Talk:Pullapart

It's great that some work is being done on this article since is was moved from Waste Minimisation, but the language is moving steadily towards marketing speak with each further edit. Particularly where there's a possible conflict of interest (WP:COI) it's important for editors to keep a neutral point of view and encyclopedic style. Letsplaydrums (talk) 14:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and do better, this project is reasonably close to me, there's no commercial motive here – its operated for free, and my style of writing is promotional (lifetime's working habit). Also, I'm fairly inexperienced/new to Wikipedia so, if there's someone out there prepared to help – it would be much appreciated. And, I apologise for any transgressions made.AnthonyPA (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem Anthony - I come from a writing background too and the encyclopedic style is a deceptively tricky one. I ended up having to rewrite my first article from scratch several times before I got it right. I've edited the PullApart copy down to closer to where I think it should be. The important cuts were around the general philosophy of the scheme and snappy restatements of information already given. Just stick to the facts, avoid adjectives and stay neutral. That said, there's still work to be done on this, in terms of accuracy and detail, so I'm hoping it's something on which you'd still like to build. A more experienced editor than us would probably also want to make further stylistic changes. Letsplaydrums (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

New Tag Appeared?

This tag has appeared: “In Template:Multiple issues, found parameter #1 as "notability "; ...expected equal-sign: plot=y, or plot=May 2007.” Does anybody know what all this means, can it be corrected? What do I need to do? In much appreciation, AnthonyPA (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fixed. Someone had added a notability tag with the wrong syntax. If you can cite some mentions of PullApart from credible sources, this tag can be deleted.