User talk:ToddPreston

Welcome[edit]

Hello ToddPreston and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ • Article creation wizard Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Wikipedia: The Missing Manual Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March of Dimes[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:New contributors' help page. Or maybe you could find a mentor figure from Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. But please, feel free to ask me anything else below. Thanks again. Jesanj (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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