Talk:Splackavellie

I once received a compliment on my Splackavellie work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kapuchinski

I'd like to keep something in about it being a portmanteau. If someone is looking up Splackavellie, they are thinking "What does that mean?" Let us not deny them information.

I am quoted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pinikas

Kapuchinski (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

On your Splackavelli work? You might want to read WP:COI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we already took it to the talk page.

Considering I'm more invested in this information than you, leave it. Kapuchinski (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, that’s not how it works. Adding something back without addressing the problem doesn’t help your case. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, in the original discussion, you didn’t actually do anything to prove your case; the only real justification you seem to have is that you were mentioned on someone else’s talk page; that hardly qualifies as a reliable source. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 19:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello, I have come to this discussion via Wikipedia:Third opinion where there was a request for a third opinion. I have never edited this article and have come here as a neutral third party. From what I can see on the article's history and this talk page discussion, the disagreement is over this inclusion of the "meaning" section. Arguments for inclusion include that it is informative and does not need sourcing and arguments against inclusion include the argument that the content is unsourced. To address this we should look at Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is Wikipedia's policy for verifiability on articles. The "This page in a nutshell" blurb sums up the policy well: This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. The idea that the content is unsourced and therefore was removed is one that is supported by that policy, which says Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Being informative is not the criteria for inclusion, it must be supported by reliable sources, especially if it is being challenged. The burden of proof lies with the editor seeking the inclusion of the material. In order for the content to remain in the article, it should be supported by a reliable source that verifies the information; if reliable sources cannot be found then the information should be removed. If we can't point to a reliable source that we are getting the information from, then it is original research which does not belong on Wikipedia. The meaning section makes quite a few claims, and readers of the article need to be able to verify that it's accurate; without reliable sources, they cannot do that. - Aoidh (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)