User talk:Mpwauk

Welcome!

Hello, Mpwauk, 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! Hyacinth (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles timeline and sources

Thanks for the list of sources you added on the IP address talk page. As you can imagine, no one who reads The Beatles timeline article will look for sources on the IP talk page! <g> That means you have to add the sources to the article itself. The process is explained on this page: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Basically, you have to put <ref>the citation text</ref> after the statement that needs a source. So, for example, to cite The Beatles Diary by Barry Miles, you might add this: <ref>Miles, ''The Beatles Diary'', p. 37.</ref>. The exact text you use will vary based on the article. Some articles include a References section that already lists the details of the sources used in the article, and that means the citations can be abbreviated. If you put enough information into a citation to identify the source, another editor will cleanup the citation for you if it needs it.

Two more things to consider:

If you edit a statement that is sourced, and you change the meaning, then you have to verify that the existing source supports the assertion after the edit. If you do not have the source, or the source does not support the edited statement, you have to remove the original source.
Citations must be from reliable sources. Blogs, fan sites, etc., are not reliable. Books from respected publishers, web sites published by news organizations, etc., are reliable.

Citing reliably sources may seem a bit of a bother, but without sources, WikiPedia is useless: people won't be able to differentiate reliable information from opinion or from accidentally (or deliberately!) incorrect statements, etc. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline , Martin, and active voice

Your rewrite of the sentence about which version of "Love Me Do" was released is worse than the existing versions. Using the active voice--saying who performed the action--is much better than "was used" or "was released". i think ti's better in general, but in an encyclopedia, we should say who decided what whenever we can, and it was clearly Martin's decision which version of the song was released. — John Cardinal (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]