User talk:Mcmatter: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:27, 27 May 2015 editMcmatter (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers38,489 editsm Collapse← Previous edit		Revision as of 07:38, 27 May 2015 edit undoLordelephapia (talk \| contribs)19 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:
	{{AutoArchivingNotice\|age=14\|bot=MiszaBot III}}		{{AutoArchivingNotice\|age=14\|bot=MiszaBot III}}
	{{Signpost-subscription}}		{{Signpost-subscription}}

			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you.
	{{cot\|Completed Discussion}}		{{cot\|Completed Discussion}}
	== Borve - tags ==		== Borve - tags ==

Revision as of 07:38, 27 May 2015

This user has opted out of talkbacksPlease do not use talkback templates, if I have started a conversation on your talk page I will have your page on my watchlist and will know if you reply. On the other side of the coin if you start a conversation on my talk page I will reply on my talk page and will not leave a talkback template on your talk page so please watch for my response.

This is Mcmatter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is Mcmatter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 14 days


24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

24 December 2024

News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform"

Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything

Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject

In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case

From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting?

Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality

Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies

Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols

Traffic report: Was a long and dark December

Single page

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Completed Discussion
Borve - tags Hi, You have added tags to the article on Borve, Lewis. One states that "This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Please can you identify which statements in the article require references in your opinion. The only two references that the article contained before my revision were to a road users' site (to verify what number road the village is on) and a Scottish places site (to verify what larger administrative area it is part of). Those references seem completely unnecessary because the information is not seriously open to challenge and in the event that someone does read the article and think "Hey, you're saying the village is on the A857 - well that's an assertion I challenge!", they can easily go and verify it elsewhere, just as if someone challenges the assertion that London is located in England. The second states that "This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed." Please can you decide whether you think it does or does not contain original research and if you decide you think it does, please can you identify which claims you think should be either verified or removed. Thanks! Lordelephapia (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC) @Lordelephapia:, thank you for the message I have cleared up most of the problems with the article, I have removed almost everything which was not supported by a reference. If you can find reliable sources to support the claims please feel free to reinstate them using proper citation methods. Removing references from an article is normally not a good thing, by removing them you remove the ability for anyone to verify anything in the article, and Misplaced Pages policy is that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed. Next time you are looking a removing any reference ask yourself the following questions; Is the reference supporting anything in the article? If I remove this reference am I making it more difficult for someone not from the area to verify information? Is there already another reference supporting the same claim? Hopefully these questions will help when deciding if you should remove references in an article.For the most part references should not be removed, even if they are deadlinks.- McMatter /_(contrib) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC) It's as if you didn't read what you're replying to properly. Removing almost everything that's not supported by a reference is completely uncalled for, and you have not argued the contrary. Misplaced Pages policy is not "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed".Lordelephapia (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC) What is the source for your claim that Misplaced Pages policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?Lordelephapia (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC) This is simple take a read through Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to Prove it.- McMatter /_(contrib) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC) So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a weasel word) support your understanding of the policy on the requirement for references. Well I claim there is no Misplaced Pages policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically", even were they to be used in grammatically correct sentences, cannot obscure the fact that having been asked to cite a source for your very specific claim about Misplaced Pages's policy you have not yet done so. Please consider the possibility that your understanding of it is mistaken. If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in this article before you deleted most of it, please do so. Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.Lordelephapia (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) I have already challenged the content in the article by removing the unreferenced material, you are free to reinstate if can provide reliable sources for them. I am done arguing with you at this point. If you wish you can take this to Dispute resolution or if you think I have violated any policies you may take it to Misplaced Pages:AN/I.- McMatter /_(contrib) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Completed Discussion

Borve - tags

Hi,

You have added tags to the article on Borve, Lewis.

One states that

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Please can you identify which statements in the article require references in your opinion.

The only two references that the article contained before my revision were to a road users' site (to verify what number road the village is on) and a Scottish places site (to verify what larger administrative area it is part of). Those references seem completely unnecessary because the information is not seriously open to challenge and in the event that someone does read the article and think "Hey, you're saying the village is on the A857 - well that's an assertion I challenge!", they can easily go and verify it elsewhere, just as if someone challenges the assertion that London is located in England.

The second states that

"This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed."

Please can you decide whether you think it does or does not contain original research and if you decide you think it does, please can you identify which claims you think should be either verified or removed.

Thanks! Lordelephapia (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lordelephapia:, thank you for the message I have cleared up most of the problems with the article, I have removed almost everything which was not supported by a reference. If you can find reliable sources to support the claims please feel free to reinstate them using proper citation methods. Removing references from an article is normally not a good thing, by removing them you remove the ability for anyone to verify anything in the article, and Misplaced Pages policy is that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed. Next time you are looking a removing any reference ask yourself the following questions;

Is the reference supporting anything in the article?

If I remove this reference am I making it more difficult for someone not from the area to verify information?

Is there already another reference supporting the same claim?

Hopefully these questions will help when deciding if you should remove references in an article.For the most part references should not be removed, even if they are deadlinks.- McMatter /_(contrib) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It's as if you didn't read what you're replying to properly. Removing almost everything that's not supported by a reference is completely uncalled for, and you have not argued the contrary. Misplaced Pages policy is not "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed".Lordelephapia (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the source for your claim that Misplaced Pages policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?Lordelephapia (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This is simple take a read through Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to Prove it.- McMatter /_(contrib) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a weasel word) support your understanding of the policy on the requirement for references. Well I claim there is no Misplaced Pages policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically", even were they to be used in grammatically correct sentences, cannot obscure the fact that having been asked to cite a source for your very specific claim about Misplaced Pages's policy you have not yet done so. Please consider the possibility that your understanding of it is mistaken.

If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in this article before you deleted most of it, please do so.

Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.Lordelephapia (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already challenged the content in the article by removing the unreferenced material, you are free to reinstate if can provide reliable sources for them. I am done arguing with you at this point. If you wish you can take this to Dispute resolution or if you think I have violated any policies you may take it to Misplaced Pages:AN/I.- McMatter /_(contrib) 01:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)