User talk:BJ Nemeth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I hope you like this place — I sure do — and want to stay.
You may want to read about the Five pillars of Wikipedia and simplified ruleset.
If you need help on how to title new articles check out the naming conventions.
For help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style.
If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and the FAQ.
If you can't find your answer there, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)!
There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library.
Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal.
Feel free to post questions on my user talk page or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will be by to help you shortly.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. You can sign your name using three tildes (~). If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Five will get you the datestamp only.
You may want to add yourself to the new user log.
If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
On IRC, check out the Bootcamp. It's not what it sounds like, but it is fun and can help you with your editing skills.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
Happy Wiki-ing. —Kf4bdy talk contribs
PS: This is not a bot and you did nothing to prompt this message. This is just a friendly welcome by a fellow Wikipedian.
[edit] Editor's guide to episode related articles
Thank you very much for stopping by and asking. I wish more people would ask rather than get angry and vandalize my userspace. Here are some links to the policies and guidelines that govern articles about episodes. If you have questions about a specific edit of mine, message me on my talk page and let me know which one you would like to know about. In most cases it is not an issue of the information itself but rather, the way the information is presented. This is a general purpose encyclopedia and as such the information therein must be verifiable and neutral. This is accomplished, in part, by ensuring that our edits conform to certain criteria.
- WP:OR policy on original reasarch
- WP:V policy on verifiability
- WP:NOT policy on inclusion
- WP:WAF guide to writting about fiction
- WP:EPISODE guide writing about television episodes
With regards to citing the episode itself as a source, WP:V states-
"An article or section of an article that relies on primary sourceshould (1) only make descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easilyverifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and(2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, orevaluative claims."
So you can cite an episode for things that happen in that episode but can't add any analysis unless that analysis has been published by a verifiable source. One can say that in scene X such and such happened but not scene X is a parody of another film or scene, unless the creators of the work said that's what they intended or that particuler analysis has been published by a reliable 3rd party source. That is stated below in excerpts from WP:OR and WP:WAF--
"Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, ortheories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of publishedarguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, andarguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by areliable publication in relation to the topic of the article."
"Wikipedia policy on verifiabilityrequires that articles "rely on credible, third-party sources with areputation for fact-checking and accuracy." However, articles writtenfrom an in-universe perspective are overly reliant on the fictionitself as a primary source. Lacking as they are in any critical analysis of the subject, these articles may invite original research. In other words, lacking critical analysis from secondary sources,Wikipedia editors and fans of the subject often feel compelled toprovide such analysis themselves. Consider this analogy: Would it beacceptable to write an article on flight based solely on watching birds flying?"
I hope this answer is helpful and if you have anyother questions or comments please visit my talk page. Cheers. L0b0t 17:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
