User talk:Legl6836

Welcome!

Hello, Legl6836, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• 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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Emotion

So, that's a huge chunk of text that you just added to Emotion. It is very possible that some of that information should be in the article, but certainly not all of it. First, Wikipedia requires that all information that might be challenged be verified by a reliable source. Most of that information was not sourced; in fact, it read very like a college essay, with allusions to available research, but no actual sources provided. So, definitely the info would need to be sourced first.

Second, providing so much information about gender differences in this article is undue, because it overwhelms the rest of the article. What probably needs to be done is for a new article (properly sourced) to be created, and then a short summary of that added to Emotion. What I have done to help you is to move that information to your own personal sandbox, which you can see at User:Legl6836/Sandbox. This will let you work on getting the info up to standards before figuring out how to integrate it into Wikipedia.

I would love to help you improve this info and figure out how to add it (either in summary or in a new article or both). Let me know if you have any questions. I'll be watching both this page and your sandbox, so please post here and I'll try to respond when I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Help re. Emotion

{{Help me}}

This is actually for a class and the more the better. I am unsure of how to fix it so any help would be appreciated. We tried to put it up a few weeks ago but there was too many references, and now there isn't enough. I don't know what to do anymore and this is due at midnight tomorrow. Please help in anyway that you can for me to be able to submit as much as possible so I can have this posted by tomorrow to submit to him. Should I just do a whole separate page? --Legl6836 (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK - here's two pennyworth from me. Way too long - remember not everyone is on broadband. Definitely read like an essay. (Not surprisingly, perhaps...) There is often a discrepancy between the opinions of different editors. (Just as in taxonomy. Wikipedia has its equivalents of lumpers and splitters.) You don't need references for everything - mainly needed for things that arouse instant ire and controversy. Anything else needing a ref will get a {{fact}} tag (which comes up as 'citation needed'. Then you add a ref for that point. Scatter odd refs through your greatly abridged text and you'll keep most of the howling mob away from your allotment. Remember too that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a lab bench with cages of articles waiting for your lecturer to select one for experimentation. This isn't a safe testing environment - this is the real thing. With a howling mob bearing steaks (cut from their previous victim) and torches (to look for the pepper that someone's lost in the rampage). Whatever you do can be (and usually will be) undone - but people aren't happy about having to undo it. Good luck. You'll probably get a different answer from someone else. By the time a consensus is reached, it'll be too late for this, but that's how we operate when there's major differences. That's what talk pages are for. Please feel free to show this to your lecturer. Peridon (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I partly disagree with part of the above, where it says "you don't need references for everything". Technically that is true that you don't need one for *everything* for 2 reasons,

a) There's the "common knowledge" e.g. "In London, the capital of England," or "3+2=5"

b) You don't need one for everything, but if you don't add refs, do not be surprised if your addition is removed. Anything anyone challenges can be removed, and anyone can challenge anything/everything. Anything unref'd can be removed, any time, without being able to complain. Therefore, you should supply a reference for every fact. This relates to two core pillars of Wikipedia - verifiability and neutral point-of-view.

The main problem with your recent edits is, it is not Encyclopaedic in tone, and appears to be original research - which is not permitted in Wikipedia.

As an encycopaedia, we only state facts, which are supported by reliable sources. We do not offer opinion. We're a tertiary source of information.

For example, The fundamental basis of emotion is its function as a form of communication - who says? Where can I check (verify) this claim? There are many studies, as well as published books, claiming that there are significant differences - how many? where? it is important to recognize is it? who says it is important? (opinion, not fact) differences are still very apparent - who says that? When men communicate their emotions, their discussion becomes one that revolves around a negotiation for power. Men want to feel in control - these strong assertions absolutely need a reference often find it very challenging to even express their emotions how often is often? how challenging is "very"? they struggle to find the right words to explain how exactly they are feeling - assumption; opinion Women, on the other hand, definitely avoid using 'on the other hand'

Please read these - they're not too long: WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, WP:WEASEL.

Stick to facts, supported by reliable sources (such as books). Present "cold hard facts", and let the reader interpret the information for themselves; do not allow your own viewpoint to creep in.  Chzz  ►  23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you guys suggest I do?change every sentence that is challengeable, add reference to more sentences, and make it a whole new page and not just a subpages?

Legl6836 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am with Chzz on this, and not Peridon--yes, every sentence that is challengeable (which, from my skim of your addition, is every single sentence) needs to be verified. That doesn't mean that you need a reference for every line, but every piece of info you give must be backed up by a source--sometimes this is one per paragraph, sometimes 2 or more per line. It just needs to be clear where the info comes from. Try starting simple at first: go to your Sandbox that I made for you, and reference "In their use of different emotions". Try that first--I'm watching that, so I'll see your changes there, and then we can figure out where to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, please tell me your teacher's Wikipedia username so that I can contact them and help get them organized for working with Wikipedia. If they don't have a username, please try (if you can) to ask them to make one, because we actually have a whole system set up to help teachers who want to incorporate Wikipedia into their lessons. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed over the helpme template. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)