| Revision as of 21:22, 29 June 2010 editJotamar (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,303 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:02, 29 June 2010 edit undoNovaseminary (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,467 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ::I think all of those paragraphs were original research (at best) and, as such, violated ]. I have no idea whether the paragraphs were inventions or manipulations; after reading the former article, I still do not, because there were no sources. In light of the reliable source I found and added, I suspect what was there was one individual's take on a version fo the game as they learned it. But whether I think the article was true or whether the "deleted paragraphs were inventions or manipulations" does not really matter. Verifiability is a key tenet of Misplaced Pages. Per ], "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Feel free to add whatever you think would make the article more informative, provided it complies with policy and guidelines, especially ], ], ], and ]. And remember ] and to meet ] before replacing any removed text. ] (]) 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC) | ::I think all of those paragraphs were original research (at best) and, as such, violated ]. I have no idea whether the paragraphs were inventions or manipulations; after reading the former article, I still do not, because there were no sources. In light of the reliable source I found and added, I suspect what was there was one individual's take on a version fo the game as they learned it. But whether I think the article was true or whether the "deleted paragraphs were inventions or manipulations" does not really matter. Verifiability is a key tenet of Misplaced Pages. Per ], "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Feel free to add whatever you think would make the article more informative, provided it complies with policy and guidelines, especially ], ], ], and ]. And remember ] and to meet ] before replacing any removed text. ] (]) 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::OK, I won't insist about this question, but I think you're interpreting guidelines too restrictively. Remember that the first guideline a new editor learns is ''Be bold''... so why be bold when what you write will be deleted sooner or later because it's not properly sourced? --] (]) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC) | :::OK, I won't insist about this question, but I think you're interpreting guidelines too restrictively. Remember that the first guideline a new editor learns is ''Be bold''... so why be bold when what you write will be deleted sooner or later because it's not properly sourced? --] (]) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Bold edits are not a problem and should be and are encouraged. Of course, there is no reason a bold edit cannot be sourced. "Bold" does not mean "made-up." Unverifiable ramblings about party game strategy, on the other hand, are a problem and should be discouraged. ] (]) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:02, 29 June 2010
About Buck Buck
Dear sir (or lady), you might have forgottten about your edits in the page Buck buck, but I haven't. Invoking Misplaced Pages guidelines, you have deleted a large chunk of the article. The final result is this: the current version of the article is much less informative than it used to be. The guideline you mention says: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. Now, I'd like to know what exactly is challenged in the original contents of the article. Do you think that the deleted paragraphs were inventions or manipulations? and if you don't like the style in those paragraphs, why not change it, instead of just removing? --Jotamar (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think all of those paragraphs were original research (at best) and, as such, violated WP:NOR. I have no idea whether the paragraphs were inventions or manipulations; after reading the former article, I still do not, because there were no sources. In light of the reliable source I found and added, I suspect what was there was one individual's take on a version fo the game as they learned it. But whether I think the article was true or whether the "deleted paragraphs were inventions or manipulations" does not really matter. Verifiability is a key tenet of Misplaced Pages. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Feel free to add whatever you think would make the article more informative, provided it complies with policy and guidelines, especially WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. And remember what Misplaced Pages is not and to meet WP:BURDEN before replacing any removed text. Novaseminary (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I won't insist about this question, but I think you're interpreting guidelines too restrictively. Remember that the first guideline a new editor learns is Be bold... so why be bold when what you write will be deleted sooner or later because it's not properly sourced? --Jotamar (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Bold edits are not a problem and should be and are encouraged. Of course, there is no reason a bold edit cannot be sourced. "Bold" does not mean "made-up." Unverifiable ramblings about party game strategy, on the other hand, are a problem and should be discouraged. Novaseminary (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I won't insist about this question, but I think you're interpreting guidelines too restrictively. Remember that the first guideline a new editor learns is Be bold... so why be bold when what you write will be deleted sooner or later because it's not properly sourced? --Jotamar (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think all of those paragraphs were original research (at best) and, as such, violated WP:NOR. I have no idea whether the paragraphs were inventions or manipulations; after reading the former article, I still do not, because there were no sources. In light of the reliable source I found and added, I suspect what was there was one individual's take on a version fo the game as they learned it. But whether I think the article was true or whether the "deleted paragraphs were inventions or manipulations" does not really matter. Verifiability is a key tenet of Misplaced Pages. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Feel free to add whatever you think would make the article more informative, provided it complies with policy and guidelines, especially WP:RS, WP:V, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. And remember what Misplaced Pages is not and to meet WP:BURDEN before replacing any removed text. Novaseminary (talk) 05:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)