User talk:Ism schism

I-Foundation

I-Foundation had its first wikilink here.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ism schism, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

Please be more particular with your statement. Pointing out exactly what you're talking about makes it easier to correct. Thanks Chopper Dave (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three examples... Specifically I mean sources such as a personal website, http://www.devaswami.com or a blogspot such as, http://prabhupada.blogspot.com/2007_04_08_archive.html or editorials such as, http://www.dandavats.com/?p=1840. I do not believe that these would ever qualify as independent Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can be used on practically any BLP page. What is the point?79.97.0.103 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, this will explain to you wikipedia's policy on biographies on living persons. Each statement made in such an article must come from an independent reliable source. The above tag can, and will eventually, be placed on all articles who do not meet these strict requirements. These are Wikipedia's rules, not mine. To be constructive we should all use them as tools and guides in making our editing choices. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ism schism, I feel you are being very excessive with adding fact tags. Would it not be more constructive that when you find an article which needs references, either you add one banner at the top of the article, or even better, you try and find some sources? Especially if what is being said sounds factual, and non-controversial in it's nature. Otherwise we are just making more work for ourselves? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gouranga, I appreciate your concern. My edits were to point out the lack of references cited at the end of a statement of point which the article made. I have to disagree with you, there is much work to be done and standards should not be lowered. I added fact tags where I saw no reference cited. When a novice reads this information on wikipedia they need to have a source from which this information comes from, it can not just be what a person writes down, even if it is common knowledge to a particular religious community, it has to come from a reliable sources that has a citation. FYI, I feel that our time might be better spent finding real Wikipedia:Reliable sources for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It takes mere seconds to add fact tags. It could take some time to find correct sources. By adding them in so many places I really don't think you are not helping. Not unless there is something very controversial, or seemingly out-of-place written in the article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the obvious that it takes mere seconds to add fact tags and a minute to AfD a group. However it takes much longer for Verifiability to be established. Considering that there are no Vaisnava peer-reviewed journals and very few biographical books published in university presses, and that newspapers often are self-published sources as was the case of promoting I-foundation, we should allow for any other sources other then self-published and questionable sources. Also BLP should allow for material by persons described and we should not require high-quality reliable sources for each and every ISKCON or otherwise Swami. That just does not make any sense onless one is motivated to do this under the letter of the law of the WIKI. Wikidas (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike your articles, the I-Foundation article is properly referenced with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I suggest you use it as an example if you want to show people that the articles you write are truly notable and reliably sourced. Thanks and come again. Ism schism (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if the stub-like I-Foundation article is what Jimbo Wales had in mind when he invented Wikipedia! I really don't see your point? Wikidas is speaking common-sense. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is because User talk: Wikidas, User talk: 79.97.0.103, User talk:MBest-son‎ and you are all the same person. All four of you should use Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Please read this article Wikipedia:Citing sources

Quote: "All contentious material about living persons must cite a reliable source."

Please note that the above does not say ALL material, it says "ALL CONTENTIOUS material". There is a difference. A lot of what you are arguing about appears to be based on the notion that any information within an article should be deleted if it isn't referenced from a primary source. What is a reliable source depends on:

1) what is being sourced?
2) in what context?
3) how controversial is the information?

For example if we wanted to source when Nasa was first founded, and there was no controversy about the date, then the official Nasa history page on their website is perfectly reliable. Whereas if we wanted to include information in regards to the effectiveness or success of Nasa's as a scientific institution, or we wanted to know about details of the welfare of staff member then we would have to look elsewhere. That detail is subjective, and requires a number of scholarly sources. The same logic applies to the ISKCON articles.

Articles must be given room to grow over time. With citations being required especially on items of contention, and then gradually on all important information. The point of citing sources is to improve the articles in wikipedia, not to be used as an excuse to delete articles, where the information contained is notable, relevant, and for the large part accurate. Just because an article is a stub, or is only Start, or B class, does not mean we have to remove it.

