User talk:Lpionek

Removing references
Hallo, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you've made some edits to the article on Martin Lockley. However, this edit removed the existing references section, an unusual move to say the least, and your other edits removed the actual citations, also an unusual manoeuvre. Generally this is only permitted when a reference is clearly unreliable (say, a blog or forum). The overall effect of your changes is to make the article much more like a CV - not desirable in a global encyclopedia - and to leave it uncited except for a mass of works by Lockley himself. These are not exactly evidence of notability, and Wikipedia is not a catalogue - there are scientific sites and search engines for that purpose. I can see you have serious intentions but the current state is not satisfactory. I will consider whether simply to revert your changes or whether some of it can be saved. If you could please read WP:REFB on how to get started with citing any claims you add to articles, that would be helpful: basically, every fact should be supported by a reliable, INDEPENDENT citation - i.e. Bloggs and the Royal Society say that Jones did good work, not that Jones claims his own work is good. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on references
Hi Chiswick, could you please clarify on how to reference a personal interview with the living subject of the page. The information gathered was from direct conversation with him, thus why I removed the references .. there were no sources but my own interactions with the subject which provided the information contained herein. I can understand your point about this not being a CV, which I tried very hard to stay away from. However, as such a prolific author, it seemed strange not to include his works. Perhaps I should only summarize the more well-regarded ones and point to an online listing of them all elsewhere? Your advice is much appreciated. All the best Lpionek (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure there's any acceptable way to do that, unless you publish a book about him, then we can cite that... the rule is that there must be a WP:Verifiable source that people can check - a book, a newspaper, a reliable independent website, a manuscript in the museum, it doesn't matter but it must be something objectively verifiable. This is one of the pillars of Wikipedia: see Wikipedia in brief


 * I agree about just listing the major sources, with a link to a full listing. Chiswick Chap (talk)


 * Okay, I will adjust to refer to major sources and link to a full listing. Thanks for your advice. Lpionek (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)