User talk:Kenneth Hughes: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Raw food: new section) |
imported>Kenneth Hughes |
||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
Hi, Kenneth, glad to see that you're already at work! I took a look at the raw food entry and while it is certainly important in what it has to say, I think that you have adopted a somewhat too jaunty and informal tone throughout. We are absolutely not Wikipedia when it comes to style and content, but we do try to conform to our straightforward narrative conventions. We certainly grant our authors far more leeway when it comes to style and simple declarations without annoying "citations needed" every other word, but even so we want a somewhat more encyclopediac style than you've shown. For instance, I don't think we ever approve of sentences that are questions -- or certainly not merely for rhetorical flourishes. For a while, a couple of years ago, I was the resident food and cooking guru, or close to it, and originated a number of articles. You might glance at [[Blanquette de veau]], [[Bolognese sauce]], [[Vitello tonnato]] to get an idea of what our stylist approach is. In a word: straightforward, with no "adoring fans" unless they're part of some quotation or other. Or at least so *I* think! In any case, we're glad to have you with us! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | Hi, Kenneth, glad to see that you're already at work! I took a look at the raw food entry and while it is certainly important in what it has to say, I think that you have adopted a somewhat too jaunty and informal tone throughout. We are absolutely not Wikipedia when it comes to style and content, but we do try to conform to our straightforward narrative conventions. We certainly grant our authors far more leeway when it comes to style and simple declarations without annoying "citations needed" every other word, but even so we want a somewhat more encyclopediac style than you've shown. For instance, I don't think we ever approve of sentences that are questions -- or certainly not merely for rhetorical flourishes. For a while, a couple of years ago, I was the resident food and cooking guru, or close to it, and originated a number of articles. You might glance at [[Blanquette de veau]], [[Bolognese sauce]], [[Vitello tonnato]] to get an idea of what our stylist approach is. In a word: straightforward, with no "adoring fans" unless they're part of some quotation or other. Or at least so *I* think! In any case, we're glad to have you with us! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
:I take your point(s), thanks Hayford. I've made changes to the piece. I shall read your articles later. (For the record, I've never written on Wikipedia, though I have read it a few times). [[User:Kenneth Hughes|Kenneth Hughes]] 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:27, 14 August 2009
Welcome!
Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start. You'll probably want to know how to get started as an author. Just look at CZ:Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list (do join!) and the blog. Please also join the workgroup mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! Hayford Peirce 22:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Raw food
Hi, Kenneth, glad to see that you're already at work! I took a look at the raw food entry and while it is certainly important in what it has to say, I think that you have adopted a somewhat too jaunty and informal tone throughout. We are absolutely not Wikipedia when it comes to style and content, but we do try to conform to our straightforward narrative conventions. We certainly grant our authors far more leeway when it comes to style and simple declarations without annoying "citations needed" every other word, but even so we want a somewhat more encyclopediac style than you've shown. For instance, I don't think we ever approve of sentences that are questions -- or certainly not merely for rhetorical flourishes. For a while, a couple of years ago, I was the resident food and cooking guru, or close to it, and originated a number of articles. You might glance at Blanquette de veau, Bolognese sauce, Vitello tonnato to get an idea of what our stylist approach is. In a word: straightforward, with no "adoring fans" unless they're part of some quotation or other. Or at least so *I* think! In any case, we're glad to have you with us! Hayford Peirce 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I take your point(s), thanks Hayford. I've made changes to the piece. I shall read your articles later. (For the record, I've never written on Wikipedia, though I have read it a few times). Kenneth Hughes 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)