User talk:Videomarkw

Welcome

Hello Videomarkw, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Videomarkw, good luck, and have fun. – Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page No Fire Zone has been reverted.
Your edit here to No Fire Zone was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.facebook.com/FestivalDerHumALC) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to No Fire Zone, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 20:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you did not pay attention to Obi2canibe's advice above and reverted his action at No Fire Zone. I have reverted to a version prior to the addition of the unsourced material ~ and in addition to a version the formatting of which was not broken (your edits broke formatting rather severely) ~ and i strongly urge you not to edit it again as you have before you discuss your additions on the talk page. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse Invititation

Hello! Videomarkw, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing

Hi Videomarkw. I wanted to give a bit more of an explanation of two actions i have taken. I have undone your edits to both No Fire Zone and Callum Macrae. In both of those articles you have added a lot of unsourced material, and reverted attempts by another user to remove it. In both articles, also, your edits have broken the formatting we use here, which means that the articles are not presented to our readers in the best way. I have, thus, reverted both articles to the state they were in prior to your edits. I want to emphasise, however, that it is not mine intention to make you feel unwelcome or unable to edit. It is simply that we do things in a particular way, and we would like you to do them that way, too, as you join us.

I notice that you requested help from Obi2canibe, asking on his talk page about references and adding them. If you follow the link he gave above, i think you'll find some help. In addition, Pharaoh of the Wizards has, in two sections above, given you a large number of links and places to seek help ~ they say the Teahouse is excellent, and it comes highly recommended for new editors.

I also noticed that on Obi2canibe's talk page you mentioned the "updates we have been making"; Wikipedia policy is that only one person may use an account, so it is important that access to the Videomarkw account is limited to only one of you ~ the others must either make their own account or edit as an anonymous IP.

Please don't see my message here as anything other than positive. You are very welcome, and i hope you will feel welcomed and willing to stay and become a strong member of the community. If i can help, please ask. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsay,

Thank you for your comments. I have now gone through the original update to the No Fire Zone entry and added as many references as I can. I hope that this edit is now acceptable.

Videomarkw (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, i have indented your comments above, as that is standard here (you do it by adding a colon (:) at the beginning of the line (two colons indents twice, and so on).

Second, i have taken a brief look at what you did on No Fire Zone, and before i say anything about the content and sourcing, you have changed the formatting dramatically, and to a standard which we do not use. We use headings, made with equals signs, which you took out, because the magic of wiki changes them automatically into bold and bigger text and adds them to the table of contents. As it stands at the moment, post your edits, there is no table of contents, which makes it more difficult for our readers to make their way around.

Third, the content of your edits is problematical in some ways. If we look at what you wrote, you have said that the film is "powerful and disturbing" and a "harrowing but gripping" story; these are descriptions which can be attributed to someone, but you have made them in "Wikipedia's voice", meaning that we are making that judgement, and we don't, we merely report what others have said. There are other points at which inappropriate judgements are made, if you look through.

Also, in your desire to increase the impact of the article (and, i suppose, the film ~ are you related to it/impacted by it in any way?) it seems to me that you have included far more detail and reception/impact than is justified. That is, of course, a subjective opinion, and i won't insist on it; i'd be happy to point out what i mean, though, if you like.

I am impressed by the amount of sourcing you have brought in, and that you worked out the format for it (it took me months to learn to cite properly! Even now i struggle, if i'm honest). I would point out, though, that some of it may be inadequate. The first one i clicked on, for example, which links to "Britdoc Impact Awards 2014". Britdoc Impact Awards. Retrieved 10 December 2014., does not actually verify the statement it is attached to, that the film "is already something of an international phenomenon" (again, another judgement in Wikipedia's voice). It may well be that you can source each of the statements you make, but it needs to be done fully, with complete links to them (again, remember that we report what others have said).

Finally, no need to answer on my talk page and here; i'm watching this page, so i'll see if you respond here. And i am happy to help you in any way i can. I'll give it a day or so, then see how you're doing. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 05:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lindsay, I just wanted to wtite a quick note to thank you for your helpful comments. It is quite a learning curve and hopefully, whilst I am sure there are still errors, my editing is now a little more acceptable. I have taken on board your comments and made amendments wherever possible.

One of the problems I have is that some of the comments for example the Britdoc reference that you mention actually does contain the statement so I have changed the reference to include the page number in the document. I have removed comments where I have not been able to provide references so hopefully it is now in line with policies. Once again thanks for your help. Videomarkw (talk) 11:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Glad i can help. So, making it easier for the reader is the name of the game ~ adding a page number in a ref is an excellent idea, so what you say can be verified. I haven't looked at the article yet, but i will over the next couple of days, to see what else you've done, and if i can help further. I'd encourage you to try and work out what i say about formatting above, and put it back into the article; if you use the "Show preview" button before saving your edit it's like an experiment ~ you can see what different things do, the effects of formatting. Any further help needed, please ask! Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 11:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]