User talk:KBurt1

Parrot Carrot
Hi there! If you are interested in improving the Parrot Carrot article, I suggest that you look for at least one reliable third party source to support the text. The link to the publisher's product description doesn't really meet the criteria if it is the only source. The key to keeping the article here on Wikipedia is to find some evidence that it meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and Wikipedia's guidelines stand-alone articles on books. It really needs an independent review to support the statements in the text in order to be able to stay. If you read the guidelines highlighted in this message and in the welcome message above, you will see what's required. If you have any queries, just post below this message and I will reply. --CharlieDelta (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the edits you made to this article as you removed the sole reference by altering the markup, removed a citation tag (without providing the necessary citation) and removed the notability tag (without providing evidence of notability or any explanation). Please don't do this again. The most helpful thing you could do for the article is to find a reliable source (an independent review or article about the book and its innovative nature). I would also advise you to use the "Show preview" button when you edit, so that you can check that your edits will show as you intended before you press "Save page"--CharlieDelta (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Charlie, I thought the link to the Allen Unwin page that stated they were Australia's largest Independent publisher would be appropriate citation for that fact. Not so much? Cheers, Kate
 * Unfortunately not. I suggest you read the guidelines about self-published sources. It's entirely possible that it is true but, for Wikipedia, you need to be able to verify facts with reliable sources independent of the subject.  So, in this case, the statement that they are the largest needs to be verified by someone other than A&U (a major newspaper or businiess source, for instance).  Or that piece of information could be deleted if it can't be verified. It may seem strange but you'll get the hang of this if you do a bit more editing.CharlieDelta (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Cheers Charlie,

I'll dig it up elsewhere! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.6.241 (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry about this but that doesn't count either as it appears to be a submission by A&U to the Commission. They are describing themselves as the largest independent publisher. Simplest way to deal with this is to edit out "the largest".  Alternatively, if you could get to the Nielsen data which shows A&U as the largest, that would count.  When you find a good source, I'll help if you have trouble with the citation template.  The info at  Citation Templates is a good guide.--CharlieDelta (talk) 05:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I think I've done it. It's mentioned in a Sydney Morning Herald article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.6.241 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that sorts the "largest independent publisher" statement for now and provides the article with one reliable source. I've tidied up the reference so that it shows correctly. The article will still need more evidence that this book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books. Before you do anything else, I strongly suggest that you read some of the articles mentioned in the notes above and in the "Welcome" box and practise editing on your Talk page or in a sandbox as these edits do not show up in searches and are not as visible to other editors. It's a good place to practice in semi-private. Do use the "Show Preview" button (even the most experienced editors do this) and don't press "Save page" until you are certain that your edit looks right. And please do remember to sign your Talk page posts either with the signature button above the editing window, or with four "tildas".--CharlieDelta (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)