User talk:Sierrahayleyb

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Sierrahayleyb! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Marek. 69  talk  01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Hi, Sierrahayleyb!
Now you are here and you have some cookies, it gets tough! I have just reverted some of your edits and I'm here to explain. Please understand that I don't want to you to get discouraged and go away. Just stick at it, until you learn the ropes.


 * Firstly, the St Peter's article isn't bristling with hundreds of references, mainly because in many cases whole paragraphs have been based on information in a single chapter of one book, or two books which are in agreement. When this is the case, then the whole paragraph is referenced to the author, rather than every single sentence.
 * If you look at the bibliography at the bottom of that article, you'll find a list of highly reputable publications. Editors at Wikipedia do not reference a simple statement like the date that Michelangelo commenced work at St Peters, to a really horrible bigotted, badly-written and totally unacademic website like that website raging against the Catholic Church and referring to the dome as Baal's erection. (Not unless were are writing an article on anti-Catholic prejudice or something like that). Please don't use references like that as a source of factual information.
 * You introduced a reference to the BBC article on a recently discovered drawing, as a reference to a statement that Vasari had made about the Pope getting a "watchdog" to keep an eye on Michelangelo.  I cannot imagine whiy you put that reference in there. The reference was already used twice in relation to the drawing, but had nothing to do with the statement made by Vasari.

My general advice is that if you come across a long, well-written article like that one, then think twice about changing it. A lot of good articles have got that way as a result of concensus. Also, don't change referenced dates unless you can quote a highly reliable source that is better than the one already being cited. For example, a date like the one that you changed for the building of Old St Peter's is a matter about which there is uncertainty. That is why two dates were given for the beginning of the project. Remember that if something like a date is referenced, and you change that date, then the reference that is in place no longer applies.

There are a great many articles on Wikipedia that need a lot of work. If you just click on the "random article" button to the left of screen, you find hundreds. Happy editting! Amandajm (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)