User talk:Mbarcy

Welcome!
Hello, Mbarcy, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Allen C. Guelzo does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 07:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi again; the template did not allow me to add this but the specific policy you’ll want to be mindful of is WP:SYNTH, which explains that you should only add views that have been explicitly spelled out in reliable sources, rather than combining sources to make an interpretation they did not give (in this case, none of the sources discuss your view that Guelzo is wrong in his interpretation.) I know it’s quite different from how sources are used in other kinds of writing and takes some getting used to. I am sure you’ll get the hang of it in no time tho! Welcome and happy editing, Innisfree987 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for watching out for verifiability
Thanks for your edit to Gendered associations of pink and blue, tagging an uncited assertion as in need of a citation, with the citation needed template. WP:Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia, so it's great to know that you are looking out to ensure that Wikipedia articles conform to this key policy; thank you! As it turns out, in this case, the tag was unnecessary, and I have removed it. The reason is, that the WP:LEAD in a Wikipedia article is merely a summary of the most important points of the body of the article, and as long as the assertions in question are properly cited in the article body, there is no need to re-cite the summary version of those facts in the lead, as well; it's enough that they are sourced in the body. Thanks again for watching out for verifiability of articles, and once again, welcome to Wikipedia! Mathglot (talk) 07:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)