User talk:Dajagr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Dajagr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Darwinek 09:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Woot, hey! Didn't see you there! Do you use Wikipedia much? --Pifactorial 07:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You can use the "my watchlist" feature (in the upper right) to keep track of pages that you've edited in the past. This way, it's possible to have a conversation with somebody on their own talk page, without always having to check back. --Pifactorial 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

In the furry fandom article under the criticism section, you have placed several templates stating that the citations in the criticism section are inappropriate, and that it contains original research. I am wondering if you meant to include this in the top of the article, as the criticism section contains no inappropriate citations or original research. 68.69.194.125 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant to put it in that particular section. On the talk page, I cited instances of inappropriate citations and mentioned that the first two paragraphs did not include any citations (thus, unverified claims). --Dajagr 04:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The criticism section contains no inappropriate citations. All I did was link to the pages that it was talking about. 68.69.194.125 04:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The citations you provide don't link to any substantive material; they simply show that the websites exist. Although you do demonstrate that ED mocks furry fandom and there is a LiveJournal group where people do so, the rest of your claims are unsubstantiated, and the links to the websites can't be considered proper citations. (Links to other sites that aren't citations can be differentiated by being encoded as embedded text links. For example, you can refer to Bogus Website like this: [http://www.bogus_web_site.com Bogus Website].) --Dajagr 05:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
As well neither livejournal postings nor ED can be used as a primary or secondary source. While you can say "this group exists" or "this site exists" the claim you're making about how and why they're created are not sourced.--Crossmr 06:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cedric

I got the inference from the Harry Potter Lexicon. Here is the page making the comparison [1] and here is Rowling's most famous quote about CS Lewis. [2]. Here's the interview it came from: [3] In recent years, Rowling's opinion of CS Lewis appears to have soured somewhat [4]; here she seems to have been influenced by Phillip Pullman: [5]. Still, all of these newer articles are post-GoF, so who knows? Serendipodous 20:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)