I'd like some feedback on my Hamilton Road article from anyone who has some constructive feedback on how it can be improved prior to publishing this as an article. Thanks in advance :-) Kbaughan1 (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kbaughan1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

September 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Luftwaffe bomber crash near Kingsdown, Kent in November 1940 has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://kingsdownkent.blogspot.com/ (matching the regex rule \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to referencing[edit]

Click on "show" on the right of the orange bar to open contents.

Using references (citations)

Help another user by posting this to them. Put ((subst:refstart)) on their talk page or a relevant article talk page. Alternatively, use the link WP:REFB, which goes to a help page.

I thought you might find it useful to have some information about references (refs) on wikipedia. These are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material; and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's highly advisable to also include a reference to say where it came from. Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. If you need any assistance, let me know. -- Ty 01:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good references

A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, and authorised web sites. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research (e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research), or another wikipedia article.

Inserting a reference

The first thing you have to do is to create a "Notes and references" section (unless it already exists). This goes towards the bottom of the page, below the "See also" section and above the "External links" section. Enter this code:

==Notes and references==

((reflist))

The next step is to put a reference in the text. Here is the code to do that. It goes at the end of the relevant term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers, and after punctuation such as a full stop, without a space (to prevent separation through line wrap):

Whatever text you put in between these two tags will become visible in the "Notes and references" section as your reference.

Test it out

Open the edit box for this page, copy the following text (inserting your own text where indicated), paste it at the bottom of the page and save the page:

==Reference test==

This is the text which you are going to verify with a reference.<ref>Reference details go here</ref>

==Notes and references==

((reflist))

(End of text to copy and paste.)

It should appear like this:

Reference test

This is the text which you are going to verify with a reference.^[1]

Notes and references

^ Reference details go here

Information to include

You need to include the information to enable the reader to find your source. For an online newspaper source, it might look like this:

<ref>Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''[[The Guardian]]'', 2005-10-27. Retrieved on 2005-10-27.</ref>

When uploaded, it appears as:

Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, 2005-10-27. Retrieved on 2005-10-27.

Note the single square brackets around the URL and the article title. The format is:

[http://URL "Title of article"]

Make sure there is a space between the URL and the Title. This code results in the URL being hidden and the title showing as a link. Use double apostrophes for the article title (it is quoted text), and two single quote marks either side of the name of the paper (to generate italics). Double square brackets round the name of the paper create an internal link (a wikilink) to the relevant wikipedia article. Apostrophes must go outside the brackets.

The date after The Guardian is the date of the newspaper, and the date after "Retrieved on" is the date you accessed the site – useful for searching the web archive in case the link goes dead.

References not online

You can use sources which are not online, but which you have found in a library or elsewhere—in which case leave out the information which is not relevant. The newspaper example above would be formatted like this:

<ref>Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", ''[[The Guardian]]'', 2005-10-27.</ref>

When uploaded, it appears as:

Plunkett, John. "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying", The Guardian, 2005-10-27.

Here is an example for a book:

<ref>Charmley, John (2006). ''The Princess and the Politicians'', p.60. Penguin Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0140289712.</ref>

When uploaded, it appears as:

Charmley, John (2006). The Princess and the Politicians. Penguin Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0140289712.

Make sure you put two single quote marks round the title (to generate italics), rather than one double quote mark.

Date format

These formats are all acceptable for dates:

2005-01-27

27 January 2007

January 27, 2007

Citation templates

You may prefer to use a citation template to compile details of the source. The template goes between the ref tags and you fill out the fields you wish to. Basic templates can be found here: Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles/Citation quick reference

Same ref used twice or more

The first time a reference appears in the article, you can give it a simple name in the <ref> code:

<ref name="smith">Details of ref here</ref>

The second time you use the same reference in the article, you need only to create a short cut instead of typing it all out again:

You can then use the short cut as many times as you want. Don't forget the /, or it will blank the rest of the article! Some symbols don't work in the ref name, but you'll find out if you use them. The quotes around the name are optional unless there is a space in the name.

You can see multiple use of the same refs in action in the article William Bowyer (artist). There are three sources and they are each referenced three times. Each statement in the article has a footnote to show what its source is.

Alternative system

The above method is simple and combines references and notes into one section. A refinement is to put the full details of the references in their own section headed "References", while the notes which apply to them appear in a separate section headed "Notes". The notes can be inserted in the main article text in an abbreviated form as seen in Harriet Arbuthnot or in a full form as in Brown Dog affair.

Further information

More information can be found at:

Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference

I note you are creating an article on a cemetery in Deal. For several references you give a Wikipedia article as a source. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot be used in this way per WP:RS. If the source is available in the Wikipedia article then that source should be quoted. If the source is offline and you do not have access to it then you shouldn't really use it because you cannot verify it yourself. Any questions please drop a message on my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 09:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it takes a while to learn all the rules and regs. WP:CITE will give you good info about citing sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe / Kingsdown[edit]

I too have graves of air crash victims in my photo album. But unfortunatley I still do not think your four Germans are notable. As Lance-Corporal Jack Jones would say, don't panic: you have a couple of days to copy your article off. And if the AfD decision is "delete", I do hope you will publish it on your own website. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luftwaffe bomber crash near Kingsdown, Kent in November 1940[edit]

