User talk:HQCentral

Welcome to wikipedia, first of all. Let me point you to a couple of policies regarding wikipedia. The point of cleanup tagging an article is to allow editors with more experience on a subject or more time to devote to a subject to be aware of an article in need of attention. In regards to your comments on my talk page, you should read up on Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, and Wikipedia:Civility. We are all here to work on making wikipedia better, and my goal by tagging the article is so that people experienced in Ohio politics can make the Betty Montgomery article eventually look like the Bob Taft entry. If you have any questions about wikipedia culture, please feel free to ask any of your fellow wikipedians or refer to the helpful guides that have been created. Youngamerican 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi HQCentral! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

A lot of what you are doing looks really great. For example, you added a ton of highly informative material to the Collier's Encyclopedia article. However, I woudl suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV. Some of your work really violates this policy, which is one of our most basic:

"The set's physical format is well constructed and aesthetically appealing. The binding—black Fabrikoid with red panels and gold lettering—is both sturdy and attractive. The paper is of very good quality and particularly suitable for color reproduction. The two-column page layout lacks flair but is clean and functional. The many new color illustrations add much to improve the set's overall appearance. In sum, Collier's is not a flashy encyclopedia, but it is a well-built, smartly put together set of reference books"

This is book review material, very far from writing from a neutral point of view. It is so far out of our style that if it weren't for your contributions elsewhere in Wikipedia I would have thought I was looking at a plagiarized book review. - Jmabel | Talk 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite_sources.2C_round_III. Probably a better place to take it up than the individual article, because this is about a general principle more than about one article. - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Until the matter is resolved, perhaps we should remove those repetitive, unprofessional citation-needed tags that you're using to make a WP:POINT.--HQCentral 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unsourced

Given the subjective nature of the statements in question, I think it's appropriate to ask which of the listed sources are responsible for them, no? Kirill Lokshin 03:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, perhaps some other kind soul will look them up for you, then ;-) But we really must indicate the source of those opinions more precisely; and the {{citation needed}} tags are as good a way as any to indicate that for future editors. Kirill Lokshin 03:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)