User talk:Dunpeal Hellfighter

Welcome!

Hello, Dunpeal Hellfighter, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Today's 24 hours 11:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

I have undone your edit at LP record because it does not conform to what at Wikipedia is considered a reference. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources and related links. If you have any doubts about how to cite, let me know.--Technopat (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to LP record, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Technopat (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

Thank you for your note. First of all, I don't doubt that what you state is "true", but the main problem with your edits at LP record is that it fails two Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia isn't interested in what is "true" but in what reliable sources have stated before and can be verified by checking the source. This basically means that when you add something to this encyclopaedia, you also have to provide the corresponding reference from a reliable source, i.e., what you "say" must have been published elsewhere first and you must accompany the text with that source, normally as an inline citation. The reason is simple: you contribute what you know of a subject, and tomorrow some wise guy comes along and changes it all, introducing falsehoods into the text. Editors who, like me, check for possible vandalism in articles need to be able to verify which of the two versions is correct – without having to know anything of the subject.

In the case of the information you have been trying to add, if it is common practice, and therefore worth mentioning in an encyclopaedia, I would imagine that the music press will have mentioned the fact, possibly giving the example of another album rather than the particular one you mention.

As for the {{Citation needed|date=June 2013}} tag that the article already has, it stays there until someone solves the problem by providing the required reference to back that "fact" or the claim will be removed after a reasonable amount of time has been allowed for other editors to come up with said reference. Hope that clarifies the situation. If you need any help with adding a reference or have any other doubts about how we do things arounf here, let me know (by clicking on the blue link that says "talk", i.e., the link after my username). Regards, --Technopat (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]