User talk:Markiewp

Welcome!

Hello, Markiewp, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

... at User talk:Jerzy#Jo Parkerson.
--Jerzy•t 11:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, we seem to both be working with the same goal of clearing the backlog of unreferenced BLP's. It's nice to see that I'm not alone in this and appreciate you stepping up to tackle this enormous task. If I may, I would like to make two suggestions to make your contributions more helpful. Remembering to fill out an edit summary is a big help, others then can see what you have done without going in to see the differences in versions is a big time saver, a simple message like 'added orphan tag' is all that is needed. If you go to 'my preferences', then the 'editing' tab you can even check off 'Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary' so it will remind you if you forget. Also, you should date your tags, instead of putting {{orphan}} you should put {{orphan|date=August 2010}}, knowing when a tag was added is a big help when assessing these articles. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me and again thanks for what you are doing. J04n(talk page) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm new to this so any tips are appreciated. Markiewp (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark. No, I can't find reliable third party sources, so I doubt he meets our criteria for notability. Perhaps you should

Thanks for having a look. I've tagged it for notability and expert in the hope we can find some. Regards, Markiewp (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date syntax is: {{Orphan|any other arguments|date=August 2010}}, but if you leave the date off it will be added by a

Hi, I added a reference that I have at hand: a Romanian jazz dictionary, where he has an entry. I will add more when I get time. Best regards.--Mycomp (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Markiewp (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markiewp. When you prod articles for WP:Proposed deletion, please link to the specific policy reasons for the prod rather than just stating it (for example, see Palla Jeroff).

Unfortunately, prods are all too often written without such citation(s), which doesn't set much of an example for you; unfortunately again, many of the article writers prodded are entirely new to Wikipedia and so entirely unaware of policy, It is essential that we let them know exactly why their article has been prodded, instead of just using a term in a sentence which has little or no relevant meaning to them.

Also, although

Any questions, please ask and if I can't help, I'll put you on to someone who can. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah,me again...I'm not getting on your case here, really I'm not but if it seems that way, I'm sorry. Anyway, this is just a reminder that when you've tagged the articles to not forget to let the creator know. The guidelines and template are atWikipedia:Proposed deletion. Meanwhile, keep up the good work - proposed deletion can so often be both aggravating and boring all at the same time. so good on you for getting stuck in there to help out. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been letting the creator know, unless they haven't edited in a couple of years or so; if you've found otherwise it will just have been an individual error. Most of the ones I've nominated have been created by users who have only edited once, to create the article, and I suspect most of these were created by the subjects themselves. I have also now been linking to the exact aspect of the notability guidelines that the person doesn't meet. Anyway, I think I'll avoid dealing with the unreferenced (and seemingly non-notabhle) articles from now on and perhaps focus on other areas. Markiewp (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you said you "wikified" the ammonia cracker article in this edit, but all you did was remove the template. Please don't do this in the future. As you can see from my edit, the article needed significant wikifying, and I'm sure I missed some things. Wizard191 (talk) 16:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't write that I wikified it, but was saying that it was wikified. I have been working on the 23,000 backlog of those tagged, and this was already wikified. Yes, it looks better with the additions, but it didn't need a tag. Markiewp (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your semantics and your judgment. "wikified" implies that you wikified it; in the future please use "already wikified". However, in this case I don't think that it was wikified; there were 4 links before, now there are 16, that's four times as many, so I wouldn't call that close. Just because there's an old tag on an article, or because there's a backlog, doesn't mean that tag isn't still applicable. Wizard191 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the tag because it was old or because there was a backlog, but because in the hundreds of articles I've wikified this week and checked to see if they are already wikified, I made a judgement that this one was already OK. You can disagree of course and feel that it needed quite a bit more, but sending messages to someone complaining about it is just the sort of thing that puts people off bothering to edit Wikipedia. Markiewp (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, leaving you a message stating that I disagree with your edit is proper Wikipedia protocol see:

WP:BRD. Second, you say you've wikified "hundreds of articles", but looking at the last 17 articles you "wikified", all you did was remove the template. That's definitely not wikifying, that's just template removal, which can be proper if the article has been wikified, but the template hasn't been removed, or incorrect if the template is still applicable. Out of that small sample, I reverted 10 of them, because I felt that they still needed wikification. That's a bad ratio, less then 50% of the time your judgment is right. As such, I think you ought to volunteer in other ways. "Wikifying" is specific to wikis, and not like copyediting or content creation, which is done in other publishing formats and is more intuitive. Wizard191 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

If you had left me a message saying you appreciated what I was trying to do, but actually articles need blue links than this one had, I'd have taken your point on board immediately. You seem unaware that "less than 50% of the time your judgment is right" is an opinion. I am new to this, so encouragement, particularly to look at the Wikiproject page and to add extra blue links, would have produced a better result and just generally been nicer than telling someone they've done it wrong and should volunteer in other ways. Markiewp (talk) 06:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M, if you are willing to learn from your colleague's observation, and start saying "already wikified" in order to clarify what you've done, it would go a long way to repair at least my impression of you, from this section, as more interested in resentment than editing.
--Jerzy•t 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been putting 'already wikified' since then, although on the whole I've concentrated on adding wikilinks to articles without any at all. I'm sorry that you feel that I am interested in resentment, as it's the last thing I'm interested in. As I said above, I'm new to this, and I just expected people if they had concerns to be nice about it. Markiewp (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled onto an article which your wikification resulted in a large number of links to dab pages. That's not solving a problem, that's replacing one problem (one article not wikified) with several others (several links needing disambiguation). Each link to a dab page requires manual attention from some other editor. Can I ask that you please make sure the links you add are not to disambiguation pages? Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do usually check, and if I do any more of these I'll bear it in mind. If you let me know which article you're referring to, I'll correct it. Markiewp (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Gruen. I removed the link to matrix, the other 7 or so links to dab pages remain. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got them all now. Markiewp (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there are still five links to disambiguation pages in that article,

