Hello, Ynottry! Thank you for your contributions. My name's Brambleclawx and I just wanted to say hi and Welcome to Wikipedia! If you need help, try looking at some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of the world's largest encyclopædia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name, the date and the time. If you are already loving Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field every time you edit. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Brambleclawx16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{helpme}} Where do you find a list or link to pages needing citations?
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.
Yes, it's often easy to find the references that an article needs, but it doesn't happen unless someone goes to the trouble of finding them and adding them. I appreciate your contributions to improving the quality of these articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can revert a page to fix vandalism. All revisions of a page back to the first one are stored in the page history. To revert to an earlier version, just select and copy the text from the history, open the article for editing, paste it back in, and save it. When not dealing with obvious vandalism, reverting often is a bad strategy. It alienates other users and provokes edit wars. Stay cool, talk to the user in question directly, or try to resolve issues on the article's Talk page.
Please do not revert the same page more than three times within 24-hours (the three-revert rule). Doing so can lead to a temporary ban against you. Administrators and Rollbackers have a handy rollback feature that allows them to instant-revert vandalism by going to a user's contributions page. To revert only the most recent edit there is an undo link on the article history page or on the article diff page.
Deleting large chunks of text at one go can trigger the anti-vandal robot, Cluebot, to revert the edit which is what happened on Scotsboro Boys. I put back the work that you had done which the robot wrongly interpreted as vandalism. Please do not be detered.--Charles (talk) 21:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Charles. Did you fix the orphaned refs as well?
What do you think about length now? Also, is the "Detailed summary" OK? Would it be better to replace the lead with the "Detailed summary?" Finally, how do I get the lead back above the table of contents? Thanks for your encouragement. Ynottry (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry[reply]
Taking the last point first I removed the level 1 header and bolded the subject title in the first line as per the Manual of Style which has sorted out the table of contents.
It was another robot that fixed up the references. When the same reference is used more than once the full template is used the first time but subsequently just the reference name can be used like this <ref name=(name)/> to keep the edit window less cluttered and for tidiness. If you open the page history you can see who did what. You have your watch list set up to see when things are changed?
The length of article looks ok from a brief look through. The present lead is much too short and it would be good to merge it into the overview section as the lead. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) has all the detail. The featured article leads which are on the front page each day also show best practice and some of them are interesting too.--Charles (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Charles for fixing things in the Scottsboro Boys article. I've merged the detailed summary into the lead per your suggestions. You're right--it is much better. Ynottry (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Ynottry[reply]
