User talk:92.229.66.1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
WhisperToMe (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:: I have been here since 2003, Andy. And I, an old fogey, can tell you that instead of fighting me, you should be finding references. You can build the list back up when you find citations. "They have been worked on for a long time" doesn't follow; one can work on something for a long time, and yet that something doesn't belong on here, and it can be removed. But if you find the sources, you can add back every single addition to the list and prove to the readers that the list is telling the truth. [[WP:V]] is very clear. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." |
:: I have been here since 2003, Andy. And I, an old fogey, can tell you that instead of fighting me, you should be finding references. You can build the list back up when you find citations. "They have been worked on for a long time" doesn't follow; one can work on something for a long time, and yet that something doesn't belong on here, and it can be removed. But if you find the sources, you can add back every single addition to the list and prove to the readers that the list is telling the truth. [[WP:V]] is very clear. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." |
||
:: Please go and find citations. I can help you, if you want. But please understand from now on that work needs to be cited. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
:: Please go and find citations. I can help you, if you want. But please understand from now on that work needs to be cited. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::: We need an extra rule for "Notable people" lists whatsoever! You were caught in the act of removing whole lists containing '''living AND dead people''' likewise. You could just have done as reasonable people do and remove the living people from the list. But because you're a lazy git, you just removed the WHOLE list! That's simply not acceptable and we're gonna find a solution here sooner or later; be it advantageous or disadvantageous for you. -andy [[Special:Contributions/92.229.66.1|92.229.66.1]] ([[User talk:92.229.66.1#top|talk]]) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:01, 28 February 2009
Thanks for telling me.
Look, my removal of these lists is justified and needed. As oer WP:BLP we cannot have unsourced information about living people. I understand that these lists have some dead people too, but you and others need to work on sourcing. Get sources for each and every name, or otherwise the unsourced entries will go. It is the responsibility of the person who wishes to add or restore material to source stuff. The person who removes stuff has no such responsibility.
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Briefly, you just HAVE NO RIGHT to remove several years' work of others. Although these lists do not look like it, they have been worked on for many years. And just in 2009 a young whippersnapper like you comes along and tells the "elders" how rules are? Who do you think you are boy? -andy 92.229.66.1 (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have been here since 2003, Andy. And I, an old fogey, can tell you that instead of fighting me, you should be finding references. You can build the list back up when you find citations. "They have been worked on for a long time" doesn't follow; one can work on something for a long time, and yet that something doesn't belong on here, and it can be removed. But if you find the sources, you can add back every single addition to the list and prove to the readers that the list is telling the truth. WP:V is very clear. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
- Please go and find citations. I can help you, if you want. But please understand from now on that work needs to be cited. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- We need an extra rule for "Notable people" lists whatsoever! You were caught in the act of removing whole lists containing living AND dead people likewise. You could just have done as reasonable people do and remove the living people from the list. But because you're a lazy git, you just removed the WHOLE list! That's simply not acceptable and we're gonna find a solution here sooner or later; be it advantageous or disadvantageous for you. -andy 92.229.66.1 (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)