Wikipedia:CLEANER. I am not an expert in the subject matter, so I hesitate to correct the links, I suppose you are, so I'll live that to you. --Muhandes (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, done. I'm not an expert in this area at all, just trying to clear the backlog of articles waiting to be wikified, this one had been waiting over two years. Markiewp (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Personally I'm happy someone takes this thankless task on themselves, but I think it should be done properly. I suggest two things. First, don't link to dab pages. Use a tool to check your work and either remove such links or, better, resolve them. For example, atomic could have easily been resolved by using atomic, rather than deleted. I understand resolving is usually done by someone with subject understanding though, so removal would be your more common solution. Second, avoid red links. A red link should only be made to an article which is likely to be created, and knowing nothing of the subject matter you can't tell which are and which aren't. I now notice Dieter Gruen also has a multiplicity of those. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's difficult to tell if a red link should be added or not without subject knowledge, I've just been making a judgement where it seems right. I'm divided as to whether to continue wikifying these articles or not - the backlog is huge, years behind, so if we wait for experts on each subject to do it we'll be waiting years more. However, if I wikify it, there's the likelihood that some redlinks won't really be needed and that I will underlink. I think it's better than leaving it as it is, but it's clear not everyone agrees with that. Markiewp (talk) 11:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should continue your work, but be more prudent. After going through the article preview it and remove all red links you are not certain about. Then save the page, and run it through

wiki cleaner and either disambiguate or remove links you are not certain how to disambiguate. Sure, it will be slower, but it will be much more complete. I personally appreciate your willingness to do this and I'm sure other editors do as well (though some will always complain). --Muhandes (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Pat is director of Academy Group now. I will get in touch with you when I update the article. :) Thanks for the mail. Cyril Thomas (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Markiewp (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mark. I'm still fairly new myself. I been Wikifying since March. Except for the first few times, I never remove the tags. It's better to let the more senior editors to make that call. It's not just about creating links. There's fixing layout, doing sections - lots of stuff. Improving the look and the feel of the page. Happy editing. Slightsmile (talk) 03:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to know that others are working on it. From what I can see, the {wikify} tag should only be used if it needs more wikilinks; if it's been linked but still needs other stuff, the {cleanup} tag would be more relevant. I've added that to quite a few pages. And you've been editing for a while, so don't feel that you need to wait for other people to make the call, unless you're really unsure if it meets the guidelines at

Whatever it says in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify - it's just common sense, if the article is an eye sore it should remain on the wikify list so editors like you and me can come back to it later to clean it some more.

To bring the backlog down from 23,000 to 21,000 isn't really helpful if even a fifth of them are in such a way that readers won't bother reading it. Defeats the purpose, doesn't it? Someone went through a lot of work going through the articles to see which ones need fixing up. I don't really like using the clean up list or any other list, the wikify list is my workhorse.

I talked with people and they do say it's okay for me - and you to remove the tags if you think it looks okay. But before you remove the tag, sit back and look at it first if it looks readable. I get the impression in your contribs that you feel there's some kind of race to shrink the list. It's quality, not quantity. If you think it looks good, go for it. If it still looks bad and you can't do any more, that's okay. Just leave the tag there and come back to it another day. There's no rules, just common sense.

One suggestion might be to go back to your earliest contribs and revisit articles you've worked. Slightsmile (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I was sent another message just after yours, so I missed this one. Thanks for alerting me to the wider aims of the wikifying project, it's certainly given me more to think about. Markiewp (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markiewp, while it's admirable to see a new user such as yourself go out of their way to Wikify articles that have been tagged for Wikification, not every word needs to be linked internally, only the important topics need an internal link. See

4:17pm • 06:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, that takes a bit of the pressure off actually; I'd been criticised for underlinking, so perhaps had gone too far the other way. Best wishes, Markiewp (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, it happens to all of us. We all make mistakes when we're new but as we learn we grow in experience :). —

10:02am • 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Dear Markiewp, you left a message for me in August, which I had not seen until today. You asked for help in expanding and referencing the article Vilson Ahmeti. I am happy to help. What, specifically, would you like help with? Unfortunately, I can't understand Albanian, which will be a stumbling block in finding reputable sources about this man. In the mean time, I see that there are a number of results on Google Book search for his name: [1]. There are also some results on Google Scholar: [2]. --Oldak Quill 14:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was at the time working on articles which had no references. You created the article, although it was about six years ago, I thought you might know more about him or be able to reference it. I'm not working on that project anymore, but if you have anything, particularly references, that you can add to it, then please do, but if he's someone you don't really know about, then don't worry, I'm sure it'll become referenced eventually. Thanks, Markiewp (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See here Please retain the categories for navigation. It's also nice to add {{r from album}} and to change the talk page to include {{WikiProject Albums|class=redirect}}. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Proposed deletion of Louis O'Donovan

The article Louis O'Donovan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable. I can find no other books of his, so I doubt he was a notable academic or author.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. MarkiSepticPie 05:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Markiewp. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]