User talk:Swestbrook71
Welcome
[edit]![]() ![]()
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) - if you click on the
This welcome message was posted by Ukexpat at 16:43, September 25, 2008 (UTC) |
Your comment here raised a question on if you are an employee of Southeast Missouri Hospital. If you are, then you may have a Conflict of interest and should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline before making additional changes to the article for the hospital. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I plan on now adding only historical and other completely objective information about the hospital on the page. This is information that cannot necessarily be found anywhere else and would be helpful to persons researching the hospital. If anyone has any objection to this material, please let me know. --Swestbrook71 (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- If a source or multiple sources can be provided for that information, then it shouldn't be a problem - but don't be surprised if other editors review, edit, or even remove content. Please note that Wikipedia has three core content policies (as well as several dozen supportive policies and guidelines). The three core content policies are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The third one states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", and can be of special concern when adding historical information. We occasionally encounter groups embellishing or exagerating their pasts for one reason or another. Because of this, it's important to provide verifiable third party reliable sources to help support statement made in articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Unless reliable sources are going to be provided, and soon, for the most recent additions (the historical stuff) I am going to have to revert them. Without RS, it is original research and has no place in Wikipedia. I don't mean to be a hardass, but the core content policies are what they are. – ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- And please use edit summaries. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The history comes from Board of Trustee minutes and historical journals such as the ones housed at the local university: http://library.semo.edu/archives/collections/RHG/RHC%20Guide%20Letter%20S.htm. Are these sources verifiable enough if I site them or not? I'm actually a graduate student working on some of this stuff for them, and you guys are worse than most of my professors! :-) However, I want to know how to do this correctly.--Swestbrook71 (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)