User talk:Tcjohnson11

Welcome!
Hello, Tcjohnson11, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Taylor! It was a pleasure to read your article for our Relational Communication course. I learned a lot about the topic from you. SSchaffer1 (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2019 (UTC)SSchaffer1

Peer Review
I enjoyed reading your article Taylor. You did a great job. Hopefully my suggestions are helpful. I'm glad to elaborate and help in any way if needed. Rscottg (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Conflict management styles
Hello Tcjohnson11,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meeanaya and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Conflict management styles for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, Conflict management style.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion] but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meeanaya (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Page deletion
Hi, I deleted the extra page - definitely be careful about this in the future. I do have some notes for you, though:


 * Avoid using words like "you", "we", and so on. Wikipedia is written in third person and using things like "you" is problematic for several reasons, two of which is that it comes across as presuming something of the reader and like it's written from the viewpoint of a specific person. You can read more about this here.


 * The writing should not contain point of view statements like "best" or "crucial", as these will be subjective to the reader. So for example, what is best to one reader may be completely different for the next one, as they may disagree and say that another option is better. If this was stated in the source material it's important to attribute this to the person making the claim.


 * The writing is also fairly casual in tone, so this needs to be made a bit more formal.


 * Be extremely careful with sourcing, as not all sources are reliable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Some may be reliable, but not be the strongest possible source. For example, Loveisrespect.org is run by the National Domestic Abuse Hotline, however it's also a site meant to raise awareness and advocate. As such it won't have as much information that an academic or scholarly source would and it will also be written to appeal to the reader, as they want to end domestic abuse. This is a wonderful goal, but it does pose a bit of an issue with neutrality and depth of research. There's also somewhat of a question of how much editorial oversight is applied. I'm sure that they have it, I'd be surprised if they didn't, but it also won't be as thorough as the editorial oversight in some other locations such as an academic or scholarly publication or journal.
 * To be honest, I'm mostly concerned about this source, as there's little to no information about the editorial oversight and the site doesn't really give a lot of information as to who writes the content. As such this would likely be seen as a self-published source and at the very least you'll have to show where this site is routinely seen as a reliable source by other reliable sources, particularly academic and scholarly ones.

I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)