User talk:Scartol/Archives/2011/June
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
WP:JARGON question
I need to ask you another question. Perhaps the thing that annoys me most about Wikipedia is that editing disputes seem to be mediated primarily by the citation of various archived policy regulations (usually quoted as jargon), but that there does not seem to be obvious way to search for the these regulations when needed. I need to find pages regulating what information should be included in a citation, and what information should (and should not) be included in a lead / introductory section. Can you tell me where I could find pages on these topics, and can you direct me to a registry containing them, so that I can search independently for similar pages in the future? Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Aww: scratch that. I eventually found what I was looking for.Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, here's what I wrote. Maybe it'll be good for future reference: Good question! That was one of the trickiest things I had to learn when I started editing. The "Interaction > Help" menu item on the left side of the screen is your best first stop. You'll find Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia, which gives a thorough overview of the main editing elements, and you should also bookmark Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines.
The Signpost: 6 June 2011
- Board elections: Time to vote
- News and notes: Board resolution on controversial content; WMF Summer of Research; indigenous workshop; brief news
- Recent research: Various metrics of quality and trust; leadership; nerd stereotypes
- WikiProject report: Make your own book with Wikiproject Wikipedia-Books
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Two cases pending resolution; temporary desysop; dashes/hyphens update
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 13 June 2011
- News and notes: Wikipedians 90% male and largely altruist; 800 public policy students add 8.8 million bytes; brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Aircraft
- Featured content: Featured lists hit the main page
- Arbitration report: More workshop proposals in Tree shaping case; further votes in PD of other case
- Technology report: 1.18 extension bundling; mobile testers needed; brief news
The Signpost: 20 June 2011
- News and notes: WMF Board election results; Indian campus ambassadors gear up; Wikimedia UK plans; Malayalam Wikisource CD; brief news
- WikiProject report: The Elemental WikiProject
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: One case comes to a close; initiator of a new case blocked as sockpuppet
Reply
LOL!! Thanks for the compliment on my screen name. Made my day. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hańska
I am done with my copyedit, I listed various issues on talk for inclusion and further clarification/expansion. Thank you for providing me with the sources. Please keep up the good work, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Hanska
Hey Scar, just posted my two cents at Eva's FAC. Wow, FAC can be so tiresome! Sometimes I think that its purpose is to have content editors jump through hoops for the entertainment of others. I'm sure you already know this, but there have been times that I've just followed the suggestions of reviewers just to make them happy, and not because I think that their suggestions are any real merit. I thought that it was just the nature of the articles I tend to write--I mean, everyone's an expert on Sesame Street, so everyone has opinions about what should go in its articles. I was sincere when I said that your articles should just get a free pass, based on your track record, or at least with basic feedback to ensure that you haven't missed anything. I'm not at that point yet, but I sure would like to be, which is why I still submit myself to GACs. I wonder, then, if you should simply submit to the citation requests and get it over with. The article is already excellent, but you already know that. It doesn't even need that star to validate its excellence, but you probably already know that, too. Christine (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey again, Scar, I've just cast my vote of support for this article. I apologize if anything I've said has made the situation worse. Christine (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 June 2011
- WikiProject report: The Continuous Convention: WikiProject Comics
- Featured content: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision for Tree shaping case
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News