User talk:Jmcgnh/Archives/2017/03

Found a ref

I've undone your edit and added in my ref on Cheating. TheCoffeeAddict talk|contribs 12:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheCoffeeAddict: Thanks for adding a ref. It looks like you are taking some liberties in synthesizing your description of the cheating, such as mentioning Oceania rather than Hong Kong, which is the only place in that hemisphere specifically mentioned in the cited ref. It also appears that the ref is talking about actions being taken to prevent potential cheating of this sort, without there being specific evidence that this sort of cheating has actually occurred. So you could do better: instead of finding a ref that sort of supports what you want to say, you could summarize what the ref actually says. And I wonder if it might be a good idea to make your addition at Cheating. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

Thank you for your feedback. I was not sure how to "source" the work. It is completely my own words and my work. I have done extensive study on the topic by studying the works of Louis Brighton. However, I did not quote anything from his book, but rather wrote the changes in all of my own words. I did, however, want to provide MY source to the readers of the wiki page.

Is it necessary to provide the name of Brighton's book in this case? Again, I don't even have it in front of me, so it is certainly not plagiarized.

thank you again! Wikijemery (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, hi Wikijemery. I'll answer here, for now, but I suggest the next interchange take place on Talk:Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, since we're primarily talking about article content.

It's good that you were writing in your own words and not violating copyright. What's bad is that you kind of plopped an entire essay into the middle of, first, the disambiguation page, where it definitely did not belong, and then on the article Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse itself. It's fairly common for large blobs of added text like this to be copyright violations, so that was my initial assessment - I confess I did not investigate further.

Unfortunately, I don't know if we can incorporate your blob of text into the already existing article. Each assertion of fact or opinion should be supported by a reference. That's practically sentence-by-sentence, not per-section. Now that I understand that these are your own words rather than a copyright problem, I'll need to go back and look at what you've written more carefully to be able to make any further constructive suggestions (and I won't have time for that today). To get (friendly) attention from more editors, I suggest you post your suggested changes on the Talk page of the article and also explain the errors or incompleteness that motivated your desire to make the additions. That way, some progress can be made even if I'm not able to participate at the moment. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)