User talk:Negritaborica

February 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Ain't Nobody Got Time for That has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Ain't Nobody Got Time for That was changed by Negritaborica (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.897168 on 2014-02-16T20:00:14+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm FireflySixtySeven. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ain't Nobody Got Time for That because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Negritaborica, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! FireflySixtySeven (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't Nobody Got Time for That

Hello Negritaborica, I'm not sure you saw my reply to your question at User talk:FireflySixtySeven#Ain't Nobody Got Time for That. I have again reverted much of what you added, particularly those parts that were not based on reliable third-party sources, such as the Sweet Brown memes sourced to MemeGenerator itself. What content should and shouldn't be included in an article is determined by independent sources - if, say, the Washington Post has reported on the number of MemeGenerator pages Sweet Brown has, that's deemed signinficant; if it's just MemeGenerator itself, it's not.

There were also some other issues with your edit. You added sources for the content you added (thanks, that's always important), but some of those sources didn't confirm what they were cited for. For example, the Washington Post and Guardian articles predated this video and thus couldn't discuss it; they didn't confirm it was "in the running for most charismatic news interview". Thus I removed them, even though WaPo and the Guardian clearly are reliable sources - citing them in that article is off-topic, though.

Also, there were problems with the code. Your references looked like this:

<ref name="test">[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/15/antoine-dodson-internet-sensation Link text], additional text.</ref>

There are two problems. Firstly, the name= parameter is meant as a way to easily re-use the same source at multiple places in the article. Since you gave all your sources the same name, the wiki software interpreted them as just one source and linked to the first of them all the time, ignoring the content of the other references. If a source is used only once, you can remove the name= parameter altogether; otherwise you should choose a short name that's unambiguous - if that Guardian article were an appropriate source, name="Guardian" might do, unless there's a chance we cite multiple Guardian articles. Secondly, the "Link text" is supposed to be the text displayed for the link, here most likely the title of the Guardian article, and the "additional text" is supposed to provide further details - that it's a Guardian article, the author, the publication date and so on. There are even niftier ways to format references via citation templates such as {{cite news}} or {{cite web}}; for an example, check what I did for the HuffPo reference. See WP:Referencing for beginners on how to easily add nicely-formatted footnotes.

After all that, let me emphasize that I really appreciate your efforts to improve the article. The HuffPo piece which explains the cultural background was a good find, thanks for that! So please don't be discouraged. You may want to take a look at the Wikipedia pages on verifiability, on what is considered a relilable source, and on original research - that last one explains why it's not okay to draw our own conclusions that aren't explicitly supported by the sources. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask, either here, at the article's talk page or (if you want to ask specifically me) at my own talk page. In the first two places you should probably add a {{help me}} template (add just that, including the curly brackets) to make sure your question isn't overlooked and you receive a speedy reply. Again, thank you for your work on that article, and happy editing! Huon (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]