Talk:Personal branding/Archives/2013

references.
I can never get the references system to work properly -

I added: It has been noted that while previous self-help management techinques were about improvement of an individual, this concept rested with the changing the perception of existing traits and abilities.

it's from pg 3 of '''Daniel J. Lair, Katie Sullivan, and George Cheney (2005). "Marketization and the Recasting of the Professional Self". Management Communication Quarterly 18 (3): 307–343.'''

can someone add that as a source (it's already in the external links section but is now being used as a source). --Fredrick day 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks, I hoped to look up that article myself but didn't have access to it so far. It's quite easy with this system: just add, where the xxx is the actual ref almost exactly as you presented it above, except the " replaced with '' . --JoanneB 19:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, and why are you deleting my contributions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegalion (talk • contribs).


 * We are wikipedia editors and we are deleting your material because it is coached in management speak, is not in the right tone for an ecyclopedia (for example we do not "you"), and the source is poor. --Fredrick day 19:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You clearly have no idea what personal branding is. The information that you are using is not only incorrect it is completely unclear. The definition I am providing is from a source that is among the leaders in the personal branding industry. You are incorrect in deleteing my material. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegalion (talk • contribs).


 * Let's try this one at a time - are you saying you are trying to quote someone? A quote where someone says "you..." is fine, actual article text that does is not. This is according to the wikipedia manual of style, this is not something I am making up off the top of my head. As for the information I am adding, it is from peer reviewed academic sources --Fredrick day 19:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If it's unclear, and if there's a better definition, it should not be hard to find it in a marketing text book, for instance. If it's so widespread and well known, it should be possible to find a decent source (and I don't mean a person, but a book, article, or anything else mentioned at Reliable sources. Please read that, it might help you understand why we're deleting your stuff. --JoanneB 19:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This bit: "and it has been noted that while previous self-help management techinques were about improvement of an individual, this concept rested with the changing the perception of existing traits and abilities". should not be in italics as it is not a quote - can some remove it, I cannot actually see any problem in the wikicode but for some reasons it's appearing as italics. --Fredrick day 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason, there was '' code in it, I don't feel like going back to see when or why it was inserted :-) but it's gone now!. --JoanneB 21:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph in the article I don't know how the reference system works but the source is: http://www.slideshare.net/thinktank1987/personal-branding-10606521 It's my presentation about personal branding and is based upon my experiences about personal branding as an employee and as a trainer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thinktank1987 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

brandicapped.com
unless someone can suggest to me eitherwise, I will seek to have brandicapped.com added to the spam blacklist - we have an editor who does not seem to grasp that (self?) promotion is not the purpose of wikipedia - adding this site to the blacklist might help him grasp this. --Fredrick day 14:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the criteria for inclusion in that list are, but it might be a good idea. If you look at the policy at WP:RS, there are very few instances where the inclusion of that site would be warranted in an article. I should also look into our blocking policy regarding evading 3RR blocks. --JoanneB 14:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See Requests for checkuser/Case/Omegalion. RJASE1 Talk  15:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Reported for 3RR block evasion here. RJASE1 Talk  15:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So far as the spam blacklist goes - the blacklist is normally only used for serious crosswiki spam by multiple users - not really appropriate in this case. What I've done is add the link to the "redlist", which means that addition of the link is highlighted in the IRC channels for attention by the humans who monitor link additions. However, since this article is apparently the only one affected (the link does not exist in any other article), the problem is best handled by simply watching this article, IMHO. RJASE1 Talk  17:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're probably right! Well, I guess it's on a couple of watchlists now, so it should be ok. --JoanneB 18:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that. --Fredrick day 18:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you ever run into similar issues, feel free to drop a note at WT:WPSPAM. Cheers - RJASE1 Talk  18:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that everyone is happy. What I have learned through my Wikipedia experience is that Wikipedia is a very poor source for people to get information that is based on experienced sources. The editors have made a mockery of the definition of Personal Branding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.114.18 (talk • contribs).
 * I'm truly sorry that you were disappointed by your Wikipedia experience. I guess people have different expectations from Wikipedia, and it's unavoidable that every so often those don't match what Wikipedia aims to be. There are a lot of pages that I could refer you to for more information, but all those have already been emailed to you or have been presented to you in other places, like on this page. The editors of this article have used published secondary sources, coming from text books and peer reviewed, published articles. I don't think that makes it a mockery, it makes it a well researched article. If your opinion differs so much from what has been presented here, I still invite you to come up with secondary sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. If the definition you believe to be correct is wide spread and well accepted, that really shouldn't be hard. --JoanneB 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)