User talk:Klughilton4

I have contributed to Ricardo Manapat.

Am now attempting to write on reproductive health bill: User:Klughilton4/draft article on RH bill

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Klughilton4, 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 discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Uncle G (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reproductive Health Bill (Philippines) until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Access Denied 03:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the deletion tag and closed the AfD, as nominating the article was clearly a mistake. Access Denied 09:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Klughilton4 (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With such subjects, especially ones where there are clearly strong and marked divisions of points of view, it's always better to err on the side of more and good sources. So the more sources, and the more reliable and fact checked the sources, the better. Favour factual reporting over opinion pieces, and ensure that text derived from statements by obvious partisan proponents is properly written to be in the voice of those proponents to a Wikipedia reader, and that the article gives no voice to Wikipedia itself.

There's also a means to make the Wikitext more readable in such cases. I've shown you how. Please note, also, that full citations, giving author, date, title, work, and publisher are strongly preferred in place of bare URLs. Uncle G (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too! Klughilton4 (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]