User talk:Btboy500
Welcome!
[edit]Hi Btboy500, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 17:04, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. I would say that when reviews describe an album as having "squeezed the last remaining life out of this nearly extinct formula," "nothing more and nothing less than Hybrid Theory Part 2," and "left the reviewer 'underwhelmed,'" there is certainly basis to say there was a poor critical response.
(Also, please sign your comments on talk pages - you can do so by leaving four tildes, like so: ~~~~)
Thanks, and if you have any questions drop me a line! [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 00:56, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If we're generalizing about the critical response as a whole then we need to take everything into account. Your basis of saying that the response was poor were based on the ones labeled as average, not poor, reviews. Specifically the review from New Music Express was labeled as good. For the fact that the majority of reviews are labeled under excellent, good, or average, I don't think "poor" was a good word to use. Maybe the reviews themselves are mislabeled. Otherwise, I think maybe "lackluster" or "mediocre" would be better. Btboy500 16:48, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Lacklustre and mediocre are perfectly acceptable words. I wouldn't object if you wanted to change the phrase to say that. (Not that I would have objected in the first place, to be perfectly honest - it's not one of my "pet" articles and I don't monitor it altogether closely.) As for Talk pages...it can go either way, really. I (and most users) have no preference for where my discussions take place. Some users do, and most of them make note of that on their talk page. And as for my quote - I know. You're not the first person to notice. I'm not changing it, because that would be giving in to everyone. =P [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 22:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.
Please consider taking our survey here.
This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.
We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.