Drake-Halleck

References

Hello! I'm curious why you keep adding (incorrect) references to information which is already referenced? Most recent one I've corrected is at Nathaniel Parker Willis. --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words of welcome. Replied on your talk page. Drake-Halleck (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa... settle down. I'm not trying to get hostile here. In fact, my attempts at contacting you here should be a clear sign that I'm trying to be helpful. You may be aware that here at Wikipedia, we like to make sure all statements can be verified using reliable sources. As a novice editor (as you admit), you may not know that the only time we have multiple references is if we feel that the information is likely to be challenged, disputed, or difficult to prove. Do you feel any of the information you are doubling up on references is likely to be challenged? --Midnightdreary (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the guidelines in Wikipedia:Citing sources say at the editor's discretion it is possible and appropriate to include as many proper and correct citations as desired to affirm the statements made. Adding a reference to a popular and easily-obtainable edition containing the material quoted is entirely reasonable in my humble opinion. If you have a reference for your assertion I would be happy to study it. Drake-Halleck (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to argue. My long experience with Wikipedia seems to confirm that "back-up" footnotes are, as you say, only useful if there's an additional need to "affirm" something. Additionally, using Poe's own words is not considered a reliable source, believe it or not, because we really on third-party sources. Further, your choice to attribute a single quote to a multiple-page range is an incorrect method. I certainly hope you continue to edit here, especially on neglected articles like Drake and Halleck. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye

I have better things to do with my time than try to add material to this "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" against the opposition of entrenched editors. Drake-Halleck (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for trying. I was hoping to be helpful. Like any writing project, be it a peer-reviewed journal or an anthology, there are certain requirements, formats or rules you have to follow. It takes some time, but it's possible. Best of luck to you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I do find your note on your user page, which mentions me by "name", to be a personal attack. I'm sorry you didn't find my attempts to help you to be very helpful. I hope you choose to return with a willingness to learn about the process. --Midnightdreary (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)