User talk:A Bellocchi75

Welcome!
Hello, A Bellocchi75, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Arnoutf (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Your recent edits to emotion
Hi A Bellocchi75 and welcome again.

I noticed your recent edits to the emotion article. To be honest, I am doubting whether they can stay for several reasons.

First of all since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, i.e. a tertiary source we rely on mainstream accepted theories, and not on novel contemporary developments. It is generally frowned upon to bring in your own work (I guess the Emotion Review paper in press by A Bellocchi is you) as that may raise doubts about conflict of interest (promoting your own work)

Secondly in what you write there is a lot of overlap with what is already there higher up in the article. So that would need to edited out to avoid circularities/redundancies.

Thirdly by adding so much text there suddenly appears an undue emphasis on the sociology of emotions compared to other sections.

Fourthly the structuring of your text is largely absent, something essential for webpages much more so than for printed text; hence your text is presented as a monolithic, intimidating block.

Fifthly, your referencing follows a Harvard/APA style, while for the article a numbered style has been adopted.

It is the task of the original editor to make sure these problems do not exist at the moment that a text is edited, because it is just too much work for others to clean this up. So please fix it soon, as there seem to be some relevant things in your text. Arnoutf (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Thank you Arnoutf. I have deleted the reference to my work. I have organised the text differently to reduce the monolithic appearance. Rest assured that neither the work of Collins, Turner, Scheff, Durkheim, Retzinger etc. do not represent "novel". However, I discourage this idea that "novel" views are to be excluded from Wikipedia (although I do respect and accept the policy of this site of course). This gives the impression that there is a "true knowledge" available and in turn that this true knowledge can be accurately represented on Wikipedia or in some other encyclopedia. What is cited elsewhere on this page from other theories of emotion is simply past novel ideas from people like Ekman, Lange, James etc. I have merely offered the equivalents from sociology. By the way, the James Theory and Lange Theory are two separate things. When I get time I will edit that section to represent this better. Unfortunately too many scholars have conflated the two theories in the catchy "James-Lange" representation. I will try to attend to your other points in my contribution as soon as I can. I apologise for any inconvenience I may have caused.A Bellocchi75 (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Referencing etc
Hello, I was just looking at your recent contributions to the emotion article. It takes some time to sum up a complicated topic and as an expert it goes without saying that your input is valued. Minor formatting issues can be tidied up by anyone, such as I have done here, which is an easier method of adding a numbered list in case you should be adding one again (just use hashes "#" before each entry on a list and they will transform into numbers in the article 1. 2. 3. the same as your intention). Example:


 * one
 * two
 * 1) skip a few

There is a further improvement possible if you are interested, to your work on the emotion page, and that is Inline citation. If that interests you but the instructional appears a bit large, you'd go to the reference where you made, then use that name tag with an extra slash ("/") in the area you would like the reference to appear again thus ...expert summarisation of sociological topics in emotion. and that would place a repetition of the reference after, in this case, the word emotion to show that the particular area is relevant to the particular reference. I will leave an example here -->

Again, Wikipedia appreciates expert inclusion. I will likely enjoy to read that particular piece myself.

<-- and the body of the reference is here in the dit box, cheers. If it's complex, forget it, it becomes simple once you've seen it in articles a few times.