User talk:Pcmoo1
Welcome!
[edit]
|
December 2013
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Old Treaty Elm has been reverted.
Your edit here to Old Treaty Elm was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://sites.google.com/site/chiefbillycaldwellhistory/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 14 January
[edit]Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Antoine Ouilmette page, your edit caused a cite error (help) and a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have changed both these articles to state as fact that these were located in Palos, Illinois. You use as the basis for this a collection of private papers in a library. I undid your edits to these articles for a number of reasons. Wikipedia articles are required to be written from a neutral point of view—where competing theories exist we do not put undue weight on a single theory. Wikipedia articles are also required to be based on reliable, published sources. In regard to the first policy there are multiple theories as to where both these establishments were located, and in the case of Fort Chécagou, whether it even existed, yet you, without giving evidence, categorically state that they were located in Palos. This clearly is not adhering to the policy of neutral point of view. In regard to the second policy, someone's collected personal papers (even if that person is a well-regarded expert in the field) do not constitute a reliable source, at best they are a primary source, but they also likely constitute original research, which is expressly prohibited on Wikipedia. Indeed, none of the published reliable sources that I can find even hint that these two establishments were located in Palos, suggesting to me that this is a fringe theory at best. I am going to put these articles back to their previous state. If, after you have consulted to policies that I have linked above—particularly that on identifying reliable source—you are able to provide published reliable sources stating Palos as a possible location for these establishments, please feel free to add Palos as an additional theory to those already presented in the article. But please do not state categorically that they were in Palos as there is no reason to believe that this theory has any more weight than those already presented. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)