User talk:Bcharles4

Welcome!

Hello, Bcharles4, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Nczempin (talk) 11:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria

Hi, I noticed you unsure how to proceed on the Queen Victoria page. First of all, it's a good thing that you ask first, especially given a possible conflict of interest. Before we go into the details, please note that at the top of the Talk:Queen Victoria page, you are asked to "Put new text under old text.", whereas you added your new section at the top. I'll move it to the bottom, if you don't mind. Nczempin (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the possible conflict of interest, the guideline says "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest." As to adding the link to your web site, that would probably fall under WP:SELFPROMOTE. I presume that the book has more information than the web site, and it should suffice that it's being used as a reference. If an editor other than yourself thinks it adds value to the article even in a hypothetical "finished" Wikipedia article, that's another story. Nczempin (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

existing articles; 4 other attackers

Improving the Queen Victoria article as well as the already existing ones on the attackers should be fine. Since you're new, expect to get the occasional friendly or unfriendly message when you have done something against the guidelines, but that shouldn't bother you: As Wikipedia editors we always try to assume good faith, so any issues should be worked out. Just be bold and make the changes on the existing articles. In particular, make sure that you use an edit summary, explaining why you made the particular change. As to adding the other articles; I cannot tell you ahead of time whether the other attackers are notable by themselves; that the other guys are there is not sufficient. To get guidance for creating those articles (and e. g. help on whether the subjects would be considered notable enough for inclusion into their own article, or possible alternatives such as one page for all the attackers), I strongly suggest you head over to WP:Articles for creation. I think the most important piece of advice for a new editor, especially when there could be other editors perceiving a conflict of interest (which AFAICT doesn't apply to the self-citations, as mentioned before), is simply to be patient; there's no rush to add those articles. I can also foresee that you may get a {{one source}} tag, but one source is better than no source. Nczempin (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nczempin

Thanks for your help and moving the post. I saw it wasn't there at the top before I saw your message and put it back again! Hopefully I have now removed that erroneous post.

Yes quite right, there is a lot more information in the book. I just thought some people might want other information immediately, but, as you suggest, I'll leave it to others to make that decision as to whether to add the link.

Thanks also for your other advice. I will look up the references. Bcharles4 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you removed the top-post correctly after re-adding it; everything is fine now. Have fun in Wikipedia! Nczempin (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]