User talk:Emmagallagher

Help needed

I require assistance in editing the article for Boann. This is my first Wikipedia article and is a major edit. I hope to continue to expand many of the articles in the area of figures in Irish Mythology. I need help in conforming to the Wiki manual of style. Any help with this issue or continuing assistance via adoption would be very welcome. I also need help with formating, editing and coding my pages. Any help anyone can give is most welcome... Emmagallagher 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm more than willing to assist you. Can you give me some specific questions that you have about the MoS or userpage coding that I can use to offer advice? The above areas are so huge that several essays wouldn't begin to cover the topic and may not address your requirement at all! For example, can you point to another user's page and say 'help me make my page do that, please' or an article and say 'why is it set out like that? How do I do that and why do I need to?' Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Would you like to be adopted? Let me know which areas interest you here on WP and I might be able to help! A message on my Talk page is the best way to contact me. I am on UK time (GMT+0), if that is an issue. (aeropagitica) 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to get my first article up and aproved before indulging in anything else. I am trying to work on the Boann page. I uploaded a major edit that was reverted back to the original. I am unsure as to why it was reverted back to the previous edit. I have corrected what I thought may have been wrong with my previous edit and reposted... Hopefully you could help me to make sure that this article gets to an acceptable level and is not deleted anymore.Emmagallagher 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emmagallagher. It can take time to learn style conventions, so don't worry. I see you are being adopted by aero but you are also welcome to ask any questions on my talk page. There are some particular style issues in the edits you made to the article you mentioned which I will point out for your benefit: We do not use a section heading for the introduction (see WP:LEAD). Section headings should be in lower case (see WP:HEAD). We do not add signatures (~~~~) in articles (see WP:OWN and WP:SIG). References should ideally follow the format described in WP:CITE or WP:FOOT. Try and avoid excessive text formatting, eg bold text (see MOS:BOLD). Please note that your contributions are very welcome and I'm just pointing this out so you know what the other editor was referring to when he reverted your edits. They should really have been fixed by the other editor instead of removed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much Zzuuzz, that was so helpful. You have explained things well to me... TBH I think I prefer that the editor who removed/reverted my article did me a favour because now I get to go learn how to fix it and do the edits myself...Emmagallagher 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Boann

Hi Emma, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you are planning on making major alterations to an article, it is best to first discuss them on the talk page of that article, so you can reach consensus with the other editors who have been working on the article. It can be overwhelming to other editors to see huge changes that introduce problems in style, tone and content. Points that may need to be worked out with other editors are which sources and versions of the myths are acceptable. I think your changes were reverted because they would have been very time-consuming to go through and repair (though that doesn't necessarily mean reversion was the better choice). One thing I would like to point out, though I don't have time to work on the Boann article today, is that the Matthews, while perhaps a relevant source for a Neopagan article, are not really an acceptable source for mythology. Caitlín Matthews tends to be very liberal and "creative" in some of her translations, and while many like her and John's work, it's not accepted as being on the same level as academic and primary sources (which are what we've tried to stick to in the Celtic mythology articles). You also don't need to place the "edit in progress" template on the article when you work on it. If you do want to place the template, it's best to put it on the talk page. Here's to fruitful collaboration in the future. :-) Slàinte Mhath! ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhána I believe your recent edit claiming that my information was inacurate was in itself false and unfounded. If you would care to read the primary sources that I have provided you may see this. I would apreciate that if you are going to edit two months of work on my part that you question individual points with me on my user page. If there are aspects of what I wrote you have queries for please point them out so that I can cite them correctley for you. I am new to Wikipedia and as such am still learning how to correctley code my citations. This is evident from my user page. Requesting arbitration for my contributions is not supportive of new contributors and from an established user I would have expected more. I can assure you that after over a decade of study of this topic I can and most heartily do wish to provide nothing but acurate information which is my motivation for writing the article in the first place.Emmagallagher 00:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, I realize you're new to Wikipedia but there are a few guidelines and policies you might want to read. WP:OWN is a very important policy. At the bottom of every page, when you are editing it, is the following: "Please note: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." If there is discussion about the content of an article, it is generally best for it to take place on the talk page of the article, not on individual user pages. This allows for better focus of the discussion. Also, what Kathryn NicDhàna did was not what is called "arbitration" on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for the differences between various types of dispute resolution. I believe (and I may be wrong) Kathryn asked one or two people who are knowledgeable about Irish subjects to take a look at the changes you made to the Boann article. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. Please leave a note on my talk page. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 02:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Emma - this is largely a duplicate of what I put on the talk page of the Boann article, but I am placing it here as well so you are sure to see it. As you know, your additions were reverted primarily due to copyright violations, but also because other edits you made were not integrated well with the current text and introduced a number of internal inconsistencies in information and tone.

1. If an addition is well-written, well-sourced, encyclopedic in tone and not a copyright violation, it will probably remain in the article. However, other editors may still tweak it, or rewrite it completely. One of the problems with some of the text you added is that sources vary, say, on the number of times Boann circled the well, how many salmon were in the well or streams, and even whether there are five or seven streams of knowledge. Therefore, in cases where even the primary sources conflict, it doesn't help the article to insert one version as definitive and encyclopedic.
2. Large pullquotes in archaic language are not ideal. While some quotes may be desirable, in some articles, at some times, large passages with archaic phrasings and/or spellings tend to be off-putting to the general reader.
3. Much of these writing guidelines are covered in the links in the welcome message you deleted from your talk page. Again, may I suggest reading the guidelines rather than deleting them.
4. Other editors are more likely to respond to your requests for help if you do not insult them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)