User talk:Elderbree TM
Appearance
Welcome to My Talk Page
[edit]Beef tongue
[edit]Please note for future reference that adding "{{cn}}
" is the correct way to express "citation needed". --Cybercobra (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, still learning :) Elderbree TM (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Removal of references
[edit]Please do not remove references from articles without a good explanation. [[1]] --Ronz (talk) 15:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry about that, I meant to explain it, but forgot due to the other edit I did at the same time (should have done it in two separate edits). I removed the link because all the information given in it exist already in the other references provided, and this specific reference seems to exist for either "bloating" the references or, of more concern, to push the inteliuse lawsuit into this article.--Elderbree TM (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't remove references for such reasons. The amount of coverage given to information is important for us to know and represent per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- The reference removed only mention the pertinent material in passing and it is already well covered by other sources used in the article. There is no need to use this specific source, with this specific title as it is clearly a violation of the WP:BLP rules --Elderbree TM (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, we don't remove sources because of their titles. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please link me to the wiki page that says that (I looked and couldn't find anything to support your statement). And beside that point, it is not the title alone that calls for the source removal, and seeing as removing this source doesn't hurt the article I see no reason to keep it. --Elderbree TM (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- This isn't a bureaucracy.
- Encyclopedias are based upon references. We encourage editors to find them to verify and expand articles. References should not be removed based upon personal biases. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- Can you please link me to the wiki page that says that (I looked and couldn't find anything to support your statement). And beside that point, it is not the title alone that calls for the source removal, and seeing as removing this source doesn't hurt the article I see no reason to keep it. --Elderbree TM (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- No, we don't remove sources because of their titles. --Ronz (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The reference removed only mention the pertinent material in passing and it is already well covered by other sources used in the article. There is no need to use this specific source, with this specific title as it is clearly a violation of the WP:BLP rules --Elderbree TM (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please don't remove references for such reasons. The amount of coverage given to information is important for us to know and represent per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)