User talk:N2e/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, N2e/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Software Engineering and CS

BTW, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments on Talk:Software engineering. About the only thing I disagree with is your characterization of CS, which I don't believe just focuses on "programming" (for example, one of my own favorite research areas, process calculus, can be applied to the design of things like software architectures and distributed systems, as well as to the specification and generation of test regimes). OTOH, it certainly doesn't focus on engineering a product either. I personally see CS as providing the theoretical tools (such as process calculi :-) that a SE can apply during system design and testing (or redesign in the case of maintenance) to ensure that the software does what it's supposed to do. Just my 2c. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alan, both for the welcome and the comments about CS. I think the words you added about CS in the above paragraph will be a helpful addition to the SE page as it gets cleaned up. As a long-time development manager for Software products, as well as many SW/HW embedded products, I appreciate the theoretical contributions of the most serious of the CS folks I've worked with. But on balance, my view is that the SW industry needs more of the kind of full-lifecycle, engineer-a-cost-effective-product-that-meets-the-business-need-when-it-is-needed kind of training & perspective for the folks who are turning out the code. Maybe its a ratio thing, if the current ratio of programmers working in industry is 90%+ CS-oriented folks, and 10% or so SE-oriented or SE-educated folks (and this is just an illustration), then I think it would be better to have the ratio of SE folks increase. I updated the Talk:Software engineering page to attempt to clarify that my comments are more focused on the typical undergrad-educated gal/guy who is working in industry as a programmer, and not on the discipline of CS. (Aside: although many programmers might very well have the title 'Software Engineer' on their human resource record or business card, my personal experience of 20+ years in the industry is that by far most operate as 'programmers' and not Software Engineers.) I would like to make a significant contribution to the SE page cleanup, but just do not have the time right now. Thanks again for your input. --N2e 16:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You say ...my view is that the SW industry needs more of the kind of full-lifecycle, engineer-a-cost-effective-product-that-meets-the-business-need-when-it-is-needed kind of training & perspective for the folks who are turning out the code. And I agree 100%. My own training is as an engineer (EE — with a little SE — and Aerospace), and I find the current state of much of what passes for "software engineering" quite disappointing. I guess mostly because much of what is called "software engineering" really doesn't take an engineering approach. IMHO David Parnas pretty much hit the nail on the head with his article "Software Engineering Programmes are not Computer Science Programmes" (which I've used as a reference on the SE page).

I look forward to seeing your contributions to the SE article. I too would like to clean it up, but like you I lack the time right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Economics problem

I'll certainly have a look and see if its anything I can assist with if you let me know what the issue and project are. Ian3055 21:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Photos of Irish level crossing

Yeah, sure, I'll take a look. With all the images there already though, we'll probably have to resort to using <gallery> tags to display everything. Perhaps you could add some text describing the differences between Irish crossings and those already described. Slambo (Speak) 18:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're Welcome

My pleasure =). alphaChimp ^laudare 02:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Proposal IV: Categories for military units

Yes, that's assumed; see, for example, Category:Battles by country to see how broadly "country" is interpreted here. We have categories there for city-states, religious orders, militant groups, and tribes; they're just lumped together to avoid having a dozen different "by country"/"by group"/"by nationality"/"by international organization"/etc. categories. Kirill Lokshin 20:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation

Yes I can interpret 'under C2 of MNF-I". The 36th CAB is under the Command and Control (military)(C2) of Multinational Force Iraq. You'll see at MNF-Iraq that I've placed them, as a guess, without much further knowledge, under 4th Infantry Division. Could you ask First Army Public Affairs: "..which subordinate formation of Multi-National Corps Iraq the 36th is under??" Cheers Buckshot06 04:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Revert War

I have taken note of the revert war currently going on. The mediation is currently going on via e-mail, and I am very pleased with the courteous discussion we are having. It's probably going to take awhile, but I do feel that the mediation is going to be successful. As for where to report revert wars...if you feel someone is violating the three revert rule, then you need to report it here. Otherwise, short of staying clear, there's not much you can do. Hope this can help. ^demon^{[yell at me]} 03:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

