User talk:MarcusPinktus

Welcome!
Hello, MarcusPinktus, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place   before the question. Again, welcome! Dougweller (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Some tips
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". It would also help if you used WP:Edit summaries to explain your edits. Wikipedia always has a learning curve, so don't be concerned about these messages. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Please note all your additions or changes to articles should be accompanied by proper references and be WP:Verifiable. Making a number of sometimes rather controversial changes to an article and then adding the title of a book at the end is not enough, each point you add should be followed by an individual reference which includes the page or page number of Cooper's book from which you are deriving the information. Assuming you add the full details of the book to the page something along the lines of Cooper, p. 19 will suffice but the page number(s) is vital so as others can easily verify claims made in articles.

Note also that if existing sources used in the articles disagree with Cooper's version they should be left in and the differences acknowledged. For example of the existing article on, let's say, Dior has a statement about her references to Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke that differs markedly from Cooper's version then it is considered proper to leave it in, add Cooper's version and rephrase it along the lines of "Goodrick-Clarke states X about Dior [then a reference] but Cooper argues Y [then a reference]". Otherwise you run the risk of your edits being marked as vandalism. In order to maintain a neutral point of view it is important that we as editors do not pick and choose sources and where they disagree it should be acknowledged rather than making any sort of value judgement about which version of events we prefer and removing the one we don't like.

Also when adding Cooper's book to article bibliographies follow the pattern used by those already on the page. I notice you have been putting the title first and only italicising the first half of it but the standard on here is author's name, full title in italics, publication information. If in doubt copy those already on the page. Note also, you needn't link the title (by putting double square brackets around it) as the book itself would never be considered notable enough for an article of its own.

I don't say any of this to put you off but rather to ensure that your edits contribute to their full potential. You have access to a useful source that can be used to improve several articles but please keep these tips in mind when you do edit as they'll help to ensure your contributions remain central to the articles. Happy editing. Keresaspa (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bye everyone
Thanks for the encouragement but I’m getting out of this rabbit hole before I get sucked in too deeply. Although I was warned it would be like this in advance, all the, “Yes it is, no it isn’t, yes it is, no it isn’t, yes it is, no it isn’t,” reminds me too much of the school playground.

Evidently guys who get hooked on internet porn quickly loose the ability to have proper sex with a real woman. I think it’s the same for the whole web, you have the world at your fingertips and you slowly sink into isolation.

I’m off to Normandy this weekend because on the other side of my front door is the real world while for most people on the web, for them Normandy is just one more word they tap on a keyboard.

As I said, thanks for the encouragement, but I’m off.