Hello, Mjscheer! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking  or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being " adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Begoon talk 07:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Getting Started
|
|
|
Getting Help
|
|
|
Policies and Guidelines
|
|
|
The Community
|
|
|
Things to do
|
|
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
|
|
|
...and if you do not live in the Washington, D.C. area, please forgive the intrusion and you can delete this invite! Sarah (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I left some suggestions for improvement on my theory for the class (Structuration theory), and that content is available on the Talk page. I also added a section (Methodology of structuration theory) and a couple sentences to that page, to the end part of the article.
I have compiled numerous research sources, though I have not finished going through most of them:
Potential resources
Falkheimer, J. (2009). On Giddens: Interpreting public relations through Anthony Giddens's structuration and late modernity theory. In O. Ihlen, B. van Ruler, & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts (pp. 103-119). New York, NY: Routledge.
Waldeck, J. H., Shepard, C. A., Teitelbaum, J., Farrar, W. J, & Seibold, D. R. (2002). New directions for functional, symbolic convergence, structuration, and bona fide group perspectives of group communication. In L. R. Frey (Ed.), New directions in group communication (pp. 3-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Bryant, C. G. A., & Jary, D. (Eds.). (1991). Giddens' theory of structuration: A critical appreciation. New York, NY: Routledge.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Pavlou, P. A., & Majchrzak, A. (2002). Structuration theory; Capturing the complexity of business-to-business intermediaries. In M. Warkentin, (Ed.), Business to business electronic commerce: Challenges & solutions (pp. 175-189). Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing.
Stones, R. (2005). Structuration theory. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mjscheer (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Hey there! Sorry about the workshop. Your work so far looks awesome, at this point I would encourage you to Be Bold and start making some major edits to the article and adding your sources! MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Structuration References/Citations
Hey there! I was checking out Structuration, great work so far! You've definitely been improving the content on this page.
I just wanted to make you aware of some problems with the way your references are formatted, or rather, the references on this page in general (most of which aren't your's originally). If you look at the References section (which I re-named for you), you can see how some are bullets and some are numbered (We want them all to be numbered). Also, I see that under "Methodology of structuration theory" you have information for an article by J.H. Turner but the reference is named "Ordinary consumption" and so it shows as that and the Turner article isn't listed. There are also some parenthetical references that should be wikified and listed along with the other references. Anything that's useful but not directly cited can go under a new ==Further Reading== or ==External Links== section.
Anyways, for starters, check out Reference Templates, particularly the examples. And make sure each reference is named and has all its information plugged in the first time it appears.
I know this article has a lot of references and its kind of a mess right now. Maybe you can come by my office hours or we can meet another time if that doesn't work for you and then we could sit down and sort things out a bit. On the bright side, you'll be a master of Wikipedia citations after this!
Ok, I looked more and see that on the talk page you said you're doing citations last, so if I'm wrong and you've got this under control just stay the course and forget I said anything! MyNameWasTaken (talk) 05:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, MyNameWasTaken! I think, since your comments, that I've cleared up the references. Let me know if they still do not look/function as they should. Mjscheer (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Assignment
Hey there! I just wanted to check in and see how things were going with your Wikipedia project. I know you've been working pretty hard on your article and made a lot of good additions! Anyways, I know the midterm is due in a couple weeks and just wanted to make sure you were on track and had everything you needed to get this done! Let me know if I can help with anything, including technical issues or just some general review/feedback about what you're working on. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 04:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, MyNameWasTaken! I think things are going well, and that I'm done with many of the major edits to the page that I've determined would be valuable. Please let me know if you have any aesthetic or functional suggestions regarding the clarity and completeness of the new content and structure! Structuration theory is rated "Highly important" for the WikiProject on Sociology, so I'm particularly concerned with the quality of the content. Any and all suggestions are highly valuable!
- Regarding further help, I've asked for copyediting help, put in a formal request for editor feedback, contacted editors who have participated in discussion and editing for this theory before, and asked for a read-through from the live chat "Help" section. If you have any more ideas as to how I could generate more feedback for my article, I would be so appreciative. I'm running out of ideas, and I've had a hard time generating very much interest. Please let anyone know that you think might be interested in contributing suggestions/comments that I would very much appreciate their contributions! As for how you could help, a general review/feedback would be helpful, either on this page or on the structuration Talk page. Thanks for staying in touch! Mjscheer (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Structuration
Hi Mjscheer. I just wanted to say nice work on the Structuration article. 
