User talk:Post Scriptum

VNRs
Welcome back. As for the article, a lot of times the problem is that editors know something but other editors think that they have an ax to grind, or are making things up. That's why WP:RS is so important. For example, if you had something (even an article from a controlled circulation/speciality magazine) that said that VNRs are important in the case of safety recalls, you could certainly add information from that to the article. (One common misconception is that sources for Wikipedia articles should be online; that's certainly not required. For offline sources, however, using WP:CITE is critical, since there is no URL for anyone to follow and see for themselves.)

It's difficult to give advice that covers the entire process of working with other editors to improve an article; much depends on the circumstances. Let me suggest you start by reading Article development and Resolving disputes, and also BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (an essay). Then, if you have more specific questions (perhaps after doing a bit of editing and/or discussing, at the article or its talk page), you could ask me more questions if you had any. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 18:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello John!


 * Thanks much for the advice and the additional links and information. I will definitely read them.


 * I just left a comment on the VNR discussion page. Let me know if you think I should delete it. I'm trying to be helpful, but don't want this to turn into a mud-slinging session on the discussion page.


 * Also, thanks for the tip on citations such as VNRs are useful (or not) - and not just online. I will keep my eyes peeled for this and add as I find them.


 * Best


 * Post Scriptum 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I keep throwing rules at you, but they are helpful. On talk pages, please indent your comments, and don't go back and delete what you've said - use strikethrough if necessary.  (See: Talk page for details.)


 * It looks like User:Calicocat has stopped editing for a while; his/her last edit was on | January 8th. And even if he/she were still around, it seems clear that any fixes to the article are going to have to be done by someone else.


 * My suggestion, therefore, is that you simply look at the version of December 12th, the one before Calicocat did any edits, and you compare that to the current version. When you find important information that has been deleted, put it back.  (Ideally, you'll have a source, but if it's uncontroversial, go ahead without one.)  Make sure you use edit summaries to at least briefly explain (e.g., adding back information on X).  Don't try to rewrite the article in one sitting (regardless of the number of edits) - just fix a couple things, then come back a day later and see if others have reacted positively or negatively or not at all.
 * And please ''don't put information into the top/lead section; that's intended only to be a summary. If you need to start a new section, go ahead and do so.


 * If you find anything in the article that is totally wrong, or violates WP:NPOV, then change that as well (again, try to space out your edits, to give others a chance to react).


 * Please note that I just restored three sections of the article to their pre-Calicocat version. There isn't much difference in the text, but the sections now use footnotes, not embedded links, the way they originally did.


 * In fact, please drop me a note after you've made a couple changes to the article, and I'll give you some feedback. Thanks. -- John Broughton |  (♫♫) 20:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful tips John, I apprecite the help - especially the idea of doing it in short bursts, rather than one sitting. I will definitely let you know once I've made small edits to look for feedback. It may be a while - you know how it is with work etc. Yes, I'm happy for the rules - make sure it makes sense for everyone. Thanks again

Post Scriptum 20:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)