User talk:Bcgelms

English 604 Potential Project Ideas

• Writing About Writing (commonly known as "WAW"). Page currently does not exist, but this approach to composition is referenced on the First Year Composition page.
• Process theory of composition: This page could use some help.

This missing manual page was really helpful to me; might be worth a look Help:Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Editing,_Creating,_and_Maintaining_Articles/Creating_a_New_Article DerelictDante (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure if we're supposed to be commenting on each other's sandboxes or not, but I figured, what the hell.

I really liked this article. I really don't know a whole lot about "WAW", so it was really interesting to learn. Also, did have some comments. I wasn't sure about editing your sandbox (that seems inappropriate), so I'll just give you some feedback here. 1) (Minor) In the section, Writing About Writing: A College Reader, the word "several" is mispelled. 2) Have you considered adding an image of the textbook? (as an inset near the section you discuss it) 3) (Minor) In the section marked "Criticism and Responses", in the second bullet point "major" is misspelled. 4) (Minor) The first section after the bulletpoints, you're missing the "I" before the quote (or if its part of the quote). 5) Because so much of this section is about Writing About Writing: A College Reader, have you considered asking LadyofShallot if it should be its own separate wiki page? Just a thought.

Really interesting, Bridget! DerelictDante (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Bcgelms! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! LadyofShalott 03:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your sandbox draft

Hi again, Bcgelms. I've taken a look at your sandbox draft - very nice start! I do have several (mostly minor) suggestions for you. In no particular order:

• The first time (only) you use the name of the article in the text, you need to put it in bold font. You can do this by enclosing the text within three single quote marks: '''Writing About Writing''' produces Writing About Writing.
• Something which I think you are planning already is you need more references. Specifically, you need to add additional references by people other than the originators of this method. Have there been other studies using the method? Is there any negative criticism as well as praise?
• Italicize the book title. Similar to bolding, this can be done by enclosing the text within two single quote marks: ''italic text'' produces italic text.
• Change your "For Further Reading" section into "Further reading", and note the sentence case - this will conform to standard Wikipedia practice for such sections (and section headers should always use sentence case).
• Wikipedia uses logical punctuation. Pull those periods out of the quotation marks.
• Add some relevant wikilinks (but don't try to link every possible word - that's just annoying). A contrast is drawn between WAW and another teaching method - link to the article about that if at all possible.

I hope these remarks are clear. Please ask me about anything that confusing, and I'll watch your sandbox as it develops. Cheers! LadyofShalott 03:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

WAW status

This is looking very strong--there is good balance between WAW and its skeptics, with an extensive list of sources. Final editing should probably put some more citations in the text, for example, after direct quotations; and some copy editing/correcting remains to do. But all in all this is nearly ready to fly! Webster Newbold (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bcgelms. You have new messages at LadyofShalott's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LadyofShalott 01:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Drop by the Teahouse anytime for a cup of tea, or some help with editing!

Hello! Bcgelms, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Education Program Student Survey

Hi! Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey about the Wikipedia Education Program. This is our opportunity to improve the program and resources we provide students, so your feedback and input is integral to our future success. Thank you so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Writing about Writing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Writing about Writing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Writing about Writing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wqwt (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)