Gdfusion

Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

• Main Introduction — What is Wikipedia?
• The Five Pillars — What are the principles behind Wikipedia?
• Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers — A good starting point.
• Quick Introductions to:

• Policies and guidelines — How does Wikipedia actually work?
• Talk pages — How do I communicate in Wikipedia?
• Referencing — How do I add sources to articles?
• Uploading images — How do I add and use images?
• Navigating Wikipedia — How do I find my way around?

• What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the many help pages.

• Google: Wikipedia is very well indexed by Google. Searching for a term, even about an editing question, followed by "wiki" or "wikipedia" usually pulls up what you need.

• Check out Help:Watching pages. Your own Watchlist can become your favorite place to visit.
• If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
• If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
• If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
• For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page or the Wikipedia:Teahouse page could be your next stop!

• Help:Starting editing

Good luck and happy editing.```Buster Seven Talk 17:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Mina Bissell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tissue and Microenvironment

International Violin Competition of Indianapolis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to David Kim

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Current events/2014 June 26 99.119.129.219 (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

No problem! You're welcome! --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 04:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

You should know you're being thanked by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Oops! Well, anyways, it was just a harmless edit, in case you were wondering. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 14:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gdfusion, please see my note at Requests for Permissions. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:19, 18 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm sorry to have lost your vote, and am concerned that it may be because of the way that what I've said has been interpreted by others in their responses, more than my own statements. I believe I'm being misunderstood, largely over the meaning of "extreme". Everything that has been said in response by the participants is consistent with my understanding of the process, including the fact that deletions are routine and necessary. I have no problem understanding, and agreeing with, the CSDs, and believe I could handle them properly. The AfDs deal with somewhat grayer decisions and, as I said, I don't intend to work there – it doesn't really interest me, and I believe my talents are better used elsewhere. (Posted here instead of at the RfA because whatever I write there now is being viewed in the wrong light by some participants.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining this to me. I think I understand your perspective better now, so I re-!voted for you. Good luck! --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 21:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hi. Thank you for your help with the vital work of patrolling new pages. I noticed that you are not marking some of the pages you've reviewed as patrolled. Please do remember to click the 'mark this page as patrolled' link at the bottom of the new page if you have performed the standard patrolling tasks. Where appropriate, doing so saves time and work by informing fellow patrollers of your review of the page, so that they do not duplicate efforts. Thanks again for volunteering your time at the new pages patrol project. —Ascii002 (Talk • Contribs • Sign my Guestbook) 16:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message. I will mark pages as patrolled henceforth. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 16:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry to create trouble with the cut-and-paste move. I tried moving it several times from my user sub-page, where it was started, leaving a trail of attempts in the process. Anyhow, I do feel there needs to be a page on the subject, or a section in a larger article. I won't touch it until the history is merged, unless I can do something to help. Martino3 (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Don't worry about it! It's an easy mistake to make, and it's absolutely fine; an admin will simply merge the page histories. We value your contributions: keep it up! Feel free to keep editing the article, if you want. Do remember to add references though :) --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 02:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I moved this w/o a redirect, from Caleb Woods, as a harmless newbie's user page. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Hi, I can see why you interpreted it as a user page, but the page seemed like a test of the main namespace to me, given that the user had already put a link to the page on another main namespace article. I'm sorry that I came across as too harsh and offensive though! I think I'm going to stay away from the new pages patrol, at least for a while, because it's hard to tag articles for deletion without being discouraging. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited New York City Department of Health and Hospitals Police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page York College. 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) 09:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the barnstar you have given to me! I feel deeply inspired. As you see, I always make minor edits, and do not talk much, because I'm not so fluent in English. I hope I can do better in the future. All the best--Harold J. Huang (talk) 11:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Keep up the good work! I say you're very good at English, and you make significant contributions. Happy editing, --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Rexweiner1 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Rexweiner1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I would like a re-review regarding the article submitted on the Todos Santos Writers Workshop. The "copyrighted material" from the workshop's website is not clearly delineated. Also, I am the writer of the Todos Santos Writers Workshop website, so I am giving myself permission to use whatever is necessary to accurately describe the workshop. Please advise! Thanks. Rex Weiner