I agree with pointing out areas for future improvement. I disagree with the attitude of removing good information for the sake of it.

Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that just MAKE IT SURVIVE should be our attitude.

To make sure as many devotees as possible survive on the Wiki. I had a look, and vast ammounts of Bio or any other info that is created in WIKI DOES survive, even its not '"at all notable if compared with Religious Figures or BLP that we talk about. To MAKE IT SURVIVE we should place decent references, and any reference that is accepted verifiable will prove notability in case of a religious figure, so I have changed my attitude and will act upon the above. Wikidas (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidas, I appreciate your concern and your contributions as an editor. For future articles, all of us editors should probably consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard every now and then, as this might be a good way to assure sources contribute to the notability of the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ism schism, I appreciate your consulting of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, but from my perspective, when I know perfectly well that someone is notable it is somewhat frustrating when other editors (who are fairly new to Wikipedia) seem intent on deleting an article about them. The only way around this is to provide references I agree. Maybe taking each article in turn would be a useful approach? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gouranga, that sounds like a good idea. What direction would you advise? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ism schism for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON

Thanks for the note; I don't work on ISKCON articles per se. ISKCON is nothing other than a version of Gaudiya Vaishnavism

I work on all general Hindu articles.

Raj2004 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavism work group

Please note that the Hinduism banner is now set up for assessments for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism work group. I think the first priority is to go about tagging the articles you find relevant to the project, so that you can know what condition they're in. I'd help myself, but various other concerns are likely to take up my time for the near future. I am listing it on the community portal as a new project though. If you ever want any help with the group, even if I am working elsewhere, please feel free to drop me a note. John Carter (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishanava dieties????

Deities like Vishvakarma and Ganesha are really not Vaishanava dieties, I didn't understand why you added the Vaishanavism Wikiproject link.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Redtigerxyz. I did pause and think before adding Ganesha to the Vaishnava project as he is part of almost all Hindu traditions. One of my reasons for adding him is that he is a deity which Vaishnava's respect and at times worship. Also for Vaishnavas, Ganesha wrote the Mahabharata, and there are other stories concerning Ganesha that Vaishnavas have endeared.

The choice to add Vishvakarma is due to various Vaishnava scriptures (Mahabharata and Ramayana included) which discuss in detail his relationship to Krishna. Vishvakarma is a central character in these Vaishnava narratives. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Western scholars section to the Vaishnavism article

Dear Ism schism, I really would like to talk to you about a subject that has been bothering me for months now. On the Vaishnavism article, in western scholar section; GaugangaUK put some very "questionable" people on the list. One that I am talking about was the head Sannyasa/guru of the main temple and gurukula was centered in the "Turley case". That temple/gurukula was one of the epicenters for the "things" that happened to the childern there. Please study on-line the name first listed in that section of that article. Please put a response in "my talk" of my user page. And, let me know what you think. I dont think this person should be listed on the Vaishnavism article. Please research him. Sincerely, Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional section to Bhakti yoga article

I would like to put the Sri Sampradayam description of Bhakti yoga. From the time of Ramanujacharya and before, Bhakti yoga was the practise of regular Ashtanga yoga...but, Lovenly meditate on Vishnu/Narayana. Doing dharana and dhyanam on Vishnu/Narayana is still a basic,every day part of the sadhana of a Sri Sampradayam Vaishnava. This was the standard and practise from Ramanujacharya and before. I think and feel that it should be included on this article. The conception of Bhakti yoga on this article is very tinged with a ISKON understanding and slant. I think it would be fair to add the original Sri Sampradayam standard to this article Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigroup Vedanta; List of teachers of vedanta section; 19th and 20th century Questions and comments

