User talk:Tgeorgescu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit, how should they behave and how conflict gets mediated. Everybody is entitled to occasional mistakes, but persisting in mistakes will get you blocked from editing. Our wish is, however, that WP:RULES breakers repent from violating our rules and become instead productive editors. The decision to obey our rules is always personal, but it has enormous consequences for one's activity inside Wikipedia. I cannot decide instead you, but I can tell you that it is wise to obey our rules. So, it's not that I like to see you blocked. I would like that you learn from your mistakes and become a productive editor. But if you are not up to the task, you will be blocked. I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you.

I only revert edits for which it is clear to me that they are WP:CB (speaking from the viewpoint of academic learning), deteriorate the article or violate WP:RULES. I don't revert if these are uncertain. I think that you need to make up your mind if you are for or against our WP:RULES. If you're against our rules and act on that, you'll soon find yourself in hot water. If your edits are WP:PAG-compliant, they will likely stay, otherwise every experienced editor will have to revert you. By saying this I am not aggressive, I just tell it as it is.

Edits Romania[edit]

Hello, please have a read into what original research is, because it is clear you don't understand the concept. Data regarding GDP in the country infoboxes is provided by the IMF, which acts as a general source for all such articles. As you can see, no other country articles provide individual sources for each number in the article - and the explanation is simple: because you can track such info very easy on IMF's website. The data there is not debatable nor questioned and certainly not a personal opinion so it doesn't qualify as OR: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed". I wonder how come after so many years on Wikipedia you cannot tell the difference. Anyway, I added a source for every number so you can rest assured it is not OR, however please be aware that your conduct - invalidating a valuable edit on Wikipedia - can be quallified as vandalism if done repeatedly. So behave. --Danutz (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danutz:: It's really that simple: if the source has not changed (i.e. you have to WP:CITE another source or another URL instead of the old one), then the figures should not change. That's all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
There was no source?! [1] Have you even checked before reverting? Your edit qualifies as vandalism. --Danutz (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Danutz: Don't be so cocky and don't cast aspersions. At your edit ([2]) you have changed no source, but you have changed the figures, it was natural for me to assume that the figures were made up. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
See? The WP:BURDEN to WP:CITE new/changed WP:SOURCES was not fulfilled, no explanation (edit summary) was given for the change, what was I to suppose? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
I really fail to understand why you would assume the numbers were not right, and why you did not bother to check or simply ask if you were in doubt. The numbers were similar to the older ones (so no obvious differences - like tenfold), they were easily traceable, there was no source anyway for the previous numbers and the edit was done by a registered user with a history of edits. Sorry, but your behaviour in this matter is unconceivable irrespective of your good intentions. Anyway, nevermind. Danutz (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Danutz: It is upon the editor who performs the change to justify why the change is needed. You have done none of that: not citing another source, not changing the date of accessing the existing sources, not saying in the edit summary what you were doing, not using the talk page of the article. It is a good idea that in the future you use edit summaries in order to explain your edits instead of leaving other editors guessing about why you change figures. So, putting all blame on me and accusing me of vandalism is preposterous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
@Danutz: In fact, your edit is an exemplary case of suspicious edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)