User talk:Jetson9207
Welcome!
|
February 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Schreiber, Ontario has been reverted.
Your edit here to Schreiber, Ontario was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://rubyksmith05.wordpress.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Help me!
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...finding a way of presenting my collected material. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and its requirements. I wanted to provide more history for some small Northern Ontario towns. I have been researching and collecting news articles that reference each town in some fashion. I had started a new category for my collection of news articles in the wiki pages Schreiber Ontario and Jackfish Ontario. The category was titled "News Articles that contain the name Schreiber(or Jackfish) Ontario" and quite simply that was the criteria for the content placed under this category. I identified the date of the article, the newspaper from which it came, provided a brief description of the article and used the provided Google Newspaper Archive link builder to produce a link which I inserted. I have more material waiting in the wings for the wiki pages of other small Northern Ontario towns. For my research I have basically gone back to 1885 which marked the building of the transcontinental railroad, and the formation of these towns, and continued searching newspapers to present day. The news articles are not earth-shaking but the items and the manner in which they are written are reflective of their times. These news articles also provide further insight into local town life. The events printed in these articles could in some cases be considered as mundane but no matter it is still part of the history of that town and in that case, to me, is worth capturing and presenting. I had also hoped that these news pieces could assist other contributors in their writings and may be used as source material. My created category and the included news articles have been reverted. As I mentioned, I am new to this and am uncertain as to why they have been removed and what is required to have them included again if possible. Knowing the time and effort that went into collecting this reverted material, I have to ask before I do any further gathering of more news material, could you advise if there is any accepted means in Wikipedia pages for the packaging of my news item material? Thank you for your patience. Jetson9207 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Jetson9207
- The best I may be able to say is to visit your welcome links above to familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works, I also noticed some links were removed because they were a too large amount. If you need help with anything else, please ask. SwisterTwister talk 04:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Help me!
| This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...
In the Schreiber Ontario wiki page I had created a section titled "List of news items referencing Schreiber Ontario". This section consisted of a collection of short local news items from the past. I attempted to include the name of the news publication or website, the published date, a short description of the article and an external link. A recent edit by an editor has resulted in this section being removed. I am fairly new as a contributor. In order to align myself with Wiki standards, I require teaching. Can it please be explained to me why this section was removed? Does this collection of news articles merit inclusion? If so, what changes are necessary to permit this section of news items of local history? Could an example of these necessary changes be demonstrated? Thank you.
Jetson9207 (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC) Jetson9207
- Hello! Here on Wikipedia, we have a policy outlining what Wikipedia is not. In your case, the relevant section is WP:NOTREPOSITORY: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. In brief, this means that you should not create a long list of links to outside Wikipedia. While you may think such lists help people find information, they can negatively impact readability and overshadow the article itself. Instead, you should write about the subjects of the link (if they are notable), and use the external links as citations. You can read the full external links policy at WP:External links. Happy editing! AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Jetson9207, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Canadian Rail Operating Rules has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
- Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, Jetson9207. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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)
Linking countries
Please stop linking countries, such as United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and others. We do not link major geographical features such as countries. See WP:OVERLINK. Akld guy (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Listing of train accidents
I appreciate that you're new to Wikipedia and that you have an interest in adding train accidents to the lists. Unfortunately, many of your additions have had to be removed because they are non-notable incidents. When thinking of adding a train accident, ask yourself these things:
- Did the accident cause injuries and deaths?
- If it didn't, did it cause a major disruption to the network? Examples might be where a train crashes through the end buffers at a station and causes a lot of wreckage, or where it brings down overhead wires or gantries causing the network to close for repairs.
- Did it impact a lot of peoples' lives in some way?
