User talk:Scathain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Send me a message and remember to sign with the squiggles in the symbols box. Thanks [[1]]

Contents

[edit] Since September 2007

I started contributing lately to wikipedia..However my weaknesses are in referencing..any ideas guys-does it just require alot of reading..ie finding differing opinions-sounds like alot of work getting it right academically? A problem with my dissertation at the mo. October 2007.

It takes abit of time, some reading and being confident enough to enquire with experts. Most are helpful! Just doing final dissertation editing. Then finished. December 11th, 2007.


Welcome!

Hello, Scathain, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

[edit] Brian Cowan article duplicate of Brian Cowen article

The Brian Cowan article is obviously a duplicate of the Brian Cowen article, so I have redirected to the correct article. FlowerpotmaNยท(t) 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Flowerpotman was spot on!

[edit] Broadcasting (Amendment) Act 2007

I agree that the Act is available elsewhere, and as part of my dissertation I have explored it and the result is what you see. I temporarily left the Act up to raise awareness of the Act among visitors but have got down to discussing it now. This hopefully removes copyright issues also Thanks all.

[edit] SCTV Digital

The article that I have created needs more citations for which I currently have no time. I have avoided any figures with regards to subcriptions or contact numbers to ensure the article is not advertising. Because it is part of the Irish television distribution landscape in nevertheless warrants encylopedic coverage while stiking a balance not to be advertising. More references may be needed and the article does resemble the website but would not be considered copyright as the info is informational in nature. It can be compared to other articles. However I would suggest amendment rather than deletion if the article is not deemed encyplopedic enough.

I have now viewed your talk page. The article must be covered in third party, reliable sources in order to be deemed notable. You may also want to see Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you feel the deletion was in error, please request its undeletion at deletion review. I'm willing to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Keilanatalk(recall) 00:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't normally check people's talk pages, just the article's, but I will consider your suggestion in the future. Yes, I agree with you about Wikipedia's credibility; we must walk a fine line between deleting things of value and including junk that shouldn't be. Good luck on your dissertation, and thanks for your reasonable suggestions. Hopefully, Wikipedia's a pleasant learning experience for you, and that you stay to help. Regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if you can't find any sources then it will probably just get deleted again. Often times, people do not understand the difference between truth and verifiability; that difference is very important on Wikipedia. Thank you for being patient, and I hope you have a happy new year. Best regards, Keilanatalk(recall) 00:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)