User talk:Drlellinger
(Redirected from User talk:Martinluck97)
July 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of films featuring time loops, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello Doniago, i think it is rude that you revert my edit only to have someone else revert it again with my exact words and a citation added. Why not add it in the first place or inform me that i need a citation before making a revert? --Martinluck97 (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way. My opinion is that if you look at the article, I think it should be pretty clear from the fact that all of the other entries are cited that you would be expected to provide one as well. My feeling is that if I can identify who added unsourced information, my best option is to give that editor the first chance to provide a source; if they are a new editor, as you appear to be, then this can be a valuable learning experience for them as well. In my experience, when I simply tag information for needing a citation, more than half the time a citation is never ultimately provided and the information ends up being removed in any case. May I ask how deleting information that can easily be re-added while notifying you of the deletion is substantively different from leaving it there for, say, 24 hours, while notifying you? My point is that my experiences here have suggested that while my approach may not be the nicest approach, it does tend to be effective. I'm happy to discuss further, if you'd like. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello DonIago, yes a 24 to 48 hour aproach would be nice. Even though i have few edits in the English wikipedia i have already made over 1000 edits in the German wiki. If a case like that (new movie added to a list) happens, a citation is added when needed (e.g. when the movie ifself has no page or the text presents other facts than the main article); that's probably why i did not added a citation. The be honest, i did not notice until now that every movie in the list has a citation at all because it is not common in the German wikipedia. But thanks for your reasoning - that is not a common way to discuss matters on the internet :) --Martinluck97 (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- It would be pretty great if one could mark information for future deletion with the option for another editor to resolve the problem before the time expired. Sadly, I don't know how that could be implemented. I sometimes wonder what other wikis must be like, but English is the only language I speak with any real competence, so here I am. I think you just called me an uncommon person, so: thanks! I'm glad we could sort this out civilly! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Hello DonIago, yes a 24 to 48 hour aproach would be nice. Even though i have few edits in the English wikipedia i have already made over 1000 edits in the German wiki. If a case like that (new movie added to a list) happens, a citation is added when needed (e.g. when the movie ifself has no page or the text presents other facts than the main article); that's probably why i did not added a citation. The be honest, i did not notice until now that every movie in the list has a citation at all because it is not common in the German wikipedia. But thanks for your reasoning - that is not a common way to discuss matters on the internet :) --Martinluck97 (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry you feel that way. My opinion is that if you look at the article, I think it should be pretty clear from the fact that all of the other entries are cited that you would be expected to provide one as well. My feeling is that if I can identify who added unsourced information, my best option is to give that editor the first chance to provide a source; if they are a new editor, as you appear to be, then this can be a valuable learning experience for them as well. In my experience, when I simply tag information for needing a citation, more than half the time a citation is never ultimately provided and the information ends up being removed in any case. May I ask how deleting information that can easily be re-added while notifying you of the deletion is substantively different from leaving it there for, say, 24 hours, while notifying you? My point is that my experiences here have suggested that while my approach may not be the nicest approach, it does tend to be effective. I'm happy to discuss further, if you'd like. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)