| Revision as of 21:20, 30 June 2014 editPiguy101 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,351 edits →The anon ip that adds unsourced material and doesn't respond to talk page postings← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:39, 30 June 2014 edit undoI dream of horses (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers572,256 editsm →The anon ip that adds unsourced material and doesn't respond to talk page postings: Already helpedNext edit → | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
| == The anon ip that adds unsourced material and doesn't respond to talk page postings == | == The anon ip that adds unsourced material and doesn't respond to talk page postings == | ||
| {{helpme}} | {{helpme-helped}} | ||
| Hi, I was wondering if someone could advise me. An anonymous ip, {{ip|82.35.64.69}} keeps adding unsourced random pieces of information to articles about years in British television, often without fully explaining their significance. An example might be "Gray O'Brien is to leave Coronation Street later this year", which doesn't fully explain who he is or why we need to know he's leaving the series. I've been taking the time to track down sources for this stuff and discovered sometimes that it's inaccurate so have been making corrections, but it's been going on for a while now, and is getting a bit monotonous. I've asked very nicely on several occasions if they could provide sources for the entries as they're obviously finding it from somewhere, but never get a response other than to see the appearance of another random entry later the same day or the next day. I've resorted to issuing user warnings for unsourced editing after several attempts to communicate with this user, and deleting the material. Am I doing the right thing? I don't want to get into a slow edit war with them. Thanks. ] (]) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | Hi, I was wondering if someone could advise me. An anonymous ip, {{ip|82.35.64.69}} keeps adding unsourced random pieces of information to articles about years in British television, often without fully explaining their significance. An example might be "Gray O'Brien is to leave Coronation Street later this year", which doesn't fully explain who he is or why we need to know he's leaving the series. I've been taking the time to track down sources for this stuff and discovered sometimes that it's inaccurate so have been making corrections, but it's been going on for a while now, and is getting a bit monotonous. I've asked very nicely on several occasions if they could provide sources for the entries as they're obviously finding it from somewhere, but never get a response other than to see the appearance of another random entry later the same day or the next day. I've resorted to issuing user warnings for unsourced editing after several attempts to communicate with this user, and deleting the material. Am I doing the right thing? I don't want to get into a slow edit war with them. Thanks. ] (]) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:39, 30 June 2014
| This is This is Paul's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
 Archives |
|
/Archive1 - April-October 2008 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
List of Question Time episodes
Thanks, I decided to keep some of the notes within the grid and put some further down the page. User:Commod (talk) 08:25, 31 May 2014
Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- 2000 in British television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Billy Murray and Peter Ellis
- 2008 in British television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Harry Mason and Jack Ellis
- 2014 in British television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Diversity and Better Together
- 2005 in British television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Human Rights Act
- 2014 in Scottish television (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Better Together
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 25 June 2014
- Traffic report: Fake war, or real sport?
- Exclusive: "We need to be true to who we are": Foundation's new executive director speaks to the Signpost
- Discussion report: Media Viewer, old HTML tags
- Featured content: Showing our Wörth
- WikiProject report: The world where dreams come true
- Recent research: Power users and diversity in WikiProjects
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The anon ip that adds unsourced material and doesn't respond to talk page postings
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Hi, I was wondering if someone could advise me. An anonymous ip, 82.35.64.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) keeps adding unsourced random pieces of information to articles about years in British television, often without fully explaining their significance. An example might be "Gray O'Brien is to leave Coronation Street later this year", which doesn't fully explain who he is or why we need to know he's leaving the series. I've been taking the time to track down sources for this stuff and discovered sometimes that it's inaccurate so have been making corrections, but it's been going on for a while now, and is getting a bit monotonous. I've asked very nicely on several occasions if they could provide sources for the entries as they're obviously finding it from somewhere, but never get a response other than to see the appearance of another random entry later the same day or the next day. I've resorted to issuing user warnings for unsourced editing after several attempts to communicate with this user, and deleting the material. Am I doing the right thing? I don't want to get into a slow edit war with them. Thanks. This is Paul (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- WP:BURDEN says that the poster must have a source for the content; otherwise, it may be deleted. Unfortunately, I would take the route of user warnings for unsourced content, even if the edits may appear to be in good faith. Repeatedly adding unsourced content without discussing anything on talk pages is criteria for blocking. This is just my opinion, as a non-admin. Thanks Piguy101 (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)