User talk:Themashup

Welcome! I like to be chill and vibe.

Hello, Themashup, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Teahouse.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)
The Signpost, our newspaper

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Themashup, good luck, and have fun. PamD 07:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PamD 07:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated reversion ignoring existing talk page discussion

Please do not attempt to force your opinions on to articles when a talk page discussion on the matter has been started. If you have been reverted, you should either accept the lack of agreement for your action, or *you* should start a talk page discussion to put your point of view. If someone else has started such a discussion, then you should *never* continue to try to force your view onto the article(s) concerned. Please read WP:BRD if you are unclear on this. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, so if someone reverts then I would discuss that specific thing on a talk page. Gotcha. Wasn't sure if there was a talk page or if we discuss it there. Themashup (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinion

Statements like "was generally well-received" don't work well in the Wikipedia genre because it's your own opinion. Even if true, the reader can't trust it as true. And it's sufficiently vague as to have little meaning. If you were a regular named author in a magazine, people would understand you, your opinions. But in anonymous text, it doesn't work well. Better is be precise and state what everyone can agree is factually true eg. "was reviewed by the British press". -- GreenC 05:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks. Will just let the source speak for itself. Themashup (talk) 06:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]