User talk:Orellette

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome[edit]

Hello, Orellette! 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 loving 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. Happy editing! RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

I have reverted your recent additions to Uncle Ruckus. The content did not appear to meet our content standards. There were no reliable sources included and so the claims and analysis and interpretation appeared to be based solely upon a wikipedia editor's personal observations, which are not allowed. If you can find a published work (other than blogs or forum posts or personal websites etc.) please feel free to re-enter the material while providing appropriate information about where the content came from.Active Banana (bananaphone 16:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent additions to Uncle Ruckus have included external links, but not actually reliable third party commentary. You are simply using transcripts to support your personal interpretation. Wikipedia writing is unlike writing papers for college or other publication where you as the writer are encouraged to find examples that support your thesis. For Wikipedia, we find published authors who have already made the analytical claims and simply report what they have published. I will leave your additions for another day or so if you are working on getting the appropriate previously published analysis, but if you do not add additional sourcing shortly, I will again remove the content. Active Banana (bananaphone 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that you find using books.google.com and news.google.com are generally considered acceptable sources. (stay away from those annotated as "blogs", wikipedia itself) and those published by Icon Inc (a wikipedia mirror). Active Banana (bananaphone 17:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if there aren't any third party works that discuss the specific topic at hand, then we should not have a stand alone article about it. (see the above google news and google books for potential usable third party sources) Active Banana (bananaphone 18:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That other articles are in poor shape is no excuse to have another poor article. But you can help! Active Banana (bananaphone 18:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a work in progress. As each article gets better, it improves the encyclopedia whether or not other articles are good. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]