User talk:Saccerzd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia, Saccerzd

Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Here are some handy tips:

  • You can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~
  • Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date.
  • If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Jokermage "Timor Mentum Occidit" 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Re: Badvertising

Looks like someone else has tagged for deletion. I wouldn't go THAT far... the topic MAY have merit, but you article is

  • a) poorly written
  • b) rather "stubby"
  • c) lacks any references

For point a), check out: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. It's not that your article uses bad grammar or spelling, its that it doesn't follow standard wikipedia style guidlines for formatting and organization. If an article is to be taken seriously, it should look like the WRITER took it seriously. Take some time to format and organize your article so it looks like a good article. The goal should be to make your articles look like any of the articles at Wikipedia:Good_articles. These articles should give you an idea on how to format and organize the article.

For point b) The article could use some expansion by people "in the know". Marking an article as a "stub" is actually a good thing. I marked it as an "advertising stub" which tags it for other people interested in advertising to take a look at it to clean it up. Don't be scared of stubs, if I have tagged it as a stub, I think the topic is worthy of expansion by others. That is a Good Thing (tm) in wikipedia. Often, when I create an article, I add the stub tag myself. It allows other to know that the article demands expansion and revision, which many articles DO.

For point c) All articles should have some outside verification. Check out: WP:REF and WP:VERIFY, especially where it says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.

Eventually, the goal is to have every single article properly peer-reviewed and cross referenced like a scholarly paper. This is unfeasible in the building stages of an article. However, SOME "external links" that at least SHOW the term being used are useful. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and as such, is supposed to be a repositiory for information that some one else has figured out. The goal of an article writer is to put together what others figured out. If someone else has figured it out, you need to reference the person that did.

Now, your article is a "linguistic" article. It cites a new portmanteau word, and as a linguistic article, it should show sources where the word is used. Even 2 or 3 websites listed at "External Links" that show the word being used would be good. Better yet, create a footnote using the <ref> and </ref> tags and cite a source that SHOWS that the term Badvertising means what you report that it means. Remember, if, as you say on your talk page, the information is SO commonly known it does not need to be cited, then it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If it IS something that people need to know more about, then it should be cited.

Since someone has tagged it for deletion, I would remove the deletion tag, and defend your page on its talk page. And either a) clean it up or b) get someone else to clean it up. Well-written articles that follow the Manual of Style are less likely to attract attention for deletion.

I hope this was helpful. Remember, Be Bold. Improvement comes through continually creating and editing articles in BOLD ways that attract attention. Doing so causes people to constantly improve the encyclopedia, which makes a) us all better writers and editors and b) makes Wikipedia better. Good luck and good editing!

[edit] You're Beautiful and Dixie Chassay

Thanks Saccerzd for including the information on Chassay; unfortunately, you have not provided a link or a specific reference (if it is not online, perhaps the exact date of the article). Could you please do so? Because there are WP:BLP implications (especially by adding Tom Hollander's name), I think we need to include that there. Please note I agree that this is true; but we need to make sure it is verifiable too. Risker 14:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)