User talk:Fjsalguero

Recent removals
I am puzzled by your recent removals of sources for quotes - I've reverted these changes. Is there a reason you feel these sources are spam? ~ UDScott (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A dialogue continued on the talk page of UDSott:
 * Hello. Yes the reason to remove references from JW sources is that they are flooding wikiquote with references to their publications. Do you think that you have to use Awake! to get the source of a quote of Pierre de Coubertain? It doesn't make any sense. Just check how many times Awake! or Watchtower are used as reference. Please, undo the reversion. Regards.--Fjsalguero (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If these are not valid sources for the quotes, then one of two things should happen: (1) Remove the source and move the quote to the Talk page of the article pending proper sourcing or (2) Remove the source and replace it with a proper source. I was not aware that these were not proper sources, but if so, they should be replaced. What should not happen is to just strip them and leave the quotes without a source (if this is done, the quotes will likely be deleted). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do that.--Fjsalguero (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noted further removals from the pages for Universe, Olympic Games, and ‎Helmut Kohl, and stripping of any reference to the sources in placing them on the talk pages for these articles, and reverted these removals, and here join the conversation. I note that while Jehovah Witnesses publications may have a definite and distinct range of perspectives and purposes, to the extent they are journalistic publications, with essays or stories with notable quotes of notable figures, I believe that they are no more to be absolutely excluded as sources for quotes than articles from more generally respected publications such as the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal, or any other publications of news or essays, all with their own ranges of perspectives and purposes. IF more definite and original sourcing IS provided there can be a replacement of the sourcing — but fairly notable quotes which I presume some Jehovah Witnesses or readers of JW publications have provided from such publications should not simply be removed. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 10:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC) + tweaks