No subject

time to source because they get very upset, when the time frame you have in
mind elapses you delete the word/sentence/paragraph. Although you have to d=
o
something on the talk page to avoid something else happening.

WP:V is up there with the ten commandments, magna carta and the declaration
of Independance skillfully rewritten by my nephew and his friend and the on=
e
they play with because he's very free with candy but not very bright.

Dunno how this will format - but here is the opening (including Jimbos
comment about BLPs)

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
All quotations and any material *challenged or likely to be
challenged*should be attributed to a reliable, published source using
an inline
citation.[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#_note-0>=
The
source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find
the text that supports the article content in question.

If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic,
Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

An edit lacking a reliable source should be removed, however editors may
object to the removal of material before they have had an opportunity to
provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced
statement, consider moving it to the talk
page<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Talk_page>.
Alternatively, you may tag a sentence by adding the
{{fact<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fact>}}
template, a section with
{{unreferencedsection<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreferencedsec=
tion>}},
or the article with
{{refimprove<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Refimprove>}}
or {{unreferenced <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Unreferenced>}}.
Use the edit summary to give an explanation of your edit. You may also leav=
e
a note on the talk page or an invisible HTML comment on the article
page.[2]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#_note-1>

Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in
the case of information about living
persons<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP>.
As Jimmy Wales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales> has put it:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among
some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere'
pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It
should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of
all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about
living persons.

=96Jimmy Wales [3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#_no=
te-2>