User talk:Pentagron

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Pentagron, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Literature geek |  T@1k?  23:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Epilepsy Currents
Dear Pentagron: You cannot just change sourced information without any proof, you need a reliable source for this. At this point, the sources say differently: the WB site clearly states that the journal is published by them, whereas the society site does not say anything either way (although you would expect such an important change to be announced prominently). In addition, you should not add promotional language to the article, see WP:POV. --Crusio (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Dear Dr. Crusio: When you speak about "all available sources," have you actually looked at the paper version of the journal? This is the definitive "source." The society's web site will be updated. However, for the time being Wikipedia is the most authoritative on-line source. Pentagron
 * Hi again, I see that you again reverted my edits. Apparently you have some inside information. However, this is not acceptable as a source. It should be obvious that an encyclopedia cannot be made on the basis of "I know this is true". At this point, ALL available sources agree that the journal is published by WB. The society's website does not even mention Allen Press. In addition, the text that you wrote is not neutral. It is enough to say that a journal is peer reviewed, no need to specify that this is "rigorous". The us of the words "experts" is not necessary either. Etc. I'm not going to revert again (see WP:3RR), but I strongly advice you to do this yourself. --Crusio (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the printed version is not available to me. And about WP being "the most authoritative on-line source", it obviously cannot be a reference for itself. For the moment I'll take your word for the printed source (you're right, a source does not need to be online). However, I will edit the article once again to remove the promotional language that I mentioned and to make it encyclopedic again. --Crusio (talk) 10:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources for Jessica Lessin paragraph?
Hi! You recently added a paragraph to Jessica Lessin on her relationship with Mark Zuckerberg. It has no sources. A quick glance suggests there are sources for most or all of what you write, but WP:BLP articles should be carefully sourced. Could you please add sources? If not, you should expect that someone will swiftly delete the paragraph. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)