> Sorry, if I misinterpreted the source type, I was doing 1500 things, that was 
> 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:

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