User talk:Rriis

January 2017
Hello, I'm Cyphoidbomb. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Pamelyn Ferdin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Diffs: Biographies of living people must be impeccably'' sourced. Changing biographical details without providing references is not generally considered constructive. Thanks for understanding.'' Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would appreciate your advice on how to source a negative. My reliable reference is Pamelyn Ferdin herself, who sat at my elbow as I made the corrections. Pamelyn Ferdin has never lived in Glendale. No credible source can be cited that says she did. She did attend Hoover HS in Glendale, but lived 20 minutes away on Cummings Drive in Hollywood. Neither has Pamelyn divorced her husband Jerry Vlasak. Although they filed in CA in 2008, they reconciled w/o ever getting divorced. They remain married today and just celebrated their 30th wedding anniversary. She finds it painful that that basic information is wrong in her entry. As I said, how does one prove a negative? Pamelyn wishes to see her Wikipedia entry contain truthful information. Please advise. Thank you.

Rriis (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Richard Riis and Pamelyn Ferdin
 * OK, well, these are valid objections. A pro-tip from an experienced user: Use edit summaries and consider dropping notes on talk pages if you're making large changes that might be viewed as controversial. In this case, if you were removing unsourced content and had removed the unsourced content with an explanation to that effect, "Content unsourced and dubious -- I know Ferdin and some of the information is patently false" would be generally helpful. Also, though you might know Ferdin, we have a concept at Wikipedia called original research. The general idea is that we can only submit content that can be verified, and people shouldn't use their own knowledge to edit Wikipedia. If an auto mechanic made a change to an article on horsepower asserting that adding a cup of acetone and a cup of horseradish to your fuel tank could boost horsepower 200%, that might be true from his experience and perspective, but if it's not independently verifiable, that's a problem. Similarly, someone else who may remember Ferdin may have added their own memories/knowledge to the article, which is equally problematic. To your point that it is difficult to prove a negative, I totally get that, and I've reinstated some of the changes you've made. Hope that helps. If I can be of any other help, let me know. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)