User talk:Belgamerinadian
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Belgamerinadian, 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:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the warm words, JarrahTree. I'm very glad to be here! Belgamerinadian (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi Belgamerinadian! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:41, Thursday, March 21, 2019 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Original research and Verifiability
[edit]Hello, and thanks for your contributions. I wanted to make sure you understand the importance of two of Wikipedia's guiding principles: that of Verifiability, and of No original research. WP:Verifiability is a core principle of editing here, and means that everything you add to an article must be verifiable in published, independent, reliable sources. I noticed that some of your changes appear to be original research—that is, something you know or believe, without necessarily being backed up by any published sources.
For example, in this edit at Petroleum reservoir, you modified a previous sentence fragment, turning it into a definition of "oil field", without providing a source. At the article Soviet Union, you modified a statement about Lake Baikal's size in this edit, to specify that it was largest by volume, also without providing a source. Now, it turns out you were right about Baikal, and wrong about oil fields, but the important part here is not whether you were right or wrong in what you wrote, it's the fact that you didn't include a citation to a reliable source in each of those two edits.
When you just add what you know (or think you know) to an article, that is called "Original research" and it is forbidden. It could even get you blocked, if it becomes a habit. Please be sure going forward, that everything you add to an article is verifiable. The best way to do this, is by including footnotes. See Help:Footnotes for more about how to do this. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mathglot,
Thanks for the comments/info. I will be more cautious in the future. I was wondering about that geography section of the Soviet Union page. Does every comment or section or sentence need a citation? It looks like the entire geography section from reference 30 to the end is not cited. Should there also be citations for the claim that the Soviet Union had the worlds longest border and that it was 1.5 times the circumference of the earth? I only added the clarification about Baikal because it seemed like it could be easily misinterpreted as being the largest by surface area and I "know" it's not (which I realize is why you wrote me and makes complete sense). Am I allowed to reference other portions of Wikipedia? The lake Baikal page contains the phrase "Lake Baikal is the largest freshwater lake by volume in the world" (with a reference); can I somehow link that?
I generally try to keep my edits to grammar/ambiguity issues, but I will avoid making more substantial changes without finding a source.
Belgamerinadian (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)