User talk:Ourhistory153
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
|
William H. Peck
I did some clean-up on your contributions to
Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
Sharing accounts
Each account must represent only one person, please see
This is just one person. Not sure what lead you to believe it wasn't. Please explain.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
External links
Please don't add external links to blogs. See
]January 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article
- Artesia appears too detailed to insert in the higher level article, Brevard County, Florida, which tends to be too long anyway. We are trying to rm detail, not add it. Quite appropriate for the Cape or a lower level article. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Viva Florida 500 WP
- This duplicates an existing Wikiproject, which is not a good idea. Why did you ignore the existence of talk) 13:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)]
- Note that Ourhistory153 created Viva Florida 500 in mainspace and user Zeng8r converted it into a project. -- Donald Albury 14:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Reference to Wikiproject in Timeline of Florida History
I reverted your edit to
Wouldn't it be better to be constructive than threaten?
Seriously and with all good will, please understand that we already have a wikiproject Florida. Yes, your posts should have been noticed earlier. But we shouldn't have two (or more) wikiprojects for the same state, we should be combining our efforst in the original one. Why can't the people you are working with support the main wikiproject? It's hard sometimes not to get personally involved in Wikipedia disputes, but I think what you are doing is great. But I'm sure you will get more support if you don't do it as a competing wikiproject (because that is what it is, no matter what your intentions are).
Threaten? What are you talking about? I'm talking about my level of involvement. For 5 months I've worked on this wiki project and we are off to a good start. If the work I put into this is negated, can it not seem reasonable that I will cut back on future work? Sorry but I rest my case. I'm working on publishing another book and this stuff is interfering with the little time I have available. Do what you all want to do and I will check back and see what happens and from there determine how much or how little my time is spent on Florida History articles at Wikipedia.--Ourhistory153 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sadly, it's all too common to run into editors who seem more concerned about their wiki-turf and/or their personal interpretations of minor wikipedia guidelines than in improving the quality and quantity of articles. It's only a small percentage, but it only takes a few; or even just one, if the user in question roams a narrow enough range of articles. That's why it's so difficult to get well-qualified experts to stick around - they're used to teaching and generally have no interest in playing wiki-politics.
- For what it's worth, I first noticed this project when Ourhistory153 accidentally started it in the main article space. I mentioned the possible overlap with WP Florida, but since he seemed sincere about trying to recruit experts in Florida history to Wikipedia and the Florida history articles on my watchlist had been dead in the water for years, I went ahead and helped move it over to the proper location. Still haven't seen many results, but it's not hurting anything, imo.
- As I mentioned at the deletion discussion, it wouldn't be a too difficult to merge the wikiproject if need be. However, it's annoying stuff like this that sours many potentially invaluable contributors on Wikipedia in general. Zeng8r (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. I didn't see this as a big thing. What I'd like to suggest has been suggested by someone else - keep this as a project but make it a subproject of Wikiproject Florida. Keep the current page but make it a redirect to the subproject. That way any links will still work, and the name is kept. I really think that is the best solution and shouldn't make any of the five months work lost in any way. I wish that this had been proposed earlier, particularly before any attempt to delete anything. talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)]
- Yes, I agree. I didn't see this as a big thing. What I'd like to suggest has been suggested by someone else - keep this as a project but make it a subproject of Wikiproject Florida. Keep the current page but make it a redirect to the subproject. That way any links will still work, and the name is kept. I really think that is the best solution and shouldn't make any of the five months work lost in any way. I wish that this had been proposed earlier, particularly before any attempt to delete anything.
Thanks Zeng8r, and it is just not me, "another relatively new and eager user soured on the project". I'm involved in a writer's group on LinkedIn and recently we had a thread where a writer wrote about their disappointment having their article removed for no reason at all. They vowed they would never come back despite my encouragement and direction. Others chimed in too with their poor experience with Wikipedia. I talked to historians and other historical writers about Wikipedia and they roll their eyes. Wikipedia needs to do something about their PR in this area' I'm certaintly curtailing my efforts here until the final outcome of my Wiki-friends of Viva Florida 500 WP is resolved. BTW when does that get decided? --Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Dougweller, that sounds like a reasonable solution. BTW What was deleted? that is premature isn't it. What will be deleted next of mine?--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Would these discussions be better placed on the project's talk page as it is populating my page with too much on this issue. see my recent
notes there--Ourhistory153 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
- yes. I don't think anything has been deleted. Two problems good faith editors can face are original research and notability. We want everything that might be challenged, etc to have reliable sources - have you read talk) 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)]
- I first became a registered user 4+ years ago when I noticed that both the History of Tampa and History of Ybor Citywere rather incomplete. As an eager amateur local historian, I set a goal to improve them both until they became featured articles.
- I first became a registered user 4+ years ago when I noticed that both the
- Then the wiki-lawyers arrived. Sure, my first contributions were a bit peacocky. But even after I got the feel for the dry writing style preferred (but not mandated in any policy that I've ever seen), the content debates began. The best part was that I was arguing with users who admitted that they had absolutely no knowledge of Tampa-area history, but they nonetheless insisted on butchering well-sourced text just because they could.
- Then the wiki-lawyers arrived. Sure, my first contributions were a bit
- After a couple months of this, I decided to stop wasting my time making substantial contributions here and focus on my even older goal of writing a concise history of Tampa. For the most part, I've kept to that, and my book is slowly coming along. Sorry to be cynical, but that's my experience. And, yes, I do feel better after having gotten all that off of my chest. :-) Zeng8r (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Manual of Style
I don't know if you have read our
Belated welcome
Hello Ourhistory153 :-). Belated welcome to Wikipedia!
I'm thrilled to see that you are working on adding content related to Florida, and in particular the 500th anniversary. I live in Saint Augustine, FL and plan to collaborate with St. Augustine 450 Commemoration (a 4 year initiative from 2012-2015). I'd like to communicate with you about the work you have done recruiting people to add content to Wikipedia. Currently, I'm at a Wikipedia DC GLAMcamp at the US National Archives working on an initiative to reach out to U.S. cultural organizations. Love to hear about any plans you have. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Hello, Ourhistory153. We
All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.
If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:
- Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
- Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
- Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
- Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.
Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see
External Links
External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. See
Invitation to WikiProject Hotels
Hello, Ourhistory153.
You are invited to join WikiProject Hotels, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of hotels, motels and lodging-related topics. |
---|
Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Ourhistory153! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC) ]
|
Time Line of Time Capsules
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
the guide to writing your first article.to help you create articles.You may want to consider using the Article Wizard
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
]June 2013
- I removed the template. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 21:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Cape Canaveral until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Cape Canaveral (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Ourhistory153. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Ourhistory153. Voting in the
The
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)