Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mcmatter: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:00, 26 May 2015 editLordelephapia (talk | contribs)19 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 19:05, 26 May 2015 edit undoLordelephapia (talk | contribs)19 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 44: Line 44:
:::What is the source for your claim that Misplaced Pages policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?] (]) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::What is the source for your claim that Misplaced Pages policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?] (]) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
::::This is simple take a read through ] and ] both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to ].- ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC) ::::This is simple take a read through ] and ] both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to ].- ] <sup>(])</sup>/<sub>(])</sub> 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
:::::So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", the policy is that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". And you are saying that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a ]) support your understanding of the policy. Well I claim there is no Misplaced Pages policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Millions of articles contain unreferenced assertions.] (]) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC) :::::So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a ]) support your understanding of the policy. Well I claim there is no Misplaced Pages policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically" cannot obscure the fact that you have not cited a source for your very specific but wrong claim about Misplaced Pages's policy.

:::::If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in the this article before you deleted most of it, please do so.

:::::Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.] (]) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:05, 26 May 2015

This user has opted out of talkbacksPlease do not use talkback templates, if I have started a conversation on your talk page I will have your page on my watchlist and will know if you reply. On the other side of the coin if you start a conversation on my talk page I will reply on my talk page and will not leave a talkback template on your talk page so please watch for my response.


This is Mcmatter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 14 days 

This is Mcmatter's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
The Signpost
24 December 2024

Borve - tags

Hi,

You have added tags to the article on Borve, Lewis.

One states that

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed."

Please can you identify which statements in the article require references in your opinion.

The only two references that the article contained before my revision were to a road users' site (to verify what number road the village is on) and a Scottish places site (to verify what larger administrative area it is part of). Those references seem completely unnecessary because the information is not seriously open to challenge and in the event that someone does read the article and think "Hey, you're saying the village is on the A857 - well that's an assertion I challenge!", they can easily go and verify it elsewhere, just as if someone challenges the assertion that London is located in England.

The second states that

"This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed."

Please can you decide whether you think it does or does not contain original research and if you decide you think it does, please can you identify which claims you think should be either verified or removed.

Thanks! Lordelephapia (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Lordelephapia:, thank you for the message I have cleared up most of the problems with the article, I have removed almost everything which was not supported by a reference. If you can find reliable sources to support the claims please feel free to reinstate them using proper citation methods. Removing references from an article is normally not a good thing, by removing them you remove the ability for anyone to verify anything in the article, and Misplaced Pages policy is that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed. Next time you are looking a removing any reference ask yourself the following questions;
Is the reference supporting anything in the article?
If I remove this reference am I making it more difficult for someone not from the area to verify information?
Is there already another reference supporting the same claim?
Hopefully these questions will help when deciding if you should remove references in an article.For the most part references should not be removed, even if they are deadlinks.- McMatter /(contrib) 11:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's as if you didn't read what you're replying to properly. Removing almost everything that's not supported by a reference is completely uncalled for, and you have not argued the contrary. Misplaced Pages policy is not "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed".Lordelephapia (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
What is the source for your claim that Misplaced Pages policy is "that if it isn't referenced it can be and should be removed". Have you got a reference?Lordelephapia (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
This is simple take a read through Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research both basically state all, but the most obvious, claims require references or inline citations, the entire content I removed from the page had nothing for verification of the information, the onus is now on you or who ever wants to add information back to Prove it.- McMatter /(contrib) 18:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So you are rowing back and saying that rather than "if it isn't referenced it (...) should be removed", which is what you first said, the policy is in fact that that applies only when claims are not among "the most obvious". You also say that it's "simple". And you say that the policies on original research and verification "basically" (a clear case of a weasel word) support your understanding of the policy. Well I claim there is no Misplaced Pages policy that says, "basically" or otherwise, that all claims, or all claims other than the most obvious, must be referenced. If there is such a policy, it would patently obviously be published and I ask you again to post a specific link to it if you think it exists, not a link to long policy articles that you think "basically" communicate that policy or have it as their gist. Those documents are full of summary sentences and you should be able to point to a sentence or paragraph to back up your assertion if you maintain its accuracy. Using words such as "simple", "obviously" and "basically" cannot obscure the fact that you have not cited a source for your very specific but wrong claim about Misplaced Pages's policy.
If you wish to challenge some of the statements that were made in the this article before you deleted most of it, please do so.
Millions of articles at this website contain unreferenced assertions. That's easily verifiable by choosing one at random linked from the main page.Lordelephapia (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)