Revision as of 08:37, 18 January 2011 editMann jess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,672 edits →Removing supposed unsourced statements.: Talkback regarding this section← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:58, 18 January 2011 edit undoMann jess (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,672 edits →Removing supposed unsourced statements.: Copying discussing from my talk page to yours so it shows up in-contextNext edit → | ||
Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
{{od}}Terra, this has been brought up ''numerous'' times before. When you remove content for being unsourced or add CN tags, you need to first check the references in the paragraph. You can't simply assume the content is unreferenced without checking first. That's not helpful editing. This is the same issue it was 6 months ago. <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC) | {{od}}Terra, this has been brought up ''numerous'' times before. When you remove content for being unsourced or add CN tags, you need to first check the references in the paragraph. You can't simply assume the content is unreferenced without checking first. That's not helpful editing. This is the same issue it was 6 months ago. <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 21:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC) | ||
Per ] any statement likely to be challenged needs a reference. As soon as those references in ] were aligned properly I accepted the end result. Unsourced claims are not allowed in Misplaced Pages.-- <b>] ] </b> 05:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
{{tb|Mann_jess}} <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 08:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:Terra, you're not understanding. The content ''was'' sourced. The sources "not being aligned properly" isn't a reason to remove stuff. I'm not going to keep repeating this... I brought it up multiple times with you many months ago, and it seems it's still going on. When you remove unsourced content or add CN tags, you need to first read the sources throughout the paragraph. You cannot simply ''assume'' the content is unsourced and remove it. When a sentence is sourced in the very next sentence, that is perfectly acceptable, and you challenging it because you didn't read the paragraph is not constructive editing. <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 08:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
::Perhaps you haven't read the relevant part of ]. ] The material I removed did not clearly connect with the references. Once the references were added I offered no objection to those statements.-- <b>] ] </b> 08:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
:::This is the last time I'm going to say it. The statement was sourced. It was sourced in the very next sentence. You need to read the paragraph before removing text for being unsourced. If you continue removing well sourced content because you haven't done your due diligence of actually reading the surrounding citations, I or another editor is likely to take the issue to an appropriate noticeboard. Please just read the context before removing stuff. Thanks. <span>]<span style="margin:0 5px;font-variant:small-caps;position:relative;top:-6px"><sub>]</sub>|<sub>]</sub></span></span> 08:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:58, 18 January 2011
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic. |
This is Terra Novus's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Template:Archive box collapsible
15 January 2025 |
|
Evolution/JBS
Do I understand correctly that you have a ban on topics related to evolution/creationism? The John Birch Society has a position on the issue. Topic bans are construed broadly, so it'd be best if you avoided articles about organizations which espouse views on the topic. Will Beback talk 00:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The Downlink: Issue 1
The Downlink | |||||||||||||||||||
Your source for news on WikiProject Spaceflight | Issue 1, January 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
- You have recieved this newsletter because you are currently listed as a member of WikiProject Spaceflight, or because you are not a member but have requested it. If you do not wish to receive future issues, please add your name to the opt-out list.
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Spaceflight at 14:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC).
