| Revision as of 05:30, 17 June 2006 editNonexistant User (talk | contribs)9,925 edits blech, i just want the answer← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:00, 17 June 2006 edit undoJahiegel (talk | contribs)13,228 edits WP:AN/INext edit → | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| :::::What? I have consistently denied this and I'd like to see your proof - more readily, I'd like to see this brought about to formal mediation. --] 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | :::::What? I have consistently denied this and I'd like to see your proof - more readily, I'd like to see this brought about to formal mediation. --] 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Also, you never answered my question about citing your policies. --] 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ::::::Also, you never answered my question about citing your policies. --] 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Having read Strothra's AN/I post, I thought I'd offer my thoughts to each of you (I'm appending this to each of your talk pages). I don't have any information or opinion, I should say, apropos of the wikistalking, about which you'll need to consult others. With respect to the article tagging, though, herewith are my two ]s. | |||
| :I think ]'s reverts reflect a general consensus toward the proposition that <nowiki> {{fact}} </nowiki> in specific and <nowiki> {{verify}} </nowiki> in general ought only to be used where there is some question as to factual accuracy raised by editors (were <nowiki> {{fact}} </nowiki> to be applied to every substantial, uncited fact in every article, the ''citation needed'' superscript would, I imagine, overwhelm article text). Notwithstanding that, Strothra's tagging appears relevant to the ongoing AfD; in order that notability should be established, minimal sourcing is usually necessary. I think, then, that each editor is correct here, but that you're simply discussing different scenarios. Guettarda apprehends, accurately, that oftentimes editors will add copious <nowiki> {{fact}} </nowiki> tags to articles with the subjects or principal editors of which they disagree, disrupting the project to prove a ], whilst Strothra applies the tags so that information important to the AfD might be borne out. Strothra is correct that a literal reading of ] might require that every sentence in an article be sourced (or at least be verifiable ''passim'' in a work given in the "References" section), but I'm not certain that it will ever be practical for us to achieve complete sourcing for every statement in every article; in the absence of some meta-rule, tagging exorbitantly for less-than-encyclopedic purposes is bad, whilst tagging either because of legitimate factual disputes or because an article that asserts notability doesn't provide any citations toward the proposition of notability is alright. Each of you seems to be acting in good faith, and it appears that each of you ] for a while here; perhaps a reassumption is in order. Just my humble opinion, of course....] 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:00, 17 June 2006
If you talk here, I'll reply here. If I talk there, please reply there.| Discussion Archives |
New World Order (conspiracy)
Hi; Could I ask that you specifically identify, or remove, what needs to be verified? I would not object to removal of a lot of text if it's necessary. If it's basically the whole article, would it be useful to propose it for deletion? Tom Harrison 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think the article should be AfD'd eventhough I'm against most conspiracy cruft. It is, however, something which many people have speculated about and could very well be an article if properly cited. But, yes, most of the article does need citations. I'm a little wary of removing a lot of info from it right now because the claims which need to be cited are many. I think it needs the cite tag for a while and if no additions are made then begin removing text. The first seven sections, for instance, contain many claims which are not verified. The claims themselves do not need to be verified. What needs to be verified is that someone is actually making those claims. As is, it's violating WP:NOR. --Strothra 13:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand. I'll see about adding footnotes pointing to the works cited in Conspiracist literature, and to Barkun's book. Feel free to help out with that, or to add citations of your own. I'd say in a week or ten days you should remove anything you see that's uncited. If I don't hear otherwise, I'll assume you've done so and take the tag down. Tom Harrison 14:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok thanks, I'll try to work on adding cites as well. I'm a little busy in real life right now but will make the effort to do so. --Strothra 14:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikistalking
Don't you think it's about enough yet? Guettarda 04:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- What? I had forgotten all about you. I'm working on editing articles right now and am currently trying to decide on how to create an intro with a user so I don't have time to get into a discussion with you again. Read my archived discussion where I said that I'm done with you on this topic. I'm not wikistalking anyone. --Strothra 04:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, can you cite info about the abuse of those templates in Wiki policy because I would really like to know that. Uncited unverified info is uncited unverified info. Please see WP:NOR. --Strothra 05:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, you are. Please desist. You are abusing your editing privileges in order to harrass other users. STOP DOING SO NOW. Guettarda 05:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying to clean up that article by requesting the addition of citations. Here, I'll even take it to the admin notice board. I would really like you to cite policy for my own information. For an admin, you really don't seem concerned about informing editors but threatening them. --Strothra 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are carrying out a systemic campaign against another user in retaliation for his complaint about your AFD noms. That is crystal clear. It is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE behaviour. You are abusing the system to further your campaign of harrassment. I have warned you about your behaviour repeatedly. Do not force me to take further action. Guettarda 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- What? I have consistently denied this and I'd like to see your proof - more readily, I'd like to see this brought about to formal mediation. --Strothra 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Also, you never answered my question about citing your policies. --Strothra 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- What? I have consistently denied this and I'd like to see your proof - more readily, I'd like to see this brought about to formal mediation. --Strothra 05:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- You are carrying out a systemic campaign against another user in retaliation for his complaint about your AFD noms. That is crystal clear. It is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE behaviour. You are abusing the system to further your campaign of harrassment. I have warned you about your behaviour repeatedly. Do not force me to take further action. Guettarda 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm trying to clean up that article by requesting the addition of citations. Here, I'll even take it to the admin notice board. I would really like you to cite policy for my own information. For an admin, you really don't seem concerned about informing editors but threatening them. --Strothra 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:AN/I
Having read Strothra's AN/I post, I thought I'd offer my thoughts to each of you (I'm appending this to each of your talk pages). I don't have any information or opinion, I should say, apropos of the wikistalking, about which you'll need to consult others. With respect to the article tagging, though, herewith are my two cents.
- I think Guettarda's reverts reflect a general consensus toward the proposition that {{fact}} in specific and {{verify}} in general ought only to be used where there is some question as to factual accuracy raised by editors (were {{fact}} to be applied to every substantial, uncited fact in every article, the citation needed superscript would, I imagine, overwhelm article text). Notwithstanding that, Strothra's tagging appears relevant to the ongoing AfD; in order that notability should be established, minimal sourcing is usually necessary. I think, then, that each editor is correct here, but that you're simply discussing different scenarios. Guettarda apprehends, accurately, that oftentimes editors will add copious {{fact}} tags to articles with the subjects or principal editors of which they disagree, disrupting the project to prove a point, whilst Strothra applies the tags so that information important to the AfD might be borne out. Strothra is correct that a literal reading of WP:V might require that every sentence in an article be sourced (or at least be verifiable passim in a work given in the "References" section), but I'm not certain that it will ever be practical for us to achieve complete sourcing for every statement in every article; in the absence of some meta-rule, tagging exorbitantly for less-than-encyclopedic purposes is bad, whilst tagging either because of legitimate factual disputes or because an article that asserts notability doesn't provide any citations toward the proposition of notability is alright. Each of you seems to be acting in good faith, and it appears that each of you assumed good faith for a while here; perhaps a reassumption is in order. Just my humble opinion, of course....Joe 06:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)