User talk:AleksejH

Welcome
Hello, AleksejH, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! J3Mrs (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Salford University
Please stop over promoting Salford University courses in articles. J3Mrs (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi J3Mrs, Thanks for your message! Sorry I just got a bit carried away there :) However, there are a number of pages that had outdated information and I felt that new sources were needed since there is a lot of change happened in the recent years.

I am happy with your edits of the MediaCityUK page but I feel that it is missing an objective voice. How do you decide for example which once are the "Major tenants?"

Hi, Thank you for your welcome! Sorry not sure if this is how I can reach you but I hope you can see this :) Please can you advice on how to edit the MediaCityUK page? I am a bit confused why you feel that the University of Salford is not a major tenant? I understand that perhaps reference to courses is not the most relevant material but there are also a number of positive articles which suggest that this presence can help Salford to become a major international hub and Universities presence is one of the key ingredients in this? See for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/the-northerner/2011/sep/12/mediacityuk-universityofsalford Thanks in advance!

Aleksej — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleksejH (talk • contribs) 07:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, just to keep this conversation in one place and provide you with some background. The article on MediaCityUK achieved Good article status after a lot of work by several editors who worked hard to achieve a balance and write it in summary style and with a neutral point of view. Salford University occupying three floors of one building hardly qualifies as a major tenant on the scale of things, though it may of course be important in the university's article. Salford University is of course linked. It is not a good idea to advertise courses or describe them in "peacock language" in any article as the information when spotted will be removed. It is only appropriate to link once to another article so second links should be removed as overlinking. Referencing is important but there's nothing in the Guardian article that would add much to what's already in MediaCityUK. You must remember that MediaCity is about the development in general not the BBC, ITV or any other aspect in particular and it is important to retain that balance. As an aside, I am bemused at the poor quality of many university articles, hardly a good advert for them. I will watchlist this page for a while. J3Mrs (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi, J3Mrs, thanks for your detailed reply and I admire your diligence. Please could you be a bit more specific by what you mean by "peacock language"? Personally, I feel that the fact that the University is on four floors (as per the Salford Star article) it is a major tenant - ITV is on seven floors so what is the difference? How many floors do you have to occupy to be considered a major tenant? If the article is about MediaCity it should highlight the different people who are part of this community and by occupying a substantial part and having a range of programmes which are not only media industry focused, the University is contributing a substantial part to the community. There might be only four floors but there are thousands of students going through the doors and have the opportunities to engage with ITV/ BBC and other organisations who look for new talent and ideas etc.

Anyway, as a beginner of the Wikipedia community I would be grateful for any pointers on what you think are the "poor quality of many university articles"?


 * "Peacock language" is language that is not neutral, it's best to avoid adjectives and stick to the bare bones. I'm not sure the Salford Star is a reliable source either. University articles are often added to piecemeal by lots of different editors (and most seem not to read what's there before adding their bit). It leaves the article in a "bitty" state, repetitive and overlinked and might have no overall plan. I find it easiest to stick to the past tense. I did a bit of copyediting at Salford University you can compare the diffs to see what I did.. J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow, yes I see there is a lot of potential of improvement, but I suppose this is one of the main reasons Wikipedia is almost like an example of multiple conversations going at the same time with different authors using different language. There is me thinking that it is so easy to edit page :) Thank you again, I will try and practice the image uplaod next - reduces me confusing people with more text :)


 * I always read through before I edit and I get fed up reading the same thing twice or sometimes three times. Good luck with the image upload and happy editing. J3Mrs (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Salford Business School logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Salford Business School logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)