36th Combat Aviation Brigade

Hi N2e, I added the 36th CAB to the Iraq War order of battle page. Sorry it took me so long to respond to your suggestion but I haven't had much time in the past few works to work on the page. I added the 36th CAB under the United States since it was a brigade-level deployment, although I think it would be good to add some sort of note on the page that gives a sense of how many Guard and Reserve units are deployed in Iraq. Thanks for the suggestion and I hope you like my addition. Cheers, (Dsw 14:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC))

Hey, got your message about adding the 36th CAB. Thank you very much for your kind comments and I plan to do a better job of keeping the page up-to-date in the future. Feel free to suggest any additions in the future. I think we should keep the additions to larger units, like brigades, multi-unit Guard deployments, etc. I also would like to come up with a way to reflect the number of National Guardsmen and Reservists who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you have any ideas, let me know. Cheers, Dsw 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

No problem; I've just been trying to clear up all the backlogged merge tags. Hopefully the page can get cleaned up before it reaches the end of the clean-up backlog a year from now. Good wiki hunting, comrade. -- DSGruss 20:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)

You participated in the first AFD, so you may be interested in the second AFD over the recreated article. THF 12:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sailwx

A tag has been placed on Sailwx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jfire (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hang on please. I will put together an encyclopedic paragraph for the Sailwx article on why this service is important or notable. Sorry for any bother; I was unaware that such was required and I guess I thought the notability of such a real-time mapping service would be obvious, and of great interest to the Wikipedia community. I have used the sailwx site for several years now to get a handle on shiping in congested areas, especially around the time of several of the recent maritime piracy incidents in the contested Malaccan Straits. I was, quite frankly, very surprised to find that Wikipedia had no information about the service at all today when I tried to learn more about it.

Just for reference, Wikipedia does have four pages that have a link to sailwx.info for ship or drilling platform location information, but no page that tells what sailwx is all about. That is why I took the time to creat a reasonably well-wikified intial stub for it. N2e (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale has been added to the article, and an additional rationale has been added to the Talk page. Will now wait to see what other editors think about it. 01:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

International standard

On the talk page for International standard you have suggested expanding the article. An anon editor has proposed merging it with other standards articles and seems to be proceeding. Do you have any thoughts on this? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows file associations

Hi - This procedure should work to associate the files in WinXP:

• Place a .ogg file on your desktop
• Right-click the file and choose Open With -> Choose Program
• Choose your desired program & make sure "Always use..." is checked
• Press OK

Let me know if this works! -SCEhardT 22:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Guitjo (six-string)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Guitjo (six-string), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Guitjo. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is now cleaned up. The disambiguation page had not yet "gone live" so the bot thought it saw a duplicated article that wasn't. N2e (talk) 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ciliopathies

Hi, well done on writing ciliopathy and sourcing it quite so well to a good recent review. I'd be careful, however, in dropping this in too many articles unless there is really good reason to do so. On obesity, for instance, you suggested that obesity is a symptom of ciliopathies; that is simply incorrect for the majority of diseases listed on the ciliopathy page. I don't think it is possible to mark out specific symptoms of ciliopathies; the link between these diseases is not in the realm of symptoms, but on a molecular level. I can offer you a couple of other examples of diseases that are molecularly related yet share few symptoms (e.g. the serpinopathies). Hope this clarifies why I removed your addition from obesity. JFW | T@lk 05:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks JFW for the kind words on the effort I've been making on the ciliopathy article. To your comment about the addition I made to the obesity article, you said:

