User talk:Teresamac63

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Teresamac63! Thank you for your contributions. I am MartinPoulter and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! MartinPoulter (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edit to Open educational practices. The blank section of the article has been deleted, so I've rescued the citation you added, and put it at the foot of the article as an external link. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox draft[edit]

Hi Teresa and thanks for the nudge. I've made a couple of little stylistic tweaks. There are a couple of things that need to be tweaked about it before going further:

1) Wikipedia house style doesn't allow external links in the body text, so external links should either be used as citations or put at the foot of the page in an External links section with a heading. 2) Wikipedia doesn't have first-person language, so rather than "changes in the way we communicate..." you might have "changes in the platforms and ease of communication..." or similar.

In general, having more references that mention the subject is better. It's great that there is a whole book on the topic, but any individual papers using the term are worth using as citations too. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which updates?[edit]

Thanks for the kitten. I'm curious which updates you noticed. Also what's badge.wiki? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 23:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay! I edit a lot of pages, sometimes I lose track.

FYI: I just added more references to the article, added badge.wiki to the External links, and reworded a few statements that looked like possible WP:COPYPASTE. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 18:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Virtual exchange has been accepted[edit]

Virtual exchange, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and promotional editing[edit]

Hello, Teresa. Normally, I reply to a talk page post on the page where it was posted, to avoid fragmentation of a conversation, which can lead to difficulty in following it. However, recent comments in the discussion between us on my talk page have been concernedy with your editing, and it seems to me that it may be more helpful to have them on record here, for ease of future reference if necessary. I am therefore copying the relevant parts of the discussion from my talk page to here, and adding further comments. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... you have a clear involvement in what you have been writing about, such that you should read the guide on conflict of interest, and also that some of your writing has been promotional. You need to consider that very carefully. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern @JamesBWatson. I can confirm that there is no conflict of interest in my editing, I am not paid to edit. I am an academic who researches in an emerging area of language teaching practice and I have been contributing to sharing knowledge about the existence of this field. Teresamac63 (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the conflict of interest guideline, or are your comments based on reading my message and using a normal understanding of the expression "conflict of interest"? I ask that because the guideline uses that expression in a specific way which is somewhat different from how the expression is often used in other contexts, which sometimes leads to misunderstanding. I therefore suggest that you should read it if you haven't already done so. Whether you are paid to edit is not relevant to whether you have a "conflict of interest" in Wikipedia's sense. For example, if you were to edit about an organisation you belong to, work for, or have a personal connection to, you would be considered to have a conflict of interest, even if your involvement were purely voluntary. Likewise, if you were to link to a blog or similar web content that you yourself run, that would bring a conflict of interest; in fact I do not think there is any circumstance in which that would be acceptable. Unfortunately a Wikipedia policy inhibits me from being as specific as I would like to be, but you should avoid editing of those kinds.

You say that you have been "contributing to sharing knowledge about the existence of this field" but that sounds very much like using Wikipedia to publicise or promote a field which you personally feel deserves to be better known than it is, and Wikipedia policy does not permit such editing for the purpose of promoting anything. Many relatively inexperienced editors misunderstand the concept of "promotion" as it applies here, taking it as applying in much more restricted senses than it is meant. For example, I have know editors who have assumed that something can't be promotional if it is not for commercial gain, or that it can't be promotional if it is not for the personal financial gain of the editor in question, or that it can't be promotional if what it is promoting is a good thing or noble cause so that it deserves to be promoted, and so on and so on ... However, Wikipedia's policy against promotion is not restricted to such limited interpretations. For example, linking from an article to a web site for the purpose of attracting readers to the site, thus making that web site or its contents more widely known is editing to promote that web site. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]