User talk:Vectorferret

Neptune notes

Thank you for taking the trouble to write a more neutral and sourceable article on Neptune, California. Wikipedia suffers considerably from a spate of fan-written speculation, so it's encouraging to encounter another fan who can write with verifiability in mind. I hope you don't mind my making two suggestions to aid your writing:

You use semicolons (;) too often as alternatives to commas. In general, if you can't split a sentence into two complete sentences just by replacing the semicolon with a period, you should probably use a comma. (The only exception to this is when using the semicolon to break up lists of long, complicated phrases, but unless you really know what you're doing there, it's better to make something like that a formal wiki list using bullets or numbers.)
You seem to get your s-endings — plurals, possessives, and contractions — mixed up (e.g. "it's politics", "the counties main Sheriff's Office", a not-uncommon error these days. Three rules of thumb:
1. Plurals: Never use an apostrophe for a plural. There are some rare exceptions to this, but you're far more likely to make a mistake thinking something is an exception. (Examples: the 1970s [not the 1970's], the '09ers [not the 09er's].) You got this plural right.
2. Contractions: Any time you leave out one or more letters, you should insert an apostrophe. (Examples: it is -> it's, zip code 90909 -> '09.) I suspect Rob Thomas himself is not terribly comfortable with this rule.
3. Possessives: This is the one that makes it all so confusing. Nouns use apostrophe-s for possession; pronouns just use s. (Examples: the main Sheriff's Office of the county -> the county's main Sheriff's Office; the politics of it [Neptune] -> its politics.)

I know I'm yammering a lot about technical writing tips, but I don't want this to take away from your solid effort to expand the article content with useful information. Anybody can correct grammar; it takes someone with domain knowledge to write an article. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the corrections and peer review. Not a problem on the advice, best way to improve. BTW, is it standard on Wikipedia to mark an article as needing clean up whenever a lot of new information is added (or it's brand new) our self or is it usually left for someone else to fix it if they decide that is necessary? I am thinking of tackling character pages next and that's going to mean starting from scratch. (Vectorferret 19:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Not only is it perfectly fine to tag an article you yourself wrote for cleanup, it shows a refreshing modesty with which I'm afraid I am personally unfamiliar. ☺ You even used the currently preferred dated cleanup template, which shows more awareness of wiki practices than many experienced editors. I predict you will quickly become a well-known and respected editor here.

Basically, cleanup tags are just one person's opinion about the current state of an article. Like virtually any other change to an article, other editors are free to remove it if they disagree, but other other editors (or the original tagger) can restore it, too. If there's some contention, or if one feels the cleanup rationale isn't obvious, the article's talk page is the place to clarify and discuss. You shouldn't feel compelled to tag your own articles., but it does call a bit more attention to interested readers, thus encouraging more effort in producing a better article. About the only thing you should do after adding substantial material to a stub is remove the stub tag, which you already knew. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]