Kethra is away on vacation and may not respond swiftly to queries.
Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
I will respond here to comments that are posted here, and, well, elsewhere to comments posted elsewhere. Please, please don't fragment a conversation just to get my attention—if I comment at a page, it's a very safe assumption that I have watchlisted it. If you are concerned that I might miss a post elsewhere, use {{Talkback}} to notify me here.
Aloha!
Welcome!
Hello, Kethra, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, and I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try one of these four things: click on the blue "17" in my signature, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Cheers!
Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".
A few features that you might find helpful:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! —Ed17(talk)— 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! Just a comment about something I've noticed from your work on PJ Haarsma. Help:Minor edits says that "a check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content". A few of your edits probably shouldn't have been marked as minor; it's not a big deal, and I'm not really bothered, but you might want to mark fewer edits as minor in future.
Ahh ok thanks for pointing out the policy, Mr Absurd. I think I get click crazy sometimes. I'm always open to constructive criticism so if you notice anything else I'm not quite in the right one, feel free to let me know!--Kethra{talk}20:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you know?
Hi Kethra, your article is progressing well. I thought that you might be interested in the Did you know? category which is featured each day on the main Wikipedia page. Let me know what you think? I am under the impression that all articles are open to the category whether or not they are rated b-class or higher. Hag2 (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, but I'm not sure if this article would qualify as it hasn't been "expanded at least fivefold with new text within the last five days".--Kethra{talk}17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ETA - Well it might have been, I forgot about the expansions I made to the KNTR section. But I wonder what would be a good hook...--Kethra{talk}17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Hopefully, all that I need to do is insert the hook. I grow weary quickly of long-winded instruction details. Have you looked? Do you know? Hag2 (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all you need to do is use the {{DYKsuggestion}} template on the Did you know? page, under the appropriate heading (ie when the article was created or expanded). I guess that would be the 6th for this one (where the most expansion was). Looks like there's a more details when you go to edit the suggestion page.--Kethra{talk}18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I follow you so far. But that template said, ...It is not meant to be used by a human when nominating hooks; it is only used by the calling template. After reading through the DYK "nominating page" quickly, it looked as though all I needed to do was insert the hook at the expansion day (December 7, let's say). Then a bunch of administrators begin doing their thing. There's a suggestion somewhere about images, and I thought that a good 100x100 pixel cropping of the Game Image might look good. You know, use your Microsoft PictureIt editor, crop one of the figures faces (or something like that), upload it into Wikipedia, and then we can use that as the 100x100 image. Do you follow me? Hag2 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant {{DYKsug}} (was just looking at the help info at the top of the page when you go to edit Did you know?. I'll see about getting an image, if not a game image, perhaps PJ's portrait, since the hook is about him.--Kethra{talk}18:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay [after edit conflict]. I think we could use Anne Teedham's December 5 day as the beginning of the expansion day. See the difference between the two days here:[1]
Okay. Look, I'll insert the stuff that you exampled a minute ago into the DYK nomination page. While I am doing that, why don't you cut this entire subsection from the talkpage, and let it go to the "wind", or paste it into your user's talkpage (if you want). I really see no need for any further discussion, do you? Hag2 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mission accomplished. I ran into two problems, but they were (are) insignificant. The first problem was: the link for the Rings of Orbis linked to the same link for PJ. So I quickly inserted the homepage URL for the Rings. The second problem is clearly visible in the nomination page when you find the December 5 nominations. Why it inserted the "[[PJ Haarsma" is beyond me but I figure that some smart fellow will come along and correct it for me. I hope you get selected. :) This has been another learning process. Thanks. Oh...send me a {{tb}} after you read this. Hag2 (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
next day, continuation...
