User talk:Horswispr

Horswispr, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Horswispr! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Pointers

Hello, and welcome! Here are a couple of pointers, based on your edits so far:

• PIPELINKs are not necessary in order to lower-case the first letter or pluralize a wikilink. The article has several occurrences of this, e.g., [[Rabbit|rabbits]] that can actually just be [[rabbit]]s . This is because, though all Wikipedia articles technically have their first-letter in upper case (i.e., [[Rabbit]]), the wiki software also automatically allows [[rabbit]] to point to the same article. Note this is true only for the first letter of the title – the rest of the name is case-sensitive. (I "fixed" these in the article. Also, I know that you didn't add these to begin with – I just saw it in the diff and wanted to mention it for your future reference if you see it.)
• Special:Diff/972549661 was marked as a "minor edit", though it (correctly) changed a fair amount of material. Per WP:MINOR, only the simplest, indisputable typo and formatting corrections should be marked minor.
• Wikipedia prefers logical quotation style, where commas and periods (full-stops) are generally placed outside quotation marks unless they form a necessary part of a quotation. E.g., "hunting", "the closed area", and "hunting dogs". The "Oxford comma" after "the closed area" is considered optional, but should be consistent with an article.
• I noticed your comment about quote types. MOS:PUNCT is the guideline addressing various quote issues. I was under the impression that single vs. double quotes was another personal choice that should be consistent within an article, but if I'm reading that guideline correctly, it isn't. Double quotes seem to be the more popular usage in modern American sources, whereas British and other Commonwealth countries seem to prefer single quotes, and I've seen that same pattern in articles. Probably needs more research.
• WP:CHEATSHEET is a useful quick summary of formatting syntax.
• Since you seem to have a facility for copy-editing, have a look at The Guild of Copy Editors, which can always use more help. There are a lot of articles with awkward or downright bad language that could use some TLC.

I hope this helps. Enjoy! —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S.: on discussion pages like this one, if you want someone to see something you write, you can start it with {{Re|Example}} (if you wanted to alert the user named "Example"), which renders as "@Example:" and sends that user a notification with a link to it. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Horswispr! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Newbie, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Citing sources

Welcome to Wikipedia! I see that you are a new user and that you have been adding references by Sacks et al. to various articles. Unfortunately, adding the same publication or publications by the same author to multiple articles looks like citation spamming. Please read WP:REFSPAM and refrain from that kind of editing. It is good to edit an article based on the best available reliable sources for that subject (see WP:RS), usually secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY). Also, avoid unpublished sources such as papers delivered at conferences; stick to published sources that are more easily verifiable (see WP:VERIFIABILITY). For example, I replaced the unpublished paper by Sacks et al. that you added to James C. Coyne with a couple of relevant secondary sources: a 1999 review article in Clinical Psychology Review and a 2011 chapter in The Sage Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, both of which are secondary sources. If you have not already read them, you may want to read: Wikipedia:Expert editors, Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit and info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horswispr (talk • contribs) 07:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)