User talk:Ausiephil2008

Welcome

Hello, Ausiephil2008, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

McKeiver, Philip (2007). A New History Of Cromwell's Irish Campaign

It has been bought to my notice that you have been editing articles related to Cromwellian conquest of Ireland and that you have included into the sources section of some articles McKeiver, Philip (2007). A New History Of Cromwell's Irish Campaign, whether or not that particular book has been used as a source.

Did you edit any pages as IP address 212.183.134.209? Not only did that IP address edit the article Sack of Wexford because not only did that IP address add the same book that you seem to have read the IP address also added a "--" to the start of the sources section header which introduced an error: "--==Sources==".

If you wish to add a book to an article then the correct way to do this is to add a passage and then add a Citation. The citation must include the page number of the book cited. If you do this then any addition you make to the article will be most appreciated. If you change a fact for example the number of dead in a battle or the date a battle takes place then please discuss such changes on the talk page and ask for a source for the incorrect number. If the incorrect number is sourced then please discuss changing it on the talk page before making the change in the article. In these cases we often add a range and footnote the sources. If you think a passage is incorrect but do not have a source to hand a useful template to add at the end of a paragraph is {{fact}} which appears as:^{[citation needed]}

For historical reasons not all article cite their sources but the move in Wikipeida since the middle of 2006 is to go for quality rather than quantity, (see Wikipedia:100,000 feature-quality articles) and it has been found that the best way to improve quality. However there are a lot of legacy articles that need far more citations than they have and simply adding a "me too" to the References/Sources section is not acceptable. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McKeiver, Philip (2007). A New History Of Cromwell's Irish Campaign - Redux

Your addition of this source to numerous articles raises the following red flags for me:

"Advance Press" is a self-publishing, vanity press. Books published in this manner are generally not reliable sources. Please see our verifiability guidelines and our reliable source guidelines
The author of the book is named "Philip" and is published by an Australian vanity press. Probably not coincidentally, your username is AusiePhil. Are you the author of this book? If so,you may have a conflict of interest in adding links to your book, ESPECIALLY when you include a link to the Amazon buying page, as you have been. This makes it look like you're trying to sell copies of your book by linking here.
You do not appear to have made any recent edits that did not consist of adding the link to (your?) book. This makes you look like a single-purpose account, which, while not prohibited, is a warning sign to your fellow editors to watch you closely.

In short, your repeated additions of links to (your?) book do not look kosher to me. If I were you, I'd read the guidelines I linked to above and educate myself before adding further links. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McKeiver, Philip (2007). A New History Of Cromwell's Irish Campaign - Redux Pt II

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Siege of Galway. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. haydn_likes_carpet (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peterloo, History of Manchester.

Please, stop the spam. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip

Thanks for your message. In case there is any misunderstanding, it is not your book that I cast as spam, it is your addition of it to Wikipedia. If, as you say, it is the leading authority on Peterloo, no doubt it will be reviewed in the history journals, and in the fullness of time it will be cited by new work on the massacre. When it is regularly cited, it will naturally find its place on Wikipedia, but please let others add it. I have other issues, but that is the primary one; here on WP, adding references to your own work is looked upon poorly. Your only edits to WP have been to cite your own self-published books. You have made no edits whatsoever to the content of the Peterloo or History of Manchester articles. Why not join in at WP & WP:GM and use your knowledge to bring History of Manchester up to FA? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS ... citing other people's work, not yours :) Mr Stephen (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. As I wrote above, the primary isssue is that you should not add the book to Wikipedia. Let other people do it as the value of the book becomes apparent and it is regularly cited in recognised work. Wikipedia is not here for you to advertise your books. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]