User talk:JAB-BSBK

May 2019

Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ben Bostrom, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As further information, please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, such as puffery and editorializing, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Wikipedia is not a forum, blog, soapbox, fan site, message board, advice site, advertising vehicle or tabloid. It is an encyclopedia based on reliable, verifiable, third-party sources. It does not publish rumors, gossip, personal opinions, personal experiences, messages, commentary, advice, joke edits, original research or unsourced information likely to be changed, challenged or disputed. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Five Pillars, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Citing sources, Help:Footnotes, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For further information about contributing to Wikipedia, see: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners; Getting started; Introduction to Wikipedia; Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset; Wikipedia:Simplified Manual of Style; Help:Introduction to talk pages; Wikipedia:Copyright Problems and Help:Contents. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your explanation and good faith, which is why I am striking the original message. Nonetheless, as you can see from the policy and guideline pages cited, especially the first three, such memorialization is not permitted. A possible exception could be made if the facts or opinions were referenced in a reliable, verifiable, third-party (neutral) source which is cited in a footnote. Otherwise, anyone, claiming to be anybody, could add positive or negative opinions, commentary or purported facts to an article, with no way to verify the entry. As noted, there are any number of things that Wikipedia is not, including a blog or memorial site. So as written, the addition can not be made under Wikipedia's guidelines. Donner60 (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are applicable quotes from a policy page and an explanatory essay: Wikipedia:Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth#Editors are not truth finders: Essay. "Wikipedia editors are not indifferent to truth, but as a collaborative project, its editors are not making judgments as to what is true and what is false, but what can be verified in a reliable source and otherwise belongs in Wikipedia." Donner60 (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t mean any harm

Okay I’ll study up... JAB-BSBK (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]