Talk:Curtiss-Wright CW-21

Refernces
Please don't delete information documented with supporting references, and it is always unacceptable to delete references. Ken keisel (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CITE:
 * This page describes how to write citations in articles. Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires attribution for direct quotes and for material that is likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged, and for which no source is provided within a reasonable time (or immediately if it's about a living person), may be removed by any editor. For information about the importance of using good sources in biographies of living persons, see the policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly.


 * Articles can be supported with references in two ways: the provision of general references ("References") – books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article – and inline citations ("Notes"), which are mandated by the featured article criteria and (to a lesser extent) the good article criteria. Inline citations are references within the text that provide source information for specific statements. They are appropriate for supporting statements of fact and are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations.


 * I removed the statement as it did not have an inline citation, which is what I meant by "Removed uncited comment". Sticking a reference in the the refernces section with nothing connecting it to the item does nothing to tell anyone where it came from, as telepathy doesn't work over the internet. Question my removal of the item rather that adding a fact tag if you want - I find I get better results by removing things added by infrequent editors than by adding tags - but please don't expect me to read your mind and figure out where it came from among the TWELVE references listed. As above, "If you don't know how to format a citation, provide as much information as you can, and others will help to write it correctly." I'll be happy to help, but don't act like I'm the one who's in the wrong becuase you don't know how to or won't use inline citations!


 * Second, your reference was not deleted by me or anyone else. User:Bzuk moved it to the proper palce - the Bibliography list - and placed it in alphabetical order, in the edit just before mine. Please be more careful before making accusations next time. Also, I've attempted to add an inline citation for the statement in question, but you'll need to add the page numbers, if you know them. If you don't, ASK for help, and perhaps we can find someone who has a copy of the book, or who can obtain one. - BillCJ (talk) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry BillCJ, I'm not up on the writing of this kind of notation, it's a bit beyond my skills. Fortunately Bzuk has already done it for me. I cited you because in a direct comparison of the article in the history this quotation and reference were still present after Bzuk's edit, but were gone after your edit, so I'm a bit confused as to how Bzuk was responsible for removing it. The way to tell how this statement and reference were connected was that they were both added by me at the same time, and this could have been seen by checking the edit history. Again, Bzuk has cleaned it up, so no longer an issue. If you see another addition of mine that I've done without the correct code please let me know, and feel free to clean it up, but please don't just delete it outright. Ken keisel (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed your uncited text. No one "removed" your refernce info (that had not connection TO the uncited text). Bzuk incorporated it into the bibliography list. And if I do run inot more of your so-called edits, I'll find someone else to fix them. It's not worth the grief you give to try myself. - BillCJ (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)