Those are the unwritten rules for adding incidents. Non-notable incidents such as the derailing of freight trains should not be included. Non-injury passenger services shouldn't be included unless there is some outstanding feature, such as the first incident on a newly introduced set of rolling stock, or the incident leading directly to the finding of some flaw in the system or the adoption of some new safety feature or procedure. Use your discretion on these sorts of things. Please don't add routine incidents that happen every day around the world. Akld guy (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Jetson9207. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Deletion
Greetings. Thank you for taking the time to read this message. I do not consider myself as a long-term member of Wikipedia nor am I familiar with all the protocols and processes. I simply wanted to write and share my experiences. I am a contributor to the page Siding (Rail). I am in Canada. I worked for one of the railroads for my entire career. I felt that I could add a regional piece that would highlight the problems and resolutions encountered behind the scenes during different parts of my career. I tried to put these memories on Wikipedia. I tried to supply supporting sources. The sources that I referenced were documents issued by the railroad to its employees. These documents were not published for public consumption. The problems and processes related were accurate. Recently an editor has examined this page. This person has removed large portions of my writing commenting that it is "irrelevant" or "utterly irrelevant", has stated that my descriptions are too detailed and that there is a lack of proper sources. I will admit it did hurt for these parts to be referred to as irrelevant but apparently, that is an acceptable Wikipedia term? Detail on the railroad is very important. It is engrained in us, from our jobs, to ask questions and ensure that all parties have a clear understanding of an action in order to prevent accident or injury. I still ask for detail and I write with detail. If that is a fault, then I am guilty. I also cannot provide further sourcing as the documents I used in my job were not available from a retail source. So with all these deficiencies in mind, I felt it best to remove my entire contributions from the page Siding (Rail) and end any controversy. Even there I appear to be running into roadblocks. Can you assist me in that regard? Thank you. Jetson9207 Jetson9207 (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- I will take a look. I may not have time today, but I should have a response for you by tomorrow. SilkTork (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I've taken a look. Essentially this is about deciding how much and what sort of information to include in an article on Wikipedia. This is an area that even experienced Wikipedians sometimes find difficult to judge, and we occasionally need to arrive at a consensus through discussion and trial and error. See Wikipedia:Out of scope, WP:OFFTOPIC, Wikipedia:Article size, and Wikipedia:Splitting for some thoughts on material, detail, and focus in an article.
- I note from your requests above that you have had a particular difficulty since starting on Wikipedia in judging the right amount of material, detail, and focus. It is not uncommon for new users to have a difficulty in some aspect of editing Wikipedia. I'm prepared to give you some help, and guide you in the right direction. However, the bulk of the work has to come from you. I can point you in the right direction, but it is up to you to read the guidelines and understand them. If you are unable to make the connections yourself between the guidelines and what you have been doing, then - even with my assistance - you may continue to find editing Wikipedia problematic.
- I note that the Siding (rail) article before you began editing it looked like this: Siding (rail) June 2015; after you had edited it for a couple of years it looked like this: Siding (rail) Feb 2017. The section you have been editing is a subsection on a passing siding (or passing loop). That section has a link to the main article, which is: Passing loop.
- Now, when an article on a topic is being written, and the article starts to get quite long because some of the sections are quite detailed, we split off some of the material into a sub-article, and leave behind a summary. See Wikipedia:Summary style.
- What I want you to do now, is read through carefully what I have just said, read carefully the guidelines I have linked for you - in particular Wikipedia:Summary style. Then look at Siding (rail) Feb 2017 and Passing loop, and tell me your thoughts on the amount of material in those articles. We can look at detail and focus later - for now I just want you to compare the sizes of the "Passing siding" section in Siding (rail) Feb 2017 and the whole of Passing loop.
- You can reply here as I have this page watchlisted. SilkTork (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for both a quick and very well-reasoned reply. I appreciate, and have visited, the links you had included. I intend to revisit those links again tomorrow along with doing a reread of my scribblings.
I have been evaluating today and will do so again tomorrow. I will reply the day after tomorrow. Thanks again for your advice. Jetson9207 Jetson9207 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
- Good morning, I beleive that I may have broken, or at least bent, several writing rules. I have looked at Passing Loop. Visually it is quite different from my portion of Siding(Rail). I can see the appeal to readers in the short defined sections equipped with titles as opposed to my seemingly endless parade of paragraphs. I kick myself for not titling and separating my article. It is a simple basic rule that I ignored. As directed I have also read the Summary Style and the other links. I will be rereading those again. I already have questions. I will request some clarity regarding th Summary Style article. Is it possible you could direct me to a page that features an example of "The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." That same paragraph states that "Templates are available to link to subtopics and to tag synchronization problems between a summary section and the article it summarizes" but it fails to state where such templates are located. I have also noted in Passing Loop that they suffer from the same lack of listed references as I have encountered. While I found the content of Passing Loop to be interesting, I also found it to be short on detail. One example would be the staement found in Short Loops that says “Long and short trains can cross at a short loop if the long train arrives second but leaves first.” My question is, Does it matter if the long train arrives first or second? Is not all further movement dependent upon the long train leaving first? If that is not the case then that detail should be explained. Also, in Short Loops, the statement is made “It is best if all crossing loops are longer than the longest train.” Is this not an obvious statement? But I digress.
