User talk:Jjamulla

Welcome!

Hi Jjamulla! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors

Thanks for contributing to the article Blue Lake (New York). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks for catching this I will go look at it. I was aware of the general concept of not doing this

Actually, I didn't use Wikipedia. I used Kiddle. Another Encyclopedia.

I've been trying to clear up bare URLs, and a lot of these articles frankly aren't very good, have sources that don't work, can't be found, and are plain wrong, actually seeming to dis-prove the text.

In this care this is all I could find in a short time. Is Kiddle not something we're allowed to use?

Had a rough 24 hrs. with this *smile* Jjamulla (talk) 23:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh another question if you don't mind, or tell me where else to ask please.

In this specific case I had a link I could not find, so perm. dead to me. I tried to find a replacement with some google and wayback machine searches.

Is it better or worse (or proper one way or the other) to REMOVE the perm dead link? It seems like leaving it there is just leaving junk lying around, but it is possible some day someone else could come find a replacement for it.

Almost seems better to remove the perm. dead link and put a template for citations needed type thing where it was trying to be a citation.

What do you think/what is proper thing to do? I've had this happen a lot in the past few days wasn't really sure what to do. Sometimes if lots of other refs, I left it there. If seemed info was maybe wrong in text or link I just removed it, assuming a bot would come by and say more citations needed or someone like yourself.

Again - I am VERY new and trying to stay within just "fixing"/enhancing existing citations where I can for bare links since I don't know that much, but I am learning.

This one was a little outside what I am normally trying to do since there wasn't a lot of citations and this one seemed dead. Jjamulla (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]