I've had a good read of it. It's both much clearer and more comprehensive. I hope you get good marks, and stick around to improve some other articles! -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey zzuuzz! Thank you so much for the kind, welcoming words! I certainly intend to stick around and continue editing. I've become very interested in the Wikipedia community. I'm glad that you like the changes I've made! If you think of anything that can be improved, please let me know! Mjscheer (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit tag
Since there's already a section here, I'll add my comment here. I removed the {{copyedit}} template from the talk page and placed it on the article because that's the correct place for it. From the documentation:"This template tags an article for copy editing and should be added at the top of the article page.". I noticed you put it back on the talk page later: [1]. It's unnecessary there. I don't want to confuse you by removing it again, so I'm leaving this note instead. Great work on the article, by the way, I hope the RFC gets you some valuable input. Begoon talk 06:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Bagoon! Sorry for the confusion. As I mentioned, I'm a new editor, and much of this stuff is confusing to me. Thank you for your encouragement, and your understanding. Mjscheer (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I restored the structure of the talk page. That's how editors will expect to find a talk page, with new discussions added to the bottom chronologically. Eventually, older discussions will be archived from the top, as the page grows. I can see what you were trying to do on that page, but it would just confuse. You had items above the header, unrelated sections grouped together etc. I hope you don't mind my reformatting it - no content was removed.
- I also added a menu of links to the top of this page which might help you as you find your way around. It can be confusing for new editors. There's a massive amount of stuff linked there - don't try to read it all, but if you just "dip" into the links as situations arise where you need to know more, it'll all fall into place pretty quickly. And if you are unsure - ask for help. Most people don't bite here… Don't forget to enjoy your editing - that's the point for many of us. Begoon talk 07:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But please don't combine other people's comments into sections as you did. It may seem logical to you, but it's not what the people coming to the talkpage expect, and it may break automatic archiving, which works by section. I reverted that change again.
- I think reading Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Talk pages would help you.
- And you don't need another section for comments from the RFC - the existing section is where people will reply, and expect to reply. Begoon talk
- One last note - so you are not confused. While I was setting up auto-archiving and index pages, User:zzuuzz had the same idea, and archived the very old discussions - so the page should be a lot easier to work with now, and the archiving code should keep it neat by archiving old discussions automatically. Hope that helps. Begoon talk 08:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Begoon, thank you for your comments. I did not realize that the talk page should be chronological in order, with newest talk on the bottom of the page. I will certainly take a look at the links that you have provided, especially the Talk page guidelines. They will be very helpful. As for the extra section for comments on the Talk page, I have to be frank that I am hoping to generate a discussion and I thought that it would be helpful for those who are less experienced with Wikipedia to know that there was a specific section where they could add their comments and reactions that was unrelated to the RFC. However, I will keep the templates at the bottom, where they belong. Still, I may add a separate section for those who want to contribute to discussing recent changes who are unaffiliated with the RFC (or who may not know what an RFC is). Thank you so much for your suggestions! You have been vastly helpful in educating me about Wikipedia guidelines, and it is nice to see that experienced users really do follow the "be welcoming to new users" decree. Mjscheer (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely no problem. Here's a link to an existing RFC, just so you can see how it usually looks, for info: RFC - which succession table?. I hope your RFC attracts the discussion you desire. Good luck. Begoon talk 09:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
Great job on the article and also great job soliciting comments from people about the page...I noticed that you nominated your article for good article status...great idea to develop interest and get feedback...looks like you will have many things to write about! Turnj (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey MJ. Great work here. I see that you've gotten a couple experienced editors providing feedback and doing some copy editing as well as having gotten feedback from your GA review and so I haven't done any major reviewing. Great idea submitting it there, hopefully you'll be able to address those concerns and get it listed, a major accomplishment! MyNameWasTaken (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. When you recently edited Structuration, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Schema and Habitus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and fixed these while I was looking at the page. Great work, congratulations on your pending GA! MyNameWasTaken (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, MyNameWasTaken! I'm totally thrilled about the GA. Thanks for all your help! 71.191.20.43 (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GA Notice
The article Structuration you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Structuration for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Congrats! Meclee (talk) 22:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mjscheer. Congratulations of getting Structuration to GA. Are you still wanting GOCE to do a copy edit on it? Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. Someone is working on it. --Stfg (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Structuration, an article you have previously edited or reviewed, has been nominated for Good article reassessment. SpinningSpark 09:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Please take a few minutes to fill out this survey about the Wikipedia Education Program. This is our opportunity to improve the program and resources we provide students, so your feedback and input is integral to our future success. Thank you so much! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 18:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
