Thread:Kowalewski/@comment-220364-20140904004448/@comment-220364-20141012132918

I wouldn't use the term if it weren't for the fact you've been told previously the citations are needed with the edits as you make them. If you had not been told, then it is a case of honest omission. Continuing to do it after you have been told that you have been told is either a result your not understanding the concept of needing to show why you think a certain character has a certain attribute, or not caring to do it.

Yes, there is a template - Citation - that can be added to article text. But that is generally used for sections of an article that are: The template can also be applied in cases of newer text where the reviewing editor agrees with the item, but does not have the source for where it came from. And to be honest, even in those cases if the editor that added the information can be determined, they should be contacted to add the reference. They added it, they should know where it came from.
 * Older material. This is done not to disrupt an article by removing a long standing section of text.
 * Located in the "Notes" section and are not something that can be verified by the text itself.
 * Located in the "Trivia" section. This follows the same pattern as the "Notes".

With your edits though it becomes part of the pattern of other editors have to clean up after you. Be it broken English, incomplete information, or unsupported assertions. Tagging the points in the article and either asking or reminding you to add the references doesn't seem to get the point cross. Other editors cannot read your mind. We do not know where you are pulling the information from. It is your responsibility to add the references as you go, not our to try and figure it out after you have added it. And it really is not our job to have to fix this shortcoming.

You defend yourself by saying you have at least 20 years worth of source material on hand. Use it. When you add a power or weakness or skill or even a plot point to a character, include the reference to where in that 20 years worth of source material you found it. Is that clear enough?