User talk:JendisMoreau

This is JendisMoreau's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome!

Hi JendisMoreau! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Anthropology of Technology has been accepted

Anthropology of Technology, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Doric Loon (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Well done on this article, which is a great first contribution to Wikipedia. Could I ask you, though, to re-do the citations? That would help a lot. The main thing is to use the cite book and cite journal templates for bibliography. You will find those templates by clicking on the "insert template" icon at the top of the edit box. But what I would also recommend, to bring it in line with the most recent best practice, is to use the shortened footnote system, which you will find explained at Template:Sfn. Here you don't actually put the bibliographical data into the footnote. Rather, you put it into a separate bibliography section, and put an sfn link into the footnote. That lets you put the bibliography alphabetically, and gives you footnotes that are far easier to read - and if you hover over them, you get the data in popups, which is really cool. I'll do the first two for you. Ask me if you need help with the rest. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Doric Loon, for making those citation changes. I went back today to do the revisions and found that you had already done them. I did add references when the label "citation needed" was placed. JendisMoreau (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JendisMoreau, sorry, I really should have left that for you to do, but I am an inveterate tinkerer, and I'm on holiday. But I'm glad to see you have got the hang of this citation style. It has real advantages, even if the templates are not always user-friendly. I just added a completely unnecessary refinement by grouping the footnotes with sfnm in cases where two footnotes came at the same place - it looks prettier in the text. So now you can have a little laugh at my fixations. None of this really matters - the important thing is the fantastic article that you have written. Why not do another one?

By the way, when a new article is accepted through AfC, it can be proposed for Wikipedia:Did you know, but that has to be done within a couple of weeks. Check that out - if you are lucky, you could see a little advert for your new article on Wikipedia's front page, which is kind of cool. Doric Loon (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what I also wanted to say: there are a couple of things that will further improve the article from a formal point of view. In the bibliography, can you add the first names of authors, rather than just initials, if you can find them? If possible, it is a good idea to give the ISBN for books - I have added one already. And for specific citations, it is good to have precise page numbers. You already have that in your Dobres & Hoffman citation, and can see how I have fitted that into the sfn format. Do keep improving the content too. I think eventually this could get Good Article status. No chance of getting a picture? Doric Loon (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the isbns and as many first names as I could. The exact page numbers might take a little longer, though many of the citations to books are referring to the entire book. For instance, Wenger's entire book is about Communities of Practice. JendisMoreau (talk) 22:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bryan Pfaffenberger (November 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Timtrent were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs to

meet any of the eight academic-specific criteria
or cite multiple reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject, which cover the subject in some depth

Make sure your draft meets one of the criteria above before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If the subject does not meet any of the criteria, it is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please use sources in addition to papers by the subject

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bryan Pfaffenberger and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JendisMoreau! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Bryan Pfaffenberger

Hello, JendisMoreau. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bryan Pfaffenberger, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Bryan Pfaffenberger

Hello, JendisMoreau. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Bryan Pfaffenberger".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! ji11720 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]