User talk:Davidius77

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Man please give me a chance to figure out how to add a references section!

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Deconstructhis (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Davidius77, you're missing the point of what constitutes appropriate content in the encyclopedia. Please read WP:OR to give you a better idea on what is actually involved in preparing to add information to articles. Our job as editors is not to develop our own theoretical positions from the research materials we're utilizing. In Wikipedia, our sole function as editors in this regard is to locate material in existing reliable sources and present that information in a neutral fashion, supported by proper references to where we obtained it from. It's important to understand that our "research" for Wikipedia articles is restricted to repeating information that is directly obtained from reputable sources, not to develop and present our own unique interpretation of it. Unless you can find a reliable source (and reference it) that *exactly* states the position that appears in your addition to Lewis H. Morgan, it can not appear in the encyclopedia, because it constitutes "original research". Sometimes people have a hard time understanding this approach at first, but if you patiently read the material I'm suggesting and follow up by reading the links you'll find in it, you'll get a better idea of what I'm talking about. If you have any questions about this, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Please do not restore the material to the article until you have a better understanding of what WP:OR actually is. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It amazes me, Mr. Deconstructhis, that before I showed up, you were allowing to stand a statement to the effect that "Karl Marx relied on Morgan to develop their theory of capitalist development." As soon as I turn it around to make it true, you are on my case! Just as you let stand the patently false statement that "Leslie White championed Morgan's legacy." This was unsourced, and when I correct it, referencing the original source, you, again, are on my case. I read WP:OR, and I now understand that Wikipedia has a ban on "original thoughts." But please in the future do not confuse an "original thought" with simply a fact that you do not know.
 * It's always a good idea to sign your posts (see WP:SIG) and also to try and abide by our "good faith" policy when communicating with other editors as per WP:GF. Please keep in mind that *any* material contained in the encyclopedia that is uncited (including the material you added today) can be challenged and removed by any editor as per WP:CITE. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

One last bit of information that I think I should pass on is the following. When you're submitting material to Wikipedia, always keep in mind that everything you're posting is completely open to being revised, rewritten or in some cases (as pointed out above) removed from the encyclopedia in its entirety. If you tend to take that sort of thing personally, or you choose not to have your submitted material subjected to those conditions, you'll probably find Wikipedia to be a fairly frustrating place, it happens all the time to everyone's material. A given editor dealing with your material may be looking at a specific article for the first and last time, the decisions that they're making in its regard, at least among "good" editors, are based on their interpretation of Wikipedia policy, not on personal motivations or arguments with the specific claims being made. It's not a case of someone letting "bad" information "stand", they may never have seen a given article before. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying in other words that you had not noticed the previous bogus nonsense in the Lewis Morgan entry? 01:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Davidius77, I'm going to take this opportunity to remind you once again that it is important to take WP:GF into consideration when communicating with other editors. In the long run, I believe you'll find that a personally "confrontational" style is not the way to go in order to facilitate a better encyclopedia, which is hopefully the goal of all editors. Davidius77 you appear to still be having difficulty understanding what a Wikipedia editor's actual function is when dealing with material in the encyclopedia. It is a very rare event indeed if a given editor actually checks each and every uncited claim in an article they encounter, if that were the case, most of an editors time would be consumed by placing citation request 'tags' on *all* uncited claims in the encyclopedia. That is why it is important for anyone who chooses to submit material to the encyclopedia to remember to simultaneously attach a properly formatted citation to the material when they post it, which is something that I notice that you personally continue to fail to do in your recent additions to Wikipedia. Without those reputable citations, in a certain sense, all claims remain "bogus" and are subject to challenge and removal by other editors. None of this is intended as a personal attack on your individual knowledge of a given subject matter, but surely you can see that without substantiation in the form of specifically citing a source to the material that you're adding, that your opinion, as well formed as it might be, is still technically unverifiable and thus has no more weight to a reader (or other editors) than the random thoughts of someone who has no idea whatsoever what they're talking about. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)