Hi, well done on writing ciliopathy and sourcing it quite so well to a good recent review. I'd be careful, however, in dropping this in too many articles unless there is really good reason to do so. On obesity, for instance, you suggested that obesity is a symptom of ciliopathies; that is simply incorrect for the majority of diseases listed on the ciliopathy page. I don't think it is possible to mark out specific symptoms of ciliopathies; the link between these diseases is not in the realm of symptoms, but on a molecular level. I can offer you a couple of other examples of diseases that are molecularly related yet share few symptoms (e.g. the serpinopathies). Hope this clarifies why I removed your addition from obesity. JFW | T@lk 05:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would of course agree that it would be absurd to suggest that, as you said, "obesity is a symptom of ciliopathies" -- that is why I made every effort to avoid saying anything like that. I added just this single sentence to the obesity article: "Obesity is one symptom reported in a newly discovered class of genetic diseases known as ciliopathies" which I sourced from this journal article: Badano, Jose L. (September 2006). "The Ciliopathies : An Emerging Class of Human Genetic Disorders". Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 7: 125–148. doi:10.1146/annurev.genom.7.080505.115610. Retrieved 2008-06-15. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) What I was trying to say is that there is now, as of some fairly recent developments in the genetics literature, at least a plausible hypothesis that one potential cause (underlying molecular cause, or underlying genetic cause) for some particular cases of clinically observed obesities is ciliopathy. Perhaps my use of the word "symptom" was a mistake; but I thought "one potential genotype for the obesity phenotype is ciliopathy" to be rather too esoteric. Perhaps the entire sentence needs to be rewritten. But I do think it is an appropriate addition to the Obesity article.

I will of course appreciate any help you can give for fitting a correct and encyclopedic statement of this into the article. I'll start a discussion of it on the Obesity talk page. Thanks again for your comment, and for your obvious concern for an encyclopedic Wikipedia. N2e (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure if mention of ciliopathies is helpful at the moment. It is perhaps a step too far. Yes, obesity occurs in Bardet-Biedl and in diabetes, which in turn are or may be ciliopathies, but it is not a unifying feature of the ciliopathies that makes this (really very novel) entity desparately worth mentioning on obesity.

Obviously I have no access to the Badano et al paper. Could you tell me what they actually say about obesity? If all they say that obesity is a symptom of Bardet-Biedl I think we should let the matter rest. If they have anything more to say, do let me know. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Gossen's laws

I stumbled upon your request, and creäted a very stubby article on the three laws named for Gossen. —SlamDiego_←T 04:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I subsequently created a not-so-stubby article on Gossen's second law. —SlamDiego_←T 08:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SlamDiego! N2e (talk) 06:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Crystal template on Ariane 5 Upcoming flights section

I totally sympathize with your apparent frustration with the lack of source citations in the Upcoming flights section of the Ariane 5 article, and totally support your addition of the {{unreferenced section}} template there. The use of {{crystal}} there doesn't seem quite as apt, however. The flights listed are of vehicles which are in the process of being constructed, and the operators of the payloads to be launched have contracts with Arianespace for rides aboard those vehicles. This is no where close to, say, speculation about when Earth will first be contacted by alien lifeforms! Would you be willing to remove the {{crystal}} banner at least temporarily and instead discuss this on the article's talk page? (sdsds - talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Done. N2e (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bingham Canyon Mine

I reverted your last edit, but left a note for you about it on the talk page.[1] My suggestion is you leave in the partial reference until you can source it completely with something better or add another reference to it. In the meantime you can use a fact tag or add questions on the talk page, or a list about information you see that requires better sourcing. Please respond on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The ref I removed was a recently added ref to a webpage that did not, in fact, support any of the information in the {unreferenced} paragraph. I'm quite sure that the editor who added that reference added it in good faith. It just doesn't support the claims. There is still no verifiable source for the assertions. I had thought the best option was to remove the incorrect ref completely and leave the {unref} tag in place. But since you prefer the incorrect ref be left in the article, I have now left it in but tagged it {citecheck}. Hope that helps. N2e (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't prefer an incorrect reference be left in. Please read your edit summary, my edit summary, and the actual comments I made here. You implied by saying it did not support all of the information that it did indeed support some. Please clarify, if it does not support any of the information simply say its a gratuitous reference and doesn't support the information in the article. But don't say one thing in your edit summary when you mean something else, then accuse me of wanting an incorrect reference left in the article. You're the one who seems to want that by not calling it an incorrect reference, but rather a partical reference in your edit summary. --Blechnic (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Falcon 1

I saw that you left an unencyclopedic tag on Falcon 1. It would be helpful if you could add a comment on the talk page explaining how the issues with the flight 3 timeline section can be resolved. Wronkiew (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Comments added. N2e (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In-line notation

