User talk:David S. Adams

Hello! Thanks for your extensive additions to Lima, Ohio! Might I beg of you to cite sources for your information? It's a critical Wikipedia policy to cite sources that others can examine themselves when you add information. See these help pages for more details:

Here are some other 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! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

response from BanyanTree

Hi David,

First, let me congratulate you and your team on the success of your project. Somehow when I was discussing your group's editing, it never occurred to me that you would one day read my meanderings. I'm a little embarrassed.

The links that Bunchofgrapes left above include most of the relevant guidelines and policies. I highly recommend that you familiarize yourself with the five pillars of Wikipedia, if you haven't already. Regarding Bunchofgrapes's comments above, the community of Wikipedia editors has raised the expectation of references as part of reaction to media criticism of our open format to editing. Ideally, every significant block of facts would have a reference formatted per Wikipedia:Footnotes, but new editors often find the markup language bewildering at first.

Now, since I've already been thoughtless on my own talk, I might as well give you some idea of what might happen to the text of your article. You may have noted another user removing the section on Native Americans and explaining on the article discussion page. This relates to the guideline Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. I appreciate the hard work that your team has worked to write this content but, as stated at the bottom of every editing window, by placing text here the editor releases it under the GFDL. This basically boils down to anyone can challenge the accuracy of the work (which is why footnotes are so nice), its notability (see Wikipedia:Notability), or rearrange the text if he or she feels that a different structure would be better. This is the reason why Wikipedia articles can grow and morph as more information gets added. A couple of possible issues that I noticed while skimming your new additions:

Your text does not contain hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles. Please wikilink appropriate text by putting it within double brackets. For example, "In the years after the American Revolution, the Shawnee were the most prominent residents of west central Ohio, growing in numbers and permanency after the 1794 Treaty of Greenville" should read "In the years after the American Revolution, the Shawnee were the most prominent residents of west central Ohio, growing in numbers and permanency after the 1794 Treaty of Greenville", so readers can 'burrow' into an unfamiliar topic. It would be fantastic if you and your team could go through and create those wikilinks. Generally speaking, only the first occurrence of the word is linked and most regular nouns do not require links.

Please be sure that all content you have added is backed up by an external source and is not the first time it has been presented. One of the core principles is no original research, which is held to quite strictly as it's the site's defense against the remarkably numerous people who want to write articles on their alternate theories of gravity.

It is possible, though unlikely in my opinion, that some facts may be challenged for notability.

OK, that's what might happen to the text you added. Here's what you can do about it. You, or anyone else, do not have to passively accept changes made to the article. There is little hierarchy in Wikipedia, though you will sometimes come across Wikipedians who are grumpy with new users. The normal venue if you wish to discuss or challenge something is on that article's talk page, in this case Talk:Lima, Ohio. For example, you are welcome to challenge the previous removal of the section on Native Americans there if you feel that the other editor's reasoning is in error or that he is misinformed. If another editor does something significant to the article and cites some policy or guideline, please acquaint yourself with the guideline and ask for clarification, if you wish, on the talk.

You might also be interested to know that your project was mentioned in the Signpost, Wikipedia's internal newsletter. I will watch this page if you have questions as I think I may have written a bit too much. Otherwise, please use Talk:Lima, Ohio for discussions about the content of its related article. I will add a note there that you've contact me and it may be worth it to drop a note there as well. Best, BT 01:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]