User talk:EssEff

Welcome!

Hello, EssEff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Proto///type 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William H. Block[edit]

Hi EssEff. Thank you for providing the above article. I hope you will be pleased to note that the article will not be deleted. However, I would like to ensure you are aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. This necessitates that articles must be verifiable. This does not mean that information has to be widely available on the internet; a print source is equally suitable. Currently, the only reference this article - that you created - has, is 'employee user manual circa 1940'. This is an extremely insubstantial reference. Wikipedia cannot be a primary source - it is a secondary source, and all articles should adhed to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. Might you be able to provide any further information (an ISBN number?) on the reference you provided, or any other sources or references? Thank you for your work, and welcome (again) to Wikipedia! Regards, Proto///type 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Proto, thank you for the message. It is unlikely that we will agree upon what is a verifiable source. As with many defunct companies, there is frequently little copyrighted publications. If an author is fortunate in locating the company records were archived by an institution, this is the very source that one would desire in publishing; first hand vs. second hand opinion or observation. I can imagine no better source of a company's history that its own written and printed history of the company that was produced as a reference and to instruct employee's on the history of the company. Identifing it as a 'user' manual does diminish its importance. For a company to publish a manual for internal use without a copyright is frequently the norm. If and when I locate other references, I will most certain document them. The usefulness and beauty of Wikipedia for me has been locating information that is unpublished or near impossible to find. If a subject is well published, I will go to those sources, not Wikipedia. As far a future contributions, I had outlined a few topics with more resoruces available, however, this one (and first) Wikipedia article has been an unpleasant experience. EssEff 17:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC) A primary source involves actual material remains connected to the historical event. Documents, eyewitness accounts, written reports, photographs, drawings, video and audio tapes all may generally be considered primary sources. Secondary sources are materials which are not directly connected to the actual event. Textbooks, movies, experts, history teachers would all generally be secondary sources. Some items may be either secondary or primary materials, depending on how they are used. For an example, a text which is generally considered a secondary source becomes a primary source if it is being viewed as a document reflecting the values of the time period in which it was written. Using a 1945 U.S. History text as source of information on how American students of the 40's were taught about WWI would be an example. Source: Chicago Metro History Education Center EssEff 04:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]