So are you for in-line notations when 90% of the notations would be to the same document/reference? Hooperswim (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question Hooperswim. If you'd care to clarify I'll take a stab at an answer. N2e (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You left a tag on the List of United States records in swimming page that said in-line references/citations were needed. The page is directly referenced/sourced from USA Swimming's tracking of the records, which is linked/listed in the intro. At the moment, all the records can be verified there. Are you wanting to see a reference on every time to that same document? Hooperswim (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Need help with cite-format (article almost ready for another FAC)

Hi. I hope you don't mind me dropping in uninvited. I found you at the Citation cleanup project. You see, the article on Sitakunda Upazila failed an FAC mostly because of cite-format issues (inconsistent format, missing bits of information etc.). I have fixed all the issues raised, but, I feel, an expert hand may be needed to fix further problems. Would you take a look? Please? I, of course will be there to provide any clarification or information necessary. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

T-Mobile G1 Page

Someone move the T-Mobile G1 page to 'HTC Dream' page without garnering consensus as you suggested. Could you repair the page as I don't know how to undo a move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.118.85 (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Francis Eaton edits

I'm afraid, N2e, that I missed the tags you placed on this article about 5 weeks ago. In practice, I usually leave such tags for 6 months or a year before taking any action, making the assumption that the original editor(s) may not stay on top of all the articles they've been involved with at a higher rate. The situation is rarely more urgent than that.

Anyway, I'm the one responsible for the wording that seems to have bothered you. You are correct, that the "fact" that Eaton had some level of literacy is worthy of documentation.

I am startled, though, that you suspect the statement "This literacy may have been connected with his religion and the Protestant belief in the power of individual Biblical interpretation" is original research. The distinctions between the Catholic and Protestant religious beliefs of that period are pretty widely recognized, and sufficiently close to "common knowledge" as to be a little trivial for referencing.

Even more unusual, I think, is your apparent belief that some sort of original research was used to determine that a skill in house carpentry would have been in demand among the colonists when they were building houses, and your willingness to delete the statement when no proof of external sourcing was provided.

I have added a ref for the literacy statement, and have reversed your earlier edits.

If you wish to continue to dispute the other two points, I hope you will provide some sort of explanation. Tim Ross (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Private Spaceflight Companies

Thanks for the head's up on the meta-discussion. I'd love to be a part of it. As it stood, I liked a lot of what was said on the NewSpace and Private Spaceflight pages both in the articles themselves and their talk pages. A discussion that treated this essentially as a project of its own may be the only effective way forward. I don't have many others to bring to the table. For much of my time editing this article and commenting on Private spaceflight I seemed to be talking mostly to myself. It's very refreshing to not feel like I'm in an echo chamber. aremisasling (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and for what it's worth, I have quite the affinity for Australia. It's been years (in fact over a decade) since my one trip there and of all the places I've been, I want to go back there. My wife studied there and still keeps several Australianisms intentionally so 'Good on ya' is about as familiar to me as my upper midwestern US 'ey' after every sentence. aremisasling (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Kistler

Thanks! I'm sure someone will be able to use that to improve the article. ~ MD Otley (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Synthetic fuel

Hi, N2e. There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. As you have contributed to the article and/or discussion, you may be interested to participate in the discussion about the article improvement. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Citations

I was trying to get Harvard to work and link it to the references below but was no sure how to do it, so I asked the help desk and that's why they weren't fully complete. I dont see how the other one is any easier to use. --Martin Raybourne (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the citations (I think) in the ballistic vest article. The tungsten carbide cored bullet made by Bofors AG is hard to get a full ref for but I will look for trade pub or a US Army spec to tighten this up. --Bodyarmor (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Why bring back Socionomics

The article has been through the deletion process twice and the consensus has been delete twice. Why bother trying it again? Smallbones (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. So it has been AfD'd twice? Nothing informed me of that fact when I created the article yesterday, using entirely an existing section from another article. But to your question, here's why I created the article: I had read the Journal of Behavioral Finance article on Socionomics (sometime in 2008) and looked up "Socionomics" on Wikipedia yesterday just to try to see if I could find any new sources. That name search did a redir to the Robert Prechter article where I found a section on Socionomics. That section was well cited, and having personally put a lot of my recent Wikipedia work into hundreds of junk articles with no references whatsoever, and knowing that Socionomics is a theory within Finance and Economics (contested, but it is extant), I just thought it was sufficiently notable to have an article. I will look into it further when I have the time. N2e (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The second deletion had a vague closing, consensus to me seemed to be delete, but the closer said something like "delete or merge", but the note on the discussion page just says delete. I'd just put it back to a redirect to Prechter, especially since you haven't added anything. Smallbones (talk) 16:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll nominate this for deletion again and salting in the near future unless I hear from you. Smallbones (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

