User talk:Pcampbell30

December 2015

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ernest Everett Just, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As further information, Wikipedia is not a blog or forum. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish personal opinions, commentary or unsourced information likely to be challenged or disputed. See Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; and Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting the original message above because of your explanation.

I would like to make a few comments now and, if I have more to add, to get back to you a little later. As a matter of form, Wikipedia does not use contractions. Also, you should be careful about using adjectives such as "sadly" or "unfortunately." These make the text unencyclopedic because they seem to convey a non-neutral point of view and are unlikely to be backed up by good citations. As to these and other such matters of style. I suggest you look through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch to see about words or phrases that should be avoided or rewritten.

I also think you will need a few more citations. Without them, this sounds something like an essay. This might pass muster or neutral but there would be a suspicion of original research, original conclusions or synthesis. I think this would be perfectly fine in an academic essay or paper for a class, because it shows some good use of sources and some thought. Here, however, such conclusions are outside the scope of an encyclopedia article, except to the extent they can be backed up by reliable, verifiable, neutral sources or citations.

I would not remove or change your text, at least for awhile, because it is a class project and is not demonstrably wrong. However, I can only speak for myself and you might find others who would want to revert your text or change it or require you to change it because of the issues I just mentioned. I hope they would not do so if you explained it to them, but it may not be worth the chance. I assume it is understood by your professor/teacher that you are writing a factual encyclopedia article and not an original essay. Donner60 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at your changes, which are quite helpful. I think that the Adversity section should be renamed and moved ahead of the Death and Legacy sections. To me, those most logically are the concluding sections and you would see that in many articles. The Adversity section seems more about being forgotten, at least for many decades, not so much about adversity faced in his lifetime. Forgotten or long forgotten seem a little awkward so I don't really recommend them. I can not think of a better title at the moment but I suggest that you give it some thought. Donner60 (talk) 05:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JQTriple7. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Ernest Everett Just with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. JQTriple7 ^talk 07:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the heads up. I am doing this for a final project for college and essentially I only need it up until the 20th of this month (December). I did not know that an edit summary was something I need to do, I'm new to Wikipedia, but I've completely changed my section and I will add a summary with it. I have no intentions of offending anyone and making any assumptions, I'm just trying to complete the project and still remain neutral. If you have any concerns with my new section please let me know.

Pcampbell30 (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Pcampbell30[reply]

Thursday 10th December

I note that you reverted my removal of a paragraph from the Ernest Everett Just article on the basis that I did not give any reasons for removing it. I clearly stated in my edit summary that I was removing it because it was Speculation/commentary. I could also have added that what was written made little, if any, sense. For example, Just is not taught in American curriculums for three reasons: He was not afforded the ability to work with high-tech equipment like scientists today - well most historical scientists didn't work with today's high-tech equipment but are still taught in schools. I trust you will be removing that paragraph asap.14GTR (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]