31:
307:
You are right about red links - they often encourage readers to write new articles, so you don't have to remove them. You should only remove them, if you have a good reason to think that there's no chance that this article will ever be written. For example, if a person's name is the link, then remove
115:
to wait. I think that depends in part upon your sense of the plausibility of the claim, with more plausible claims getting more allowance. I also think that it depends upon the activity-level of the article; after all, we expect an article that gets lots of readers or lots of editors to be patched
234:
I often try to look for a source myself; if i can't find, i put "citation needed"; if no-one adds it within reasonable time, i remove the information and say at the talk page what have i removed and ask other contributors to put the information if they have sources. See for example what i did at
427:
Lately i am doing a big project adding interwiki links to articles in the Hebrew
Knowledge (XXG), and i also link between category pages, so i harmonize categorization between he-wiki and en-wiki, and sometimes i get so bold that i categorize pages in wikipedias whose languages i hardly know
435:
to your user page, BTW.) I've been studying for
Romance languages for a few years. I already read Italian and Catalan pretty well, and now i am moving to Spanish and starting to read El amor en los tiempos del cĂłlera by Gabriel GarcĂa MĂĄrquez. I may ask you for some help :)
423:
I do some categories work every now and then. The rule with categories is the same as with everything else in
Knowledge (XXG) - be bold. It usually begins sporadically - i just notice that something appears not so good to me and fix it, but often ends up bigger than i
110:
Glad to be of help. And note that if a {{fact}} isn't replaced with a reference after some time, then it becomes quite reasonable to delete the assertion. (You could put a note on the article's discussion page if you were concerned.) Of course, the question is of
288:
Should I delete dead internal links (red links to yet-non-existing wikipedia articles) when I encounter them? I thought about this: although they don't look so nice they may encourage editors to click these links and write new stubs. What do you
223:
If information seems really preposterous to you, be bold and remove immediately. (The leader of
Knowledge (XXG) Jimbo Wales strongly supports this opinion, and i agree.) It is especially important in articles about living people; see
404:
Hi Amir, thanks for the comment on categories. I added more categories to the articles I started, but your comment was also useful in that it led me to look into relevant categories to improve related articles. Thanks again!
388:
Consider adding to more categories. I'm not sure what categories i can suggest, since i don't know anything about these topics, but try looking for articles on similar things and add them to the same categories.
72:
which will be visible to all readers, alerting all to the fact that the claim has been called-into question, but also alerting those who know of a reference of how they may improve an article. To
247:: There is no nice "wiki" way to it. Just go to the page that you need, copy the the URL from the address and put it in square brackets. For example, this is where you added your message:
199:'s suggestion since this seems more constructive and (as I am a beginner user, who is likely to make more mistakes) is "safer". I would like a third opinion. What do you think Amir?
87:
to merely link to things particularly relevant to the subject matter of the article. The purpose is to allow the reader to go to an article on a subject that interests him or her (
225:
308:
the link only if you are absolutely sure that the person is totally non-notable and will never have an article. You can also remove red link if it's
64:
If an assertion is plausible but unreferenced, use the {{fact}} tag, rather than deleting. A {{fact}} tag will result in a superscripted note:
351:
350:
Nahraana, just noticed that you corrected vandalism on the Rosati-Kain High School page. Just wanted to say thanks for that!--
467:
445:
414:
398:
374:
359:
340:
321:
301:
274:
259:
214:
159:
131:
102:
309:
38:
172:
suggested I should write "Citation needed" when seeing another user claims a fact without referencing it (see
205:: what do I write to make a link to the history page of an article? and to an older version of an article?
355:
47:
17:
431:
Which reminds me - you say that you came from
Argentina, so you speak Spanish, right? (You should add
187:
suggests unreferenced statements be promptly deleted (see 19:54, 27 January 2008 Allstarecho also on
126:
97:
463:
410:
370:
336:
297:
270:
210:
173:
155:
432:
441:
394:
328:
317:
255:
146:
220:"Citation needed" should be used on information which seems reasonable, but needs a citation.
