MDaisy

I happened to see your question about dates. Linked dates can be in several formats, for example:

• 17 March 2008 - European style
• March 17, 2008 - U.S. style
• 2008-03-17 - ISO 8601 style

By default, you will see them as they actually are in three different formats. If you click on "my preferences" at the top of the page, select "Date and Time" and choose a date format, then they will all look the same. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for the information concerning dates. I am an American so I was taught to put commas after full dates. For example: June 14, 1908, was the date President Joe Johnson established Flag Day. I understand European use of the English language could be slightly different in grammar usage. I have done some writing at wikiHow, learned there are differences, so this does not surprise me.

Also, I have a B.A. in English/Communications and approximately 10 years writing experience. I am trained in AP Stylebook writing too. So I have learned to ask questions because everyone has slightly different style.

Please keep in touch, because I KNOW I will be needing help.

thank you,

MDaisy MDaisy (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

How did I do working the Fijian people stub? Is this what you want?

thanks,

MDaisy (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)MDaisyReply

I have never dealt with this article and I'm not sure what you are asking. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the question - since the photo is from 1908 it should be free under a {{PD-US}} license (published before 1923). Since it is of US Navy sailors and was likely taken by a sailor, it may also be free under a {{tl|PD-USGov]} license as works of the US giovernment are not copyrighted. I would only use this license if you know for sure it was taken by a US sailor. Please ask if you have other questions - I left a welcome guide to Wikipedia above. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Glad to be of help. Please ask if you have other questions, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I did some copyedits on the Fijian people article and changed the first reference over to {{cite web}}. I think the material you added needs more references - for example Polynesian culture says that the direction of settlement was other than your additions imply. There also seems to be some potential for confusion between the historic Fijian peoples and modern ones. Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem, where on the page is this extra bracket you're talking about? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. The page was locked so I did not make any article edits. I did leave talk page comments though. My suggestions can be ignored as this is a wiki. I do believe the article would be improved if it covered the basics of who, what, why and where. The article is lacking some of the things I listed. MDaisy (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'd saw you previously were working on an article involving Fiji, and wow do we need your help! Check out the first entry at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. You see - we had a specialist working on articles about Fiji, however, the sources he used are no longer available due to the political turmoil and the closing of several website - so instead of deleting them, we're trying to source them. So far, when I find a source he's been very accurate in what he transcribed, so I agree there isn't a rush to remove unsourced information despite it the WP:BLP policy. They are lonely pages so you won't get into a lot of conflict, and the articles could really use attention. I started here Ateca_Ganilau then found a lot of information on Bernadette Ganilau and then I am looking at this one Epeli Ganilau wondering how I will ever source it and took a break. Also - I'd encourage you to look at my user page as a starting point to re-acquaint yourself with the current guidelines. (I haven't yet found one page with everything connectied, but searching with "WP:" brings up policy pages in the search bar now). There have been a few changes - less "notability by being" and more "notability by being written about". The other wonderful page is WP:RSP - it helps you stay clear of trouble by having a list and a search bar to review previous discussions about a source. I added a Newsweek article and got the advice from a friendly user that they were no longer considered reliable, see WP:NEWSWEEK. Denaar (talk) 02:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Academics sometimes find it hard to adopt to our policies and guidelines;. You've misunderstood what Wikipedia is. It's not simply a Wiki.. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand WP is somewhat informal in writing and content. My understanding though it is supposed to provided reasonably good sources to help write an article. To me that means using a good selection of source material from both casual (newspaper, media) to official sources (government or authoritative sources). The Kamala Harris article was using casual sources to document in a biased fashion the status of Kamala Harris as a Border Czar. While the term was never an official one, Congress did have a reso criticizing her work as one. I provided the official government reso stating the Republicans called her that. The article was locked so I could not add that info if I wanted to do so. I did comment on the talk page and that was locked too. What should have been written was something like this: The Republicans alleged Harris was a Border Czar in their Resolution XXXX. This is a piece of official, document history that was ignored. I am not a strict academic and in fact I am a casual writer. I fell into journalism as my future and then employer liked my unbiased, factual writing. I also worked briefly as a tech writer. I do care about having objective, factual writing which I thought Wikipedia stood for. Thanks so much for your message. MDaisy (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Reply