User talk:Brasscupcakes
Hello, Brasscupcakes, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
- Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
for the doe fund
Disambiguation link notification
[edit]Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.
- The Doe Fund (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links to Williamsburg, Department of Labor, Department of Veterans Affairs, Replication, Greater New York, St. John’s University, MacArthur and Housing
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Jeremy, are you the same Jeremy who was trying to help me during the IRC and were indeed very helpful, speaking in layman's terms and being extremely patient? The same session when Jesse the (also very nice) Furry was there? (I look up Furry on Wikipedia -- really interesting!) Anyway, thank you very much for catching these -- I read about disambiguation previously but I guess I was very provincial and didn't remember there are all these other wikipedia's in other countries (and duh, american states) And I fixed them -- but only by cutting and pasting the disambiguation solver corrections in replacement for the disambiguated links on the Doe Fund's editing page. Which is perfectly okay, not a big deal. But, the disambiguation solver is very handy so it would be nice to know for next time why I get the following message despite logging out and back in: Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data anyhow, this was great, because I also caught missing and extra punctuation marks here and there) and one more question, please. I thought I had created a personal sandbox on my user pages -- I keep trying to create sandboxes because the main one is always getting erased -- but I think I'm still not creating them in the right place. I did most of the real grunt work on this article in the (I think) misplaced sandbox. I know I'm being dense (I also keep forgetting to insert the tildes that put a signature in my edits), but I have read the help section on sandboxes so if you could explain it one more time, that would be great. Maybe I could make a permanent sandbox that doesn't ever get deleted and work on all my edits in it, regardless of subject. Actually, I hope I put this message in the correct place! Thanks again, Amy
Brasscupcakes (talk) 17:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, there, any editor who might be able to help me with the following issue about The Doe Fund, an entry I edited which has a NONPOV message. I posted the same message on The Doe Fund editing page but nobody has jumped in there, so I'm sticking it in here, in case anybody's watching my talk page. Thank you!
Many sections seem promotional
[edit]This article appears to bury the substantiated and documented criticism under a pile of promotional writing about the org. Please integrate better. Article lopsided at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallafelsnwaffles (talk • contribs) 03:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
NPOV Dispute
[edit]Hi there. I'm concerned about the NPOV message on the page which says:
Many sections are promotional. article appears to bury the substantiated and documented criticism under a pile of promotional writing about the org. Please integrate better. Article lopsided at present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [index.php?title=User:Fallafelsnwaffles&action=edit&redlink=1 Fallafelsnwaffles] ([index.php?title=User_talk:Fallafelsnwaffles&action=edit&redlink=1 talk] • contribs) 03:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I did the version of the edit that's being referred to and I'm not sure why my edit would be considered promotional, let alone 'piled' with promotion, but I'm a newbie Wikipedian so I probably need some guidance.
I'm a lifelong editor and writer for newspapers, magazines and books. I've been a staffer at three newspapers, and my work has appeared in the New York Times, Esquire, New York Magazine and other places. I knew my background might be a negative in terms of resisting the urge to do independent reporting but I hoped it would help with neutrality. I'd like to do more editing here as I recently lost my job and have more time.
The help sections say Wikipedia strongly prefers journalistic style writing that is well organized with a natural flow. I reorganized and added to the existing headers because it seemed to me that material that belonged in same category or should have appeared in close proximity was spread out, making the article harder to follow.
As far as negative stuff goes, I didn't remove much, I don't think, and I added some. I made the removals because the facts as stated changed since their inclusion or weren't properly documented. For example, the article stated that a cash prize accompanying a Lifetime Achievement Award presented to The Doe Fund's founder was misappropriated because the check was meant for The Doe Fund, not him. Subsequently, the foundation that made the award released a clarification saying the money was his to dispose of as he liked. I'll be glad to explain other omissions in more detail if that helps; I might be mistaken about some, but I really don’t think I could have made a "pile" of mistakes.
Before doing my edit, I read a bunch of other entries about nonprofits to see what kind of balance they struck, and they were all at least as positive as the article I wrote, even though most had been publicly criticized. Plus, they’re nonprofits -- we're not exactly talking about Enron or abortion or some other patently controversial subject.
Anyhow, sorry if I was long winded here. I tried my best to be brief, but I am not of the Twitter generation. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.Brasscupcakes (talk) 01:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)