- That is not the issue here. I have to come up with a resolution of my article and its deficiencies. First off, again I wish to thank you for your advice. I have done much thinking in the past two days. One thing that I would like to do is to remove all my writing from Siding (Rail) including the History section. Is that possible? After that, I am considering a fresh start. I am thinking that I will develop a new page and portions of my Sidin(Rail) writing will be included in this new venture. I look forward to your reply and guidance. I see there is an option to "email this user". Would you be willing to use that format rather than this forum? I had already received a generated message in my email inbox regarding your last reply so I know that works. Thanks again. Jetson9207 (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Examples of summary style can be found each time you read a section in an article that has a link under the subtitle to the subarticle using the {{main}} template (which shows as "Main article: Example"). If you look at Brewing and scan down to the sections, such as Brewing#History, you'll see a paragraph or two on the topic, and if you click on the link, a fuller article: History of beer; or look at Rail transport, and see sections such as Rail_transport#History which link to History of rail transport. This being Wikipedia, which is a work in progress done by people with varying skills, knowledge, and time, some examples of summary style will be better than others, but I think you should grasp the principle.
The main templates that the Summary style guideline talks about are listed at Wikipedia:Summary_style#Templates. (Bearing your comment in mind I have now linked to the templates in the lead of Wikipedia:Summary_style to make it easier to find them).
I can see that you are aware there are differences between Siding (rail) Feb 2017 and Passing loop, though I am not clear if you have understood the reason I wanted you to look at the two in relation to Wikipedia:Summary_style. Before you do any more work on Wikipedia there is still stuff you need to learn, otherwise you will be wasting your time and the time of others who will need to clean up what you have done. Bearing in mind the point of Wikipedia:Summary_style (that when an article starts to get too big in one or more sections, and there is too much detail, then we create another (child) article in which to hold the detail, and provide a short summary in the parent article, with a link to the new, more detailed, child article), when you look at Passing loop compared to Siding (rail) Feb 2017, what do you immediately notice in terms of amount of detail in Passing loop compared to Siding (rail) Feb 2017?
It is more appropriate to have the discussion here rather than by email. This is a record of what we have said that others can refer to. This is useful if you continue to have problems with article writing, so that it can be seen that you have had some guidance. Be aware that we sometimes prevent people from editing Wikipedia if despite help and guidance they continually cause problems. See Wikipedia:Competence is required.
I am not clear what you mean by "I will develop a new page..." but please do not create any new pages in mainspace until you understand the issues here, and have a clearer grasp of what should and should not go into a Wikipedia article. It would be best not to do any more article editing for the time being. If you are unsure of any term used, such as "mainspace", Wikipedia has a useful search function. If you put "WP:" in front of a Wikipedia term that you are not sure of in the searchbox, you will usually be taken to an article explaining that term - for example: WP:Mainspace.
"remove all my writing from Siding (Rail) including the History section". Either I or you can remove your content from Siding (rail) and restore it to pretty much how it was before you started editing. However, we keep a record in History of all that has happened on the article - this is an essential aspect of our record keeping. We do sometimes remove edits from History, but these tend to be for legal or technical reasons - see Wikipedia:Revision deletion. So, I can revert Siding (rail)#Passing siding back to how it was before you started editing, but the revisions will still be in History. I will do that now. Meanwhile, please answer: what do you immediately notice in terms of amount of detail in Passing loop compared to Siding (rail) Feb 2017? SilkTork (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply and your patience. Thank you for reverting Siding (Rail). Thank you for creating a link to Templates. Thank you for choosing Rail Transport, a topic of interest, as an example of sections and keeping articles down to size.
- Yes, I can plainly see that there is a major difference in the amount of detail between my article and that of Passing Loop. I repeat, a major difference. In Passing Loop, the author has created sections which, while supplying detail, do not overwhelm the reader with volume. The use of sections makes the piece visually appealing, more readable and certainly less intimidating than my long article. It also allows the author more flexibility in how the information is presented. This same technique of sectioning is very visible in Rail Transport. I hope this addresses your question.
- I wish to learn how to be a contributor of knowledge-based articles. I will hope that any concerns regarding my competence can be resolved. I will also not create any new pages nor make any edits. I have questions there also but will ask later. For future reference, am I able to attach documents to a Talk page? If so, how? My wish in joining Wikipedia was to create a Northern Ontario Canadian railway page starting with the building of railroad in 1885 and presenting the changes and challenges as it grew. Comments? Thank you very much for your help. Jetson9207 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- "a major difference in the amount of detail between my article and that of Passing Loop" Yes, that is what I wanted you to observe. That Passing Loop has sections is also important, but the main point was the amount of detail, as that is the main area of concern with your editing. Putting material in paragraphs and sections helps with readability, but even before we get to that we need to make sure you are aware of the difference between encyclopedic information and other forms of information. To check that you understand this, do you feel the information you put into Siding (rail) would be OK in Passing Loop if it was put into sections?
