User talk:Sophiejensen


 * }

September 2012
Post deleted -- as it was no longer needed. Sophiejensen (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Citing sources Beowulf
Need some help? As an example if you would want to cite google you could use For your cite, replace "www.google.com" with your url (remember to leave the "http://") and change "Google:" to the name of the site and "Search engine" with the title of the page. For reference, see reliable sources, citing sources. To cite a book, there is a template called template:cite book. It is rather complicated to use and you should only need to use part of if. You can also create the content in your sandbox: User:Sophiejensen/sandbox. Then, you would be less likely to be bothered. Copy it to the article when you get everything done. I left you a welcome section at the top of the page. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page. Hope this helps. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Response deleted in the interests of my privacy. 7 Oct 2012. Sophiejensen (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Wiki article is:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beowulf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiejensen (talk • contribs) 21:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sophiejensen (talk) 21:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment here from my talk page to keep the discussion in one place.


 * I am not knowledgeable in that area. I would suggest a request for comments (RFC). To do this read the RFC instructions page. Here is a not-to-brief description:


 * On the bottom of the Beowulf poem talk page: talk:Beowulf, put a new section:


 *  ==RFC Your short sentence description==


 * On the next line, put an RFC template (ref Template:rfc):


 *   note: see the RFC instructions page for descriptions. You should consider adding "hist", "soc", and/or "media" avoid adding too many or too few. Add at least one, place a pipe "|" between each descriptor (remove 'descriptors' btw) example:  . Descriptors combine several categories.


 * On a new line, put a brief, but enticing, summary of what you want to do, sign your name with four tildes  "~" .


 * The brief description should automatically (you should not place it there yourself / it should take a few hours to a day (more if there is a problem)) be placed in the appropriate RFC pages. This statement is what will encourage others to visit the talk:Beuwulf page.


 * After your summary, start a new paragraph (intent with a colon ":"), put your long version of proposed changes, reasons, and a longer description, citations supporting your points, maybe a proposal of what you want to add, etc. Avoid the tl;dr problem. Sign your name again  "~" 


 * Do mention your potential conflict of interest. Others will be considerably annoyed if they discover it for themselves.


 * Use the "Show preview" button instead of the "Save page" button to review how the formatting looks. This will allow you to correct errors before they get published. Especially advised when dealing with templates such as template:rfc.


 * If you want to save the page, and edit it later, leave the RFC template off until you are ready for the robot to post it on the pages. Visit some of the RFC pages to see actual working examples: RFC: media, arts, and architecture, RFC: history and geography


 * There is also the Teahouse to ask questions and discuss issues. If you feel you are being unjustly treated, (doesn't sound like it), there are other means, but they are strong medicine.


 * Best of luck! Jim1138 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed the discussion in talk:Beowulf. It appears that I have miss-lead you. I apologize for that. If the information is your own original research, it probably does not belong on Wikipedia. Essentially, you must use secondary, not primary sources (such as yourself). If you can make the point from other's reliable sources, you might be able to bring up the point. However, I don't want to misinform you again. Again, sorry for causing you any grief and wasting your time. Jim1138 (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No problems, Jim. I really thank you for all the time you have spent on this already. Will just have to go to Plan B. Don't really know if you will get this message, as I really don't know what I am doing in this milieu. This doesn't mean, by the way, that I don't know what I am doing re 'Beouwlf'. Onwards, ever onwards. Thanks again. SRJ. (Gonna delete my post from the Talk page now, if that is possible.)

Conflict of interest policy
Hello. Looking at the sources and your edit, I would recommend that you read up on our policies regarding Conflict of interest, especially WP:COI. Cheers. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Sophie, just stopping by to say hello. I commented over on the Beowulf talkpage yesterday. On Wikipedia anyone who edits is an "editor" - here, the term isn't really used as it is in the real world, so jumping in is fine. Don't hesitate to ask questions (the learning curve can be steep). Even though I say I'm busy, I check in often and frankly spend too much time here, so I'm happy to answer questions. I would be interested in reading your material if it can be linked either here on your page or you can start a new section on my page. Also, by the way a secret no one told me when I was new: if you edit your page (not this talk page, but the one at the top with the red tab), even by adding a comma or something, or an image, then your name will stop displaying in red. Good luck. Oh and by the way, if you respond here, I'll see it. Your page is on my watchlist now. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Response deleted in the interests of my privacy. Sophiejensen (talk) 01:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks for being so nice, and so considerate. Best, Sophiejensen (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for not responding. I did respond here on my page. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)