Kethra, we ran into a problem: [2] The only way I see to correct for this is to create two quick STUBS, one for each. A stub really does not need more than 2-3 sentences; however the concept behind a stub is that those sentences will then become an article. I believe both external links in the hook could evolve into separate articles of their own. What do you think? Also, there really is no hurry on this DYK thing. We can let the nomination evaporate, then try again later. I have a feeling that the 5x Rule means something like "...there only needs to be five edits", not 5 times the volume. So I will read through the rules for more clarity. Hag2 (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking about that last night that they might not like the external links. I had a plan to develop both of those articles. I think we can let this one go for now, and when the KNTR or The Softwire articles are developed, we can use one or both of those as the Did you know? nomination. Or something along those lines. I had some more ideas to develop the school visit and game sections of PJ's article as well. So there's always the future. Thank you for bringing this category to my attention. I think it's a great system, the timing is just a bit off now. I'm going to be rather busy and away from Wikipedia over the holidays, but I'll try to do what I can offline and come back with great material for the new articles.--Kethra{talk}14:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I detailed a "plea for understanding with Art LaPella" (at the nomination) but expect to let everything expire. I, too, am new at Wikipedia but I am learning a few details as time goes by. One detail which I believe may be valuable in this DYK concept is the expansion rule. If you keep your work within your Userspace, it does not interfere with the rule. That is, the day that you move your article into Articlespace becomes the day of creation. Consequently, if you had written PJ Haarsma in Userspace (which I am sure you did) and not moved it until December 5,...etcetera. The disadvantage to keeping one's work in Userspace is that it remains virtually unseen by other editors. However, I believe a work-around from that disadvantage is the REDIRECT. For example, if you use the REDIRECT for the name of the article (e.g. PJ Haarsma), but then redirect any interested parties to Userspace, you should be able to acquire people as you have done so far. Thus, my notion at the moment is for you to secure the Articlespace names The Softwire Series and The Kids Need to Read Foundation by researching the rules regarding REDIRECTS, and by creating the redirects in Articlespace as soon as possible. Does this make any sense? Hag2 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's something to consider, and does make a little sense. However, my reason for having those in my userspace was so that the majority of people won't see them yet, as they're definitely not ready for criticism! And I didn't create PJ's article, it's been there for a while. I just did major expansions to it. When I got a hold of it, it was a stub. Once I have more time to devote, I'll be doing major expansions on the two developing articles, because I've learned a lot from the process of getting PJ's article to a B-class rating. My intentions were to start with The Softwire article, but I gravitated to PJ's first. It's all a learning process! I think I'm going to work on paper or in my trusty Notepad to develop those. Seems my thoughts are more coherent and less disjointed when I write elsewhere.--Kethra{talk}15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a problem with the "trusty Notepad" or Word: word wrap. I have run across that in another user's article. It is very annoying in the edit-box to begin making line-breaks more compatible with the Wikipedia text editor. The work-around goes like this: create your work in a Sandbox but do not SAVE. Save it into Notepad after you have created, then save Notepad locally. The following day paste back to SANDBOX, create again, but SAVE into NOTEPAD. I think the work-around may not hold true for WORD; I have not bothered to find out. Hag2 (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
final quote boxes
Kethra, I don't like the spacing of the final two quote boxes. On a 800x600 screen, the righthand box is lost and greatly out of proportion to the main body of the article. I would suggest moving one of the boxes directly before the introductory material for the School visits (centered), and then placing the second box at the very end (also centered). Or: I would reccommend finding the exact, correct "em" (perhaps in a percentage?) so the quote boxes would float equidistant below the main body of the article, and thus there would be no mandatory "scrolling". Hag2 (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
image of species
Honine: Great addition! Let me know when you want to be nominated for the WP:GA. I think PJ Haarsma is ready. It seems to take a month from Nomination Day to review. Big backlog. Incidentally, I do not think a Good Article rating is really much to strive for unless you find a good reviewer, i.e. a person who is prepared to aid you in the direction of an A-Rating. But the GA nomination means that your WPBiography talkpage banner gets altered from B-Class to GA candidate (I think). Hag2 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed this. Thanks, Hag2. I just posted on PJ Haarsma's talk page about wanting to expand the game and visit sections just a wee bit more before pursuing a GA rating. I probably won't be able to get to that until after the holidays/New Year because I'm going to be traveling quite a bit and my poor computer will miss me.--Kethra{talk}14:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:KNTR Crest Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:KNTR Crest Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free media (Image:RingsofOrbis-ss.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:RingsofOrbis-ss.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kethra. I saw this BJBot notice. I think you need to remove the template {{di-orphaned fair use|date=14 December 2008}} from the top of the File-page edit-page, and then somewhere provide a "reason". I am not very good regarding all these Wikipedia technical notices (as a matter of fact I find them as...ine.) I ran into something similar myself on the Danny Casolaro article. When I removed the template, I inserted a reason in the Edit-box Summary line. But some Dogooder disputed my reason a few minutes later, and eventually my image was deleted altogether.