Dear Ism schism, I dont know if any one noticed, but, some ISKON/Gaudiya person put some ISKON/Gaudiya "guru"...some of them Notorious and very contriversial. I would like to take them out...I think it is unapropriate. The ISKON/Gaudiya editors really tinge all of these articles with their "group" slant and propaganda. Please take a look at it, study it and please tell me what you think. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree. I will look over these. These changes need to be made. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISKCON work group

Hello Henrydoktorsky. I see you have made contributions to ISKCON related articles. If you are interested, there is a discussion concerning an ISKCON work group located at, ISKCON work group or subproject. Any thoughts you have would be appreciated. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your invitation, and please pardon me for my tardiness in responding, but after viewing the page you pointed to, I think this service may be beyond my abilities. Although I have some knowledge about Kirtanananda Swami and New Vrindaban due to my 16 years of service and more recently due to my research for a proposed NV history book, I do not think I can make meaningful contributions to more generalized discussions about ISKCON and Vaishnavism. However, I will periodically watch this page and add comments when I have something to say. Sincerely, Henrydoktorski (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question of personal ISKON gurus in articles

:Dear Ism Schism, I am not trying to be offensive...but, the <s>ISKON</s>(ISKCON) gurus that I am talking about are Tamal Krishna Goswami (most especially), Satsvarupa <s>Swami</s> (dasa Goswami) (second most) and maybe....<s>Hriananda</s> (Hridayananda) Goswami. Please study these devotees,especially the first two. I really think and feel that personal gurus should not be put on these lists in the articles. Especially if they have notorious histories or controversial. Please write back. [[User:Zeuspitar|Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA]] ([[User talk:Zeuspitar|talk]]) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC){Corrected spelling <span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:Wikidas|Wikidās]]</span> 21:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)) ::Hello Govinda Ramanuja. To my knowledge, both Tamal Krishna Goswami and Hridayanada Goswami are notable academics. This feature does distinguish them probably just enough. Satsvarupa wrote the ISKCON biography of their leader, this seems to be his distinguishing feature, though I am not sure it is enough. I think a few prominent leaders from each denomination should do, the question is which ones. These three could be justified as representing ISKCON, but more than three, I feel, would over represent this organization in relation to others, and there are many others. Thanks. [[User:Ism schism|Ism schism]] ([[User talk:Ism schism#top|talk]]) 19:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Corrections in PERSONAL message to Ism Schism from Wikidas

Dear Wikidas, even IF...I wrote the message to Ism Schism with incorrect spelling.You had no reason to come and edit A PERSONAL MESSAGE, between the both of us. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 23:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire above message should not only be corrected, but should be removed to comply with WP policies:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".WP:LIVING

The above message (Private claimed is actually PUBLIC) did not place any reliable sourse in the text that is about LP. Content like that should be removed. Please see:WP:LIBEL - all contributors should recognize that it is their responsibility to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. That applies to both main text articles, personal pages and Talk pages. If not removed it will be reported to Administrators.Wikidās 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I will be spelling ISKCON correctly for now. Namaskar Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vaishnavism's relation to Vedic religion

Thanks. I have added my comments to the discussion. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article

Dear Ism Schism, Hey, who put the Alester Crowley section on the Krishna article? This section is just incoherent, philosophical bumbo-jumbo babble!!! I lived in austin texas an live in L.A...I have had almost 15 years of experience with these Thelemites! First off, Yes, they might mention Krisna...but, their practices, their philosophy are absolutely Adharmic and Avedic!! They have taken a mixture of Black tantra, Crowleys speculations on various traditions. Can we please take this out.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of Ekadasi and Ekadashi

Both articles discuss the same subject - the day known as Ekadashi. I propose that the articles be merged, as they discuss the same thing. What do you think? --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to "Question about Western scholars section to the Vaishnavism article"

