User talk:Avabkeating

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Avabkeating, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --do ncr am 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC) By the way I noticed your edit at List of female architects and followed to your contribution at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kostow Greenwood Architects (as it is named after I just moved/re-titled it). The architectural firm looks notable to me, too; too bad it was rejected once rather than fixed up and promoted. Do you mind if I try to help with that? And then Jane Greenwood (architect) could redirect to that article, perhaps, or to a section just about her within the article perhaps? Glad to see you contributing, keep up the good work! cheers, --do ncr am 22:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi doncram, thanks for your feedback and for your offer to help. I'm not sure if this is the correct way to talk to you. Would you help point me in the right direction?Avabkeating (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're doing fine! You did great, getting it to show your signature, even, in this kinda old-fashioned editing environment we have here. Yes, your replying here works to reach me, because I put this page on my "watchlist" and I will notice, usually, when there's been a change here. Also you are welcome to reach me at my own Talk page, at User talk:Doncram, especially if I haven't replied here and you want to call my attention back. Feel free to contact me. Also another helpful place is the "tea house" at Wikipedia:Teahouse where you can ask any questions and the people there are way more friendly than the average Wikipedian is... :)

Jane Greenwood, NYC architect[edit]

I also see, by clicking on your "user contributions" at the left here, that you have started a draft article about Jane Greenwood the NYC architect. That is a fine start, too. It's located within your personal userspace, so let me ask if I could help edit there? While the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kostow Greenwood Architects article is over in the Articles for Creation area and doesn't appear to belong to just one person (and I assume we are both welcome to edit there). cheers, --do ncr am 23:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I got your message at my Talk page, and I am choosing to reply here to keep the discussion together.

(Wikipedia's talk page system is antiquated, in terms of not keeping a threaded discussion together. Some editors prefer to keep a discussion going across two user talk pages; I and many others prefer to try to build a discussion in one place, the better to be able to refer to it later. There's also a "you have messages" type notice that some editors use, too.)

About User:Avabkeating/sandbox/Jane Greenwood, great, i will proceed and contribute to that article, and also to related Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kostow Greenwood Architects. You don't have to do anything to open up the Jane Greenwood one. I was just asking because it is located within your personal userspace for now, and sometimes editors prefer not to have others contributing to (or interfering with) their works-in-progress in their own area.

Also you mentioned "I am really struggling to fix the access dates for the references on that page. I have been following the style guides presented by Wikipedia, but have not been successful as of yet." Hey, don't stress out! It's hard to get everything to work right away. You can learn by osmosis from seeing examples in practice, and especially by seeing corrections/improvements/other follow-on edits by other editors. By the way I was happy to see that another editor used some tool (that I am not familiar with) to expand out some references that were just bare URLs, which is a help. I'm not going to bother to try to learn about that tool, though, I'll just hope for others to help me with that in future editing. I figure we can each only learn so much, better to let others do what they know how to do easily, and for me to specialize in whatever I do well (hmm, not sure what that is...). :)

Anyhow, I just made one edit at the Kostow Greenwood article towards figuring out what was going on. I changed the John Holusha New York Times reference from:

<ref>{{cite web|last=Holusha|first=John|title=For CNN, a View of the Park And an Eye to the World|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/business/commercial-real-estate-regional-markets-manhattan-for-cnn-view-park-eye-world.html|publisher=The New York Times|accessdate=February 11, 2004 }}</ref>

to

<ref name=holusha>{{cite web|last=Holusha|first=John|title=For CNN, a View of the Park And an Eye to the World|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/business/commercial-real-estate-regional-markets-manhattan-for-cnn-view-park-eye-world.html|publisher=The New York Times|date=February 11, 2004 |accessdate=2015-03-08}}</ref>

and that seemed to work.

The main thing was to use "date" rather than "accessdate" to present the "February 11, 2004" date, which is apparently the publication date of the source. It then appears fine. What the "accessdate" is intended for, is to allow an editor to indicate when they accessed a source online, keeping in mind that online sources might disappear or be changed. For some reason, I don't know why, the formatting allowed for dates in the "accessdate" field is less flexible, and "March 8, 2015" would generate a red error-type message, while "2015-03-08" is accepted. I have just learned that by observation and just abide by it, without trying to figure out why it is the way it is. Also I "named" the reference as "holusha" so that it can be used again elsewhere in the article, by simply <ref name=holusha/>. Hope this helps. Happy to keep chatting about general editing tricks here and/or at my Talk page.

Maybe you and i and others can chat about content of the firm article, and how it needs to be developed, at its talk page, too. The talk page will always stay with the article, so it's good to keep discussion specifically about the topic of the article, there. Cheers, --do ncr am 18:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops, the Articles For Creation-based draft for the firm could not accommodate a Talk page. The draft was started in 2013. Sometime in 2014 the "Draftspace" area of Wikipedia was created, which works better, and it does allow for a Talk page. A draft page there can still be covered by the Articles For Creation editor group. So anyhow I moved the firm article to Draft:Kostow Greenwood Architects. Discussion about the article at Draft talk:Kostow Greenwood Architects. --do ncr am 19:05, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where I should be adding this: I noticed you kept improving the firm article and that you must have "submitted" it because it is now in queue for AFC review. The article is a lot better written now: organized and supported. My guess is that it will now be accepted and moved to mainspace. But, I hope you won't be too disappointed if editors in mainspace object and put it up for deletion in a wp:AFD. Everything is always vulnerable to that. And, as it stands, the article is pretty much "promotiona" and doesn't show anything critical, and some editors can think it doesn't establish Wikipedia notability. That might or might not come up, just trying to let you know. Also, since your contributions show a singular focus on these architects and their firm, i tend to think you have some association with the firm, which is okay. I just suggest you read and consider wp:COI guideline, which pretty much says it's okay for someone having a conflict of interest on a topic to edit the article on that topic, but if disagreements come up and they want to stay involved then they have some obligation to disclose their COI and to defer somewhat to non-COI editors. Otherwise in Wikipedia you don't have to reveal anything personal, and one can always choose not to edit in areas where you have COI. Also, it's always okay for someone who has and discloses a COI for a topic, to post at the Talk page of the article, their suggestions/requests for changes to be made to the article. Hope this helps. I think that's what it says...you should read it if it's relevant. cheers, --do ncr am 18:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (March 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Avabkeating/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Avabkeating, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Onel5969 (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about including bio information about the two principals, at the firm article? I am not sure they need separate articles. I have started a bunch of articles about architects, but mostly historic ones, not having notability or "biography of living person" issues. And if the firm article is in mainspace, then Michael Kostow and Jane Greenwood can definitely be set up as redirects to the proper section in the firm's article. And the redirect for Jane Greenwood could be categorized with Category:American women architects, so her name wuold appear in that category, and so on. --do ncr am 00:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jane Greenwood (March 13)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability—see the guidelines on the notability of people and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.
What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Avabkeating/sandbox/Jane Greenwood and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Avabkeating. 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)[reply]