User talk:Lola699

Welcome!
Hello, Lola699, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Sensei48 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

OT, OR Edits to The New World
Hello Lola699 - Your recent edits to the plot section of The New World include some interesting material that unfortunately disrupts the actual summary and includes historical allusions that are off-topic to an article on the film, most especially in the plot section. The point that you also draw conclusions from the material is called on Wikipedia "original research" and is also expressly forbidden, as in WP:OR. Your comments on Davis, properly re-phrased and sourced, might be acceptable in the article on Pochahontas herself, but not in the article on the movie.Sensei48 (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your re-working of the edit, but you seem to be missing one critical point: the section you are editing is about the plot of the film and that only. Comments about the historical personage belong on the page concerning him/her - in this case Pocahontas. An abbreviated version might also fit into the "historical accuracy" section of the film page - but plot is plot and only that.Sensei48 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you appear to be new to editing Wikipedia, I am posting the very useful Welcome banner, which outlines both rules and suggestions for editing.There is much more here, too: WP:WELSensei48 (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello again, Lola699: I'm not sure why another editor reverted your last edit to plot. I thought you did an exceptional job of staying on point there, and your recounting of the plot was painstaking and accurate. You might want to post a question to that editor's Talk page asking why. One possibility I can think of is that the previous text that was restored was what people here call "stable" meaning that it had remained unchanged for a long time. In that case, major changes to the text should probably be explained on the article's Talk page. I think that it is possible to restore some or all of your text if it is approached carefully.Sensei48 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)