User talk:Vanfluff

Welcome!

Hello, Vanfluff, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. GAB^gab 14:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vanfluff, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Vanfluff! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Full citation details required...

NB: if it helps, you need to be giving details such as the author; the title; the date the work was published; the publisher; the page number etc. It's just like citing a work in an historical journal, for example. If the work is a TV programme or a lecture, you need the date and details of the programme, and the location and details of the lecture etc. If you just say that the fact is in "East Anglian Daily Times, BBC & Anglia TV", for example, other editors have no way of knowing which edition of the Daily Times it is in, or the journalist concerned, or the page etc. or which TV programme it was on - they won't be able to find it to verify it. Similarly, you can't just state that a piece of information is from "Parish Magazines" - you need to explain which magazine, the name of the article or section, the publication date or dates etc. It is also essential that material cited on the Wiki has been published - it's one of the core policies; this is different from writing for historical journals, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags and conflict of interest...

Vanfluff, it's really important that you don't remove tags until the issues have actually been resolved.

The Pipe Rolls of Henry III, for example, are still what historians call a Primary Source. primary sources are "are original materials that are close to an event";
The Palmers Bakery web page cited still doesn't say anything about "the Milling, Corn and Pig merchants side of the business" etc.
The reference to "barious open letters, parish magazine,newspaper articles minutes of the Parish Council 1929 to 1955" still doesn't give any indication of which letters, magazine, articles etc. are involved;

...and so on. I'd also advice you to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. From your previous edits, it is clear that you are editing about a family and topics very close to you, and in a way that could appear promotional or biased. COI editing is strongly discouraged on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]