User talk:ToddPreston

Welcome
Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.  ''Click here to reply to this message.''  ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

March of Dimes
Todd, I thought some of the sections you added there were inappropriate. Your edit added mostly primary sources while Wikipedia articles are to be "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". If you have a question about Wikipedia feel free to ask me here. If you have a concern about the article, please use the talk page there. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Jesanj, Thank you so much for bringing this to my attention. I am very passionate about March of Dimes and want to be sure this page is done correctly. Do you mind talking me through something? Would you suggest I go back and find different sources for those primary references or just as I move forward with information, keep in mind that I should steer clear from using a primary source? Your help is very much appreciated. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. ToddPreston (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm glad you found my comment helpful. Unfortunately (for the work you've put in) I've thought most of it was off topic, tangengial, etc. and I was planning on removing it. That's nice they were one of the original funders of a grant of a researcher that led to something good, but unless we have an independent third-party source that mentions this being relevant to the group's legacy, it is my opinion that we'd be grasping at straws by including it. Since you're such a strong supporter (I gather) take a look at the conflict-of-interest page and the neutrality page, both of which explain that we need to separate our support/opposition of something from the writing of an article. Again, you're welcome. Please feel free to ask me any more questions. Thanks. =)


 * And to answer you more completely, I'd recommend thinking of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as the brick of a building. Primary sources can be used, with care, to fill in the gaps. I recommend you lay bricks, then find the right mortar. It's my general approach.


 * If you'd like to stick around here, and maybe find other opinions or help, you can try the links at the New contributors' help page. Or maybe you could find a mentor figure from Adopt-a-user. But please, feel free to ask me anything else below. Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This was really great information. Thank you for taking the time to walk through that with me. I am going to take care of those primary sources and remove that information. I understand where I went wrong with that and want that fixed. Thanks, again. Building off of "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is a great recommendation. Thanks! ToddPreston (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Glad to help. =) Jesanj (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)