153:
brings everything back to the question of notability: if there aren't reliable sources to back up the article, the subject isn't notable (in
Knowledge terms) enough to have an article; also (in theory) every bit of content in an article should be able to be backed up with a reliable reference. Otherwise articles could be filled with misinformation that one editor or other "knows" to be true. Using your example, it would be simple enough to find an Australian newspaper article that at least mentioned that John Howard is the PM; there's your reference from a verifiable, reliable source. As for the Zuckerbucks article, perhaps it is just too soon to create an article. I would recommend writing it up somewhere in your user space (like
80:
regards to my article, I deleted because the only sources I CAN quote regarding
Zuckerbucks, are Facebook, the Zuckerbuck's Information page and some web journal, which are obviously not going to be "Notable." I think the guidelines should include examples of who and what to cite for specific instances, I'd add them in myself, but obviously I don't know. But I would like to tell you that I'm grateful for helping me to (kind of) understand what it is that I CAN'T do on Knowledge...The only real article I've submitted is here:
96:. That explains the concept of "reliable sources." Some examples of reliable sources: an established newspaper or magazine (or its website), a published book, a major website (examples: c|net or Smoking Gun). Some examples that are not reliable sources: a MySpace page, a blog entry (including, for example, a blog entry on washingtonpost.com), a post in an online forum, a personal webpage. Using the webpage of the subject of the article you're writing is also discouraged (at least, as a
31:
289:
sole contributor, if there have been other contributors, please discuss your action on the talk page of the article (check page history to see if any one else has contributed to your article). if not, you can delete everything in the page and add either {{db-blanked}} or {{db-author}} to the top of the article.
288:
If it is a REAL article (ie not a sandbox or sub-page of a user) then unfortunately, you have to either delete the page and start a new article with the new new, or contact an admin and request the name to be changed. There are several ways to delete the page (provided you are the original author and
136:
the source of who made the application, it's just a fact regarding the application, just like the description of the application. Doesn't matter now, I deleted the article, to avoid further arguments between us, and because I knew I wasn't going to be able to get it up to the standard you (wikipedia)
79:
There, deleted. Knowledge's guidelines are confusing, and hard to determing exactly WHAT I need to do. I asked you: "WHO do I need to quote" for various parts of my article, all you did was reply saying to read the guidelines, the guidelines state "notable source" Which isn't exactly alot of help. In
386:
Yes, I noticed after removing the db tag just now it had been upgraded significantly. Thanks for your suggestions and I will certainly follow them next time I find myself in a similar situation. If you would like any help writing that (or any other) article, I would be happy to give as much input as
314:
for speedy deletion due to inadequate context. As an experienced editor, I have to tell you that I was a little suprised seeing this done (if anything, I would have expected it to be tagged for notability). In any case, I barely had any time to finish formatting the article before you tagged it. You
123:
Actually, that's much clearer. I now atleast now what I can quote, and if it is considered reliable. However, the original problem, is that the only information that (was) in the article, was the creator and a short description of
Zuckerbucks. There are no "reliable" sources to quote for things like
585:
by an experienced editor. Being an experienced editor myself, I accepted your request. Whether you want to learn about wiki markup, find something to do, or just talk to somebody, I'm the person to see about it - just leave a message on my talk page. Remember, I am willing to help you and make your
340:
that were exactly the same only about different senators that I realised what you were doing, and my mistake, however I couldn't remember the article that I tagged. The tag has been removed now (I hope I'm allowed to do that, if not just put it back and I'll agree to your {{hangon}} section on the
152:
I never thought we were arguing; I thought you were confused by
Knowledge's guideline and I've been trying to explain them so that you understand. There's no bad start there at all. (Believe me, I've had arguements on Knowledge, and this was definitely not one of them.) The lack of reliable sources
360:
Don't sweat it! Thank you for the civil discourse. It's good to know there are people out there patrolling for vandals or spam, etc. All I would ask is that in the future you take a look at the editor, see if they've made similar edits or are part of a project, and give them a couple of minutes to
449:
For biographical data, 'e.g. Joe Snuffy is a graduate of XYZ university' one source (major newspaper, book with ISBN, etc.) is usually acceptable, and may be placed in the references section, with applicable page numbers placed in the notes section (if you are relying on that source for multiple
100:
source of the article). Using
Zuckerbucks as an example, you could use the developer's site as references for some of the facts of the article, but the bulk of it would have to be backed up by (for example) a profile of the developers on Wired.com, a chapter about Zuckerbucks in a book about
293:
The {{db-blanked}} tag will let Admins know that YOU (the author) blanked the page with the intention of deleting it, and the {{db-author}} lets admins know that you (the author) accidentally created the page or created the page under the wrong name, and you request it to be deleted.
