User talk:BX9438Q/2010
I explained you, references were added and you're still adding that tag, if you do it again, you'll be reported. You can't add tags just because you are not agree with the references. --187.146.57.141 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- You should use this tag Template:Citation needed.--187.146.57.141 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- As I explained, there is only a reference for the first lines. The rest of the two articles, House of Iturbide and House of Habsburg-Iturbide, are unreferenced. That's why there's a tag indicating that the articles need additional sourcing. That tag should remain up until the articles are fully sourced. Does this makes sense?Flyte35 (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- All the rest of the article is referenced. If there's something you "think" is not, you should use this tag Template:Citation needed, no the other tag, because the article already has sources. --187.146.57.141 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't believe that is true. Template:Citation needed is a template used to identify questionable claims that lack a citation to a reliable source.
- The goal of this is to find authoritative references and then add citations. I realize that the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them. But I believe both of these articles, while potential valuable, are questionable since they don't appear to rely on enough sources. Please just look at the two articles. They only have sources FOR THE FIRST LINES. What the are the sources for the rest of the paragraphs in the articles?
- Listen, the aim here is not to get in a silly edit war about two articles of limited interest to most people. The aim is just to try and produce something that is accurate and of reasonably high quality. I'm probably not going to put tags back on those articles because that's going to be a frustrating process. But because apparently this is a matter of interest to you, anonymous editor, I urge you to find sourcing for the rest of the article and include footnotes. If your only source for everything in the article is [1] that's fine, but make that clear.Flyte35 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Resolution: Essentially dropped. More sourcing added, however.
- Listen, the aim here is not to get in a silly edit war about two articles of limited interest to most people. The aim is just to try and produce something that is accurate and of reasonably high quality. I'm probably not going to put tags back on those articles because that's going to be a frustrating process. But because apparently this is a matter of interest to you, anonymous editor, I urge you to find sourcing for the rest of the article and include footnotes. If your only source for everything in the article is [1] that's fine, but make that clear.Flyte35 (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you are the one who changed Dennis Kucinich's wife from being listed as a British citizen to a British subject. I am wondering if there is a citation to show that she is, in fact, a subject, and not a citizen, as British subjects appear to be exceedingly rare. matt kane's brain (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Nope. I was wrong. British citizen is the correct term in this case.Flyte35 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Resolution: My edit reverted.