|
You'll understand why it was removed when you read WP:OR -- there's a learning curve, everyone has problems when they first start. Don't let it bother you, just read up a bit and my guess is you'll be a useful contributor. Ask here or on my talk page if you have any questions. Dougweller ( talk) 04:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll share my viewpoint, which is mostly in agreement with policy. Neither you nor I nor the person that wrote the original text about WWOZ are qualified to state facts in Wikipedia. All we can state, unsupported by
verifiable
reliable sources, are our views, opinions, understandings and observations. Your comment at the end of your request about the previous contribution which was been reverted focused my comments on the
original research nature of your request. One editor's observations, however knowledgable, or popular, or even correct they may be, are not facts.
My feedback to you was that your requested change was a factual change and required sources; I didn't even look at the article at that time. Looking now, I find that it isn't well sourced, but that it links to the two stations' websites. At WWOZ's website, after a few clicks, I find "WWOZ broadcasts all forms of jazz, blues, rhythm and blues, brass band, gospel, cajun, zydeco, Caribbean, Latin, Brazilian, African, bluegrass, and Irish, among others." That validates the "jazz, blues, Zydeco," part of the current text and could be used to support your "gospel" and "cajun" additions, if you chose to reference it. It doesn't support "New Orleans music", which is somewhat subjective. I didn't follow the link to WTUL, but I expect that they will describe their offerings in a way that supports the current text, more or less, and some of your addition.
When servicing semi-protected edit requests, I sometimes get interested in the subject of the request and help out with the research or wording, but that's not required. Generally, the requester needs to supply both and whomever is servicing the request merely inserts the change. It's up to you to do the research and capture the sources. When you have finished, I'd be glad to insert your well-sourced changes. Alternately, you can make knowledgable observations on the talk page and see if you can get one of the regualr editors there interested in doing the research. Good luck, either way,
Celestra (
talk) 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The
recent edit you made to the page
Scrod has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the
sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative
edit summary. You may also wish to read the
introduction to editing. Thank you.
FASTILYsock
(TALK) 04:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Your edit summary refers to changing incorrect capitalization. Please would you explain what was the objection to the existing capitalization? (That is, you mentiond on the talk page what you objected to, but you didn't say what your basis was for judging what was 'correct' and 'incorrect'.) Thank you. Terry0051 ( talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
You are invited to comment on the following RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?