User talk:Rebrow23
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Rebrow23, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello. If you make an edit to an article, and another editor reverts the change that you made, then, per the WP:BRD guideline, open a discussion on the Talk page about why you made the original change, and try to reach an agreement on how to proceed. Do not simply revert to your preferred version. See also WP:EDIT WAR. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR
[edit]Hello. Analysis of fiction in Wikipedia articles should be cited to secondary sources, not to the text of the work of fiction itself (the primary source). See WP:PRIMARY. I would also note, regarding my reversion of your recent edits at Fun Home (musical), that your analysis of one of the Young Alison scenes does not belong in the "Characters" section. It seems like you want to begin a new "Analysis of text and music" section, which you can do. However, your assertion of what the scene "suggests" is WP:OR, which cannot be used in Wikipedia. You need to cite all analysis to secondary sources like books; magazine, journal or news articles about the show; or reviews. I strongly suggest discussing "secondary sources" with your teacher before editing again. If you do create an "Analysis" section, I would suggest that you first create it in your sandbox, until you have a complete section that analyzes the whole show, or at least the most important scenes or themes. Sticking in an analysis of just one scene would be jarring and violate our guideline on weight and balance: WP:BALASP. Here is an example of an analysis section. Here is another example. Note the kind of references used in these examples. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Two less important matters: First, coming out is a short form of "coming out of the closet", the longer form of which is clearer to most of Wikipedia's readers, so I suggest you leave the longer form there. Second, "could of been" is poor grammar. In English, the idiom is "could have been". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Ssilvers, thank you for your detailed explanation - it's really well written! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Talk pages
[edit]Hi! I wanted to leave a note here about using talk pages, especially those on articles.
When you're editing, it's usually a pretty good idea to check out the talk pages first to see if there's anything pertinent to what you're trying to add. For example, sometimes some material will not be in a page or be written in a specific fashion because of a prior community consensus, so checking for this ahead of time can save you some work. If you're going to be making a very large or controversial change or edit, you may want to post to the talk page and let people know what you're going to be doing, especially if you're going to edit a controversial topic, like Donald Trump's article.
Also, if you find that your edits have been reverted, edited, or otherwise removed, you should not try to re-add the content. You should instead leave a message asking about the removal/editing on either the article's talk page or the user's talk page. Sometimes the removal is an accident, but it's also very likely that the content was removed because it didn't fit one or more of Wikipedia's guidelines, it may be redundant, or another reason. Re-adding the content can be seen as edit warring and continuing to do this can have some pretty negative repercussions, as it can lead to you temporarily losing the ability to edit. I can't stress how important it is to stop and make sure that you communicate with the other person rather than just re-add the content. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
User pages
[edit]Hi, I was alerted that you had edited the user page of Ssilvers with this edit. Please do not do this, as editing someone's userpage without their permission can be seen as a huge breach of etiquette. There are only a very few times when you can edit someone's userpage without permission, typically when someone is vandalizing or posting attack content. Changing content without permission, even if you meant well, can often be seen as a form of vandalism. Please don't do this again. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
You added some "character analysis" to Fun Home (musical), but you did not cite any source other than the musical itself. You may not add your own original analysis to Wikipedia articles. If you wish to add analysis, it must come from critics or theatre writers or other secondary sources. See WP:OR for more information. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Fun Home (musical), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Flami72 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)