WPSS:JOVE listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPSS:JOVE. Since you had some involvement with the WPSS:JOVE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji (talk) 18:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Beriev 2500.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Beriev 2500.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Misplaced Pages uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Misplaced Pages.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Treading Dangerously with your Topic Ban
This is in violation of your topic ban, since it was Request for Page Protection I aint dragging you to ANI. I advise you to take such pages off your Watchlist The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- Also it seems you creative formatting of your page is hiding my text might wanna look into that. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Terra Novus. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.Message added 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A wiki that may be of interest
You may like to look at A Storehouse of Knowledge. LowKey (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Barnstar thanks
Thank you for the barnstar and kind words. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
File:J-20 takeoff.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J-20 takeoff.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
File:J-20 Front.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:J-20 Front.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:J-20 Front.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:J-20 Front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Re: Gliese 581 g
Please stop with the drive-by maintenance tag additions. You are either using the wrong template or you are unable to communicate the problem. Viriditas (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Same thing with terraforming. I'm starting to see a pattern here. Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Changes to template colors
I've reverted all of your changes to the template colors, which made them completely illegible. Also, your edit summary, "Changed from Marxist colors" is bordering on absurd and disruptive. Please discuss your proposed changes with the project or on the talk page and get some feedback first. You seem to be slipping back into troublesome edits yet again. Viriditas (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Because you seem to be returning to an earlier pattern of disruption, I have reported you to your original blocking admin. I'm not sure what is going on with you, but please slow down and discuss your edits. Viriditas (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't feel compelled to take action at this point, but I will note that those color changes are ridiculous, and it won't take much more of that sort of thing for me to conclude that there is a continuing pattern of disruption here. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't think that the colors matched the economics theory. Perhaps we could discuss what color would be most appropriate.-- Novus Orator 04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are colors used in economics infoboxes to match the theory? If so, how? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Red has just been traditionally associated with Marxian economic and political symbolism, so I think that perhaps blue or a neutral grey would be more appropriate.-- Novus Orator 05:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Are colors used in economics infoboxes to match the theory? If so, how? Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't think that the colors matched the economics theory. Perhaps we could discuss what color would be most appropriate.-- Novus Orator 04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- I don't feel compelled to take action at this point, but I will note that those color changes are ridiculous, and it won't take much more of that sort of thing for me to conclude that there is a continuing pattern of disruption here. Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
File:Chengdu J-10.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Chengdu J-10.jpg is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)File:Chengdu J-10.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chengdu J-10.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. feydey (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
File:FaxxNavy.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FaxxNavy.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. feydey (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Removing supposed unsourced statements.
Please be more careful when removing unsourced statements from articles. Many of the statements you removed from gold standard were actually properly sourced statements, they just happened to have the reference to their source at the end of the sentence immediately following. It is really not a good reason at all to remove statements just because they happen to have a period between them and their reference.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still, you may want to check the sentence following for the source before just removing the content. It certainly doesn't make for a better encyclopedia to just willy-nilly remove any sentence in article which isn't followed by a reference. According to WP:INCITE references are accepted at the end of paragraphs as well as sentences. If you think it is unclear what is the source for a given statement it would be much more helpful if you then moved up the reference to statement in question, or at least put a WP:citation needed-tag in so others might find the reference for you.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still there is no reason to make Misplaced Pages into a WP:battleground. Our goal should be to try to make a better encyclopedia, not to try to score points by having more statement which one agrees with in an article.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- But the point is that those statements you removed did have citations, there just happened to a period between them and the reference.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still, much of the content around those statements lost their meaning as the context that those statements you deleted provided were removed. I really just don't see how you help the encyclopedia by roaming around doing stuff like that.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- But the point is that those statements you removed did have citations, there just happened to a period between them and the reference.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- Still there is no reason to make Misplaced Pages into a WP:battleground. Our goal should be to try to make a better encyclopedia, not to try to score points by having more statement which one agrees with in an article.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:V any statement likely to be challenged needs a reference. As soon as those references in Gold Standard were aligned properly I accepted the end result. Unsourced claims are not allowed in Misplaced Pages.-- Novus Orator 05:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Terra, you're not understanding. The content was sourced. The sources "not being aligned properly" isn't a reason to remove stuff. I'm not going to keep repeating this... I brought it up multiple times with you many months ago, and it seems it's still going on. When you remove unsourced content or add CN tags, you need to first read the sources throughout the paragraph. You cannot simply assume the content is unsourced and remove it. When a sentence is sourced in the very next sentence, that is perfectly acceptable, and you challenging it because you didn't read the paragraph is not constructive editing. Jesstalk|edits 08:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you haven't read the relevant part of WP:V. Any statement likely to be challenged must be sourced. The material I removed did not clearly connect with the references. Once the references were added I offered no objection to those statements.-- Novus Orator 08:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is the last time I'm going to say it. The statement was sourced. It was sourced in the very next sentence. You need to read the paragraph before removing text for being unsourced. If you continue removing well sourced content because you haven't done your due diligence of actually reading the surrounding citations, I or another editor is likely to take the issue to an appropriate noticeboard. Please just read the context before removing stuff. Thanks. Jesstalk|edits 08:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps you haven't read the relevant part of WP:V. Any statement likely to be challenged must be sourced. The material I removed did not clearly connect with the references. Once the references were added I offered no objection to those statements.-- Novus Orator 08:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)