Salvete!



> Sorry, if I misinterpreted the source type, I was doing 1500 things, that was 
> 1501...my bad I learned from my mistake!
> 

    It's about putting something up and having someone else come by and make it better. The aardvark article history example is choice. :)


>>  I'm the wikimedian who added the templates there in the first place to
>>  give the newbie author some guidance as to what needed to happen; when
>>  the newbie editor ran out of steam I appealed for input from here.
>> 

    That could have been done in the talk pages.


>>  Wikipedia is in many ways as structured as cataloguing, but you can get
>>  away with pretty much everything if you have secondary sources.
>> 

    When people turn Wikipedia into cataloguing, it's a huge turn off. I try and convince people who are authorities in their fields to contribute so that the project improves, and the wikibureaucracy comes up a lot. Sometimes self citation is going to happen. I'd rather have that in this case than stand to lose the entire page. The whole page is a resource.


>>  The fact that anyone on this list thinks that a single-column
>>  contemporary eye-witness account qualifies as a secondary source
>>  staggers me. Maybe that makes me a bad actor.
>> 
>>  [and yes, the article is still in need of secondary sources]
>> 

    I would point you to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_primary_and_secondary_sources

"Secondary" is not another way to spell "good"

Cheers,
Brooke