User talk:Kehrerrl

Welcome!

Hello, Kehrerrl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Sbowers3 (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for your contributions to Bristol Fourth of July Parade. Could you please supply a reference to the source of your information. One of the primary policies of Wikipedia is that all content be verifiable by other editors. A url would be enough; other editors can help format it properly. Same thing with your addition to Tea Party protests. You added information which I suspect to be totally incorrect but without a reference to a reliable source, it is likely to be deleted. Thanks for helping improve Wikipedia. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBowers3, Thanks for the kind welcome and offer of help. I am new to editing Wikipedia pages but I do appreciate the importance of proper sourcing of information. I'll read up on the definition of "Reliable Source" and add them to the pages I've edited. Having listened to the protesters and read the speeches given at many of these tea parties I believe the current version of the article to be a bit misleading in it's focus on President Obama and his policies. In spite of the common tone from mainstream media, the general anger of the protesters appears to be toward extra-constitutional, out of control government and their words have been directed vigorously at presidents and legislators of both parties regarding policies which started well before the current administration. I'll hunt down some refernces. Kehrerrl (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Sbowers3 misspoke above. I think he intended to say, "You added information which I suspect to be totally correct...(not incorrect)". He is correct in advising you to accompany your additions with citations to reliable sources. Also, you should accompany any removal of information with an explanation in the edit summary, as well as on the article discussion page if your edit is likely to be contested. Lots of rules, I know, but you'll pick them up with experience. Cheers, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arggh! Yes, I did mean "correct". Thanks for the catch. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another policy: From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

I believe that you are correct that the focus of the protests is spending, borrowing, socialism, and not so much against Obama per se. That's what I see in pictures of the signs and what I've read. And I've also seen complaints about Bush and other Republicans. But it's not enough for us to think that is true. What matters is that editors be able to verify info through reliable sources. And I'm afraid that the four sources you found do not qualify as "reliable". To oversimplify, if a web site belongs to a company that prints or broadcasts for profit, it's probably reliable. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]