User talk:Jklumker

Nigger
I removed your contribution because it is origional research. Wikipedia has a strict policy against including unosourced material. Please provide a citation.-- Sef rin gle 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   format. If you provide a citation not in that format, somebody will eventually fix it. The link is on the toolbox below if that makes it easier. Prehaps you can clarify the citation better?-- Sef rin gle 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.-- Sef rin gle 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 Verifiability. 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. 


 * 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." "

-- Sef rin gle 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)