User talk:Dustychicken

Teabox.co.za
Hi there, I see you have been linking to teabox.co.za. I didn't see that the link was a significant addition to the Rooibos article, so I removed it, and I didn't find any significant info on yixing teapots on the site, so I also removed it from the Yixing clay teapot article. --Slashme (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Reliable sources
Hi again!

I highly appreciate the effort you are taking to supply high-quality industry-related information to Wikipedia. Please note, however, that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

This might at first seem strange or legalistic, but when you think about it, it makes sense: Wikipedia doesn't have an editorial board that can oversee the quality of the information, so we all have to support our text with references.

As for external links, such as the one to the teabox website, some external links are welcome in Wikipedia articles, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable. In the case of teabox.co.za, I am in grave doubt as to whether it is specifically relevant. I would rather use Rooibos Ltd's website in most cases, as they are a more notable source of information on rooibos. Your message to me seems to indicate that you are connected with the teabox website. This causes something of a conflict of interest when you are linking to that site from Wikipedia, which makes me even less inclined to support the inclusion of references to teabox from here.

If my point of view seems discouraging, please don't take it personally. It definitely isn't meant as such. Your specialist knowledge will allow you to spot obvious errors in the text of Wikipedia articles, and even if you don't have a specific reference to support your observations, you can remove or change text that you know to be wrong, and explain on the associated talk page, or if there is something that looks unlikely to you, you can request a reference by typing after the sentence in question.

Remember, also, that Wikipedia is not the only wiki-based free content system around. Seeing as you have specific knowledge about the Rooibos industry, you might consider Wikibooks. At the moment, they seem to have absolutely no text on Rooibos, which seems rather a shame! You might well be able to contribute to the wikibooks on b:Agriculture or b:Botany or maybe b:Food.

You will find all sorts around here: some are helpful (which I try to be), some are rude, and some are just crazy, so if you need clarification, help or support, please drop me a line. --Slashme (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again!

How to link
If you have made a specific statement which you can reference from a specific source, as opposed to simply adding a source as "further reading", you can do it by typing. There are a number of ways that you can present the reference. If you don't have time to format it properly, just type it in; hopefully someone will come and format it for you later. If it's a web address you can do to make your description of the website be linked to the source. If you want to do a proper job, however, use one of the Wikipedia citation templates, which ensure that all references have a consistent format.

What to link
First off, the fact that you are affiliated to a source does not disqualify you from citing it. However, it does make it much harder to do it properly, so you have to be constantly aware that you might be subtly biased. You will see a similar theme in the conflict of interest policy that I linked to above.

As for reliability of sources, say someone is reading about Yíxīng teapots, and doesn't agree with your statement that the clay should ring with a metallic sound (to take a random example). Now say this is supported by the teabox site. Will the reader say "Ah, teabox.co.za says so; now I'm convinced"? What are the credentials of the website? Who writes it? What editorial control is there? Note, I'm not trying to knock teabox here, and I'm in no doubt that it is not a misleading website, but the key here is once again verifiability. Can the readers of the article satisfy themselves of the truth of a statement from the reference? I agree that Rooibos Ltd is far from the only notable source on rooibos, by the way: I was simply using it as an example because it is a large, established company, and because they sponsor and link to a lot of research on their website. You will notice if you look on User:Slashme that I happen to work for Vital Health Foods, and as such I obviously also have a conflict of interest on the Rooibos topic, which is partly why I don't use the VHF website as a source for anything that I write on Wikipedia (except a couple of years ago when in my innocence I created the VHF article on Wikipedia! I was at that point not yet so well versed in Wikipedia policy…).

As an example of a commercial document being a suitable source for a citation, in the last paragraph of the Rooibos article, the litigation by the American Herbal Products Association is discussed. Even though, as a party to the case, they would not be expected to be neutral, their press release is cited. This is not a problem, however, because it is clearly marked as their press release, so the reader can judge it on its merits, and because it would be highly unlikely for an organisation such as the AHPA to misrepresent the facts of the matter after successful litigation.

This was a slightly rambling response, and of course it's just my opinion. If you would like some more clarification, please ask again, and if you would like a second opinion, you can also ask at Village_pump_(assistance): the people there tend to be quite helpful. --Slashme (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, could you please explain your Yerba Mate question again? I'm a bit slow this morning ;-) --Slashme (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Mate del sol
A tag has been placed on Mate del sol, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add  on the top of Mate del sol and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Mate del sol constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Geoff TC 21:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)