User talk:TrueBlueWolverine

Hey TrueBlueWolverine. Not sure who you are in the real world but thanks for letting me use your talk page to do my homework. Jthebooknerd87 (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hola TrueBlueWolverine! Are you ready to create a fantastic wikipedia page? Good luck! SequoioideaeJr (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi you! Yingkeli (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor
Sure! Don't know much about the topic but I can offer you a few pointers right off the bat.
 * The article lacks inline citations for much of its length. Remember, every fact you enter must be directly cited.
 * You cite the same source multiple times. This can be condensed by creating a ref name. To do this, in the first mention of the cite, instead of " ", type " ", then, in the other mentions, instead of re-entering the same cite, just type " " and those three citations will all refer to the same cite.
 * It is against Wiki style guidelines to Capitalise Every Word In A Section Header. Just the first word usually, unless it's a proper noun.
 * Another Wiki style guideline: since the article is about nonpoint source pollution, you don't need to use the phrase "nonpoint source pollution" in your section headers. In other words, instead of "control of nonpoint source pollution," just write "control".

(Sigh. I just seriously mentored myself on how to avoid wiki markup :

A few general research tips:


 * The best sources for scientific articles are scientific journals. To find them, go onto Google Scholar (you can reach it from google, but I'd bookmark it). If you have access to an academic library, they often allow you to read the entire text online, but even the abstracts will help. You can narrow your search criteria by specifying which discipline you wish to search under, and which year range.
 * Scientists are generally quite open and will often leave their email addresses on their college webpages. Write to them!

I'll be able to give more specific advice once I have a chance to read the article.
 * OK, first point: This article needs to be a bit more "globalised". Historical information should be included; has the problem got better over time? Worse? Have the number of pollutants changed over time, stayed the same, or multiplied? Off the top of my head, references to dead zones, the Great Stink, cholera epidemics or mediaeval tanning, butchers' and sewage effluent (there's a reason the culvert outside Exeter's town wall was called Shitbrook!) might be useful. The opinions of global think tanks on the current state of the problem and its future implications would also be good.


 * More personally, may I suggest you create a userpage? I know many longtime editors don't but I find it is easier to trust people who have blue instead of red links in the article history! :)

 Serendi pod ous  08:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, I take it from your most recent edit that you're OK with me as your mentor?  Serendi pod ous  10:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! Thank you so much. I am not used to doing this whole wikipedia thing.  I appreciate all of your suggestions about the nonpoint source pollution page.  We will definitely work at updating the nonpoint source pollution page as well as creating a new page for regulation of nonpoint source pollutionTrueBlueWolverine (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me know if there are any issues you need my help with :)  Serendi pod ous  08:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Heads up! :) How are you getting on?  Serendi pod ous  16:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there Mentor! I am not yet into the habit of checking my talk page for messages from anyone so I'm sorry for the slow response. Our group has made some progress on the wikipedia page in question.  We actually chose to make a new page under the title of Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Regulations in the United States. When you have a chance, if you don't mind looking over the article and offering some suggestions, that would be fantastic! Hope to hear some awesome ideas from you soon. TrueBlueWolverine (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks like the beginning of a very decent article. Keep in mind that everything I said above still applies. You have a long list of sources on the talk page that needs to be incorporated into the article with tags. If you need more sources for the "Health" and "Environment" sections, aside from just looking up on Google Scholar (try to use your school library to get access to servies like JSTOR) I would suggest researching the history of the act and tracking the papers used to justify it. Also, have a look at environmental groups in the US; they often have access to scientific papers that should help you.  Serendi pod ous  09:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've redone the refs to the format. The refs still need a cleanup. Let me know if you want to learn the proper citation format.  Serendi pod ous  19:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mentor! I saw the reference format that you changed. It does make it much easier to reference things quickly and doesn't overload the references section of the page.  I have worked hard to update the nonpoint source pollution page by providing more in depth science information to provide a background for our groups article.  If you could take a look and let me know what you think along with any pointers you may have, that would be great.  THANKS! TrueBlueWolverine (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, TrueBlueWolverine, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Nonpoint source pollution. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Capitalization of headings
The Wikipedia style for capitalizing headings is to use "sentence case" instead of "title case", e.g.,


 * Important things to know about this subject

not:
 * Important Things to Know About This Subject

This may be unfamiliar to many editors who believe that or have been taught that "title case is the right way to capitalize headings". It isn't the "right way", it is one style. Wikipedia has, for better or worse, chosen to follow a different style, i.e., capitalize the heading the same way you would capitalize any sentence:
 * capitalize the first word,
 * capitalize any proper nouns (people, places, organizations), and
 * begin all other words with lower case letters.

See WP:HEAD for more information. Ground Zero | t 21:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's all fixed. TrueBlueWolverine (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks muchly. Ground Zero | t 23:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)