Yurrp

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org talk course link |

A page you started (Tie signs) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Tie signs, Yurrp!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

An interesting article.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Yurrp, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Tie signs

Hi! I have some notes for your article:

• With sourcing, make sure that you are summarizing the content rather than describing it from a certain viewpoint/argument or an interpretation of the source material. We can only summarize what someone else has explicitly stated - we cannot create our own research based on the sourcing. For example, saying that Goffman seems to assert ownership over the term would be seen as original research. We can't say that he owns or coined the term because the source doesn't actually say that. What you need for something like this is a secondary source that does make this point, like this Routledge book (p. 253) that states that he coined the term.

Always avoid point of view statements like "Perhaps somewhat counter intuitively on its face". This is subjective to the reader because what may seem counter intuitive to one won't be for another. If the statement came from the source then it needs to be attributed, such as "Guerrero and Anderson also state a lack of touching between an anchored pair can serve as a signal that the pair's relationship is in a mature and stable stage." This attributes the statement to the pair and also tie it into the section by showing that it was something that they said as opposed to an independent interpretation based on sourcing that doesn't state it outright.

• When you use sourcing, make sure that you mention which page backs up the citation. You have a couple of citations used several times over, so it can get confusing as to which page is supposed to back up which citation. I recommend using the "reference page" citation ({{rp|123}}) behind each instance of the citation. You can replace the number part with the specific page number you're citing.

• As far as sourcing goes, what you have is fine, but it's always a good idea to use a wide variety of sourcing rather than relying too heavily on a smaller amount of sourcing. You can use secondary sourcing that brings up and builds on the information in the earlier sourcing from the 70s and 90s, as this will help back up the claims and also expand the information as well. You have two more recent sources, but these deal more specifically with tie signs on social media and technology.

I hope that this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Instructor feedback for Wiki Draft

Lead section: This is a good introduction to what tie signs are. I think you could revise the wording about “more than a passing relationship” because this description is vague and I think it would be more helpful to understanding what type of relationships you are referring to. The examples you provide in this section, although many could be interpreted as tie signs, they can also fall under other types of communicative behavior such as affectionate, supportive, and intimate communication. Also, when I think of tie signs I first think about physical artifacts, the most common being wedding rings.

I think the background section is clear, but could benefit from a little information about what context would lead Morris and Goffman to lead to start thinking about tie signs. What academic fields and backgrounds were interested in this type of behavior?

I think some communication scholars would contend with the first sentence in the usage section. I’m not sure the definition of tie signs would encompass “nearly anything.” Most talk would likely not be classified as tie signs. I think you could revise this sentence to be more precise. I think the “dependence on context” section clears the issue about tie signs could be anything a bit.

In terms of organization, it seems like it the section on Goffman could be in the background section and the 3 types of tie signs he describes could be under “usage.” The reason for this suggestion is because this section is not really an application of the concept but more of developing the concept in the first place.

Do Guerrero and Anderson (1991) refer to tie signs in their research? If so, then that should be stated. If not, then I would caution fitting this research into evidence for tie signs.

Like the Goffman section, the section on Morris is more about background and concept development and should be moved up. Having organization in chronological order sometimes can help readers make sense of the progression of the development and application of the concept.

The Sosick and Bazarova section is a nice example of an application and connection to the tie sign concept. I think the Tong and Whalther section could use a better connection to how it is an application of tie signs concept.

The critique section offers a nice critique from Goffman. The idea for future research is good and insightful, but it is not really a critique of tie sign theorizing or applications.

Overall, nice job compiling content for a new article. I think you have the foundations for a nice contribution.

11:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Guest to class

Hi Yurrp, Great work on this tie signs page. I am using Wiki Edu for a communication research methods undergraduate course this fall. Would you be willing to be a guest early on in the semester to give the students some pro-tips? I suspect you are not local to UA so we could do it virtually. The class is at 3pm on Mon & Wed. Let me know if you are available.

13:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Please Help

Hi Yurrp, I'm sorry, I'm remaner, and I'm sysop only on it.wiki; you need help from a sysop of your local wiki. --Euphydryas (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Fellows training

I am part of a course taught by Wiki Education that trains scholars in how to edit Wikipedia. Learn more at wikiedu.org. All of my contributions are my own and I take responsibility for them.Yurrp (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I appreciated your contributions to our meeting today and your dedication to improving Wikipedia! Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yurrp. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)