527:
One other thing, just a point of information--even when you think you've cited an article to death, it may not be enough. Even statements that are common knowledge, that are contained in the same sources you've already mentioned, may need to be cited. For an example, take a look at
536:, even though that can be found in several of the sources I used, along with a standard google-search on Ewing. In other words, like I stated above, sometimes every sentence has to be cited, especially for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject matter (and as far as I know,
236:
Before I respond, you should probably know that I'm less than 3 months old (account age). I do know an incredible amount about
Wikicode (probably more than average), but I don't go very much into the article-writing side of things...if that makes sense. I'm very metapedianist.
182:
if you go into the history page you can see what I've done, I'd really appreciate it if you helped me out on this article, so I can improve my standards and how to cite etc, because I'd really love to be a recognised
Knowledge Article Creator.
254:
I'm actually not an admin...I don't know where you got that from. Anyways, adoption can go either of those two ways. I can mentor you if you need help with something, or you can go ahead and ask me a question about something that you don't
391:
I would like to ask for your help, because my articles aren't really that good editorially-wise and any advice on how to create good articles would be very much appreciated. My main problem is citing. I have no problem with creating
483:
When it comes to material that discusses a specific action, quote, event, etc. multiple sources may be necessary to verify the information, evne if the primary source is a respected journalistic entity like the New York Times (see
315:
might want to give the benefit of the dobut to people with thousands of edits to topics like these, especially when discussing when the context is clear, e.g. State
Senators, etc. You might want to familiarize yourself with
331:
Terribly sorry, I am still unfamiliar with all the tags that are possible, and at the time of reading your article I thought that the inadequate context was appropriate for it. However, a little while later I noticed
416:, I have read through each of these countless number of times, I just can't get the grasp on them. Any and all advice and support you could give me would be appreciated. Once again, sorry for tagging your article.
105:
about
Facebook that mentions Zuckerbucks (that would be considered "trivial" coverage, but still helpful), and so on. Any one of those would help convince other Knowledge editors that there was at least a
500:
I hope that was of some assistance to you. Let me know if you see anything that is missing from any of those articles, if a specific citation requires clarification, or if they are missing a citation!
446:
That is a very interesting question. I myself struggle with what I should cite, and what I shouldn't. I'll try and list a few guidelines I use for myself, and give you some examples from my articles.
132:
problem, wasn't that I was confused as to what a "reliable" source meant (well, I was, kind of), it was that there are no sources to back up my information. It's kind of hard to explain, but I can't
110:
of notability. Without even a trivial mention from a reliable source you're fighting an uphill battle. I don't know if this answers your questions enough; feel free to ask me anything else. Cheers
157:) and then searching Google News from time to time, to see if you can turn up any references. Then, when you've collected some solid references, try posting it in the article space again.
341:
discussion page. However, I hope this incident doesn't impeach any future relations we may have, as I am still quite new to
Knowledge and was just trying to help out in any way possible.
594:- I'm here to help you; no question is a stupid one. In the mean time, here are some pages that you might find helpful, in case you haven't already gotten the official welcoming:
488:). In some college papers I pretty much had to cite every sentence that I didn't come up with on my own, so many of my articles on Knowledge end up having every sentence cited.
540:). It will also help prevent edit wars, if you provide 3 or 4 airtight references for anything that is potentially controversial or murky in nature.
