User talk:Themadelinehatter
Welcome
[edit]
|
March 2019
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Foil Arms and Hog, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. 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. - wolf 12:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]@Thewolfchild: Hi, i am some what confused. should i have linked to the youtube channel? This has the relevant subscriber count and also the relevant view count? Thanks 12:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)TheMadelineHatter
- Hi, actually, I'm not the editor that reverted you on the Foil Arms and Hog page, that was Guliolopez, so you might want to ask them. They mentioned something about sourcing in their edit summary, and along with your edit request at RMS Titanic that was declined, I thought you would benefit from the information in the above notice. I also added the 'welcome' box above, please read through all of that, as well as all the links it contains, as there is a great deal of useful information there. - wolf 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not sure why I am being "@"ed in this conversation. I didn't revert anyone or anything on that article. As per the linked change I simply added an access date to a ref link. That is all. I did not change, revert or supersede any other editors changes. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Guliolopez yup, you're right. My apologies to both you and Themadelinehatter, it seems I have mixed up some pages, probably from having too many browsers open at the same time and editing too late at night. Sorry for pinging you Gulio, and TMH, while your edits to "Foil Arms and Hog" weren't reverted, it would've been better if you had added edit summaries. I also believe you can still benefit from the information in the notice, as it can also be applied to your edit request. However, this is your talk page and you can remove anything you like from it, with a few exceptions, of which this notice and this comment string are not part of. Sorry again, I off to bed now. G'nite folks. - wolf 14:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm not sure why I am being "@"ed in this conversation. I didn't revert anyone or anything on that article. As per the linked change I simply added an access date to a ref link. That is all. I did not change, revert or supersede any other editors changes. Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)