Walter Görlitz (talk | contribs) |
→Clarification: remove section; user has been asked to sop posting on my talk page after misinterpreting an edit comment |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
(Although your last edits to the article were almost a year ago, I notify you because you did make five edits to the article—its most frequent editor stopped editing there a few days before you started—and figured you might care about what happens.) --[[User:AnOddName|an]] '''[[User talk:AnOddName|odd]]''' [[Special:Contributions/AnOddName|name]] 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
(Although your last edits to the article were almost a year ago, I notify you because you did make five edits to the article—its most frequent editor stopped editing there a few days before you started—and figured you might care about what happens.) --[[User:AnOddName|an]] '''[[User talk:AnOddName|odd]]''' [[Special:Contributions/AnOddName|name]] 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
==Clarification== |
|||
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pente&action=historysubmit&diff=365094270&oldid=365094102 this comment], where is the policy for instituting a time-limit on finding citations? I'm not asking if it's routinely done, because I know it is, and in my opinion it shouldn't be. I am asking were there is a stale date—a point after which a citation and the material it's citing should be removed. I assume it's not immediately, which is why the date is applied. I have seen some articles with citations needed for several years because there are few editors. I've seen some editors remove material after a few weeks. You wrote "yes, there is [a time-limit to finding citations]" and rather than getting into an edit war on that page, I am coming to your talk page. I don't want a debate, I want the time-limit policy. I don't want logic that indicates [[WP:V]] sources must be provided, I want the time-limit policy. Again, I don't know if one exists, but you stated there was one so please show it to me. Thanks for you understanding and care in this matter. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 21:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Per Wikipedia policy{{Citation needed|date=May 2010}}, any editor may remove uncited material at any time. Period. I find it extremely unlikely that something not cited after six months of being tagged will ever be cited, so I remove material which has been tagged for six months or more, as is my right. When uncited text is removed, it may not be returned to the article w/o citation. So find the cites if you think the material is important. I find it trivial. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo|talk]]) 21:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: I'm sorry. You're full of "policy" reference but no policy. I'm trying to be patient but you used weasel words without citing the policy— the very thing you were attempting to remove. I have no doubt that such a policy ''could in theory'' exist, you have not shown that it actually exists. Please show the actual policy, not just that you have some platonic ideal of a policy that may or should exist. This is the second request for such a policy. Please don't take this discussion to my talk page, I'll follow it here, thanks. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 23:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::[[WP:V#Burden of evidence]]. Six months is plenty of time. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo#top|talk]]) 23:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Made me look. There is no time-limit listed there. So please show me where there is a policy of a time limit. This is the third and final request for the policy at which time I will be taking your actions on the page to admins for review. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 23:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::No, there is no time limit. But six months is generous. Find the cites or leave it out. Feel free to get an admin, they are likely to agree with me. Six months ago, an editor (not me) questioned the assertions in the article. I agree they need to be cited. In six months, no editor watching the article with knowledge of the subject bothered to respond to the requests for citations. I also think the statements are unimportant to the overall subject, and the lack of response from knowledgeable editors tends to support this. So the assertions have been removed. Per policy, any editor restoring them is now required to cite, per burden of evidence. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo#top|talk]]) 23:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If you disagree, and think the assertions are important, then take the time to find the citations and [[WP:SOFIXIT]]. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo#top|talk]]) 23:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: There are very few sources let alone sources that meet [[WP:V]], however that's not the point. The point is that you lied. I asked if there was a policy regarding time-limits and you wrote "yes, there is [a time-limit to finding citations]". That's a lie. That's the problem I have, not that you decided to remove the material, but that you tried to cover your actions with a lie. You may feel justified in stating that there is a time-limit. You can rationalize that six months is long enough. You can create all sorts of opinion or original research to back your lie, but in the end you lied. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 00:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I never said any such thing. Show me the diff or stay off my talk page. Thanks. [[User:Yworo|Yworo]] ([[User talk:Yworo#top|talk]]) 00:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
|||
You did so. Please see the diff in the first sentence. See the history of the article. My comment: |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pente&diff=365094991&oldid=365093983 "I didn't realise there was a time-limit to finding citations."] |
|||
Two edits later your revert of that |
|||
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pente&diff=365094991&oldid=365094270 "yes, there is; old uncited material is regularly removed; do NOT return w/o citi."] |
|||
So not only did you lie about the policy, you have lied about creating the edit and you didn't even bother to look at the evidence where I showed it to you in the start of this conversation. --[[User:Walter Görlitz|Walter Görlitz]] ([[User talk:Walter Görlitz|talk]]) 00:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:30, 31 May 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Skyerise, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}}
before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Image sizing, Gustav Mahler
I have replied to your message re the above on my talkpage. I don't think you have actually read the guideline in question - it might help if you did so before giving your opinion, let alone shouting it in your edit summaries. I note that you altered the Mahler lead image size from "thumb" to "upright" - what do you imagine justifies that, by any reading of the guidelines? It seems you have a lot to learn, both about Wikipedia procedures and about personal interactions. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Garbo
In consideration of that would it not be necessary for Garbo to specifically self-identify as a Lutheran for inclusion in that category? Where she baptised into Lutherianism does not necessarily mean she continued to self-identify as such. Furthermore, what of those article such as historic figures who know to have belonged to a particular group but did not specify it? For example we know that Mary, Queen of Scots was a Roman Catholic but did not ever publicly say it herself. Is it then wrong to include her in the Catholics category? I am satisfied that the sources I provided were academic and reliable enough to merit inclusion in the Rosicrucian category and that I have met the wikipedia requirements for such. If I must reference this in the body of the article itself I will but do not feel it should really be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.243.186 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Important note
Please see WP:BLPN#Inge Lynn Collins Bongo and double-check, then check again, then check once more, that every single word you say is supported by sources more reliable than - well, I'd have said the Bank of America, but that's looking a bit shaky right now. This is serious stuff, you are potentially opening yourself to legal scrutiny by edits to that article right now, so please take care and remember WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Feel free to ask at the BLP noticeboard for any clarification or guidance you might need. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 21:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hilda Solis edits
Thanks very much for your edits at United States Department of Labor and Hilda Solis. I have been battling User:Labor reporter on this, but had to back off lest I be accused of edit warring. (See User talk:Wasted Time R#Labor stuff for the full story.) I do have one question, however, which is why you left in what you did in the Solis article. There are no WP:RS sources here; just three union website publications (not neutral, nor are they supposed to be) and one WP:PRIMARY transcript with a somewhat underwhelming mention of a work rules issue. In particular, the statement "Relations with her employees, while first very good, have soured" that is still there is completely unsupported by third-party, neutral sources. While it's evident that at least part of AFGE Local 12 has issues with her, there's nothing that states they they represent a majority of the Labor Department's employees (typically, many government employees don't belong to any union), nor even that the leadership's views are reflective of the rank-and-file who are members. Nor for that matter is there anything that says her relations with employees were good in the first place. While I have argued that none of this material belongs in the article (pending The Washington Post or a similar news source reporting on it, if any do), at the very least I think that sentence has to go. Let me know what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm. Your approach is somewhat unorthodox, but we'll see how it goes. I've got the article listed at WP:BLP/N as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Inge Lynn Collins Bongo
Hello Yworo. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Inge Lynn Collins Bongo, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. Tim Song (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Reconsidered upon a closer examination of the AfD. Sorry for the confusion. Tim Song (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources
Please review Wikipedia reliable source and verifiability policies. In particular, please note that usenet, mailing lists, blogs, and online forums are not considered reliable sources and may not be used to cite material in Wikipedia articles. If a reliable third-party source cannot be found for a fact or quotation, then that fact or quotation may not be included in a Wikipedia article. Yworo (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Explain this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_history authors. It's just one of many good examples.
Thanks for all other edits. I am seeking for reference sources.
I am not connect to subject, there is no conflict of interest. Please, delete same type of reference source from Linux history article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_history#cite_note-groups.google.com-7) and I am convinced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigown (talk • contribs) 23:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Diacritics and links
Fair enough.From now on I'll add a separated link within the text, which is possible. --68.175.33.254 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the cleanup you've been doing on these sites! Nice to have an expert equipped with a fine-toothed comb. hgilbert (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The article BEE Lisp has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
(Although your last edits to the article were almost a year ago, I notify you because you did make five edits to the article—its most frequent editor stopped editing there a few days before you started—and figured you might care about what happens.) --an odd name 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)