- "am I able to attach documents to a Talk page?" I'm not sure I understand your question. By "attach" do you mean link, as in THE CANADIAN NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY COMPANY? We can link to most websites on a talkpage, though we don't link to offensive or illegal websites. There are different rules when linking on an article or mainspace page. See Wikipedia:External links. For general advice on talk pages see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines , and for user pages (like this one), see Wikipedia:User pages.
- "My wish in joining Wikipedia was to create a Northern Ontario Canadian railway page". That should be possible via Wikipedia:Articles for creation. The two main barriers to having an article accepted are WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. To check if your topic would pass notability, consult these guidelines: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) and Wikipedia:Notability. To check if a source is reliable read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Places to get help and advice on your topic are Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada. To get advice on your sources you can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I know I'm giving you a lot of stuff to read, but that's how we do things on Wikipedia. We agree on how things should be done, and then write it down so people can consult it. By reading and following the guidelines we are all able to work together better. I am a very experienced Wikipedian, yet I still consult the guidelines myself. And even then, I can still make mistakes! Making mistakes is not a problem, as long as we learn from them and don't repeat them. SilkTork (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, comments, and links. I have been reading some of the linked material and will over the next two or three days be reading the others. There is much to absorb....and there may be questions. Your statement above states that there is encyclopedic information and then other information. I was always under the impression that the encyclopedia was the ultimate destination. Merriam-Webster suggests synonyms for "encyclopedic" as being "...all-embracing, all-inclusive, broad-gauge (or broad-gauged), compendious, complete, comprehensive, cyclopedic, exhaustive, full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, thorough, and universal". That was my goal with my writing - to create a thorough, in-depth, well-researched and detailed document worthy of Wikipedia acceptance. Is my article too in-depth? Jetson9207 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's it exactly, your writing is too in-depth. While an encylopedia in itself strives to be exhaustive, the individual entries in it are intended only to be a summary of the topic being discussed. You'd want a dictionary to include all words in a language, but you would not want each entry in that dictionary to be an exhaustive summary of every book and document in which that word has appeared - merely an example of the different uses, and the earliest appearance in print. The essential details to understand that word. And when we create an article on Wikipedia we summarise in two levels of depth - the Lead and then the Main body of the article. The Lead being a summary of the Main body. And if we want to deal with aspects of the topic in greater depth, then we create sub-articles. So we'll have an article on Europe which will mention the United Kingdom, and we'll have an article on the United Kingdom which will go into more detail, and which will mention England for which we'll have an article in which we'll mention London which will mention the West End of London which will mention Covent Garden which will mention Bedford Estate which will mention Russell Square. But we don't put details of Russell Square into the article on London, let alone in the articles on England, United Kingdom or Europe. We are selective with the details and where we put them. And when we write about Russell Square we don't write about every single building on Russell Square, though some of the sources we use may well do that. We select the most important and most interesting details from the sources we use. The idea is to give the reader a quick answer to the question - "What is Russell Square?" If the reader wants more detail they can go to the sources we have used to create that article. Our intention is not to write out word for word what the sources have put - we simply summarise in a few words the essential detail. SilkTork (talk) 23:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply, comments, and links. I have been reading some of the linked material and will over the next two or three days be reading the others. There is much to absorb....and there may be questions. Your statement above states that there is encyclopedic information and then other information. I was always under the impression that the encyclopedia was the ultimate destination. Merriam-Webster suggests synonyms for "encyclopedic" as being "...all-embracing, all-inclusive, broad-gauge (or broad-gauged), compendious, complete, comprehensive, cyclopedic, exhaustive, full, global, inclusive, in-depth, omnibus, panoramic, thorough, and universal". That was my goal with my writing - to create a thorough, in-depth, well-researched and detailed document worthy of Wikipedia acceptance. Is my article too in-depth? Jetson9207 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
I have been examining various pages in Wikipedia. Canadian Pacific Railway was interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Railway. The Canadian, which was the passenger train, was also of interest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_(train) They have divided their information into sections. Thanks again. Jetson9207 (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. First you find and gather your information. Then you select and organise it. And then you present it or lay it out. Sections help in organising and presenting the information - in laying it out. See WP:Layout for more information on how to lay out the information and how to use sections. SilkTork (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- When linking (as you have done above to Canadian Pacific Railway), we can either put down the bare url (the webpage address) without any Wikipedia markup or Wikitext (see Help:Wikitext), as you have done above, or you can use square brackets - these [] - to enclose the link, like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Railway], which shows as this: [1]. If you put a space in the link, you can put text after the space, like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Railway Canadian Pacific Railway], which shows as this: Canadian Pacific Railway. If you are linking to a Wikipedia page, then you use double square brackets - [[]] - and only use the page name - like this: [[Canadian Pacific Railway]], which shows as this: Canadian Pacific Railway. For more help see Help:Editing and Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. SilkTork (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
