User talk:Mu301

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is Mu301's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Mu301.
Shortcuts:


Pending changes reviewer granted[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Unsourced[edit]

So can I add anything and put that tag ? Where's the policy for this tag please. 86.190.207.115 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

If you find a section missing sources it is best to put {{Unreferenced section}} at the top of the section rather than blanking it out. This draws attention to improve the sourcing. It would be trivial to find reliable sources to confirm that the information in the tables that you removed is correct and a list of awards could hardly be considered "Contentious material about living persons..." that "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" as described at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. If the material in those sections is incorrect add a message to the talk page and ask questions about it. Is the information wildly exaggerated? If so it should be reported at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard --mikeu talk 22:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
But all the sections are unsourced ? 86.190.207.115 (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Here I've placed {{unsourced section|date=January 2016|section=list of tables below}} below the opening paragraphs but above the first section header with a message stating that all sections below need sources. Just one edit to cover everything.
Are you concerned that the information is untrue/exaggerated or that it is lacking in sources? A suspicion that the information is false or wildly overstated would warrant blanking the sections. If the lists of awards looks reasonable but are in need of sources it would be best to go to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard and post the names of the articles and explaining the problem. I'm not familiar with the awards, but it looks like this could be easily fixed with just a handful of reliable footnotes. I checked a few of them and they look legit. --mikeu talk 23:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I also left a message on the talk page. --mikeu talk 23:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the tag but I still belive this is misleading information published on Wikipedia since there's no direct access for verifibility via a source/ref. Isn't that Wikipedia all about ? 86.190.207.115 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The goal is to source the statements. But, if you see a statement without a source it would be best to check the facts and insert a footnote to a reliable source where it can be verified rather than just delete the whole thing. Blanking entire sections prevents progress towards sourcing and should only be done when the information is incorrect. Lacking sources and incorrect are not the same thing. I took a quick look at the sections on those pages and did not see any obvious errors. Does it make sense to remove a large amount of error free text just because it lacks a footnote? The templates call attention to the missing footnotes. But, you could also do that yourself to improve the article. I noticed that some of the award articles did have reference that included some of the info on the list. It just wasn't all on the same page. --mikeu talk 07:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks it makes sense now. 86.190.207.115 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)