Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:04, 28 September 2013

CFredkin, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi CFredkin! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages policy. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Please do not label adding content you don't agree with as "vandalism". NeilN 17:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask you why you are deleting sections from articles claiming "Remove unsourced content" when the content is very much sourced? (here and here) There were many valid and working references in the sections you are deleting. Anarcham (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually the citations go to empty pages or the citations are inaccurate.CFredkin (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Some were broken because there was an unneeded space in the URL. Others worked just fine. I fixed the few that needing fixing. Can't you just fix them instead of deleting whole sections of information? Anarcham (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I told you I fixed the links. Stop removing them and falsely claiming they don't work. Anarcham (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you fix them, I won't remove them. But I will remove anything that's not properly sourced.CFredkin (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

You could think about fixing them instead of deleting information that differs from your personal politics. Anarcham (talk) 19:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK this edit removes information with the edit summary "There is no mention of the Act in the source". The first sentence of the source says Today U.S. Representative Martin Heinrich (D-NM) cosponsored the Stop the Congressional Pay Raise Act. Either you need to read the sources better or you outright lied. Anarcham (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Before you start calling me a liar, maybe YOU should read the source. The ref includes name=Time. This is overriding the rest of the citation, so the source on the page references a completely different Time magazine article.CFredkin (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Fixing the refname is easy. Don't pretend there is no valid reference. There is a huge difference between broken links and "unreferenced". You are removing referenced content that simply has out of date links with a false edit summary. Anarcham (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I didn't see what the actual problem was until after you called me a liar. I figured out the problem instead of just resorting to name calling.CFredkin (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, who says it's my responsibility to find sources for other editors' claims?CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It is every editor's responsibility to make the encyclopedia better, not simply to strip things out he/she doesn't like. Anarcham (talk) 20:16, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that? CFredkin (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think you should be making articles better...why are you here? Anarcham (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

My point is that I am making articles better by ensuring that any content is accurately sourced. That is actually a core policy for Misplaced Pages. If you would like to spend your time adding citations to content that you happen to agree with, that's your prerogative. But I would appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a liar while you're doing it.CFredkin (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a Democrat so this is not information I "agree" with. I think the articles should be accurate and not washed with a partisan paintbrush. It is a lie to claim that something is unreferenced when it actually is. You made a load of edits to Joe Donnelly removing information. Here is a grouping of 15 edits that all claim to "Remove unsourced content" and you will see it is all referenced. Some are indeed dead, others (like this link and this and this) are alive and well...yet you pretended that they weren't. How is that not dishonest? Anarcham (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is another example. See those references you claim aren't there? Anarcham (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK. Now you're being dishonest. You update sources after I remove them and claim that they were correct all along. Regardless, quotes from the person's own web site are hardly unbiased, reliable sources.CFredkin (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't archived links listed above. You pulled them out claiming "no references". I didn't adjust them at all. Anarcham (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you didn't adjust them, why is one of the links on the Joe Donnelly page broken now?CFredkin (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)