116:
more quickly. There is a 'bot that comes along and dates these tags; it does so in terms of
236:
184:
196:
169:
121:
92:
459:
406:
366:
332:
293:
266:
206:
151:
437:
390:
313:
251:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
83:
Wikifications are not merely âSee alsoâ links. The purpose of wikification is
188:
177:
140:
Writing "Citation needed" vs. deleting. Linking to history and older version.
195:
Both users seem quite experienced. I would naturally tend to follow
176:
and my subsequent action 13:30, 27 January 2008 Nahraana on article
68:
Von
Hasselbeck was the youngest mathematician to receive the prize.
25:
76:
an assertion drastically reduces the chance of a reference
248:
80:(but presently unreferenced) assertion from appearing.
164:
I received two contrasting opinions on this subject:
231:
If you have doubts, ask at the article's talk page.
385:I looked at your edits and they are really good.
120:, which may suggest the relevant time-scale. â
226:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
8:
91:of why) without having to transcribe. â
239:(check the history and the talk page.)
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
24:
249:the diff with your latest message
29:
460:Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana
407:Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana
367:Federico Grigio, alias Nahraana
310:really ridiculous like this one
1:
468:00:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
446:15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
415:10:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
399:09:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
145:This section was copied from
375:18:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
360:17:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
341:16:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
322:15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
302:15:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
275:07:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
260:21:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
215:16:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
160:07:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
132:12:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
103:12:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
458:I replied to you by email.
488:
265:For the link he wrote .
183:On the other hand, user
60:Some points of editing
18:User talk:Fede.Campana
42:of past discussions.
280:Dead internal links
228:for an explanation.
174:User talk:Nahraana
365:You are welcome!
329:User talk:Amire80
147:User talk:Amire80
54:
53:
48:current talk page
479:
237:Aranese language
129:
100:
33:
32:
26:
487:
486:
482:
481:
480:
478:
477:
476:
438:Amir E. Aharoni
391:Amir E. Aharoni
383:
348:
314:Amir E. Aharoni
282:
252:Amir E. Aharoni
142:
130:
125:
101:
96:
74:silently delete
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
485:
483:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
451:
450:
449:
448:
429:
425:
418:
417:
382:
379:
378:
377:
347:
344:
325:
324:
291:
290:
281:
278:
263:
262:
241:
240:
232:
229:
221:
193:
192:
181:
141:
138:
137:
136:
135:
134:
124:
95:
70:
69:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
484:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
447:
443:
439:
434:
430:
428:(Finnish?! :)
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
412:
408:
403:
402:
401:
400:
396:
392:
386:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
357:
353:
345:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
287:
286:
285:
279:
277:
276:
272:
268:
261:
257:
253:
250:
246:
243:
242:
238:
233:
230:
227:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
198:
190:
186:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
166:
165:
162:
161:
157:
153:
149:
148:
139:
133:
128:
123:
119:
114:
109:
108:
107:
106:
105:
104:
99:
94:
90:
86:
81:
79:
75:
67:
66:
65:
59:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
387:
384:
352:65.66.34.234
349:
327:Copied from
326:
292:
283:
264:
244:
202:
201:
194:
163:
144:
143:
117:
112:
88:
84:
82:
77:
73:
71:
63:
55:
43:
37:
433:Babel boxes
185:Allstarecho
36:This is an
381:Your Edits
203:Question 2
189:Teddy Bear
178:Teddy bear
89:regardless
284:Hi Amir,
197:SlamDiego
170:SlamDiego
122:SlamDiego
93:SlamDiego
424:planned.
333:Nahraana
294:Nahraana
267:Nahraana
245:Answer 2
207:Nahraana
152:Nahraana
113:how long
39:archive
346:Thanks
289:think?
118:months
168:User
150:.
16:<
464:talk
442:talk
411:talk
395:talk
371:talk
356:talk
337:talk
318:talk
312:. --
298:talk
271:talk
256:talk
211:talk
156:talk
78:able
331:.
85:not
466:)
444:)
436:--
413:)
397:)
389:--
373:)
358:)
339:)
320:)
300:)
273:)
258:)
213:)
191:).
158:)
127:âT
98:âT
462:(
440:(
409:(
393:(
369:(
354:(
335:(
316:(
296:(
269:(
254:(
209:(
180:.
154:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.