User talk:SAHBfan

Talkback[edit]

Hello, SAHBfan. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Help desk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replies have been made at the help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{resolved}} ~~~~ at the top of the section. Thank you, Zoo Fari 21:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slade[edit]

Hello. I know from the article's discussion page, that you have made several sensible suugestions about trying to improve the Wiki article. After months of bleating myself about the lack of references etc., I am finally getting round to trying to upgrade it. Would you be interested in helping me ? No offence if it is no longer a priority in your life. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 21:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Derek,

Yep, I am keen to help... but as is the way of these things life has a habit of getting in the way.

I am also a 'nube' and novice with wikipedia, which doesn't help... but certainly I would love to see the Slade article licked into shape and I am willing to assist. SAHBfan (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fan of Mr Harvey (deceased)'s band,

I trust the article looks in better shape than it did when I started. I have been away for a few days, and returned to notice that someone had added their own viewpoint. I have reverted this, and sent him/her a sharp note about the importance of Wikipedia:Verifiabilty, Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I do not know how new to Wiki you are, but trust you have read these guidelines. Forgive me if you are already well acquainted. One thing you could do which would be a great help is - if you see someone adding unsourced text, opinionated fancruft, or twisting referenced statements to their own ends - to revert it on sight. In my long experience here, the more the blog/fansite/POV element is removed; and cited statements added; the better an article becomes. Almost instantly. Many thanks for your support - every little bit helps. Regards,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have been using wikipedia for a year or so? I had a bit of a baptism of fire by trying to write my first article about a rock group. It was immediately 'pounced on' and labelled with headers telling me it was inadequately referenced and lacked inline citations and so on (it was always referenced, from the very first version). Fairly early on it was flagged for deletion. All this whilst I was trying to lick it into shape and learn what I was doing. I had to spend a lot of time trying to understand the deletion proceedure and fight my case (time I would have preferred to spend refining the article). Consequently I am fairly well versed in Wikipedia:Verifiabilty, Wikipedia:Citing sources. To some extent my article probably can be justly criticised for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but wikipedia is full of articles about groups that are 100% fancruft and have no references whatsoever. Some of these have been up for years and never attracted a single banner or comment - so yes, I did feel a little victimised ^_^. I believe there is a rule about not biting noobies, but savaging their first article seems to be fair game! ;-) I kind of got the impression that there are maybe 'cultural' do's and don'ts on wikipedia that aren't spelled out in the rules. I suspect I trod on a few feet, or something. I was intending to write several articles to correct what I see to be a big omission in one area of music representation on wikipeia, but decided after my initial experience it was just far too much hassle to attempt to write another article, so since then I have instead limited myself to comments in the discussion pages. SAHBfan (talk) 08:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorry for you if that was your first experience. "First impressions are lasting impressions, they say". (The Impressions, 1975, UK #16 - sorry). However, I think you have been a little unlucky, and you should not let it unduly influence your future efforts. I reckon you might have been a little ambitious, trying to write new articles as a 'nube'. Perhaps a few simple edits of existing articles may have let you find your feet. However, far be it from me to dampen enthusiasm. Please do not give up.

You are right to point out that there many - too bloody many - awful POV ridden articles on Wiki. However two wrongs don't make a right. There is nothing to stop you flagging articles that you find, which are way below standard. Or try improving them. Back to Slade; and I can see no reason why, at least some of the quotations that you have found citations for, can not be included. Definitely better than the unsourced stuff that was there before. A question of balance though - remember NPOV - therefore not too many glowing tributes, and perhaps a negative comment to give some counterbalance. It is also worth taking a small step back and remembering that Wiki is an encyclopedia. Frankly, I would not expect to find many quotations from others, about any article's topic matter in such a publication. Part of the problem is that some editors think they are writing for the NME or some such, rather than Encyclopedia Britannica. If you catch my drift.

Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rufus "Speedy" Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rufus Jones. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]