According to the lead paragraph of CAT:ORFU, you can use your userspace "working article" (and I think you have already notified the BJBot of this reasoning. But I still think you need to remove the template notice because no one has removed the notice yet. I would suggest "cutting" the {{di-orphaned fair use|date=14 December 2008}} from the "edit", and then "paraphrasing" the following into the edit-box summary line: "Note that some of these images were automatically marked as orphaned because there was no reference from a main space article, and there may be good reasons why these should not be deleted anyway. For instance, if an editor is actively working on an article in a user-space subpage, it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished. Also check for possible vandalism - it is not unknown for vandals to have blanked pages with image references." Probably something simple, such as: "reason: editor is actively working on an article in a user-space subpage, it would be unhelpful to delete the images before the article is finished." I would insert the KNTR image into a subpage also, and do the same for it. Wikipedia provides very little insightful assistance when it comes to accepting and deleting fairuse images. Unfortunately, there are too many-trigger happy bots and dogooders for the rest of us to figure out what is going on?Hag2 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kethra, I had to stop after the second paragraph of Synopsis. SYNOPSIS begins as a deeply envolved, analytical evaluation of thematic content, and I am slightly mind-blown, luv, after reading through the first two paragraphs. I'll return later if you feel that my copyediting is worthy. If not, feel free to revert as soon as you read it. There is nothing wrong with anything from the beginning of The Softwire through to and including the first two paragraphs of Synopsis; it is just that it is very difficult to concentrate when so much is expressed by the kind of ethereal writing which I encountered in Synopsis. Toby Ornott (talk) 15:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on rewriting the majority of that content. They turned out more of an exposition instead of a summary, and looking back on it, they need a bit of work. I rushed a bit into getting the article in the main namespace, but I was enthusiastic about getting a Did you know? entry. Your copyediting is fine; just know the article will be changing dramatically once I get my copies of the book out of storage again.--Kethra{talk}17:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ho, me again. Left you a note on the Talk, but then discovered my own answer by rereading the beginning.... I am right; you are wrong. zippidity do da GRIN. But...Another question: You wrote: "Orbis seems wondrous, except the children are shocked to learn they will be expected to fulfill their parents' work rule commitment." Is it possible that you mean this: Orbis seems wondrous, except the children are shocked to learn they will be expected to fulfill their parents' indentured contract for their passage." Or contract of indenture, or something like that. You see, the problem here is that a reader of this article is questioning previous remarks such as Orbisian law, who wrote the law, why did the children get stuck with indentured slavery, and so on and so forth. Yet, rather than write a lengthy epistle on the subject, the writer of the article needs to find a quick, coherent expression which summarizes all those questions into one precise phrase. Eh? Do you follow me, K? What say you? I will continue with rewriting freely whatever I want (such as my addition of the xyz for a more specific name of the wormhole). This should give you an idea how a reader interprets your language. I should be finished in several days. I hope that I am not annoying you. Forgive me if I am. I find everything fascinating, and well-written so far. (add on: oh, and I do not think that you need to rewrite anything. The Softwire reads well as it is. :o) Toby Ornott (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't annoy me at all! I'm glad you've taken an interest in the subject and in helping me better present the material. Life has just thrown me a few curves the last few days and I've had trouble finding time to come here to devote to the article! Thanks for all that you're doing. Oh... I nominated it for a Did You Know? to perhaps bring more traffic to it, since that's for new articles. If you have a moment, and are so inclined, could you take a look at the hooks and perhaps see if they're able to be verified? Thanks!--Kethra{talk}18:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verified? I'm not sure that I know what all that DYK stuff is all about. I took a peek, digested the above commentary by you and Hag, read through the comments by you and Mgm, and then tried reading through the rules of DYK. I quickly gave up: it hurts my mind. :( I think a good hook would be something like: Did you know that The Softwire is PJ Haarsma's young adultscience fiction series about a thirteen-year-old Johnny T, and his stuggles with the Kudniks, the Nagools, and indentured slavery...? (and I would throw in that picture of the Honine just for fun...to top it all off, and maybe even Haarsma too...if you can do that. And I said that over there. Is that what you meant by verified Oooo all this wickiwack stuff blows my mind! :?)--Toby Ornott (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh well, sorta! I noticed both yours and Hag2's comments. Verified means to just verify that the length is enough (it is!), that the hook has referenced facts (I know at least the New York Times one does - I'm still working on references). Then use one of the symbols to note that it's ready for the DYK entry. I understand about it all hurting your mind! There's so many regulations on criteria for things like that. --Kethra{talk}22:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coolio. I'm having fun messing with the hookies. I altered Dixie's internal wikis to "role playing games" and "kids need to know" and I guess I haven't any idea whether or not I am complying with rules, other than "everything has to be from inside Wik". Is all this DYK worthwhile? Seems a tad over-ruled. On The Softwire though....I am going to stop copyediting until you address this: By the time I got to reading the fourth paragraph of Virius on Orbis, I determined two things: (a) the plot needs to be confined to minimal verbage, with little or no expository writing; and (b) will The Softwire conform to the Wikipedia encyclopedia standards here WP:NOT and here WP:CRYSTAL? I cite these two guidelines only because someone somewhere threw them at me on some sort of debate about advertising a school program (I think) that someone else had written. All this means, I think that I want you to follow your own advice about rewriting, and to ignore my previous remark about everything being ok. I think the plot(s) is too long.--Toby Ornott (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Betrayal on Orbis 2
K-- I just began reading the first paragraph. I can see a need for continued copyediting. Shall I continue? Or would you prefer someone else? It will take me probably a day or two. booToby Ornott (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}
){kind=link}