User talk:Emtan1

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Emtan1! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rosiestep and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Rosiestep (talk) 04:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all you might like to read these

Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Instructions_for_students

Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/Instructions_for_teachers_and_lecturers

Although the second link is for teachers, it contains lots of useful links to guidelines and policies that you may want to read to familiarize yourself with some of the requirements of editing here. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the lead section

Please see this article about what a lead section should contain and how it should be written. The lead section is horrendously long, badly written, not concise at all, rambling and definitely does not need more information added. It needs to be rewritten and shorn of a lot of the irrelevant (and in some cases apparently made-up) information. For example, a lot of the alternative names for SMS language do not appear to be in *notable* use. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly WP:COPYVIO

Ok so I have spent a bit of time checking the references, blogs are not suitable as reliable sources in general (ok only one occurrence but the ref does not seem to support the statement in the article). Obviously I do not have access to all theses sources but there are three direct copyright infringements lifted wholesale from one source and other stuff appears just to have been truncated or the odd word changed concerning at least a couple of the other references (still copyvio/plagiarism). So, unfortunately, I would have to conclude that this is pretty much the same for most of the information you wish to add. Please read the guidelines and information pages carefully that I have linked you to and do not add this information back in its present form. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Improvements to lead section and copyright violation

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and read through my edits! With regards to why this article was chosen, we are restricted to linguistic related articles, many of which are much longer and much more well developed and the remaining stub articles on linguistics consists of topics that we could not find any information on besides what was already there since there was close to no research done on those topics. I have read through all the articles you have recommended properly and made the appropriate changes to the lead sections and rephrased many parts and removed sections that may constitute copyright violation in my sandbox. I am a little apprehensive about the lead section though since most of the lead section was contributed by other users and I am not sure if others will protest if I remove or edit their contributions to the lead. Please be assured that I am serious about editing the article to make it better. I am aware, just as you have pointed out that a good article does not mean putting up more information ,therefore I am not just adding information to chalk up points. Thank you once again for all your suggestions and advice and sorry to bother you once again :)Emtan1 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as you can see from the section below I posted a request for uninvolved editors to take a look, as I was worried that you were not going to respond. As I was posting at the noticeboard you replied to me here. If you're okay I will take a more thorough look at the article in your sandbox this weekend. The lead really needs cutting down, but give me a chance to read WP:LEDE first. Oh and I apologize if I came over as being a bit harsh, but this article attracts a lot of vandalism, people just adding plain rubbish for giggles etc. so when I saw all of your edits with no edit summary and the mass of material added, I probably overreacted a little in reverting all of them. Sorry. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 00:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take note to add a summary edit when I make an edit next time.Emtan1 (talk) 02:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in fact (unless you are reverting vandalism) you should provide an edit summary for every edit in mainspace, you might like to read WP:ES and also Wikipedia:Edit summary legend, the latter is a quick gide to abbreviations regularly used. For example:

-caps, means I have removed capital letters where they were unnecessary
+punc, I have added extra punctuation as the sentence was unclear as it read
ce for clarity, readability, means I have copyedited the text (rearranged the text, rewritten with more suitable words, better syntax etc.)

Please see this too, Help:Using_talk_pages#Indentation, concerning the correct way to format your talk page comments, I have refactored your reply above to conform to this. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 08:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add that I have been off-wiki for a few days, just had a quick look, the article seems much better, neater etc. I copyedited one small section to make it more readable, using plainer English and less convoluted syntax, and also modified the bit at the end about the NZ exams board. I have a couple of other suggestions but I will come back to these this weekend. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMS language

There is a discussion involving you at WP:EAR#Need eyes/input on this. Spinning Spark 23:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]