User talk:Golf
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Golf, 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:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
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 , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! 333-blue 09:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome. Would you please stop to create article which only contain {{stub}}? Such article are a very bad idea - they hide the fact that the article isn't written yet - if you think these articles deserve a stub, then you should write at least a stub - see Wikipedia:stub for what a stub is supposed to be. andy 07:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I was wondering what happend to my stubs....
- I see what you mean, yet this is what a stub is supposed to be right?
- I deleted them right away, as I am an admin who has the power to delete :-) As mentioned in Wikipedia:Perfect stub article - to have a stub worth keeping it need to state at least the basic fact about a topic - e.g. for a person the name, lifedates, nationality, and most of all why that person is important enough to have a biography in an encyclopedia. Or for a city at least the location. However I personally still don't like stubs which just state the basic facts, much better is a longer article. So maybe instead of adding even more stubs (we already have tons of them), why not investigate in one topic in more depth and make it a real good article instead. andy 07:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yea that sounds good, yet I came across some facts about the Torino games of 2006 and am not a geographical researcher :-) Would like to be, but I don't have the time for it... But if you think that it is better to have just the standerd edit page after opening a link. Well thats fine by me. Not my type of thing, but oke... P.S. I did create the stubs because people will create pages about those places because of the games, so I did do a little ground work...
- The red link is nothing bad, quite the contrary, it may invite a new user to write about the topic from scratch. It is rather controversy whether it'd attract more contributions to have a red link or to have a short stub waiting to be extended. But you don't need to know much about a city to write about it - see e.g. Hilter which I wrote only using the official homepage of that town - it is still short, but contains more than any regular encyclopedia would ever have about that rather unimportant town. I myself consider it fun to research for a topic - that way I learn something new myself, and then condense the facts into the article. BTW: It is costum here to sign your comments on talk pages, simply by adding ~~~~ at the end. andy 09:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Andy, k, I will sign the end of an addition even while it is my Talk page... But back to the real topic... How do I do reserach without violating the (c) of a source? In The Netherlands there is a law that will let me quote a 100 words out of any source without regard for the copywrite on that source, yet sinds this is a org based in California that law doesn't apply. How do I manage this problem? I would like to be able to do the kind of work that you say you do, indeed one could learn allot from that. Usualy I write small bits down as a way to remember it, but I dont want to playgurize anyones work... - Golf 11:35, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- P.S. One thing I love about Wikipedia is that one can just brows it and learn things about topics at random and this is a great way to spend time at work when there is nothing to do. :-) - Golf 11:38, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Quite simply - I don't copy the text. I write a new text containing the facts of the original source, which isn't a copyright violation anymore. And normally I also cite the source I used, thus it cannot count as plagiarism either. As it's often a good idea to use more than one source you have to write it on your own to combine the facts from both.
- And yes, Wikipedia is addictive, be careful or you will become a Wikipediholic like me :-) andy 12:05, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The red link is nothing bad, quite the contrary, it may invite a new user to write about the topic from scratch. It is rather controversy whether it'd attract more contributions to have a red link or to have a short stub waiting to be extended. But you don't need to know much about a city to write about it - see e.g. Hilter which I wrote only using the official homepage of that town - it is still short, but contains more than any regular encyclopedia would ever have about that rather unimportant town. I myself consider it fun to research for a topic - that way I learn something new myself, and then condense the facts into the article. BTW: It is costum here to sign your comments on talk pages, simply by adding ~~~~ at the end. andy 09:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yea that sounds good, yet I came across some facts about the Torino games of 2006 and am not a geographical researcher :-) Would like to be, but I don't have the time for it... But if you think that it is better to have just the standerd edit page after opening a link. Well thats fine by me. Not my type of thing, but oke... P.S. I did create the stubs because people will create pages about those places because of the games, so I did do a little ground work...
- I deleted them right away, as I am an admin who has the power to delete :-) As mentioned in Wikipedia:Perfect stub article - to have a stub worth keeping it need to state at least the basic fact about a topic - e.g. for a person the name, lifedates, nationality, and most of all why that person is important enough to have a biography in an encyclopedia. Or for a city at least the location. However I personally still don't like stubs which just state the basic facts, much better is a longer article. So maybe instead of adding even more stubs (we already have tons of them), why not investigate in one topic in more depth and make it a real good article instead. andy 07:56, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)