Rexweiner1 (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Hey, @Rexweiner1:, thanks for submitting to AfC! Since you hold the copyright to this text, it should be no problem to get your draft back and have it re-reviewed. However, there are just a few technical things we'll have to do before reviving the draft.
  • The first thing to note is, "Most websites (and other sources) are automatically protected by copyright under rules such as the Berne Convention, even if the author did not apply for copyright or place a copyright notice in their work" (from Wikipedia:Copy-paste). So copyright is automatically assigned, whether it is explicitly specified or not.
  • In order to be able to use your text on Wikipedia, you must release your text under a license that is compatible with Wikipedia; please see WP:DONATETEXT for more info. The most simple way to do this is to put a note on the website that specifies the license you're releasing the work under. If you want to do another method, or need help with anything, you can always leave me another message.
  • After it's confirmed that the text has been released, you or I (or both) will contact the sysop who deleted the draft; he or she will most likely un-delete the draft for us and then we'll be all set. If we don't get a response from the sysop, that will be fine; we can list it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion (it's a little messy, but it'll still work).
• Thanks for contacting me. If you have any questions or updates, please leave me another message. --gdfusion (talk|contrib) 15:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heba Abed, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (  or  ) 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 08:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

@NickGibson3900: Thanks for the reminder, but I have been doing this for a while and know how to sign posts; I just made a mistake in not signing my post on that page. —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 08:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, it probably shouldn't of been a formal template. NickGibson3900 ^{Talk Sign my Guestbook Contributions} 08:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hadi.anani (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC) Hi. Thanks for your message. The problem was that when googling my article, "The fifteen whispered prayers (Munajat)", the empty pages with only a title were appearing and make it difficult for those who want find my article on the internet to reach it immediately.Reply

best Hadi

Thank you Gdfusion for reviewing our submission.

I am however again miffed as to why after placing far more contextual linkages you have sited lack of references as being one of the reasons why you have declined to approve the page.

We are in the Australian Library's National Political Archive, are referenced on Yahoo!7 Australia...what else is needed?

This is a legitimate submission for a super site that like PrivateEye provides the world with leading political satirical coverage.

Please further explain.

Cheers,

Alisdair

PoliticalSatire (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for contacting me. Having references means citing sources in a way that is verifiable. Just saying "Australian National Archive" as your only citation isn't enough; you need to cite an actual publication that proves you are in the Australian National Archive. When you say that FridayMash is on Yahoo!7 Australia, you should use one of those <ref> tags and link to your actual coverage. In addition, all material that can be challenged should be supported with a citation, and ideally you should cite a broad range of reliable sources to establish notability. If you have further questions, you can, of course, ask here again, but you might get better help if you ask at the Articles for Creation help desk or on the irc channel. (If you want another reviewer to assess your submission, you can always resubmit too). —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 18:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Liquidspice (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Hi gdfusion ,Reply

Thank you for the constructive remarks and guidelines! as you suggested, I changed the text and its tone. in addition, i added relevant references and cites. Most references are in Hebrew, though kagan's activity in the field of standards during the last decade is international, and that is why i believe it is important to be on wikipedia.

I also got this error massage: "Error: #time only supports years from 0". what causes this error?

A link to the article in my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liquidspice/sandbox

thank you!

Hi Liquidspice, I see that the article has improved a lot. I fixed the timestamp (something changed it to zero for some reason).

In terms of the content, I'm going to defer to another reviewer at this point because I can't read Hebrew, but I have some suggestions. Biographies of living persons are held to very high standards of referencing. Anything that can be doubted needs a citation, including all of his personal info. Also, do you realize that your wikitable is not very standard? Usually Wikipedians use infoboxes. In the intro, usually Wikipedia articles avoid having quotes because the intro is supposed to be a neutral summary of the matter, so a quote might take away from Wikipedia's tone. That's all. Thanks for contacting me! —gdfusion (talk|contrib) 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello Gdfusion. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).Reply

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Jojo sucht das Glück, from its old location at User:Gdfusion/sandbox/Jojo sucht das Glück. This is because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Jojo sucht das Glück, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Gdfusion. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Jojo sucht das Glück".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 09:16, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello: if you are receiving this, you have transcluded Example (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed_suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE), I have created a Usercheck with more content, that I plan to update with more when I come across it, as of right now Usercheck-Super has only three more things than Usercheck-full, but as mentioned, I plan to update it, the three things I mentioned are pending changes log, giving all of the revisions you have accepted or rejected, Abuse filter, which gives you the ability to examine your edits, and get many details about an edit, along with Articles created, which links to a page which gives a breakdown of all the pages you have made. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply