User talk:Anhhpham

Welcome[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some other hints and tips:

I recommend that you get a username. You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. (If you edit without a username, your IP address is used to identify you instead.)
When using talk pages, please sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username (or IP address) and the date.

If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or type {{helpme}} on this talk page and a user will help you as soon as possible. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can. Again, welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in English as a foreign or second language, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please add some content when you add new section headers. Thanks, and all the best. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you do have some good ideas for writing about good language learners, you could try adding them to Language learning aptitude. This is for all language learners, not just learners of English, so it seems it might be more appropriate. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huế[edit]

Chào anh, It seems you and a number of colleagues have shown an interest in working on the article Huế. May I ask, are you editing the article as part of your studies, such as for an English learning class? If so, I wonder if I and others on Wikipedia might be able to help you? Obviously the work you've all done on the article shows great effort, and I can think of a few ways that it could be improved to better adhere to Wikipedia's style guidelines.

For one thing, some of the new text is written in a essay style, rather than an encyclopedic style. For example, the first few sentences of the "People" section give an exposition of the topic at hand in a personal, informal style, using literary devices such as wordplay, rather than simply stating the facts. While beautiful writing that expresses a writer's personality may be appropriate for an essay, it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. For another thing, all information added to Wikipedia—without exception—must be verifiable. This means that it must be based on sources that readers can identify and verify for themselves. Statements that are unverifiable may be considered original research, which is frowned upon on Wikipedia. As an example of giving sources, let's suppose we say the following about the food of Huế:

Hue is famous for various kinds of food, but more importantly, people remember Hue’s food because of the arts and the hidden meaning which each dish conveys.

We must be able to give a published, reliable source for this statement. Otherwise, it may be challenged and deleted by someone else who disagrees with the statement. Such a source could be, for example, a newspaper article or a book about the cuisine of Huế. It should not be a blog or a forum, since these are self-published sources which are not considered reliable. Sourcing the above statement might look like this:

Hue is famous for various kinds of food, but more importantly, people remember Hue’s food because of the arts and the hidden meaning which each dish conveys.^{[note 1]}

Then, the source for the statement will appear in the article's References section, looking like this:

^ The Cuisine of Hue. Nguyen Van Helsing. Mien Trung Publishing, 2001. ISBN 1010101010.

Whoever reads the article might then look up the book cited, The Cuisine of Hue (just an example—it doesn't really exist), and verify for themselves that it does indeed agree with what we've written. This way, we protect our work from being mistaken for original research, and possibly challenged and deleted.

As resources, I'd like to suggest Wikipedia:Writing better articles, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which address the concerns I've voiced above. And as I mentioned above, I stand ready to help you and your colleagues, so if there's anything you'd like to talk about or ask, please feel free to pay a visit to my talk page. :) Thanks for your contributions and keep up the good effort! --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 02:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Anhhpham. You have new messages at Talk:Good language learner studies.
Message added 08:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[r1-1] The Cuisine of Hue. Nguyen Van Helsing. Mien Trung Publishing, 2001. ISBN 1010101010.

[note 1]