Thinking about it...I beleive you are right on all points. Thanks for taking the time to contemplate the question and responding back. Looking forward to corresponding with you in the future. One more thing, can you please let me know what you think about the Crowley section of the Krishna article. I feel that it has no place in that article. I really would like to protest it.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the Crowley section goes, I completely agree. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some people who are insisting on leaving that section on the krishna article...I really would like to take it out. Please help.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Govinda Ramanuja dasa. Are you refering to the Crowley section in the Krishna article? I personally think the discussion at, Thelemic/Crowley section on the Krishna article supports such a decision to remove the material. Let me know if I can be of any help. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)

Hey Ism Schism, abacadare is really insisting on keeping the thelema section of the Krishna article. I really would like to delete it. He has come up with a second qoute to justify keep the section. What can we do? Please help. And, please look at the Krishna article discussion page too.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the deletion of the gurus section. And, I'll help in any way possible. Can you please reply back on the abacadare/thelema article situation. Thanks. Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Swaminarayan

That's great. I new to this workgroup, but I trying my best to help out. Many Swaminarayans are vaisnav because they not only worship Bhagwan Swaminarayan but also Lord Vishnu(primarily Krishna). Other Swaminarayans see Bhagwan Swaminarayan as supreme god, while others see him as an avatar of Vishnu though other Hindus do not see Bhagwan Swaminarayan as this. I know that Vaishnavs see Lord Vishnu as Supreme Lord, so this would be the only reason why Swaminarayan related article would not fit into tis category But I do know one thing for sure. If you were to go up to any Swaminarayan and asked them if they were Vaisnav, chances are that they will say yes. I really want to help this workgroup and article that this work group is fixing up. I know a lot about this topic. If you need help, leave a message on my talk page. Juthani1 (talk) 23:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remembered one thing. Vaishnavs and Swaminarayans also have the exact same ritual. You will see differences between the rituals of Vaishnavs and Shivs folowers (not huge differences, it still is Hinduim, but minor). Everything that Vaishnavs and Saminarayans do is the same.--Juthani1 (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Hindu views of Krishna

Hey Ism Schism, I voted "deletion" for all of the nominations. Please let me know if I can help in any way. Oh, what about the insistance of Imc and abadacare for the thelemic section on Krishna article? Can we do some thing like this with that situation? Please let me know.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be a priority! I strongly feel that this topic, if placed anywhere, should be on the Thelma page. I think the best way to go about this is to find a consensus. If editors from the Vaishnavism project discuss this in full, then maybe the project can speak with one voice. What do you think? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Can you correspond with shruti14, rudra and redtigerxyz to help us get this section out of the Krishna article. I have a feeling that Imc and abadacare are not true Vedics...their cryptic thelemites masking as Hindus, their too adamant in their stance on the subject. If you need me to vote on any thing or help with any thing...just let me know.Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 06:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that concensus is the best solution. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have edited Twice the thelema section and abadace changed it back. Please help, what can we do?Govinda Ramanuja dasa USA (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my comments to Talk:Krishna#Non-Hindu views of Krishna on the Thelema debate. My comments center around the fact that since the Thelema religion has dismissed Krishna as irrelevant (see my comments on this) why should we? WP:UNDUE is also something to look at on this. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Krishna#Content and references for the Others section - Abecedare wants to keep the Thelema section and has proposed that instead of removing it, we add references to determine the weight it must carry in the article. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that we are finally beginning to reach a peaceful compromise on the subject, as opposed to the potential edit wars and blocks I had feared. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update, if you haven't seen the Krishna article, the Thelema section has been shortened a lot (the rest is now mentioned in a footnote) and now other beliefs have been added. The article no longer puts so much weight on Crowley's views. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 04:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Project Vaishnavism

Thanks for letting me know - Wheredevelsdare (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gour Govinda Swami