Seriously, like the man says, do make a copy of the article. Once the Noob biters are gone, and you learn a bit more about citations, this article will make a fine addition to WP. The article is going to go down in flames in the AfD, if you excuse the expression, but you can re-post it again, later. Probably best to do so much later. Also, the more improvements you make to it from its AfD form to when you re-post it, the more solid your resubmission will appear, so working on it now is not only a waste of time, but counterproductive to the process of getting the point into the thick heads of WP deletionists. From what I have read, the contributors to the AfD do not know the first thing about the numbers of losses in the Battle of Britain, let alone the interim period between the BoB and the Blitz in which this crash took place. The very first thing I read about it showed a loss of 16 fighters out of 30 during the whole of the Battle of Britain, so this 'hundreds' thing appears to be crap. It would probably be a good idea to add such data to the article, to tie it into the whole BoB / Blitz continuum.
Couple things.
Do not cite WP. WP is user-edited, so it is not a reliable source (irony).
You already got told off for primary sources, but there is not a hard and fast rule about them. They are considered appropriate in certain circumstances. Use your own judgement. If there is some other way you can say what needs to be said, without using them, then fine, if you cannot, that is a good reason to use them. Whether it is a good enough reason, I cannot say, and I am not only an inclusionist, but a firm opponent of application of the primary source rule outside of controversies or witnesses of controversial reliability.
You put all the sources into the article. Great. That removes one of the tags from the article. But as I said, do not bother taking it out during the AfD, for the reason I said, and also people think it is cheesy to work on the article during AfD, go figure.
Name the citations. ref[URL-web-address space Name]close ref. Or better yet, use one of the citation templates. Only not vertically; terrible waste of space. I used to think I was all fancy for writing them vertically but each new line is another byte of storage space, and more lines for editors to have to scroll through, so I do not do it anymore. Same process, only do not hit Enter, for a new line, as much, basically.
And here is my standard template for new users:

Here are some tips from someone who has contributed to thousands of articles without really knowing anything much:

Read and understand fully, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability. And every other Wikipedia rule (Wikipedia:List of policies and Wikipedia:List of guidelines) you can possibly stand to read.
Use Google and Yahoo and Google Books, find new information there, and use templates at Wikipedia:Citation templates to add the title of the book, and URL web address of the google book search. Optionally, (and because it works better and looks better, preferably) you can also add the author' name etc.
Wikipedia (WP) is unfair. You will get people messing with your edits, large numbers of editors all making bad decisions and using force of numbers to enforce them, administrators making terrible decisions, and using their powerful positions to enforce them, etc. Number one thing is, keep your cool.
Always use the passive voice in your discussions with other editors; do not say "You made a bad edit", say, "The edit of 8th of September contained errors". The more you know about the subject, and about WP procedure, the more that this will come automatically to you. Wikipedia:No personal attacks is not just a good rule because it keeps things harmonious, it is a good rule because the best arguments are always logical ones.
Do not get sucked into edit wars, arguments, anything that wastes your time and disrupts WP.
If it gets too much, take a break from Wikipedia.
Have fun with it. Heh. If I have not taken all the fun out of it already, anyway. Good luck.

Anarchangel (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you are aware, the article was deleted - please don't feel too disheartened about this. I requested a copy of it as I wished to merge some of the info into other articles, particularly Kampfgeschwader 4. Where did you get the names from? Was it David Collyer's book or the one published by the Kent Aviation Historical Society, or both? Unfortunately the way you have referenced the info in the article is not the accepted method on Wikipedia (nothing that can't be sorted out and it does take a while to learn your way around Wikipedia). Let me know what the source is and I'll add it to the article. One last thing, you don't need to sign edit summaries, the software tells everyon who the edit was made by. (don't forget to sign you posts on talk pages though). Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helpme tag[edit]

See: User talk:Kbaughan1/Hamilton Road Cemetery, Deal, Kent --Lcawte (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo! The article is coming on fine, but you need to use ((cite web)) for the references as bare urls are now not approved of. It looks complicated but you can generally get away with ((cite web|url= |title= |publisher= |accessdate=)). Also, you don't need to sign your edit summaries. You only need to sign on talk pages and other places where you are communicating with other editors. Best, Mjroots (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zeebrugge Raid[edit]

Re your recent edit, Wikipedia is not suitable as a reference for articles (see WP:RS. Do you have a reliable reference for that info? Mjroots (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Rd Cemetery[edit]

Did you see that bit on BBC Southeast News tonight about the tailfin of the Dornier whose crew are buried in the cemetery? Mjroots (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt)[edit]

Kbaughan1, thank you very much for your corrections. In the meantime I translated the additional parts from de.wikpedia:Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt) and would be glad, if you could correct them once again.

For your personel research it could be usefull to read http://www.volksbund.de > Graebersuche to find out, what Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräber knows about or should know. --Roland.h.bueb (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roland. There was a very helpful lady from the Volksbund who helped me compile information from their records. Without their help, much of this article could not have been written :-) Kbaughan1 (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Quadrophenia Reversion[edit]

Hey, sorry about that, I actually meant to point this out earlier -- per WP:FILMPLOT, summaries should generally be between 400 and 700 words (more or less). The summary we have now is 342 (having just checked). And yours was over 2000 words long. I understand the reasoning completely, but summaries on Wikipedia are meant to be brief, and statements like the final sentence in your summary, "The position of this event in the timeframe of the film is never made clear, but it is possible that the beginning is its dénouement, and Jimmy has survived to become an indivdual with his own independent identity at last." are considered original research. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Original Barnstar
	Appreciate your work on the Hamilton Road Cemetery, Deal article. Webkandi (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been pruned from a list[edit]

Hi Kbaughan1! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]