User talk:Lovablehearts

Beanie Baby

Please stop re-adding what looks like personal commentary to the article Beanie Baby. Your addition is not encyclopedic - it is written in first-person point of view, and offers unsubstantiated opinions and a question-and-answer. In addition, in re-adding it you have been undoing small changes like the correction of wrong spellings. This is a disruption of the article, and if you continue you may be subject to being blocked from editing Wikipedia. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 12:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've reverted your addition once again. Please stop adding the text as it is completely unencyclopedic. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Lovablehearts, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which 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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Bencherlite ^Talk 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've run into some difficulties already. Might I make a few suggestions? Firstly, remember that the purpose of editing is to help build an encyclopaedia – neutral commentary on notable topics, using reliable sources to back up statements and avoiding trivial details. The links in the box above might help. Secondly, when there's a dispute about whether your additions to an article are appropriate or not, the best thing is to discuss the matter with others on the article's talk page. You may be able to convince them that you're right; they may be able to convince you that you're wrong; or everyone may able to agree on a middle ground. Editors who change the article back and forwards to their preferred version not only waste their own time, but risk getting blocked (and / or having the article protected against editing) since edit-warring isn't tolerated. Anyway, happy editing. Let me know if I can help. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me fix it.

The artical is correct but its just typed badly. Dont warn me, please just help me fix it or help me find someone who will. I am learning disabled when it comes to english. I just want it proven and corrected so the truth is available to the public. Thank you so much for your time Lovablehearts (talk) 06:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for communicating about this instead of just reinstating the edits. The trouble here is that the section you are adding is not inappropriate because of the writing style or because of bad English - if it were just those, someone would have fixed it up already. Your section is inappropriate because it contains far too much non-encyclopedic information. The Beanie Baby article is about Beanie Babies as an encyclopedia topic, not Princess the Bear as a specific question-and-answer topic. Even if your section was good in every other way, you're adding information that makes the Princess section too disproportionate to the length of the rest of the article.

Unfortunately, your section is not good in every other way, either. Nothing you are adding has any citations to reliable sources (you list a series of websites at the end of your section, but they all appear to be fan and collector websites, which are generally not considered reliable sources), so it appears to be completely original research and your opinions. Whether information is "the truth" or not is not a concern of Wikipedia's - we rely on verifiability, not truth. If information has been published in reliable sources (remember, blogs and fansites are generally not reliable sources), it is verifiable. It is not Wikipedia's job to reveal "the truth" of anything, and it is very much not Wikipedia's job to synthesize information from sources and come up with our own conclusions/opinions, as you appear to have done.

Your section is also clearly intended to be a how-to manual on identifying beanie babies. No matter how well-phrased or well-sourced a how-to is, it simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for manuals or how-to's.

In short, the bulk of what you're adding is really not something that can be "fixed" as you are asking us to. You apparently didn't notice that while you have been pasting the section in again and again, editors have been editing it, keeping what they can of it (basically, the first paragraph, containing background about Princess) and doing just the "fixing" you have been requesting. What they have been deleting is the part of the section that can't be saved - the part I've described above. However, every time someone attempts the "fix" you are requesting, you have come back and pasted in the full section again, removing all the effort editors have been putting into fixing it. You have even undone grammar and spelling corrections.

The only thing that can really be done with your section is what editors have been doing to it - cutting out the how-to section, removing the opinions and original research, and leaving behind a paragraph on when and how Princess was released and how that contributed to its rarity. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New message

Hello, Lovablehearts. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added SpinningSpark 11:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]