Has a list of templates, it occasionally (when I tell it too, and if I don't forget at least around the 1st of the month) goes off and finds all the redirects to those on the list. Therefore there are three states (probably more):

• a->b and SB knows about it
• a->b but SB thinks b->a
• a->b but SB thinks a->c

Really the only problems come from the third scenario, when someone decides to point a off somewhere else (including itself). IF there are new redirects added I pick them up in the end. At the moment there are.. um about 300 templates and about another 1000 redirect I think. Rich Farmbrough, 05:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Ok the answer is I don't know but SmackBot does. I used to maintain these list manually, it is now semi-automatic. However I looked and saw that {{Inline}} does indeed WP:redirect to {{No footnotes}}, whereas once it was {{Citations missing}} (and for a month or so {{Nofootnotes}}). It should never have been {{More footnotes}} unless someone foolishly made an {{InLine}} or something. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

Not really. Basically it only replaces them with the template they redirect to. However this is fairly close to a list of the target templates. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC).

WP:V

You will find that if you delve into the depths of WP:V] and inline citations that where facts are already referenced on linked articles, there is no need to add unnecessary references. Tagging facts that already have references for verified facts merely creates unnecessary work for editors. When I reverted your edit I drew you attention to this. Regards, Justin talk 08:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible alchemic origin of dollar sign

Regarding the tag of possible WP:OR you added to the alternate hypothesis of the origin of the Dollar/Peso sign... I added that section after I stumbled across it in a dictionary of occult symbols. I am not the Fred Gettings who wrote that book, therefore my addition was not original research. Frotz (talk) 22:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That seems plausible. Just be sure there is a verifiable citation from the book you used as a source then. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Though it's a very rare book, you can see the relevant page in Google Books. There you will clearly see that Gettings cited that symbol as appearing in an alchemic text dating from 1701. Frotz (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to look up the source on Google books but should note that the claim should be made in Wikipedia only if that author (Gettings) makes the claim in his book. If you, as a Wikipedia editor, see the symbol, note it's similarity to the dollar sign, and then you make the claim that it could be an origin for the dollar sign, then that is synthesis, a type of original research. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy

I have nominated ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Soxwon (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolution of the AfD was KEEP after the AfD process, with 17 editors arguing for KEEP and zero for DELETE. N2e (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi, I've been watching your editing on the offshore wind farms article for some time. I admire your enthusiasm but I think that you should be aware that you have added little that is useful. I have never seen someone add so many individual cn tags to an article, even to blue linked article titles. Your extensive discussion of the Hywind turbine in the lead is really out of place, as the lead is the place to summarize the article, not get bogged down in detail. And now you are adding redlink wind farm proposals where we don't even have the megawatt capacity for them. I would suggest that you concentrate on adding some more blue linked wind farm articles to the page, if you wish to do something more constructive. Johnfos (talk) 07:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Johnfos for the feedback. I appreciate the constructive engagement. As for the recent redlinks, I was simply adding the names of proposed wind farms, from a valid source and with citation, to the Proposed section of the article; this is appropriate. I left the names of the new farms wikilinked simply because several other proposed wind farms in that section had been left (red) wikilinked by others. I'll be most happy to remove those links as I don't really find the wikilink-before-article-exists practice a good one for the betterment of Wikipedia. I'll also look at the lede for excessive Hywind attention. What is ledeworthy is that new floating wind technologies have come off of the drawing board and are now up and running with large commercial size turbines in deep-water. This is quite important for offshore windfarms, and I was attempting to get a brief summary sort of notice of the new technologies into the lede.

