User talk:Ambre P

Ambre P, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Ambre P! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

February 2018

Hello, I'm SteveMcCluskey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Medieval cuisine have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. My main concern is that you introduced material into the article's lead which is already discussed in detail in the body of the article. Since the lead is intended to summaize the article, you should edit the body of the article to incorporate your substanitive changes, then briefly summariize them in the lead. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm Ambre P. I hope I did this right, I have never attempted to use the talk function. I was going to edit the body later, but the introduction has several factual errors so I was starting with it first. The errors completely skew the content. I think the intro is way too long in any case, and full of unsupported bias, but I was following what others have done. I did not think a factual correction of others who used no sources would be upsetting for some reason. Since there are factual errors in the intro then what do you suggest? I have not done many edits and have never had one reversed.

Ambre P (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (February 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Heliosxeros was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Ambre P/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Ambre P/sandbox, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

EROS ^message 14:58, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your submission and about sourcing

I see that you have misunderstood a lot about sourcing and referencing on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The sources you find must at least be one lengthy paragraph, preferably more and not just passing mentions or directory listings. Next, the published sources you find must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Eg. a major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality generally trusted mainstream publications and not blogs, MySpace, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, fansites, Twitter, wikis, or other sites with user-generated content. Lastly, sources must be nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject which will not be their own website/homepages, and not a press release. The sources must be independent. It is crucial that you read those links in blue and also those attached with the declined reason. Cheers. EROS ^message 12:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I was nervious about blog, but the historical society uses it as the books are missing. I have requested they try to find them in the library but I do not hold out much hope but there may not be an alternative. Parks and Recreation took over the local library and sold off or just destroyed many of the old microfiche as they did not consider them relevant. The blog is of pictures of articles of a defunct local newspaper ,most without citations other than paper image. But I do not understand the rejection of the USGS info page, census pages, etc... they are government publications and are accepted for ALL the other towns and census areas of the county. It would not bother me but either they are good for all citations or for none. Encyclopedia Britannica article same errors, so probably from similar source. What are we expected to do if few sources exist for the area in question that come from a large publication if it is never mentioned in such? I did read the links and they just said cannot cite wikipedia(which I did not do). The problem is that one town is claiming the history of another area, and its page is accepted, but it has no sources at all, which is why I was trying to correct this by requesting a page and trying to write one. I cannot find a way to flag the info, and we are not high priority because small. I am very frustrated by this. Unless wikipedia is just about large cities and urban areas, there has to be some leaway for smaller area to document, or why bother having an entry, and the area in question is an older town (of around 6000 people) that is intermingles with a newer city (of about 50000 people). Between 80 to 90% of county lives within 15 miles of this area in a county 100+ miles square.

Ambre P (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I see your dilemma. Try to add additional sources which you feel useful and are plausible within Wikipedia's scope. EROS ^message 15:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)