User talk:76.90.224.167

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 Wikipedia 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)

That's nice of you and all but as I've already said you're the first person to come at me with this, and I know I have a right to blank my page on discussion so go ahead and 'turn me in'. I've made it clear that i'm going to do what I've done for a while now, which hasn't bothered anyone (and i've had encounters with many users) until you so I'm not going to change because of you. If it is such a big deal then another established members would have told me as opposed to "good job with this page". So keep expecting a discussion, but you're not getting one. You call it what you will but one member isn't going to stop me. Many access computers and many established accounts means I will continue to use my style which I will NOT allow one member to stop. If you report me and the admins stop me or tell me these are the rules fine, but i'm not stopping just for you. It's that simple.

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {fact} template, a section with {unreferencedsection}, or the article with {refimprove} or {unreferenced}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page."

If I remove an uncited claim that has been around for 2 moths, 1 year and 1 month I'm allowed to under the guidelines. So what the am I missing? ALTERNATIVELY I may go to the talk page. I am not obligtated to am I? Oh that's right, an alternative option is not equal to an obligation.

You are making the same arguments that User:Eyrian did, right before he was indefinitely blocked for using sock puppets. And like Eyrian, you are using multiple accounts because your edit history on this account only goes back to May 24, 2008, yet you claim to have been doing this for a year. Eyrian also engaged in the same disruptive behavior as you do, removing easily verifiable information because it lacked inline sources. Like Eyrian, you continue to argue specific aspects of WP:V out of context of the "material challenged or likely to be challenged" part. Unless you are willing to challenge the material, or acknowledge a challenge, do not remove unsourced material. Like I said before, Wikipedia does not use bots to automatically remove unsourced material for the very reason that many fact tags are used incorrectly. When you remove unsourced material, you must have a reason. Simply because it is unsourced is not a reason. If you see material that has a fact tag and you wish to challenge it, remove it from the main article and place it on the talk page under a new section "Challenged material removed". That way, editors can respond to your edits. Do not, and I repeat, do not continue to automatically remove unsourced material because it is unsourced. Such material might already be sourced to a main reference and simply need an inline citation, in which case that section should be tagged appropriately. Such material may also already be sourced elsewhere in the article. Unless you can challenge the material in some way it should not be removed. Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just asked an admin about this topic. I'll wait for his reply and in the mean time I'm not bothering with wikipedia. If he lets me know i'm in the wrong I'll stop, if it takes too long I will simply ask another admin just so I can get an idea of whether or not i'm wrong in which case the rules need to be more clear. I await their verdict, I don't see a point in discussing this with you when this is going to administrators anyway.

That's fine, but please 1) sign your edits, and 2) stop blanking an ongoing discussion. Also, since you have admitted to using multiple accounts, you should make that clear with the appropriate tags if you plan to continue using them. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is just a reply because the "You have new messages" in the orange box on pages I visit drives me mad. That's why I blank the user talk page, the orange box drives me mad. I'm just waiting for the verdict, if i'm in the wrong i'll go back to browsing and not editing.

Ok, sorry about that. This isn't a matter of being right or wrong. It's an issue of working harmoniously with the community. I don't know what other accounts you use (you said you have them) nor do I really care. You are welcome to continue removing unsourced content about living persons that could be considered harmful. That is policy. However, when it comes to claims that just have a fact tag on them, you need to have an actual reason. That's what the "challenge" part is all about. This is really simple, so I'm having trouble understanding why you don't "get it". We don't remove content merely becomes it is unsourced. You have to evalutate the content and determine if it has reliable sources. If you can't evaluate the material, don't remove it. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, my intentions (at least after initial editing over a year ago) are never to disrupt the flow of a page or to decrease from one. I visit a page that is relatively short and I see 10 citation needed tags and i'm driven mad. Wishful thinking shows that people who edit a page check up and see an improper fact tag and remove it as it is cited within the page so I've taken a small part of removing that. I don't have time to edit like I'd like to so I thought one small way can help. We'l see, sorry for being difficult it's never my intention to vandalize a page or harm one.

I'm sorry for upsetting you. Here's the thing: if you think that a particular piece of unsourced material is harmful to the article, is unreasonable in its scope, or sounds strange, then remove it to the talk page with a short statement explaining your edit. Is that too much to ask? Obviously, if the material is clearly false (or vandalism), you probably don't need to use the talk page. The same goes for what could be considered "original research", however, some editors get upset when you remove that as well. Basically, when you remove unsourced material, it's a good idea to have another browser tab open to Google or other search indices, so that you can quickly check the claim. Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood.

And if you are unsure about a particular piece of information, you are welcome at any time to contact me. Thanks for listening to my concerns. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference (whenever I do edit) I will try to scope a page to see if a fact tag is needed or not. It will take time to get used to so mistakes will be made. Do we take this discussion out of the admins page?

You can do whatever you like. If you feel it is resolved, then you can mark it as such. It sounds like we are on the same page, so I'm happy.  :) Viriditas (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Took it out and left a message on this page. This reply is to rid myself of that dang orange box! Userpage with more about me is "Realm of Shadows" is you're interested.

Thanks. Nice to meet you. Feel free to blank this page. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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)