I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question.
It is highly recommend that you place this text: {{EducationalAssignment}} on the discussion page of any articles you are working on as part of your Wikipedia-related course assignment. This will let other editors know this article is a subject of an educational assignment and should be treated accordingly.
We hope you like it here and encourage you to stay even after your assignment is finished!
Just letting you know that trivia sections are usually discouraged in articles. Take a look at WP:Trivia for more details. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia; good job editing so far, you may want to take a look at the trivia guideline above and try to reformat your previous edits in a way they will be more acceptable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Deviant subculture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a formal definition and cited a source. We are currently doing preliminary research on the subject. Rgg6 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ragini, thanks for the reminder, I was going to post on his talk page anyway. I changed a bit on the outline between Post 1914 and Coldwar, but nothing big. Hope all is well and maybe we can meet as a group on Sunday night. Have a good weekend!
Kmm131 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I fully understand what you mean. It is expected that the lead should summarize the article (see WP:LEAD); as such it is ok for lead to be somewhat repetitive with regards to other sections of the article. That said, leads should not be very long nor very detailed compared to the rest of the article (lead should be about three medium sized paragraphs). I expect that as article matures, you all will work on the lead; it should not be assigned to just one person (as it would be unfair considering that writing a lead is usually much less work than writing the main article sections). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added dates taken to group sections on our assignment wiki page. Please modify your date choosing one of the free ones there. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Rgg, just thought I should let you know that some of your recent edits at First World were reverted because they lacked sources. There's a message at the article page about this. If you want, you can retrieve your edits from the article history, but without sources they risk being deleted again. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, some people either don't read the talk page or choose to follow policy instead of giving leeway to students new to Wikipedia. Technically, neither you nor they are right - you should have sources, and they should tag the problems instead of simply reverting - but life is easier for people when they don't follow policy strictly. The reason many other articles are unsourced is simply because either no one has noticed, or they've noticed and tagged the problem but for one reason or another aren't willing/able to fix it themselves. Anyways, if you like I can explain how to retrieve your edits from the article history, but the only way to guarantee that they won't be removed is to make them well-sourced and policy-compliant (and if you revert the removal without addressing their concerns you might end up in an edit war). Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be dishearted with that. Check one of our guidelines: WP:BRD. Reverts happen often, and it is easy to retrieve content that got reverted, improve it and restore it. Hopefully the editor who reverted it will be willing to help with that. Feel free to ask me questions about it; do try to ask the editor who is reverting you why are they doing that and what can you do to improve the part that is being reverted so it won't be. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link me and cite the policy that requires footnotes from the same source to be only at the end of the last sentence? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Those are good policies for regular papers and such, but Wikipedia:Footnotes are somewhat different. Preferably, unless the sentence is very obvious ("Earth is round", etc.) you should add a reference to each sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Wikis being wiki, somebody can edit your paragraphs later and insert information sourced to different sources (or unsourced) in the middle of them. Similarly, a paragraph with only one ref at the end can be assumed to have only one sentence referenced (the last one), and the other content can be seen as added by somebody else, and unreferenced (unless the reader bothers analyzing article's edit history to figure out if that is the case). Thus it is important to be able to know which parts of a paragraph are referenced, and which are not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm not sure what you are referring too. I didn't to the "Current Relations" section. I'm doing Globalization and Pros/Cons. JFA7 (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was not me. That is not my section. I'm pretty that is either Jessica or Melissa. JFA7 (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ragini - Do you know how I should properly format my citations in Globalization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFA7 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on the ICANN citation - thanks for bringing it to my attention. Hyperlinks (and citations in general) and I don't really get along, but rest assured that I'm trying to sort it out. If I absolutely can't, I'll be sure to ask Piotr or someone else in the Wiki community. Thanks, Jsf26 (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)+[reply]
Hey, I was trying to fix variations of defintions and the article is all to the left! I need to go to class soon, so I can try to fix it later, or if you are on now and could do it that would be great! Sorry!
Kmm131 (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section was removed by Kmm131 prior to my edits; the diff of that edit can be found here. You won't be able to undo that edit because of subsequent additions; however, you can restore the material by copying from that diff and pasting into the appropriate section. Do you want to do this yourself, or should I? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one has better copyright status, but please note that it is still an unreferenced map. Also, you need to consider what to do with the table that was added based on the first map, and is now unreferenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rgg6, thanks for your question on my userpage. I'm sorry if I baffled you with jargan. The blue words are linked ("wikilinked") to other wikipedia articles.
This paragraph for instance is way over the top; and it was by no means the worst one:
"The relationship between the First World and the Third World is characterized by the very definition of the Third World. Because countries of the Third World were noncommittal and non-aligned with both the First World and the Second World, they were targets for recruitment. In the quest for expanding their sphere of influence, the United States (core of the First World) tried to establish democracy and capitalism in the Third World. In addition, because the Soviet Union (core of the Second World) also wanted to expand, the Third World often became a site for proxy wars. The Domino TheorySome examples include Vietnam and Korea. Success lay with the First World if at the end of the War the country became capitalistic and democratic, and with the Second World if the country became communist. Both Korea and Vietnam became communist."
What value does three links in the same paragraph to Third World provide? Presummably you wish to imply that the memory span of a reader is one sentence long, has forgotton what the word means and so has to be reminded in the next sentence, and the one after that, and the one after that.
As they have now been removed, you probably have a GA. Pyrotec (talk) 08:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should still monitor it in case other editors post comments that need to be addressed. However, most of your job is indeed done by now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rgg6, Please note: There is a set of comments on the article's talk page, at Talk:First World#Globalize, that needs to be addressed. I also failed to spot that the first sentence in Globalization, i.e. "The United Nations's ESCWA has written that globalization "is a widely-used term that can be defined in a number of different ways.", is a direct quoation, so it needs an in-line citation. Pyrotec (talk)
First World has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:05, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