As for your more substantive criticism that little useful has been improved by my editing, let's just say that I do not agree. See the article before any of my edits in June 2009 versus here, following my most recent edit in September. In June, 70% of the "Under Construction" wind farms were unsourced, making them in danger of being completely removed from Wikipedia under Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence; today, 100% of that section is sourced by verifiable citations. The Operational section also is considerably more cited today than in June. That is real wikiprogress. Having said that, I will plan to make some changes to remove all of the redlinks in the proposed section (not just mine) and see if I can tighten up the lede with respect to the new floating technology -- but that may be hard to do without some mention of the timing and recent operational status of the first one, Hywind.

Let us continue any discussion on this topic on the article talk page so all editors interested in the article may join in. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made the changes to remove all redlinks and decrease the Hywind emphasis in the lede. N2e (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

New Proposals

Hey N2e, I saw your reply on Talk:State. I'm thinking a change in title is in order... Can you read my proposal and tell me what you think? I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Night w (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Done!

It would be useful to have your comments at Talk:Cyrus. PatGallacher (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! N2e (talk) 11:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories

The Government of BOT is already cited, no offence but do you feel it is a productive use of your time to wander round wikipedia tagging articles? Basically you create work for other editors but don't do the donkey work of finding citations for yourself. A more productive use of time would be finding citations if you feel they're needed. 21:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. There are a great many assertions in that article that are merely uncited claims, they do not meet the core Wikipedia policy of WP:V. If, on the other hand, some assertion is made lower in an article that is already cited above, then I would think we should want to remove the redundant claim. As for finding and adding citations myself, in just the 24 hours prior to your note I probably added 25 or 30 citations to Wikipedia. But any particular editor's work in adding citations is irrelevant to WP core policy of verifiability, either way. If you have further thoughts on citing that particular article (British Overseas Territories), let's discuss it on the BOT talk page. N2e (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Similar username

Have you ever encountered NE2? Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No, can't say as I have. The username doesn't ring a bell. I haven't done a search of my contributions or talk however so it is possible. N2e (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

4Frontiers Corporation

With pages like this representing only a small sample of media coverage (not including books and published papers), I have to wonder about your use of the notability tag. In the future, before you tag an article, please try to do some research first. This also means doing research before adding a "citation needed" tag. If you don't have time to do these things, then you probably shouldn't be tagging articles. Viriditas (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding some references to begin to source that article, which looked largely like an out-of-date, possibly non-notable, advertisement previously. The article still needs more cleanup and inline citations to be verifiably sourced and not subject to challenge. N2e (talk) 23:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Signing

Hi there N2e. Just dropping by to remind you to make sure you always sign your comments, which you didn't do here. Best, :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the reminder. I usually do so -- must have neglected it in some instance you are referring to. N2e (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Mora County, New Mexico

Curious about your edit summary here — how is BLP related to people in the nineteenth century? Please leave me a talkback. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. That is my error in the edit summary. Nothing to do with BLP, so I have reverted the edit to make that clear to all editors, not just you. I'll come back to that article another day for the substantive edit. Thanks for letting me know about it! N2e (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia verification policy / British Overseas Territories 2

I see you've revived a dormant discussion. Respectfully I have to completely disagree. Drive by tagging and adding a load of {{cn}} tags to an article is worse than useless for any editor following. If you tag them at the end, then no one has any idea of what exactly you're disputing or feel needs attention. It isn't a courtesy, it is actually bloody irritating and arrogant in the extreme to make work for other editors with such tags. If is also disrespectful, when facts are cited earlier in an article but you miss it when you've skim read. Sorry but I really do see it as unhelpful and counter productive and if you like reading wiki essays, I would commend WP:SOFIXIT. If you see something that needs fixing, then fix it yourself. Justin talk 09:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging the issue. I would agree with you that we will have to simply agree to disagree, respectfully, as you said. Wikipedia's policy of verifiability is not optional; it is a core policy. Thus, such tags in an article are not "worse than useless" as you assert. They are a courtesy to those editors who care most about a particular article, or are perhaps are knowledgeable or expert about where the secondary literature might support the assertions being made. Unless someone who cares comes along to reliably support the unsourced claims with inline citations, they have no place in a quality encyclopedia. Furthermore, per WP:BURDEN, it is the editor who wants the unsourced material to remain in an article that has the burden to cite it, or add it back to the article later once a source has been found. So I see the {{citation needed}} tag as a simple courtesy to other editors to allow some time to pass before a specific challenge is made by deleting the unsourced claims. That's the general philosophy.

