping out annoying, offensive, generalizations whether you like it or not. You can keep your hasty generalizations, but don't bring it to the articles to be read as fact. Thank you. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Mike, you should take your concerns to the article talk page, that is what they are there for. This way others can offer their perspectives as well. I think you will find if you take a slightly less aggressive attitude, Joanna and others will be more than willing to consider your perspective. I know it is frustrating to have your edits reverted, lord knows I've had 100s of mine reverted, but the key to finding a solution is through calm dialog. The same as you would in the real world. Sometimes, you just haven't explained your edits so that others understand, other times you learn why you were mistaken. And yet other times you will just disagree, but that is what consensus building is about. There is an essay worth reading WP:BRD, which covers the best ways to handle situations like this. You both care about the content, the best solution is dialog to first find common ground, then work towards a resolution through peaceful discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Thank you for pointing out WP:BRD, Dennis. I might avoid the pages for a while, though. I should have known better than to venture into the sexuality-based articles. I usually avoid them. From what I read of them, they have some editors who are good at trying to keep things more appropriate, cited correctly, etc., but so much of them are focused on luridness and are battlegrounds for POV editing. Often sections and whole articles sound like they are written by middle/high school boys (especially those relating to female sexuality). As a female Wikipedian, I know I should probably care about those articles more and make a fuss, but, to me, there are so many more interesting things to work on, really. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I know someone who is very familiar with LGBT content, Jenova20. he is also a member of WP:WER, very fair and likable, and a great editor overall. he is a good contact if you need a second opinion or simply want to point out a problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 03:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Maybe you should stay away from points addressing male sexuality then? Because all I did was correct blatantly false information on males and you seemed to have a problem with that! As I said, for a general rule, one finding by a shady study does not make their claim fact, and does not discredit all prior ones done. Honestly I would have deleted the whole point that I edited if it was up to me, because it's selective, not needed, etc, but I only modified in order to make whoever made that bizarre contribution happy. Hey, if I was messing around and putting false and offensive information into articles revolving around how females act, desire, etc, you might feel differently. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Again, unnecessary WP:POINTiness. Saying some of the points are blatantly false is your opinion. Please just stick to discussing the articles on their talk pages. You characterizing that as a shady study might be disingenuous, I'm not certain. I'll let others weigh in on the real scientific nature of whatever evidence you actually provide to the articles. Please make sure to back up your edits with citations. While you might be right about the gender of Jenova20, it is really improper to edit someone else's talk page comments. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 04:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Don't know what you mean by pointiness. And no, it's not my opinion, it's fact. You're confusing opinion with reality. If you can prove me otherwise then you're welcome to, but you can't because there is no evidence that says most X are of trait Y, so you certainly can't declare all X are of trait Y as fact. For the last time, one statistical outlier does not mean the outlier is correct and all the others are wrong. And I have no need to insert citations, because I wasn't adding anything new. I was simply correcting what was stated (OPINION), which wasn't true. Also you have no credibility. And I simply changed she to he so calm down. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 05:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Mike, I've left a warning on your talk page. Between POV editing, edit warring and this harassment, you are quickly working towards a block. I suggest you disengage and learn how to contribute in a neutral fashion, or find another hobby. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Are you saying it's POV editing to remove POV edits and opinions from articles? I genuinely want to know. Honestly it's pretty amusing how I'm getting attacked for removing false information from articles; that just shows what a joke an encyclopedia is when everyone can edit and insert their own opinions to be read as fact. MikeFromCanmore (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC) You are the one inserting your own opinions in as fact. You don't understand that you should abide by WP:Verifiability instead of your personal opinions, and you don't have a clue what reliable sources are (as witnessed by your calling the sources you've been removing "biased" and "unreliable"). The fact is that you have been repeatedly removing reliably sourced content about lesbian sexuality here and elsewhere on Wikipedia based on your personal opinions![2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] That, adding or removing content based on your personal opinions, is a big no-no on Wikipedia. You seriously need to read WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, and, more importantly, WP:Verifiability. Wikipedia could not care less about your personal opinions when they concern adding or removing content. It cares about reliably sourced material, and other policies and guidelines. And the content you have been repeatedly removing from the Lesbian sexual practices article article is reliably sourced. And unlike the Pepper Schwartz study, these findings have been consistently replicated by scholar after scholar. This information belongs in this article because it concerns research on lesbian sexual practices. If there is research out there that says the opposite of this, then it should be added with reliable sources supporting it. 220.255.2.155 (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I just blocked Mike 72 hours for continuing the POV/edit war. I tried to not, but he didn't give me much of a choice. Hate that your page turned into a battlezone, Joanna. Hopefully this won't discourage you from participating in the articles of your choice. We have to give people the opportunity to conform before blocking them, what they do with that opportunity is up to them. Some just fritter it away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I understand. I go to bed and wake up with several more comments here! :) It's not nearly as bad a battleground as I've seen on some other talk pages before. It won't really discourage me. Thank you for your help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Wrong again proxy IP vandal. opinions were removed, not added. In fact, I didn't add one opinion or point that was my own. And no one likes bad edits, so by your logic, every edit done in existence is a "I don't