| Revision as of 09:46, 27 February 2008 editAmarrg (talk | contribs)6,322 edits →Don't remove tags prior to consensus being reached about why the tags shouldn't be there: typo...← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:29, 27 February 2008 edit undoThe-Pope (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors96,909 editsm →Edit summary wasn't required: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| :::You need not have to advice me on civility, I dont go around unnecessarily tagging articles and users. Your argument is again questionable, a single source is more than sufficient to write a single article, as long as it can be proven as ]. For example, many articles on history are more or less based on the writings of 1-2 authors who actually recorded that history, but then we cannot claim such articles as unreliable, can we? -- ]<sup><small>]/]</small></sup> 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | :::You need not have to advice me on civility, I dont go around unnecessarily tagging articles and users. Your argument is again questionable, a single source is more than sufficient to write a single article, as long as it can be proven as ]. For example, many articles on history are more or less based on the writings of 1-2 authors who actually recorded that history, but then we cannot claim such articles as unreliable, can we? -- ]<sup><small>]/]</small></sup> 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == Edit summary wasn't required == | |||
| Re your edit summary to the ] retirement update. Ask Ganguly what he thinks. You'd think he would have retired before the Indian series if they were "too hot to handle". I think you need to use a bit more civility. ] (]) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:29, 27 February 2008
Leave a message
|
| 1. Apr-2007 |
| 2. Jun-2007 |
| 3. Aug-2007 |
| 4. Sep-2007 |
| 5. Oct-2007 |
| 6. Nov-2007 |
| 7. Feb-2008 |
Don't remove tags prior to consensus being reached about why the tags shouldn't be there
Removing relevant tags prior to consensus has been reached constitutes vandalism, and again, this is a Misplaced Pages policy. I have reverted your revert, as the tags are relevant, and the onus is on the editors who want the tags removed, to demonstrate why they should be removed as has been indicated by an administrator on another editor's page. Please refrain from removing tags in the future, unless they are obviously irrelevant, which isn't the case here. I have also briefly outlined why the tags are relevant, currently. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is YOU who is CLAIMING that the tags are relevant. It is just a CLAIM, it is not BINDING. Users are not bound to take your words at face-value. If you want to question the validity of a certain source as RS, the right place to discuss that is Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which I am sure you know of, from your Carnatica.net fiasco -- ¿Amar៛ 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I suggest you take a break and cool down before making any further responses, so that you are civil, calm and rational. 2 sources (especially, those 2) are not enough to form the basis of an entire article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- You need not have to advice me on civility, I dont go around unnecessarily tagging articles and users. Your argument is again questionable, a single source is more than sufficient to write a single article, as long as it can be proven as WP:RS. For example, many articles on history are more or less based on the writings of 1-2 authors who actually recorded that history, but then we cannot claim such articles as unreliable, can we? -- ¿Amar៛ 08:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Edit summary wasn't required
Re your edit summary to the Brad Hogg retirement update. Ask Ganguly what he thinks. You'd think he would have retired before the Indian series if they were "too hot to handle". I think you need to use a bit more civility. The-Pope (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)