User talk:Scartol/Archives/2011/June

WP:JARGON question
I need to ask you another question. Perhaps the thing that annoys me most about Wikipedia is that editing disputes seem to be mediated primarily by the citation of various archived policy regulations (usually quoted as jargon), but that there does not seem to be obvious way to search for the these regulations when needed. I need to find pages regulating what information should be included in a citation, and what information should (and should not) be included in a lead / introductory section. Can you tell me where I could find pages on these topics, and can you direct me to a registry containing them, so that I can search independently for similar pages in the future? Ferox Seneca (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aww: scratch that. I eventually found what I was looking for.Ferox Seneca (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, here's what I wrote. Maybe it'll be good for future reference: Good question! That was one of the trickiest things I had to learn when I started editing. The "Interaction > Help" menu item on the left side of the screen is your best first stop. You'll find Help:Contents/Editing_Wikipedia, which gives a thorough overview of the main editing elements, and you should also bookmark Help:Contents/Policies_and_guidelines.


 * There are many shortcuts built into the Wikipedia system, too. If you try linking to WP:LEAD, for example, you'll find info on writing good leads. WP:CITE is similar. There are others, but I don't know that there's a list of them. Good luck! Scartol  •  Tok  11:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply
LOL!! Thanks for the compliment on my screen name. Made my day. BartlebytheScrivener (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hańska
I am done with my copyedit, I listed various issues on talk for inclusion and further clarification/expansion. Thank you for providing me with the sources. Please keep up the good work, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 21:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Hanska
Hey Scar, just posted my two cents at Eva's FAC. Wow, FAC can be so tiresome! Sometimes I think that its purpose is to have content editors jump through hoops for the entertainment of others. I'm sure you already know this, but there have been times that I've just followed the suggestions of reviewers just to make them happy, and not because I think that their suggestions are any real merit. I thought that it was just the nature of the articles I tend to write--I mean, everyone's an expert on Sesame Street, so everyone has opinions about what should go in its articles. I was sincere when I said that your articles should just get a free pass, based on your track record, or at least with basic feedback to ensure that you haven't missed anything. I'm not at that point yet, but I sure would like to be, which is why I still submit myself to GACs. I wonder, then, if you should simply submit to the citation requests and get it over with. The article is already excellent, but you already know that. It doesn't even need that star to validate its excellence, but you probably already know that, too. Christine (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate it, but of course I don't think anyone deserves a free pass. Thanks for your comments, which I shall now go and read. Scartol  •  Tok

Hey again, Scar, I've just cast my vote of support for this article. I apologize if anything I've said has made the situation worse. Christine (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 June 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)