like". Where's the rationale? Also, if you could actually read, you would get an idea that only anti male sentiments were removed, I don't care about lesbianism, and I don't care if you personally identify as a lesbian, I have no qualms with that, or you for your identification. But to tell me the points you're arguing in favour of, are factual, is idiotic. Point is, I set out to find and remove opinionated sexism, such as "lesbian women make better lovers than men" (the whole point in that article was biased, as some studies are in favour of this point, some are against, Schwartz among others, but only the ones in favour listed), (nice of you to deny a study simply because you don't agree with it). Not to mention it's an unnecessary contribution. On an article about african americans, do we have a section comparing them to white americans, only listing supposed pros using only the studies that suit your opinion? No. So the comparison fueled by bias isn't needed either. and an even bizarre one yet, "Men are attracted to lesbians" (Seriously? I can't be the only one that finds this ridiculous). When I first joined wikipedia, I knew the first place to find opinionated views attacking against males would be articles related to feminism (Which actually has been kept fair! I was wrong) and lesbianism (Not so fair. What I found was typical). Now, I know I'm right here. And if wikipedia lists itself as a beacon for information, then It must include information. Not opinions. Encyclopaedias do not entail user opinions. So those user points must be removed. You can block all you like, I have incredibly good faith intentions, and I know I'm right about this. Make all the edits you want, I'm going to revert the anti male sentiments with selective "pick and choose" sources, and your opinionated views, if you like or not. Again, I have no problems with your identity. Just with the way men are degraded in articles on the topic, and that's what I'm fighting against. This is an encyclopaedia, not to be used as your opinion page to support lesbian propaganda opinion, and present it as fact.Mike21234 (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC) More ranting and hyperbole. Your edits may really be good faith intentions, I think some users just disagree with your running commentary and editing style, perhaps. I have no agenda, really, and usually avoid those articles. And I agree with you about some of the articles on Wikipedia. My last edit to those pages was the revert that you re-reverted on that one page. That's all. If others have changed your edits as well, that probably means others disagree with you also. I've not edited there any more. If the information that is cited offends or is incorrect, find reliable sources that show otherwise and put that in or, better yet, discuss on the articles' talk pages. Please just make sure to use citations when backing up your arguments and discuss them on the article talk pages. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock, and indef blocked Mike the master. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC) To Mike whatever, I'm not female/lesbian. I assert that your opinions were added to the Lesbianism in erotica article, because you did not stick to what the sources say. It is your opinion that the text you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article is "anti male sentiment." That is some pretty flimsy logic, as is your assertion that the studies are biased toward lesbianism. So Alfred Kinsey (1953), Masters and Johnson, Marilyn Frye, Peplau, Fingerhut and Beals (2004) and Diamond (2006) all set out to be biased in reporting this information? That's absurd. It's not a matter of "pick and choose" with these sources. It's a matter of this being research about lesbian sexual activity that is supported by several studies, while you have only cited the discredited Schwartz study, "findings" that have not been replicated. She asserts that lesbian couples in committed relationships have less sex than any other type of couple and that they generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. But, in contrast to her asssertion, the fact is that couples of any sexual orientation generally experience less sexual intimacy the longer the relationship lasts. The Coolidge effect is an example of that. If there are studies showing the exact opposite of the information you have repeatedly removed from the Lesbian sexual practices article, then you would cite it like you are supposed to do, not maintain that you are right just because you state that you are right. WP:Verifiability is clear that we are supposed to follow what reliable sources state, not our personal opinion(s). That means no adding or removing information based on our personal opinion(s), at least not in the way that you've been going about it. You were indeed removing things because you don't like it. Your edits are not policy or guideline-based, which is why you were reverted by others beside me. You speak of me denying a study simply because I don't agree with it, but I have done no such thing. That has consistently been you. I welcomed opposing studies, but you haven't cited any. The Schwartz study is not an opposing study, and you didn't even attempt to introduce it in the article with or without a reliable source. And in the African American article we do indeed have sections comparing African Americans to white Americans. Is it done in a way that is "only listing supposed pros using only the studies that suit [an editor's personal opinion]"? No, but neither is the case for the Lesbian sexual practices article. And the Lesbianism in erotica article doesn't state that "Men are [sexually] attracted to lesbians," which actually isn't ridiculous since many men have stated that they are sexually attracted to lesbians. It states "Studies indicate that heterosexual men were more aroused by depictions involving lesbian sex than they are by depictions of heterosexual activity," which is a summary of the article per WP:LEAD. This is also research that is supported by several studies. You were/are wrong, that's the point, which is why you are now indefinitely blocked. 220.255.2.150 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Leith Links multiple referencing page display

Many thanks for your useful comment. I think I prefer the template that produces the page number in brackets. I'll hold off a bit until I see if I can get used to the other style, which I don't particularly like (since to me it looks like two footnote numerals are being given). I appreciate your help. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Whatever style you choose, the main thing is to keep it consistent throughout the article. Glad to help. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WP Poetry and The Canterbury Tales task force

As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it and see. I saw the posting at the project talk page and thought about it, but have been working on other projects more lately. Might be a more casual participant in that task force. Will definitely see what I can do. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. We're looking for opinions at the moment to do with article content etc., so if you have a spare moment we'd love to hear from you! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Great teamwork on this one! Congrats on another DYK, and thanks for all the help! Cdtew (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)