KMA367262

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, KMA367262! Thank you for your contributions. I am Ellin Beltz and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Dialog

Greetings:

I am replying to a message left on my talk page which concerns the Jim Pagliaroni article. I reverted two edits (1 & 2) that you made to that page.

• One edit added "|stat4label=Lifetime Fielding + |stat4value=.991" to the infobox,
• The other added a "nickname" directly after the subject's name at the top of the file.

In short, I reverted the edits because of lack of citation into a biography and the creation of a non-existent template. To explain that at a deeper level:

• Neither edit was cited, meaning there was no reference given for either factoid. The "trueness" or "falseness" of a factoid known to you but uncited by a stand-alone, reliable reference - and which isn't noted to exist in any of the references already given in the article - results in the removal of those factoids until sourcing can be found.
• The "Lifetime Fielding" category you created doesn't exist in Wikipedia and so resulted in an automatic redlink as you see above.

After I reverted these edits, I came to your talk page and left a message with links to the how-to edit pages, and a link to my talk page to help you.

Since the article is well-developed and reasonably long article, several editors have already worked on it and they are watching it for changes - good and bad. The material you added without citation and with a non-existent template would be better placed in a note on the article's Talk Page so that other editors can help add the material to the main page. Newer editors often overlook the Talk pages which are the real powerhouse of the Wiki. You can explain, comment, go into detail and never provide a citation, on a talk page, where that same material was and will be removed from articles by other editors as fast as noticed.

Today, I received a very cranky anonymous comment onUser talk:Ellin_Beltz#December 2013 anon my talk page this morning. The anonymous editor was upset by my reversion of your additions to that article. Since you placed the original information, I am mentioning the anonymous edit to you.

It is most surprising that any editor - logged in or not - would act like that without some personal connection to the edit. And of course from that behavior, it is obvious they are new to Wiki, because one thing you will learn fast here is that Wikipedia is not "the Internet". The admins here have ways to tell who is writing what, and every page has a history log (as cited above) so every edit remains fixed like a fly in amber forever.

Editors who stay to contribute usually don't chew on other editors and suggest they "get a life" because this is an ongoing project of edit, remove, fix, edit, stay until a consensus is reached on the validity of the data. Insult and calumny is logged and goes on the permanent record. Everyone is welcomed with suggestions they read the rules before rushing out to slay the dragons. And every editor in Wikipedia has had their contributions reverted until they have read the rules, so please don't feel too special having had some/all of your first edits reverted.

I'm here to help you, please ask questions either of me, or by placing the HELPME tag as described above.

Please do read the five pillars which I linked you above. They contain much interesting information about how to contribute to the project. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellin, not each and every word or sentence needs a citiation. If you read all the "pillars" there are no hard and fast rules all of the time. They are a guide. If you will notice, there are no citations in the info box so why would you remove the one I added which is factual and verifiable??? If you really wanted to help wy didn't you just add a citation if that's what was needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMA367262 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that not every word needs a citation, but factual numbers such as a score of fielding do need to be found in one of the citations in the article. The non-existent template you added caused a red link; it can't stay like that. So since I couldn't verify the information, and the template you added is blank, I removed those. The rest of the info box has valid templates and the information checks out to the stats article cited in the citations; however the stats you added are not on that page. Hence the removal of the information as previously stated. I moved your note from my talk page to here, to keep the entire discussion in one place. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)