User talk:Nicholaspurcellstudio

Welcome!
Hello, Nicholaspurcellstudio, 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! Arthur goes shopping (talk) 07:43, 5 November 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 edit history and ID
You have a rather odd edit history:


 * Your first edit: you add a sentence that refers to "my wedding blogs", but in the summary describe the edit as "Correct grammar".
 * In edits such as this one, you make stylistic changes that you describe in summaries as "grammar fix" or similar. (There was no grammar mistake: no fix was either needed or made.)
 * In your most recent edit (which I am about to revert), you add a link to "Nicholas Purcell Studio's 2015 list of the 100 Best Wedding Photographers in the World", and (perhaps out of mere carelessness) do so in such a way that the result says that these people -- acquaintances, or acquaintances of acquaintances, of one Nicholas Purcell, it seems -- represent the historical rise of wedding photojournalism, fashion, couture-style portraits, and all digital work-flow.

Let's consider grammar.


 * Adelaide is the capital of Australia. Grammatically perfect (though untrue).
 * In South Australia, Adelaide is. Grammatically perfect (though unnatural).
 * Adelaide ain't in Western Australia. Grammatically perfect (though in an inappropriate register).
 * Adelaide am in South Australia. Ungrammatical.
 * The capital of South Australia, Adelaide is in South Australia. Grammatically perfect (though bizarre).

When you believe that an article needs rewording, go ahead and reword it. But please say in the summary "Rewording" (or similar).

Nicholas Purcell Studio's list is Nicholas Purcell Studio's list. It's actually quite interesting in places. But the Nicholas Purcell Studio doesn't count as a reliable source. If Purcell had been invited to publish such a list elsewhere, that would be a different matter -- but even then, the importance of one person's list of preferences shouldn't be overemphasized.

What is your relationship to the Nicholas Purcell Studio? And are you one person, or more than one person? -- Hoary (talk) 01:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)