638:
491:
Finally, I try to cite anything that could be construed as controversial, even if it is completely NPOV, from at least two reliable sources (see
587:
534:
according to the report of General Burnside, "by a brilliant change of front he saved the left from being completely driven in."
92:
I tried to explain it all but I must've misunderstood some of what you were asking. For what or whom to quote, you need to read
641:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
622:
607:
578:
66:
277:
04:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Jonah313 Or deletion of a page that was poorly named if changing is not an option. Thanks,
717:
38:
627:
461:, or a citiation from an article or website noting it, would be acceptable, at least to me as a reader. (see
84:
and it was fine. But next time I'm submitted an article I'll tell you so that you can make sure it's good.
650:
602:
597:
574:
634:
362:
311:
215:
179:
193:
158:
111:
541:
501:
366:
337:
320:
154:
238:
642:
319:
in the future before tagging something. Thanks for your time and for checking out one of my edits.
243:
316:
124:
these. It would be like tyring saying "John Howard is the Prime Minister of Australia" there's no
617:
649:
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome and
47:
17:
586:
time here more enjoyable. Feel free to ask me any questions you might have, and remember to
413:
582:
462:
387:
possible, because I want to contribute to Knowledge in as many ways as I can. Also, as an
223:
219:
400:
articles (I am against plagiarism 100%) but the problem is, I never seem to know exactly
404:
needs to be verified and what constitutes an acceptable source. (Please don't put me to
361:
improve upon the placeholder article before tagging it.Ā ;) Again, thanks for your help.
692:
472:
quote should be referenced, including those that are broken up mid-sentence, ergo "See
722:
612:
278:
274:
735:
417:
342:
295:
184:
138:
128:
it's just one of those things that is. You can't quote someone on saying that. The
93:
85:
81:
740:
728:
704:
544:
504:
473:
422:
369:
347:
323:
300:
281:
248:
226:
196:
187:
161:
114:
222:. As you voted for it, please help to improve it in any way you can. Thankyou. --
409:
405:
397:
393:
262:
Whoops! I didn't notice that it said that I was an admin next to my name. Sorry!
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
477:
451:
529:
101:
technology developing out of social networking sites, an article in
581:
to Knowledge! I saw that you have expressed an interest in being
492:
485:
25:
716:
Here is the award that you've earned for finding my SSP.
458:
598:
What adoption is all about and how it will affect you.
538:
that reader was very familiar with the subject matter
178:
Thanks for all your help. I am currently working on
137:wanted. Hope we didn't get off to bad start :D
659:Also I'd like to tell you I'm usually on from
8:
457:For specific accomplishments e.g. awards, a
633:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
532:. A GA reviewer contested the statement
192:When I get a chance, I'll check it out.
746:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
459:direct-link to the awarding authority
365:is now up in it's preliminary stage.
7:
310:Hi there! I noticed you have tagged
645:, ask me on my talk page, or place
211:Australian television is new ACOTF
24:
29:
573:Congratulations on your recent
1:
718:User:Selfworm/HiddenLinkAward
603:The five pillars of Knowledge
623:How to write a great article
273:How is this done? Thanks,
218:has bee selected as the new
478:have a look at this example
779:
88:02:08, 22 July 2007 (GMT)
741:03:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
729:03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
705:00:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
545:08:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
505:08:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
423:07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
370:07:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
348:07:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
324:07:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
301:05:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
282:05:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
249:01:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
227:12:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
197:15:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
188:05:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
162:11:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
141:02:34, 22 July 2007 (GMT)
115:01:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
682:get on Knowledge in the
269:Changing Title Of A Page
220:Australian collaboration
82:South Dragons (Italian)
530:Hugh Ewing's talk page
674:usually on Knowledge
317:Wiki:What links here?
312:Ruth Hassell-Thompson
306:Ruth Hassell-Thomspon
216:Australian television
180:Australian television
42:of past discussions.