Break
Thank you for the reply and the articles to be read. It is quite a list and it grows as one article leads to another, etc. From your suggested reading, I beleive I can pass the notable inspection. I do wonder about meeting the reference requirements. In my siding article I have used the employee time table as a reference. The employee timetable is a railroad-produced printed document issued to all managers and employees on Canadian Pacifc. Employee timetables are specific to the different divisions within the railroad. If you are working in the Montreal district, you would have a Montreal district timetable. These documents contain very specific information used in the movement of trains and engines. Copies of these documents are also held by Transport Canada. One piece of information included in these documents would be siding length. The railroad does not deal in imprecision. The exact length of the siding would be indicated. If a siding is measured and is determined to be 8008 feet in length, then that is the pubished length and that length is what I have used in my article. Given that information, is not the employee timetable a document suitable to cite as a reference? Jetson9207 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I have given you links above about where to look and where to ask for the answer to that question. I'll repeat it here: " To check if a source is reliable read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Places to get help and advice on your topic are Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada. To get advice on your sources you can ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard." Also read: WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:PSTS. After looking at WP:PSTS you should be able to judge if your source is Primary, Secondary or Tertiary. That may help you with deciding how useful the source is in building an article.
- Separate from that is the main point I have been trying to assist you with in regard to encyclopedic detail. Let me ask you a question which may help you decide if putting that a siding is 8008 feet in length is an important encyclopedic detail in an encyclopedia article on Northern Ontario Canadian railway: Which piece of information is likely to be the least important in an encyclopedia article: a) Information which is widely available in a variety of sources b) Information which is mentioned in almost every source on the topic c) Information which is only available in one source which the general public never got to see?
- What editors on Wikipedia do is read through documents and books and various sources, then extract from those documents the information that is most used, and which briefly sums up the important details of the topic. This document on your topic is already at 16,000 words a bit too long. It gives us a tremendous amount of very detailed information, which an editor would condense into about 2 or 3,000 words. Does that mention the length of sidings? SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Much appreciate the section on linking. That will prove very useful. Is one method more accepted than another? Jetson9207 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- We link Wikipedia pages with [[]], and external websites with []. Sometimes we link to a Wikipedia page using [] when we want to create a permanent link to a previous version, but you don't need to know that right now, so just stick to using [[]] when linking to a Wikipedia page. SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I also like the tip on using colour as a tool. Jetson9207 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't suggesting you use colour. I was indicating that if you want to know how to do something (such as use colour, which is rarely done, and so is little known) you can click on the Edit button and look at the Wiki markup. SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
I came across an article titled Trains in Art. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trains_in_art#Artists_specialising_in_trains. Under the subsection "Artists specializing in trains", would David Oram http://www.davidaoram.com/Gallery.html from Canada be a candidate for inclusion here? Thanks again Jetson9207 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- Put that question into correct Wiki markup using the appropriate linking markup ([[]] or []) and I will answer it. SilkTork (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
My apologies. I should not be wasting your time asking if a link should be included in another page. I went to that page's history and saw the screen name of one who appears to be a major contributor. I would assume that I would be best to ask them as to who is an appropriate inclusion. I also noted on that page that a link is broken. I again assume that I should point this out also to that main contributor?
Are you satisied with the detail in the Wikipedia page Canadian (train)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_(train)
I am contemplating doing a page called "Schreiber Division". The Schreiber Divison was a 500 mile long stretch of territory in Ontario comprising part of the Candian Pacific Railway network. I wish to comment on all four subdivisions with in-depth comment on the two that align the north shore of Lake Superior. Which is the best manner to portray this? I see some sites use time segments and others, such as the "Canadian", use geogrpahical portions.
Thanks again for your advice.Jetson9207 (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- There's been no response for over a fortnight, so I am taking this off my watchlist. If you wish to continue the discussion please drop a note on my talkpage. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Jetson9207. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)