User talk:Goldsztajn/Archives/2019/October

Award

If I failed to say this before let me take this opportunity to thank you for your nomination @ Editor of the Week. Your nomination will receive the Award tomorrow. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Organisation of Trade Unions of West Africa moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Organisation of Trade Unions of West Africa, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Hi - we've had interactions earlier and I'll WP:AGF with this action, but personally it was not helpful WP:EQ. The subject of the article is clearly notable (note WP:ARTN) so draftifying for a lack of references is redundant, it was created less than 24 hours ago and tagged as under construction. Is it better that a person searching for something about OTUWA finds a short piece, obviously being developed, or finds nothing? My preference is the former, but perhaps that is a philosophical difference between us, however, FWIW, rather than over-patrolling, showing some patience and/or contributing to the expansion of the article (as the tag invites) would have be more collaborative. Regards--Goldsztajn (talk) 10:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Goldztajn, Greetings. As per Wikipedia Content policy of verifibility - See WP:V, All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.- see WP:PROVEIT or WP:BURDEN. Pls added at least 3 independent, reliable source and click the submit button.Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: ...WP:UCS.--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Goldztajn then maybe other can delete all articles in Wikipedia. Please do the needful and add the sources. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

"then maybe other can delete all articles in Wikipedia" ... Can you please clarify what you mean or to what you are referring? What does deletion have to do with the topic at hand?--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Goldztajn Common sense would be to follow the guidelines and do the needful and rightful, if not then editors could just do want the want and delete all the articles if they want. Wikipedia is after all an online Encyclopedia. Without sources, how could we verify the info? In addition, notability is the means "worthy to be noted", even with sources support the content claimed, it might not pass the notability requirement. Furhtermore, not all sourced content means inclusion. I moved the page to draft space, so it may give you time to find the sources to add into the article. Sources can be any languages. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope you will accept this as polite and constructive advice from someone who's been here for 13+ years. Or you can choose to ignore me. As editors we should make judgement calls, the spirit of wikipedia is collaboration, not rule-following. There are so many times where being sensible makes working together easier (and makes wikipedia better). Let me be specific - in this case your action in draftifying the article has created much more unnecessary work (WP:BURO) than if you had been patient and let me get on with finishing the work I was doing. Why? Well, first you wasted time moving the article to draft space. Second, you've wasted time engaging with me on this talk page. Third, you've wasted another editor's time (perhaps your own again) to move the article out of draft space. Whereas, either with some patience or a little collaboration in adding references you found satisfactory, the article (which is obviously notable) would have remained available. The point of me asking you to use WP:UCS is not because I think community consensus is irrelevant, but that WP:LAWYERING hinders collaboration. --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)