User talk:Pyrite macca

Welcome
 Hello Pyrite macca, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Pyrite macca, good luck, and have fun. – bonadea contributions talk 20:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Glasgow
Hello Pyrite, thank you for getting involved with Wikipedia and making your first edit. I think you'll make a wonderful contributor, but it might be better to start small, changing only a couple of words in a sentence and then saying clearly why it is likely to be an improvement. I'm contacting you first, because I don't want you to be disheartened. Looking at the diff of the changes, we now have a situation where the information does not match the values given in the citation: for example a population count from 2015, but apparently supported by a citation from 2008. What matters on Wikipedia is verifiability (see WP:V). As this is quite a big change, I'm going to propose that we revert (undo) it back to how it was before, and then propose that you try to re-add any small suggested changes, just a couple of words at a time, and saving each one individually. This makes it easier to keep the best proposed edits. Hope that helps, and please do stay involved with editing! —Sladen (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Alasdair Gray
Thanks for your contributions there. I undid most of them as we have better, more verifiable sources than the one you suggested. The lead paragraph has to establish notability early on, see MOS:LEAD. I liked the quote you chose, so I kept it, but quotes have to be cited it so I did so. The main challenge now is finding the key sources; there are a good many books and excellent online scholarship so a TV source just isn't necessary. --The Huhsz (talk) 22:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

One of the problems was that you changed "originated" "Work as if you live in the earlier days of a better nation" to "popularised". I'm fairly sure he made it up, paraphrased from a Canadian poet, which is why I chose that word. That's what the article says; do you know different? --The Huhsz (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello – I changed this based on Gray himself mentioning it as being 'taken' from Dennis Lee in the documentary, but on further digging you are right he was paraphrasing, and was obviously using 'taken' to mean 'inspired by.' So I stand corrected. In general, however, I thought as a concise overview, where Gray, his sister Mora, as well as the likes of Edwin Morgan, Liz Lochead et al talk about him, it is as good a source as any, especially if we are citing Under the Helmet too, or indeed the 'official Alasdair Gray website,' which is taking him at his word in a similar manner if I'm honest. For what it's worth the TV documentary on BBC was a cut version of a full-length feature film released a few years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrite macca (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your reply. The things we accept a subject's own word for are limited. The other problem with citing a TV show as a source is verifiability; I've cited items from the Guardian and the BBC websites. I've also cited books. The websites can easily be checked if a reader wants to check the sources are being used fairly; most of the books are online and can also be. If a book is not online it is relatively easy to get it from a library or order it online. But a TV show; however good and however accurate, in most cases it cannot be checked. We are only citing Under the Helmet for the existence of Under the Helmet, which is ok. I wouldn't use it to cite anything else, even though it is available online. Books and news organisations with a reputation for fact-checking are better. --The Huhsz (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)