User talk:Jklumker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Jklumker! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SefringleTalk 03:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC) Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources 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 The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

[edit] Nigger

I removed your contribution because it is origional research. Wikipedia has a strict policy against including unosourced material. Please provide a citation.--Sefringle^Talk 03:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm relatively new at this (I'm not even sure if this is the proper way to communicate), but I believe literary citations are not defined as "original research". Moreover, I simply added a citation to an already existing list in a section of the article that was ostensibly FOR literary citations. I will reverse any edit until you convince me otherwise. Jklumker 11:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Literary citations are not origional research, however the quote you added really didn't have a literary citation as far as I could tell. Content generally should be sourced using the <ref>(citation info)</ref> format. If you provide a citation not in that format, somebody will eventually fix it. The <ref></ref> link is on the toolbox below if that makes it easier. Prehaps you can clarify the citation better?--Sefringle^Talk 04:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refraim from reverting edits you don't like using the undo tool if they are not obvious vandalism. When reverting, explain your reasons in the edit summary.--Sefringle^Talk 06:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The format is the same as the other quotes. Your deletions are gratuitous. If you wish to reformat it, do so, but wholesale deletions will be reversed.

Jklumker 06:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my issue, which is that it lacks a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. It says:

"Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider moving it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{Not verified}} or {{Unreferenced}}. Leave an invisible HTML comment, a note on the talk page, or an edit summary explaining what you have done.^[1]

Be careful not to go too far on the side of not upsetting editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."^[2]"

--Sefringle^Talk 06:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll find an adequate reference tonight and add the citation sometime tonight or tomorrow. I didn't realize that verbatim quotes from published works needed a citation.

Jklumker 06:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)