User talk:Forward Unto Dawn: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Anthonyhcole (talk | contribs) |
Reverted 1 edit by Anthonyhcole (talk): WP:GETOVERIT. (TW) |
||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
::Then, we have a problem. Every assertion in that article was supported by a reliable source. Yet, you tagged it with "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013)". I'll ask once more that you point to a single assertion in that article that needs additional citations for verification. If you can't do that, or acknowledge that the tag was incorrect, I'll be asking the opinion of others. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 05:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
::Then, we have a problem. Every assertion in that article was supported by a reliable source. Yet, you tagged it with "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013)". I'll ask once more that you point to a single assertion in that article that needs additional citations for verification. If you can't do that, or acknowledge that the tag was incorrect, I'll be asking the opinion of others. --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 05:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::I really don't think that's necessary. [[WP:EOTW|You shouldn't take the tagging of a new article with maintenance tags in bad faith]]. I saw the article, was satisfied the article was notable and reviewed it using Page Curation. I used Twinkle to tag the page for the purpose of requesting additional references to complement the existing ones. It's a generic tag. I had no problem with the existing citations. '''[[WP:STICK|So just move on now]]'''. Happy editing. Regards, --'''''<font color="blue">[[User:Forward Unto Dawn|Forward]]</font> <font color="green">[[User talk:Forward Unto Dawn|Unto]]</font> <font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Forward_Unto_Dawn|Dawn]]</font>''''' 11:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
:::I really don't think that's necessary. [[WP:EOTW|You shouldn't take the tagging of a new article with maintenance tags in bad faith]]. I saw the article, was satisfied the article was notable and reviewed it using Page Curation. I used Twinkle to tag the page for the purpose of requesting additional references to complement the existing ones. It's a generic tag. I had no problem with the existing citations. '''[[WP:STICK|So just move on now]]'''. Happy editing. Regards, --'''''<font color="blue">[[User:Forward Unto Dawn|Forward]]</font> <font color="green">[[User talk:Forward Unto Dawn|Unto]]</font> <font color="red">[[Special:Contributions/Forward_Unto_Dawn|Dawn]]</font>''''' 11:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::I think it is necessary, if you think it's no big deal to tag a fully sourced new article with <nowiki>{{refimprove}}</nowiki>, and berate the author when he removes the false tag. Do you acknowledge that it was a mistake, or are you going to be doing this to more new articles? --[[User:Anthonyhcole|Anthonyhcole]] ([[User talk:Anthonyhcole|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Anthonyhcole|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Anthonyhcole|email]]) 15:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== ''The Signpost'': 14 August 2013 == |
== ''The Signpost'': 14 August 2013 == |
||
Revision as of 06:48, 17 August 2013
Status: Offline 
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
Reply
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 31 July 2013
AFD !voting
Hi, just a quick note regarding your !vote at the Afd here [1]. For what it is worth, for the Afd stats to work correctly it needs to see the word, "Delete" instead of "Support". You can see what I mean here [2]. Just thought you'd like to know. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
- Whoops! I meant to write Delete. It's fixed now. Thanks for letting me know. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 09:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. Happy editing! ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Small trout
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly. |
Yeah. Me.--Forward Unto Dawn 12:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 07 August 2013
- Arbitration report: Fourteen editors proposed for ban in Tea Party movement case
- Traffic report: Greetings from the graveyard
- News and notes: Chapters Association self-destructs
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Freedom of Speech
- Featured content: Mysterious case of the grand duchess
- Discussion report: CheckUser and Oversighter candidates, and more
Himal Shrestha article request for removal of speedy deletion tag
Hi, The article is about a young boy who won the first title of the Microsoft Office competition representing Nepal among the contestants of more than 90 countries. He is example of our nation. Please consider this article thanks Ashishlohorung (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- It failed the litmus test for a credible claim of notability. Hence it met WP:CSD#A7. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 10:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Re:Mycobiota
Ok, thanks. I will expand the articleSylwia Ufnalska (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Refimprove
Hi. [3] As I said in my edit summary when I reverted you for the second time, every assertion in that article is supported by a reliable source. This kind of careless tagging is the kind of harassment that drives away new editors. Please be more careful. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe it was careless tagging. I think your reversion of those maintenance tags was. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 01:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Then, we have a problem. Every assertion in that article was supported by a reliable source. Yet, you tagged it with "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013)". I'll ask once more that you point to a single assertion in that article that needs additional citations for verification. If you can't do that, or acknowledge that the tag was incorrect, I'll be asking the opinion of others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- I really don't think that's necessary. You shouldn't take the tagging of a new article with maintenance tags in bad faith. I saw the article, was satisfied the article was notable and reviewed it using Page Curation. I used Twinkle to tag the page for the purpose of requesting additional references to complement the existing ones. It's a generic tag. I had no problem with the existing citations. So just move on now. Happy editing. Regards, --Forward Unto Dawn 11:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
- Then, we have a problem. Every assertion in that article was supported by a reliable source. Yet, you tagged it with "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2013)". I'll ask once more that you point to a single assertion in that article that needs additional citations for verification. If you can't do that, or acknowledge that the tag was incorrect, I'll be asking the opinion of others. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
The Signpost: 14 August 2013
- News and notes: "Beautifully smooth" Wikimania with few hitches
- In the media: Chinese censorship
- Featured content: Wikipedia takes the cities
- Discussion report: Wikivoyage, reliable sources, music bands, account creators, and OTRS
- WikiProject report: For the love of stamps
- Arbitration report: Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds case closes