User talk:KerioBerry

Adoption/Help with editing
New to wikipedia and would like to be adopted/help given so i can make useful edits without them being removed! KerioBerry (talk) 13:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, KerioBerry, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style


 * Welcome, again. The links above will give you some useful reading: as regards being adopted, see Adopt-a-user. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links JohnCD I have asked a few editors for adoption! KerioBerry (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Adoption
20110704134759

New to Wikipedia and looking to be adopted by an experienced editor so I can make useful edits without them being deleted and learn so no future edits are! KerioBerry (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources and Linking
If i were to write a post about something and i refer back to the article subject's website as a source is this notable? For example if I wrote about Coco-Cola winning an award and cited an article about said award on their website would this be fine as verification? I read this ' Businesses' websites are reliable primary sources for WP:Verification' on a discussion page and wanted to confirm i have the right interpretation of that statement KerioBerry (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Material from the article subject's website can help with the WP:Verifiability requirement that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source" (with the reservation that that applies to factual information, not to self-promotional claims); but it does not help with WP:Notability, which requires showing "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."


 * Two tips:
 * when you add a helpme, you just put, not  - the "tlf" has the effect of disabling it.
 * It's easier to keep track of things on your talk page if you add a header when you satrt a new section. You do that by putting == at each end - you can see how I've done it. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification there JohnCD that was helpful! KerioBerry (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your help
So, now that I am free, what is it that you are looking to get help with? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Copied from my talk page, minus my response): Hi thanks for getting back to me! Basically I made my first edit on the Olswang wiki page and it was removed y two editors. One stated the reason was because of a broke citation? I'm not really sure what that means. The other because the point was purely promotional and not sourced. (I was unaware you could source back to the business' website at this point which was why I hadn't referenced the point he referred to) I made what I thought were appropriate seconday links and wiki links to make it as unpromotional as possible!? So i'm not sure how to correct the posts? Do they need re-writing to not be 'promotional', the citation links and sourcing? As the editors just removed the posts instead of correcting them and didn't giver me detail as to how do correct them i'm not sure what to do! Thanks KerioBerry (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an odd case, indeed. The citation issue is not necessarily a break, but you added "[" and "]" around the website link, and that isn't needed in a citation unless you are planning on doing "[website.com Name of the website]". When you wrote, "Olswang continually work with Career Academies UK to help raise the aspirations of 16 to 19 year olds from socially disadvantaged communities and encourage them to aim for a career in business." that can be viewed as promotional (although I feel as though if I wrote that, nothing would have happened to me since people trust me, and that is unnerving at times). It might be better if you said, "The company also has begun to work with Career Academies in order to recruit youth aged 16-19 from socially disadvantaged (although, this kind of implies that it is the communities, not the youth that are in trouble and I cannot really say which it should be as I am unfamiliar with the company) communities to help encourage them to pursue a career in business. It is a bad idea though to cite a Wikipedia article itself as I could write anything and then cite it in another article, but then that cite has a rather bad citation. What I have done before (and this works great for homework) is to go to the article, find the citation supporting the fact which best fits the article that you are citing it to, and reusing it there. If it does not contain a citation, then I do not put it in (although, this causes great pain sometimes when you want to really write something but cannot. I honestly cannot say anything about the pro bono thing as I have never delved into that area, so you might want to talk to Rangoon11 and ask his opinion as well as stating your case about why you believe that it should belong there. You might want to see this discussion though as it concerns you. If you are the same person as Newsrooms, please admit it as it will be easier to help deal with the page issues. If not, it will at least put to rest a theory that he came up with before I thought the same thing tonight (being the same person). Also, do you have any connection with the company? It would be good to know if you do so that we can make the article better in the long run. Well, I hope this text isn't too much for you, and I look forward to seeing what you can do to improve the article with this advice! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Adoption
Hi there! I'm sorry for being late; I've been busy with other personal projects lately. I see that Kevin has taken you in as his adoptee - that's great, Kevin is an experienced editor and I am sure that he will be of great help to you. That being said, I'm still willing to help if you need it, so just drop me a line if you do. Cheers, Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)