User talk:Gold n staff
Gold n staff, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Gold n staff! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC) |
March 2017
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Graham Stafford, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Graham Stafford. Please stop: your edits are disruptive. You may take your case, whatever it is, to the talk page--where you can also present reliable sources. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Drmies reported the article to a noticeboard as needing attention, and seeing your statement on the talk page, I followed up. Another editor moved the article to a more suitable title, as you see in the link above, and stubbed it; I have just finished rewriting it based on the sources and adding a few more, and I hope it now looks better to you.
As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia aims to have all articles be verifiable by basing them on, and citing, reliable published sources. This does not normally mean primary sources such as court documents and interviews, hence I tried to rebuild the article using press reports. I had to unearth archived versions of several of them. If you know of important news reports that the article does not currently cite, please add them; offline sources are acceptable but need to be fully identified (author, title, newspaper, date). You don't have to use the templates I used, just put <ref> and </ref> tags around the information and insert the whole at the point where the footnote should appear. The article was very poorly referenced, with its references simply listed at the end and not fully identified, and it did indeed badly need updating. Thank you for drawing our attention to the problem and I apologize for the inaccuracies. Again, I hope it's better now. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)