Talk:Troy, New York/Archives/2014

Unsourced demographics

I have removed unsourced demographics data. An IP restored the material demanding that I find a source for it. That is backwards. "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." WP:V

So why am I removing so much info? If you look back through the history of the article, you will see that the numbers have been changed repeatedly, often substantially by a SPA without explanation. The editor has been making similar changes in a raft of other articles.

For example, with this edit we have a substantial change to the 2010 census figures. Were the unsourced figures correct and being made incorrect or incorrect and being corrected? Here's a large shift in the poverty rate. Which is correct, if either, the before or after? And a tweek. Mexican or Puerto Rican?

The editor doesn't use edit summaries, doesn't cite sources and ignores talk page requests. There are two distinct possibilities that I can see. The editor has found a rich vein of vandalism throughout our town articles' demographics and is working diligently, if sporadically, to correct it or the editor is a vandal working diligently, if sporadically, to vandalize our town articles' demographics. Until such time as the editor explains what the hell they are doing and decides to comply with our core policies, I am removing unsourced material in affected sections and giving the editor escalating warnings, working toward them responding or being blocked.

If you would like to suss out which of the two scenarios I've outlined applies and either:

• congratulate the diligent but unresponsive editor who needs to learn to collaborate - OR -
• block the vandal who needs to go away

have at it. Otherwise, you, brand new IP editor who has arrived to address this one issue, should not add or restore unsourced material. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I see a lack of AGF. Why should I respond to someone who has shown no common sense or collaborative effort at improving this article (which he incorrectly labels as a town, he/she is aware that Troy is a City (New York) right?) If he is truly worried about improving the article, should he/she not go and look up the proper sourcing? Or is it simply this editor is an obstructionist who would rather remove unsourced material and put the burden on other editors to clean up the mess he/she makes? Well, in many noticeboards and policy/guideline talk pages we have been through the issue of "burden" and it is not as clean cut as this editor is making it seem, and shows the editor's lack of an ability to truly work with others to improve articles. Oh, and I don't give a shit what this editor wants or says about me, so he/she can fuck off my talk page.24.217.11.77 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The original material or the material that replaced it was vandalism or incompetence. I assume the other was added in good faith.

I did not call a Troy a "city", "town", "village" or "crossroads". Someone, however, has been vandalizing numerous town articles. I removed the affected material here.

Yes, burden is that cut and dry. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." The bolding is in the original, in Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our five core policies. If you would like to restore either version of the material, please provide a source.

I don't know how to "fuck off (a) talk page". As an unregistered editor, however, you can reasonably expect to receive escalating notices of problematic edits. This is intended to help new editors learn our policies/guidelines as well as establishing accountability. In case your intention was that I "(stay the) fuck off " your talk page, I will only contact you, if necessary, with standard template messages. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Burden is not so clean cut and dry. You need to take time and FIX articles and not just go around on some sort of vandalism patrol vendetta. You aren't helping articles. You're doing the bare minimum work to look like you're "improving". While combating vandalism is a noble effort, it is only ONE step in contributing. You need to start doing research and adding material. Plus it helps if you have some familiarity with the article subject you are trying to help. I have a feeling the reason you only are removing vandalism and not doing research is that you are unfamiliar with this topic. That is problematic and disturbing.24.217.11.77 (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have directly quoted our policy, if you believe it says otherwise, I can't help you.

Your "contribution" here has been limited to complaining about me and blindly restoring unsourced material that was, as likely as not, vandalism. Thank you for your contribution. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)