User talk:Noahcamin

Welcome!

Hello, Noahcamin, 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) 16:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Here are the notes I promised:

• Don't rename established articles without first gaining consensus on the article's talk page.

• This looks to be shorter than the existing article - make sure that you only remove something if it's absolutely unnecessary to the article (ie, not on topic, could be summarized better, etc) or incorrect. Keep in mind that you don't have to completely re-write the article, you really only have to flesh out content that isn't complete, update material, or add new material in order to improve it.

• There are some quotes in the article - these should really only be used if they cannot be summarized in your own words and not using the quotes would lose something.

• Be very careful about definitive statements - these should only be used if this is the general consensus of authorities on the topic and if it's in the source backing up the claim. However even then, be cautious. For example, the statement "This data is highly accurate and collected first-hand." about primary sources is actually not exactly true. A primary source is accurate for what was said/written, but it doesn't mean that it's accurate entirely. By this I mean that someone could respond to a survey or write down a document that has (or have given) deliberately or accidentally false information. It would be accurate in that what's written is what is written, but the information would still be incorrect when it comes to the people or topic they're writing about, if that makes sense.

• Some of the content isn't sourced - all claims must be backed up with a reliable source that explicitly makes the claim.

• Be cautious of sourcing, as not all sourcing would be seen as reliable. For example, this would be a weak source at best and unreliable at worst, as we can't guarantee the type of editorial oversight and verification that the site does. It's also not really a site that's aimed at sociology topics, so we have no way of knowing if the person who wrote this is really an authority on the topic or if they're just a random person who wrote on the topic. There's also the fact that the website is pretty much geared to sell the reader something, specifically their services. As such, their focus may be less on the accuracy of what they're writing in their free stuff and more on their end product. There are also links to their products (or at least the free versions, which in turn mentions their sale products) in the article.

It's much better to use the strongest possible sourcing, which is typically going to be academic and scholarly sources found on your college's databases.

I hope that this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Social research and method

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Social research and method. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Social research. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Social research. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Re-adding content

Please do not move the content in your sandbox live as a new article. If the content is to be added live, it should be over the existing article. However before you do that, make sure that you are not removing content that should be in the article and that you're using the strongest possible sourcing. I detailed this and some other notes in my post above.

Also be aware that you will not be graded on what remains live - you should be graded on the effort you've put forward. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)