389:"experienced editor"
155:user:Gbenemy/sandbox
643:Knowledge:Questions
493:Eliot Spitzer ex. 2
486:Eliot Spitzer ex. 1
608:How to edit a page
570:
336:other articles by
564:
247:
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
18:User talk:GBenemy
770:
763:
760:
754:
751:
738:
727:
725:
703:
701:
698:
695:
651:congratulations!
648:
567:Congratulations!
420:
345:
298:
241:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
778:
777:
773:
772:
771:
769:
768:
767:
766:
761:
757:
752:
748:
736:
723:
721:
712:
699:
696:
693:
691:
688:Saturday-Monday
676:Saturday-Monday
657:
656:
655:
654:
646:
628:Manual of Style
577:, GBenemy, and
569:
561:
463:RoseMarie Panio
418:
343:
308:
296:
271:
234:
213:
77:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
776:
774:
765:
764:
755:
745:
744:
743:
715:
711:
708:
668:Tuesday-Friday
639:sign your name
631:
630:
625:
620:
615:
610:
605:
600:
572:
571:
565:
563:
562:
560:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
498:
497:
496:
489:
481:
466:
455:
434:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
353:
352:
351:
350:
307:
304:
291:
290:
270:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
257:
256:
233:
230:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
202:
201:
200:
199:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:
145:
144:
143:
142:
118:
117:
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
775:
759:
756:
750:
747:
742:
739:
733:
732:
731:
730:
726:
719:
709:
707:
706:
702:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
666:
662:
653:
652:
644:
640:
636:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
616:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
595:
593:
591:
584:
580:
576:
568:
558:
546:
543:
539:
535:
531:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
506:
503:
499:
494:
490:
487:
482:
479:
475:
471:
467:
465:for examples)
464:
460:
456:
453:
448:
447:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
424:
421:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
390:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
378:
371:
368:
364:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
349:
346:
339:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
313:
305:
303:
302:
299:
287:
286:
285:
283:
280:
276:
268:
261:
260:
259:
258:
253:
252:
251:
250:
245:
240:
231:
229:
228:
225:
221:
217:
210:
198:
195:
191:
190:
189:
186:
181:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
163:
160:
156:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
140:
135:
131:
127:
122:
121:
120:
119:
116:
113:
109:
104:
103:Rolling Stone
99:
95:
91:
90:
89:
87:
83:
74:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
762:Reference #2
758:
753:Reference #1
749:
714:Hey GBenemy,
713:
687:
683:
679:
678:, however I
675:
671:
667:
664:
660:
658:
632:
589:
566:
537:
533:
476:" and "also
474:this example
469:
433:
401:
388:
333:
309:
292:
272:
235:
214:
194:Precious Roy
159:Precious Roy
133:
129:
125:
112:Precious Roy
107:
102:
97:
78:
60:
43:
37:
450:facts, see
363:The article
255:understand.
224:Scott Davis
75:Zuckerbucks
36:This is an
734:Thanks :D
720:Congrats!
647:{{helpme}}
635:Wikipedian
613:Help pages
542:Mrprada911
502:Mrprada911
452:Hugh Ewing
398:verifiable
367:Mrprada911
321:Mrprada911
680:sometimes
637:! Please
414:WP:Citing
284:Johah313
239:GrooveDog
67:ArchiveĀ 2
61:ArchiveĀ 1
724:selfworm
670:and I'm
618:Tutorial
575:adoption
394:noteable
279:Jonah313
275:Jonah313
232:Adoption
737:GBenemy
684:morning
583:adopted
579:welcome
419:GBenemy
344:GBenemy
334:several
297:GBenemy
185:Gbenemy
139:Gbenemy
98:primary
86:Gbenemy
39:archive
665:6:00pm
661:7:00am
468:Also,
126:source
108:chance
710:Award
663:till
590:BOLD!
559:Adopt
470:every
94:WP:RS
16:<
588:"be
410:WP:N
406:WP:V
402:what
396:and
244:talk
134:cite
130:main
700:ong
697:tbl
694:Che
686:on
672:not
412:or
338:you
690:.
495:).
480:."
454:).
408:,
592:"
246:)
242:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.