This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kerblam! article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay. We'll need sources for these when possible, but which would these fall under?
GUtt01 ( talk) 11:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear DonQuixote, obviously you don't find my arguments convincing. But instead of addressing your issue, e.g. by adding a [citation needed], you prefer to slap me in the face by simply deleting everything I wrote. And when I disagree, you just delete everything again. Fine, be that way. As you seem very keen in pointing people to Wikipedia guidelines allow me to recommend Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I'd have loved to contribute, however I have better things to do than to play "revert wars" with you. Have fun. -- 93.221.221.99 ( talk) 01:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.[12]
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.
DonQuixote, I was torn between removing Fez, which had somehow slipped past you, or starting to pile on with my own stuff. Had a little bit of fun there. Thank you for cleaning them both. ;) Jmg38 ( talk) 15:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Kerblam! article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Okay. We'll need sources for these when possible, but which would these fall under?
GUtt01 ( talk) 11:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear DonQuixote, obviously you don't find my arguments convincing. But instead of addressing your issue, e.g. by adding a [citation needed], you prefer to slap me in the face by simply deleting everything I wrote. And when I disagree, you just delete everything again. Fine, be that way. As you seem very keen in pointing people to Wikipedia guidelines allow me to recommend Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. I'd have loved to contribute, however I have better things to do than to play "revert wars" with you. Have fun. -- 93.221.221.99 ( talk) 01:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]
2. Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy.[12]
3. Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources. While primary sources are appropriate in some cases, relying on them can be problematic. For more information, see the Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources section of the NOR policy, and the Misuse of primary sources section of the BLP policy.
DonQuixote, I was torn between removing Fez, which had somehow slipped past you, or starting to pile on with my own stuff. Had a little bit of fun there. Thank you for cleaning them both. ;) Jmg38 ( talk) 15:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)