Editing Resources

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• Wikipedia:Topical index.

I am writing an article on Contingent Workforce Management. Please add any comments on the discussion page. User:TheBackpack/sandbox

Thanks, --TheBackpack 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have finished my contingent workforce management article (User:TheBackpack/sandbox) and I am waiting for approval from AKRadecki to publish it. I wanted to work with you in creating more articles about the consulting industry. I was thinking about writing articles about Vendor Management Systems and maybe some other topics that I find interesting in the near future. Let me know what you think.

--TheBackpack 14:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, you don't need AKRadecki's or anyone's permission to publish your article, though he seems like a level-headed guy and a good source of advice. I like what you've done with the article, and I'm interested in doing more in this topic as well. One thought: since Portable employer of record went away, I'd suggest not making it a link, or using the more neutral term Employer of Record, which redirects to the PEO article. Have you had a chance to look at my rewrite in progress yet? BWatkins 03:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I don't know if you saw the article before or after I removed the PER link, but either way it is now removed. The only thing there now is a definition of both PER and EOR. I created an internal link to PEO in my CWM article. I would like in the future if a separate article could be written on EOR or PER, since there are some differences between them and PEO (i.e. a PER can completely eliminate co employment risk whereas a PEO doesn't, necessarily; or a PER may be able to handle commission-earning independent professionals like real estate agents, whereas a PEO cannot). But I think we could expand these topics and maybe dive deeper by understanding how portals work as well as the other tools of Wikipedia in order to make understanding these topics more user friendly. Thanks for your help.

--TheBackpack 18:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop talking to yourself and get on with it, my friend. The article on Professional employer organization is MUCH better than it was a few weeks ago. You're starting to do really good stuff here in Wikipedia. Keep at it. But consider removing that external link from the article. It doesn't add anything useful, and external link sections are spam magnets in Wikipedia.

When you have time, you might want to consider sending a thank-you note to Akradecki for helping you understand Wikipedia. He's a good person and it would be polite if you thanked him for his help. --64.181.90.250 02:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already thanked Akradecki, on his talk page. I do appreciate his assistance, and anyone who's that into helicopters is a good guy in my book! The external links section stays for now, if it becomes a problem, I'll eliminate it.

As for the snarky comment about "getting on with it," how about you? You'd profit from a little more understanding and a LOT more patience with others. And how about owning your words again instead of hiding behind anonymous IP addresses? I have to say that this experience has all but driven me away from even wanting to participate here. It'll be a while before I "get on with it" and try to do more writing/editing here. BWatkins 13:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I usually logon under a username to edit here in Wikipedia, but sometimes I get tired of dealing with endless discussions that don't add anything to this encyclopedia's mission of summarizing verifiable and notable information. Am I being "snarky" in suggesting that you keep the purpose of this encyclopedia in mind? I guess that's a matter of opinion. I hope you keep doing what you're doing -- and I think you're doing it well. --65.78.214.97 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to read you are interesting in working on the E-C article. I've left a few thoughts on the discussion page there. Feel free to email me if I can help in anyway. ecochallenge {at} sbcglobal {dot} net. John Turner 23:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. I just did the honors and would really appreciate it if you could repeat them on the FAC page.Peter Rehse 08:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about you, but I feel daunted by the work needed on the magic pages. I think your opening paragraph in your sandbox is a huge improvement on what was there, although I would question the definition of some terms (illusionist, conjuror, tricks). I'm having a bash at the History section, which is in a frightful mess. Do you have any thoughts? Kosmoshiva 05:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't know where to start. I'm just going to make small improvements until I read more of the pages. The opening paragraph is still in sandbox because I want to find references for those definitions before I update the article. BWatkins 15:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- for the thanks! ;-) I used to do a lot of magic back in the 1960s to 80s, but not much anymore, though I have a suitcase full of apparatuses. First, I actually only removed one image from the magic page, since it only showed a balancing trick - not magic. I felt I had to add something instead, so I uploaded that photo... Greetings, --Janke | Talk 15:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

In case you have already seen my response to your note on my talk page, I thought it best to add a further comment here. If you haven't seen it, you probably haven't missed much, but you can view it here. Anyway, you did ask about my thoughts on the revealing of secrets. It turns out that there is instruction to remove magic secrets, but ONLY if certain criteria are met. In case you haven't seen it, you can see it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Magic#Magic_Methods_and_Exposure. Providing that the reasons you are removing the secrets are covered by the guidelines, you can't be accused of vandalism. To make sure, I would recommend that you include the reason why you are removing in edit summary, and (as advised in the guidelines) you add a comment on the talk page.

I've already done this on Chinese linking rings, feel free to have a look at how I went about it. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]