User talk:Laradoks

Welcome!

Greetings...

Hello, Laradoks, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! PJmdJIm (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome number two
And welcome from me, too! I hope you have a great time on Wikipedia, and I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. 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 should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. Again, welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphans

Your two new articles (Generative principle (foreign language teaching) and Sandwich technique (Foreign language teaching)) show an excellent grasp of the subject matter and seem to be valuable additions to the encyclopedia. However, no articles link to them, so it is unlikely they will be found by browsers of the encyclopedia. There is an entire article on language acquisition and another specifically on second language acquisition. Perhaps your new articles relate to a topic in one of those existing articles. I would invite you to review those articles, and see if you can edit them to mention these two concepts in their proper context. I would do so myself, but being no expert in the field, I wouldn't know exactly where they fit in the overall scope of second language acquisition. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood my point. I have already created Wikilinks in your articles to other articles ("Autistic" links to autism, etc). However, no other articles link to yours. This will make your article rather pointless in that no one who is reading about language acquisition (specifically second language acquisition) will ever find a link to your articles. I don't know where such links would be appropriate in those articles, as this would require some expertise in the subject area, which I do not possess. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Laradoks. You have new messages at Talk:Generative principle.
Message added 12:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Generative principle

Thanks for your reply at Generative principle. I thought the articles you made were good, but I didn't realise we had a scholar in our midst! There is no obligation, but you might want to edit your user page so that people can see you have a scholarly background. Just a few sentences is fine, and you don't have to give out your name or other personal details if you're worried about your privacy.

Also, seeing as you contributed an article on the generative principle to Routledge, then you should probably read the short FAQ on copyright so that you can be aware of Wikipedia's policies on it. If you rewrote the article like you said, then there will be no problem with copyright. If Routledge owns the copyright to any of the text you contributed, however, the offending passages will likely need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia policy.

If you have any other questions about formatting or policy, or about anything else, please ask me on my talk page. I've left some other helpful links at the top of this talk page. And I don't think I've said it yet, so THANK YOU for contributing to Wikipedia! — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Stradivarius, I clicked your "drop me a line" but didn't know where to place my question. So here it is: I have a chinese translation of the article "sandwich technique", and I don't know how to publish it. Can you help?Laradoks (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Laradoks. You have new messages at Talk:Generative principle.
Message added 15:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Possible conflict of interest

Hi again, and thank you for your contributions! From seeing your posts, it looks like you might fall under the category of wikipedians with articles. It is most welcome to see someone of your knowledge contributing to language-related articles on Wikipedia. However, you should be aware of Wikipedia's policy on having a conflict of interest, and on its guidelines about citing yourself. Citing yourself is allowed as long as you don't overdo it, and your edits so far seem to be no problem in that respect. However, citing yourself is often not looked on kindly by other editors, so I would advise caution. If you are in any doubt, then you can always put your suggested edit on the talk page of the page you want to edit, and wait for another editor to add it.

Again, I suggest that you edit your userpage so that other editors can see your background. Although, again, you don't have to provide any personal information, and indeed it is against Wikipedia's policy on disclosing personal information for other other people to post your personal information anywhere on the site unless you choose to make it public first. If you confirm your identity, an administrator will have to confirm your account is actually you, for example by sending them an email from an email account publicly associated with you. (This may involve blocking your account until you can confirm your identity.) Then your account will be listed at Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles, and other wikipedians will likely treat your edits with the respect that comes with your position. Of course, you don't have to make your identity public at all. In this case, just bearing Wikipedia's policy on conflicts of interest in mind while you edit will be enough, in my opinion. After all, it is possible to edit Wikipedia without registering a user account at all. I wish you all the best with your wikipedia experience, and if you have any questions, please ask me on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 05:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

citing myself: I'm aware of that and have now, in my latest cahnge, included another methodologist (Lewis) who expresses different views.Laradoks (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC) copyright: I'm also aware of that and I'll take care.Laradoks (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]