User talk:Syednaqvi94

This user is a student editor in Seneca_College/INC301_-_The_Tangled_Web_(Fall_2018) .

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Syednaqvi94, 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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Hi! You can create new headers in your sandbox by following the directions here, if this is what you were looking for. If you're looking to create a new page in your userspace, the easiest way to do this is as follows:

Go to your userpage (User:Syednaqvi94).
In the URL field (which should display https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syednaqvi94), add a backslash(/), followed by whatever you want to name the new sandbox page. For example, you could name it after the topic or you can simply name it "sandbox2".
The URL should appear like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Syednaqvi94/sandbox2
Press enter - this will take you to a new page. You want to select the "create" button in the upper right hand corner. This will start off the new page and you can start writing in it as you would a Word document.

I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have an overdue training assignment.[edit]

Please complete the assigned training modules. --Valerielopes (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

Hi! Here are my notes:

This looks too general for the article on Eric Weinstein. While he did coin the term, this seems to cover a lot of information that doesn't necessarily pertain to Weinstein. For example, there's a section about the popularity of these groups, but this doesn't really pertain to Weinstein.

What I'd suggest specifically looking at are things like: How has the term been used since then? (It's recent, but has it been used for more than the specific people listed in the article section?) How the use of the term has impacted these individuals? Impacted Weinstein? Has the term changed? Was the term criticized? Was Weinstein criticized for the term?

Be careful of tone and grammar. This comes across as a little conversational/essay-ish in places. The style of this should follow how the section on this topic for Weinstein is written. Also, make sure that you do not come across as taking a specific side, as the content should neither praise nor condemn either Weinstein or the people stated to be part of the intellectual dark web.

Make sure that you're using the strongest possible sourcing - primary sources can be fine depending on how it's used, as you can use something like say, a statement by someone labeled as part of the intellectual dark web as long as you're only using it to source something that was stated by that person. Keep in mind, though, that the source should specifically be about the intellectual dark web.

I hope that this helps! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes 2[edit]

Hi - I have more notes. Overall, the same concerns apply here.

Keep in mind that this isn't a membership type group per se. The main thing that loops this group together is that they're a group of people who were mentioned in a NYT article about the IDW. Essentially the IDW is a term attached to a group of people that were deemed "renegades" so to speak, as they don't tread the mainstream path and state that they're "locked out" of mainstream media. As such, they dealt with this by finding new ways or places to discuss things that they deem interesting or important.
This really comes across like it's praising the group in question and needs to be toned down some. Keep in mind that the article should be specifically about the term and the NYT article. There is no need to list the backgrounds and detailed information about the individual people, as the section isn't meant to be about them per se as much as it's about the term, NYT article, and how this was received. The people are almost incidental to this, in a way. It's not who they are, rather that they are people who the NYT piece described as people who were outcast and silenced by mainstream media and institutions.
This needs more coverage by way of content such as people discussing the term and the NYT article, as well as any changes in how the term is used.

I've created a bit of an example of how to expand the section in your sandbox. I would expand on what I've written in the sandbox. Specifically I only want you to expand the portion as far as what people have written about the idea of the intellectual dark web, such as this piece by the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]