You mean an independent source, right? No, I do not no any of those. I can see his website and such, but that is not what you want, is it? By the way, what is your position on ISKCON swami articles? Do you think they should exist or do you think they should be deleted if no 3rd party sources can be found- because they never can be found. I wish they could be, but pretty much only the devotees and disciples of an ISKCON swami ever write about him. David G Brault (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I feel that an ISKCON swami is notable if: they have significant media coverage, or are on ISKCON's Governing Body Commission, or on the faculty of Bhaktivedanta College, or have had their works reviewed by the academic community. These are the type of standards that I feel show signs of notability. Also, the readers deserve a reliable source to go to for confirmation. The types of standards I have listed above allow for dozens of articles on ISKCON swamis, I do not think that they are placing any unusual requirments upon their notability. I am open to any thoughts you have. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content i have recently added is also repeated on the Pure Bhakti Gaudiya Vaisnava Website (http://www.purebhakti.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=788&Itemid=65) as well as www.gopaljiu.org here is another source for information http://www.bvml.org/SGGM/index.htm His listing on the Bhaktivendanta Memorial Library website in my eyes proves this worth Vaisnava's noteability.Syama (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy for Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj

Hello. I declined your request for the speedy deletion of Bhakti Sundar Govinda Maharaj under CSD A7, as the article made assertions of notability. Also note that in cases where the article has been present for quite a long time (this one for more than a year), it is a courtesy not to speedy if it isn't a blatant violation of any of the speedy deletion criteria (which this certainly is not), and prodding the article or bringing an AfD forward are preferred actions. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work on the article on about SPOG

Hello Ism schism, I was wondering if you will be interested to work on the above article. There is number of sections that needs fixing and adjusting. Its a plan to add it as reference to the main article Krsna. Your approach is very valuable and will help to develop this article to the standards. --Wikidās ॐ 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smita Krishna Swami

WP:AfD outcomes do not create precedent. Just because an article on one swami was kept does not automatically mean any swami is notable. I have re-applied the notability template. Erechtheus (talk) 04:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagwan Swaminarayan Refs

Wheredevelsdare and I are trying to add as many as we can. Thank you for working hard and try to keep Bhagwan Swaminarayan under the Hindu Gods category. I saw you discussion with Cuando. Again thank you for your edits to the page. My goal is to get everything referenced. The discussion about him being a god keeps on popping up. There needs to be some way we can get this resolved. I did come up with another point. Bhagwan Swaminarayan may be a minor god and not well recognized, but if the category is removed, the same will have to occur to many other article with many minor Hindu Gods that even I haven't heard of. Thanks again Juthani1 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iv noticed that you have been helping out a lot not only in the above subject but also in all Lord Swaminarayan articles - thanks a lot. Yes, I read your message on Juthani1's page - ill def keep the Vaishnava project in mind. My work on wiki is mainly related to Bhagwan Swaminarayan, though I do also work on other subjects whenever I get the time. Wheredevelsdare (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{Underconstruction}} or {{stub}} ?

Hi, I noticed that you created some new and useful articles and added the "underconstruction" template, and I just wanted to confirm that that was intentional. To wit:

{{Underconstruction}} is used to indicate that the person placing it is planning to revamp/expand the article in the immediate future, and in the meantime the reader should be aware that the article content may be unbalanced, misformatted and constantly changing. See this
{{stub}} is used to indicate that the article needs to be expanded and the content may not be comprehensive. Also see WP:stub.

Finally, could you add the year, publisher information, page, isbn etc when adding book references; and date author etc when adding newspaper references ? Also when citing edited volumes, one should mention the specific article and contributor being referenced. If you wish you can use citation templates to help you organize all the information.
Please note, that all of the above is intended as helpful pointers and not a critique! Cheers and happy editing. Abecedare (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I forgot to mention: When you create a new stub, consider nominating it for the "Did you know" section on wikipedia's main page. That gives the subject greater visibility and encourages others to contribute. See WP:DYK for the selection criterion and nominating process. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out that distinction. I will use "underconstruction" while working on articles and then label them as "stub" after adding the year, publisher, etc. Thank you for the advice, and especially for pointing out the Wikipedia:Citation templates tools. I appreciate it. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]