User talk:Scampicat: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:06, 7 August 2012

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

I've made it clear that I'm done discussing a clear-cut issue with you. Stop posting on my talk page. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie - sorry for the confusion - my mistake, I placed the link in the external links section when I had meant to add it as a citation (along with my other two citations). I'm a new contributor, and I'm finding my way - I did however find the discussion in the DRN very helpful and the editors kindly pointed out my mistake. I think we've got off on the wrong foot. On your talk page, I was genuinely seeking discussion and guidance rather than an assumption that I was spamming.

For my part, I'm sorry - from now on I hope we can work together - any guidance is appreciated.

I've moved the discussion to the article's page and put together a new proposal with my three citations in place. As I say, we obviously don't have to include the link (of the three citations - the first is the one to the external article). I think the article provides valuable information I haven't found expressed as well elsewhere. Sadly contemporary copywriting theory is scarce and I felt that this article did a good job of providing an overview and setting the context.

Anyway see what you think now - and drop me a line if you want to discuss it further. Scampicat (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Scampicat, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the use of commercial website as a source

There are about a gazillion completely reliable sources that can be used to support content about editing and copyediting and writing's tricks and tropes. The repeated default to attempt to use a commercial site instead of another source is problematic and gives rise to the impression that there is some reason the commercial site is being promoted.

if you are looking for an online place to find acceptable material, books.google.com is generally a very good place to start looking for content published under parameters that fit Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Sorry i missed this post last night. I answered this in the DRN:[reply]

Of course, we don't have to use the link or the content. However, I chose it as it enabled me to contribute an important section to the Rule of Three (writing) section which has not as yet been covered. Sadly, when it comes to copywriting theory, the majority of text on the subject are fairly superficial, covering topics such as basic writing technique and how to gain employment (building a portfolio, gaining employment, etc). Text on actual contemporary copywriting theory are scarce and I've yet to find one that covers the topic discussed here. In my research on the rule of three writing techniques, this particular article seemed to summarise the technique's application within copywriting, while also covering the broader context. As the article is non-promotional I personally didn't see a problem with it, as it enabled me to provide an additional section to Rule of Three writing. Scampicat (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion to the article's page and put together a proposal with (I think) correct citations. As I say, we obviously don't have to include the link ( I have three citations - the first is the one to an external source). I think it provides valuable information I haven't found expresses as well elsewhere.Scampicat (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe check out the Teahouse?

Hey, Scampicat! No worries about the stuff on the dispute resolution noticeboard; Wikipedia is a complicated place, and misunderstandings like that happen quite a bit. I'm glad we could sort it out. :) If you have any general questions about Wikipedia, perhaps you should check out the Teahouse? It's a place on Wikipedia for users (especially new users) to ask any questions they like about Wikipedia and get answers in a friendly, relaxed atmosphere. Thanks, and I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - I'll take a look. I've feel pretty dreadful that I've started my contributions to Wikipedia with a confrontation - that was, let's face it, my fault for not getting the citation in place correctly (though I got two out of three of my references correct!) I've been such a fan of wikipedia for so long, I genuinely enjoyed putting together my first section and cross referecning it - I hope to add many more articles without ruffling feathers next time!Scampicat (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, don't worry about it. One of our policies is to be bold; if you see something to do, and you think it's the right thing to do for Wikipedia, then go for it! Confrontations are less than pleasant, I know, but they're bound to happen in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia's, so sometimes you just gotta roll with the punches. I'm glad to hear that you enjoyed editng, though; with all its complexities and faults, I find Wikipedia to be a pretty fun place, so don't get discouraged! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]