User talk:SAStewart13

Welcome
Hi Sarah, I have created my own profile page so you can link me to your page if you like. S Hoyle (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanking you!
Hello, thank you for your advice. I now know how to link and stuff! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjr250790 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)      It's okay. There are also helpful links to formatting your user page on User:ToniSant/help. Also you can sign any messages you send by adding 4 tilda's on the end. SarahAStewart (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Work
Hey, Nope no ideas where to start. Could decide what sections to add then take a few each? S Hoyle (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a very good idea. I will start drafting some section headings in my sandbox and begin looking for information, from reliable sources. We could start looking at other wikipedia pages that have cited or referenced him and ask them about their sources? SarahAStewart (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The link you wanted: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6947950/Facebook-and-Twitter-users-undermine-their-right-to-privacy.html S Hoyle (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Plan of Action
As discussed, it looks like we're going to all work on each heading one by one, collectively. By doing this we can all contribute, help each other out and have a chance to find an array of reliable resources to use! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjr250790 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Heres the link you wanted http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/news_events/news/2007/10-09.html . Also some things we probably should put on the page are:


 * Full Name
 * DOB
 * Field
 * Author of
 * Work
 * Academic History
 * About Field
 * Bibliography


 * I know we already have most of this but its the basic info on most of the people pages S Hoyle (talk) 09:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications by Jayne Gackenbach (17 Oct 2006) S Hoyle (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation


I noticed your submission in Articles for creation, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adam Joinson. Thanks! It will be reviewed by a volunteer soon.

Before it can be added to Wikipedia, your submission should have references. All articles on Wikipedia should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (a newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked, so that all information is verifiable.

Here's an example of how to add references: Chzz is 98 years old.&lt;ref> The Book of Chzz, Aardvark Books, 2009. &lt;/ref>

He likes tea.&lt;ref> Smith, John. " Interview with Chzz", Foo News, 1 April 2010. Retrieved 2011-05-22.

== References ==

That makes the references automatically display as small numbers[1] which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can see that example in action here.

Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also, Referencing for beginners. If you need any help, just put at the end of this page, followed by a question or get into our live help chat chanel at.

Best, ChzzBot IV (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Articles for creation/Adam Joinson.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk or via live help
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Cerebellum (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Picture of Joinson
Hey. As discussed in our mini-meeting earlier, would you like me to email Joinson through his web site and ask for a picture to use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjr250790 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also as discussed, it turns our Joinson IS an Open University lecturer too! It states in his book (the Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology), however it's 2007 and his Web site doesn't state when it was updated, neither does it confirm my findings stated in the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjr250790 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Found some more information on Joinson's bibliography: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Oxford_handbook_of_Internet_psycholo.html?id=49QtPwAACAAJ&redir_esc=y - which states "He is the author of 'Understanding the Psychology of Internet Behavior' (2003, Palgrave), 'Truth, Lies and Trust on the Internet' (with Monica Whitty, Psychology Press, 2007), and has published over 50 journal articles, book chapters and conference proceedings in the field" - However, no references... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjr250790 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, you cant use a pic if its from Joinson cause it will be copyrighted, even if he owns the copyright. As for the information im still not having too much luck finding anything else. S Hoyle (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Our final document.
Hey guys. Just wondering how much of the final document you've edited since the wiki person gave us those bullet points on the talk page, if any? Very thorough feedback if you ask me! Sjr250790 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Have started the corrections in my sandbox - as well as my final draft/contribution that may be used. Sjr250790 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Found a few articles on the University of Bath news archives stating Joinson's views on privacy and how people are leaving themselves vulnerable. I know we've used a link from the BBC, but combining all these references may give us a solid piece of text: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/6947950/Facebook-and-Twitter-users-undermine-their-right-to-privacy.html, http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/news_events/news/2007/10-09.html (both warning about privacy settings) and http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/news_events/news/2010/29-09-Adam-Joinson-the-dark-side-Facebook-The-Sunday-Times.html. Sjr250790 (talk) 21:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Adam Joinson
Hello Sarah, thanks for your note at my talk page, I'd be happy to explain what I meant. Notability is just a fancy way of determining whether or not we know enough about a topic to write a decent encyclopedia article about it. We determine notability using coverage in reliable, independent sources. For your article, some of the sources appear to be published by the university Dr. Joinson is affiliated with (University of Bath), and so are not considered independent - they are not a reliable metric of the attention Dr. Joinson has received. Footnotes # 2, 5 and 6 are excellent examples of the kind of sources which should be used to establish notability.

For academics, the relevant notability guidelines is WP:ACADEMIC. I recommend using criterion #7, "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." The guideline goes on to talk about how this can be satisfied "if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." So, you need to find some news articles which quote Dr. Joinson as an expert. After a quick news archive search, I don't think that should be a problem - just sift through the article listed there, pick out the ones which have the most coverage of Dr. Joinson, and add them to the article. I see you've already created Adam Joinson, so don't worry about the AfC page, just add extra references there. Thanks again for your contributions to the encyclopedia, and let me know if there is ever anything I can do to help you out. :) --Cerebellum (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying so quickly! We've now updated the Adam Joinson page with hopefully more reference to his notability, alhtough it has taken a while as we found it difficult proving he was well known in his area of expertise. We have also added some media related news as you suggested. Thanks again for all your help SarahAStewart (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

"Profile" section heading in Adam Joinson
I wonder why you restored this non-standard section heading (with the rather inaccurate edit summary "Changed Formatting") after I had removed it in an edit with edit summary "cleanup", and had commented on this among various other points on the article's talk page. Do you think that you know better than other editors? Did you ignore the talk page? Look around Wikipedia: are there headings before the first text in an article? There aren't. If other editors contribute to your article by making it fit Wikipedia's standards, please don't undo their work without checking very carefully that you've got it right and they've got it wrong. Thanks. Pam D  13:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 16:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.

Stub tag
Hi again Sarah. Thanks for your note, sorry if I came over a bit stroppy!

You added stub to the article:
 * 1) Stub tags go at the end (after everything except inter-language links), not the top  - see WP:ORDER
 * 2) And if you'd been putting it in the right place you'd have been more likely to notice that it's already got UK-academic-stub, so doesn't need the stub tag added anyway. (I stub-sorted it a few days ago which is how I came across the article in the first place!)
 * 3) But actually I'm not sure it's still a stub anyhow (haven't studied the new-and-expanded version - it's looking good).

Plenty to learn!

Having just had a quick look at the article - his occupation (for infobox) isn't "Reader" (not least because that is totally obscure to non-UK readers). That's his academic grade. His occupation is Psychologist, or Cyberpsychologist, or whatever. Can you see the point I'm making? I think you can as I'm pleased to see that the lead sentence is now much improved! Pam D  13:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you've reverted my formatting of ref no 1 to your preferred non-standard format. "ONLINE" is not an element in Wikipedia's way of doing refs, even if it's what you've been taught for coursework in your own institution. You might find it easier to use the standard cite templates which are available as a drop-down menu from the editing bar (I think... unless I only get them because of options I've clicked under "Preferences"!). Pam  D  13:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)