User talk:73.174.36.17: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:57, 11 January 2016

January 2016

Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made a change to an article, With the Beatles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Even "facts" require sources on Wikipedia. Carefully read WP:V. You have the options of finding reliable sources, or getting consensus on the article's talk page. And you are required to do one of those rather than simply restoring it unsourced, per WP:BRD. I'm not arguing about fundamental Wikipedia policy. Sundayclose (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be "bold" here. Truthfully, the majority of simple facts don't, but now one, YOU, interpret it that this does, as of a few days ago, and are now going to act as a roadblock. I remember once, on this type of issue, an editor declared, "It doesn't matter what one editor does or does not know" about a subject; except that, it entirely does, more or less by "definition", because that utterly defines what an editor considers to need a "source", and what doesn't. (BTW, speaking of BRD, which exactly is the "revert" here; my having the info in, or your taking it out?) From my standpoint (and I admit this is subjective), I would suggest that you find a consensus that the information must now go -- but 'mob rule' can be a tricky thing. As for a "source", it's basically "the Beatles' discographic track information", or whatever is considered the source of THAT. That's it: whatever the track information source is, that's the source -- some info, not 'interpretation' or 'opinion', just raw data, purely objective, obtained from reading that. Beyond this, I'm not gonna waste my time on this piddling matter anymore (so much for my supposed boldness). Good day. 73.174.36.17 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 :''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->
 ::Even "facts" require sources on Wikipedia. Carefully read [[WP:V]]. You have the options of finding reliable sources, or getting consensus on the article's talk page. And you are required to do one of those rather than simply restoring it unsourced, per [[WP:BRD]]. I'm not arguing about fundamental Wikipedia policy. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose#top|talk]]) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
+:::I'll be "bold" here. ''Truthfully'', the majority of simple facts ''don't'', but now one, YOU, interpret it that this ''does'', as of a few days ago, and are now going to act as a roadblock. I remember once, on this type of issue, an editor declared, "It doesn't matter what one editor does or does not know" about a subject; except that, it entirely ''does'', more or less by "definition", because that utterly defines what an editor considers to need a "source", and what doesn't. (BTW, speaking of BRD, which exactly is the "revert" here; my having the info in, or your taking it out?) From my standpoint (and I admit this is subjective), I would suggest that ''you'' find a consensus that the information must now go -- but 'mob rule' can be a tricky thing. As for a "source", it's basically "the Beatles' discographic track information", or whatever is considered the ''source'' of THAT. That's it: whatever the track information source is, that's the source -- some info, not 'interpretation' or 'opinion', just ''raw data'', purely objective, obtained from reading ''that''. Beyond this, I'm not gonna waste my time on this piddling matter anymore (so much for my supposed boldness). Good day. [[Special:Contributions/73.174.36.17|73.174.36.17]] ([[User talk:73.174.36.17#top|talk]]) 16:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)