This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 76.90.224.167 (talk) at 03:01, 24 June 2008 (→June 2008). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:01, 24 June 2008 by 76.90.224.167 (talk) (→June 2008)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Removal of unsourced claims
Unsourced claims are removed if they are challenged, not if they are unsourced. Please do not remove unsourced claims like you did in John Coltrane. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would like a response to my query. I've asked you not to continue to remove unsourced claims without challenging them on talk, and you have ignored and blanked your talk page. If this behavior persists, I will notify an administrator. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, I didn't answer. But rather than go on a tirade with french words i'm going to say what is. I've been removing uncited claims for over a year, I have never had anyone say stop it because you must challenge it. Someone challenged it by adding the tag, so I give it time to be cited or I remove it. I've done this for over a year and I don't see why I should stop because of the first person to ask me to stop. That's what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.224.167 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- I find your response most unsatisfactory. Why have you been removing unsourced claims for over a year? And what makes you think this type of editing behavior is supported? We do not remove unsourced claims merely because they are unsourced. They have to be challenged in some way. Assuming that the existence of the fact tag implies that someone else has already challenged the material is incorrect. If it was correct, we would have bots doing just that. And, we don't because the fact tag is often abused and in many cases, applied excessively and without proper explanation on the talk page. Some editors go so far as to add the fact tag to any material they aren't familiar with, which is not how we use it. Please do not continue removing unsourced material unless you have acknowledged a specific challenge to the content on the talk page, or you have made a good faith attempt to source the material yourself. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Granted that most of the time the pages had weird claims or un-necessary ones, ON TOP of the fact that I get great job on the page on (etc etc) or thanks for contributing have you considered starting a page? I am going to continue to do this, if a fact tag was improperly placed and I removed the claim it's not hard to undo. So you may find me unsatisfactory for not listening to you, so be it. I've done this for over a year, as mentioned, and I've gotten a lot of non-responses or god job, thanks etc etc. So again, just because you ask me kindly (or not that doesn't matter) to stop doesn't mean I will. So report me to the administrators if you'd like, I'll discuss this with them because you've made up your mind on the issue and i'm going to continue to do it.
- I will most certainly report you and attempt to get your editing privileges revoked unless you stop what you are doing. You have not responded to any of my objections. Instead, you have justified your actions by claiming you have been doing it for a year with people complimenting you. Those answers do not address the problem in any way. To recap, we do not remove claims merely because they are unsourced. We remove them because they are challenged, usually on the talk page. The existence of a fact tag is not the best indicator of a challenge unless there is a discussion on talk page. Your edits may have the best intentions, but you have removed content that was accurate and lacked inline citations. There is a huge difference between unsourced and challenged material and uncontroversial content needing inline citations. Please do not continue with your disruptive editing until you address these points and promise to check the talk page for a challenge and search for sources before you remove content. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead and report me becaues I've already made it clear i'm continuing my style.
- Sorry, but that's not how Misplaced Pages works. You need to address my points and discuss this issue in a rational manner. You do not get to continue to edit in a disruptive manner merely because you want to. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Go ahead and report me becaues I've already made it clear i'm continuing my style.
- I will most certainly report you and attempt to get your editing privileges revoked unless you stop what you are doing. You have not responded to any of my objections. Instead, you have justified your actions by claiming you have been doing it for a year with people complimenting you. Those answers do not address the problem in any way. To recap, we do not remove claims merely because they are unsourced. We remove them because they are challenged, usually on the talk page. The existence of a fact tag is not the best indicator of a challenge unless there is a discussion on talk page. Your edits may have the best intentions, but you have removed content that was accurate and lacked inline citations. There is a huge difference between unsourced and challenged material and uncontroversial content needing inline citations. Please do not continue with your disruptive editing until you address these points and promise to check the talk page for a challenge and search for sources before you remove content. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- Granted that most of the time the pages had weird claims or un-necessary ones, ON TOP of the fact that I get great job on the page on (etc etc) or thanks for contributing have you considered starting a page? I am going to continue to do this, if a fact tag was improperly placed and I removed the claim it's not hard to undo. So you may find me unsatisfactory for not listening to you, so be it. I've done this for over a year, as mentioned, and I've gotten a lot of non-responses or god job, thanks etc etc. So again, just because you ask me kindly (or not that doesn't matter) to stop doesn't mean I will. So report me to the administrators if you'd like, I'll discuss this with them because you've made up your mind on the issue and i'm going to continue to do it.
- I find your response most unsatisfactory. Why have you been removing unsourced claims for over a year? And what makes you think this type of editing behavior is supported? We do not remove unsourced claims merely because they are unsourced. They have to be challenged in some way. Assuming that the existence of the fact tag implies that someone else has already challenged the material is incorrect. If it was correct, we would have bots doing just that. And, we don't because the fact tag is often abused and in many cases, applied excessively and without proper explanation on the talk page. Some editors go so far as to add the fact tag to any material they aren't familiar with, which is not how we use it. Please do not continue removing unsourced material unless you have acknowledged a specific challenge to the content on the talk page, or you have made a good faith attempt to source the material yourself. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, I didn't answer. But rather than go on a tirade with french words i'm going to say what is. I've been removing uncited claims for over a year, I have never had anyone say stop it because you must challenge it. Someone challenged it by adding the tag, so I give it time to be cited or I remove it. I've done this for over a year and I don't see why I should stop because of the first person to ask me to stop. That's what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.224.167 (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
June 2008
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to The Exorcist (film) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Mspraveen (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I that was my oversight. Maybe your explanation could have been added to the edit summaries as well. Thanks for your contributions. Mspraveen (talk) 05:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |