User talk:Bell247

Bangles edits
I've done some cleanup and revision to edits that you and recently made to The Bangles. I wanted to give you a few helpful hints about editing: I hope you both find this information useful. If you have any questions, please post them to my talk page. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) You should not use a word processor to edit Wikipedia pages, because this tends to mess up links and formatting by inserting line breaks in bad places (like the middle of a link). Either use the WP edit window in your browser, or use text editors, most of which are designed to avoid this problem.
 * 2) When you cite sources for statements, please place   and   tags around the source information. That will automatically add footnotes (if the article is set up to use them, which The Bangles is). See Citing sources for more information.
 * 3) Wikipedia requires reliable sources for its factual statements. Professional news and official websites are good, but personal websites or webpages and blogs should generally be avoided.
 * 4) Sourced statements must summarize material found in the source. My check of the two cited sources for Abby Travis's "firing" said nothing like that. (The Bangles' webpage said they'd miss Abby without ever saying why she wasn't with them anymore. Abby's blog merely indicates that she won't comment; what her fans say is totally unreliable by WP standards. In fact, her blog is borderline-reliable for statements from Abby herself, dependent on proof that "AbsTrav" is really the Abby Travis. It might seem excessive, but many blogs and discussion forums falsely claim to have famous people posting. But I think we currently have a presumption of correct identity if the blog is in an official website for the person.) That's not to say the statements aren't true. What it means is that we need to cite a source for such a statement. (See Verifiability.)
 * 5) We Wikipedians cannot draw conclusions, like the claim about "fraudulent advertising". Expressing opinions or advancing unsourced arguments, no matter how obvious they may seem, is called "original research" and is not allowed on Wikipedia. If published, reliable sources make such statements, we can include their opinions (subject to other factors like relevance and neutrality), but they must be cited.


 * Please explain the reason you keep reverting the information about guest bass players in the Bangles. The information is sourced and accurate. If you continue this, it could be construed as edit warring. -- Elaich   talk 02:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to The Bangles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. This is a second-level warning because you have failed to respond either to my attempt to help or to Elaich's warning about reverting changes (effectively restoring your unsourced and potentially libelous material). If you have problems with the content so far consistently agreed upon by the other editors of that article, you should bring it up at Talk:The Bangles, where there is even an existing topic, "Guest bassists", for this purpose. Again, if you have any questions about how to do things on Wikipedia, I would be happy to answer them – just click on the "(talk)" link in my signature and click on that page's "new section" tab at the topic to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you for your attention.