If you think the WP policy ought to be changed, then best to take your comments to the Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. Or if you have specifics about clearer citations or citation needed tags in a particular article, or why some particular article is different and need not comply with the core WP policy, I would suggest that particular articles' talk page is the best place to discuss that. N2e (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

please be more careful

It's fine to clean up headings and look for suspicious language, but look before you leap. Our article Neuston and a quick google scholar search would have shown the specific relevance of this term to the GPGP article (as would the section immediately preceding the one you tagged. here's the relevant google search (This is generally good editing practice in general, not just this article.) Sorry for the snippy tone, but your edit annoyed me for its sheer indolence. Apologies. Eusebeus (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted on the Talk page, Neuston was not linked in the rather esoteric title of the section heading being discussed. It was certainly no foul to suggest it might need clarification. Once I found the Neuston article, from digging through the edit summaries, I now know what the section title is saying. As I suggested in my proposal on the Talk page, I believe many other readers will be confused also. While you do not agree, other editors have agreed with my suggestion. Resolve the issue on the talk page.N2e (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations

When you edit an article like "Salton Sea" with "citation needed" just to make more work for other LOOK at the article..You posted "citation needed" on the volcanic activity in the area NEXT TO A PIC OF MUD VOLCANOS and MUD POTS taken there..

Kinda don't NEED a citation if there is a picture that says more than a thousand words on the subject. It's beraucratic and makes more work for others who've actually done the work rather than bumping up edit counts by "fixing" (see: basically doing nothing) articles.

Read the whole articles first before throwing "CNs" everywhere.--seattlehawk94 (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC) PEACE...

Actually, photos submitted to Wikimedia are generally not considered reliable sources for assertions made in an article. I see that some other editor has pointed this out since I suggested a citation was needed for the claim, and since you made your comment about the Salton Sea article above.

WP:V is a core policy of Wikipedia and article citations are simply a way of adding a source to a claim so that other editors or readers may verify that a particular claim in this, hopefully, quality encyclopedia is based on verifiable information. Notably, you are incorrect in your assessment of my motive, and generally it is not a good idea to presume motive about anothers' actions. And on Wikipedia in particular, policy is to comment on content, not on the contributor.N2e (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In my experience N2e is a good editor but he tends to get carried away with inline cn tagging. I have previously tried to discuss this on this Talk page, in regard to the List of offshore wind farms article, but didn't get very far. -- Johnfos (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back Johnfos. I previously addressed your concern here. And if you focus on the article and not the editor, I think you will find that List of offshore wind farms is, today, a very well-cited article whereas it was not in June 2009 before I began my efforts to improve that article's sourcing per WP:V. N2e (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Adam Smith House

So the problem photo is the one with the building, correct? Since it's at Commons and I'm not an admin there, I can't directly change the name. However, if you can suggest a more appropriate title, I can request that the image be renamed there. Isn't complicated at all. As for your images, if you think they would be useful to the article (or another article), you're certainly free to upload them at Commons. Use the existing images relating to Adam Smith at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith to best figure out how to categorise them. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the title of that photo is "Adam Smith House, Kirkcaldy.jpg" when it is plainly NOT Smith's house in Kirkcaldy. As the plaque mounted on the column at 220 High Street (too small to see in that photo, but in the book citation I gave) plainly says, it was the approximate location of his mother's house, in which A.S. lived when he wrote substantial parts of Wealth of Nations. The photo is of a 19th-century building near that location. Not sure of the best title, but something like "19th-century building near where Adam Smith lived 1767-1776" or whatever. The file image description is also wrong. Perhaps "2009 photo of 19th-century building near where Adam Smith lived 1767-1776, 220 High Street, Kirkcaldy, Fife, Scotland" would be more accurate.

As for my photos, I tend the think of them as unnoteworthy. However, if another editor asks me for them, I'll figure out how to upload them. N2e (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Adam_Smith_House,_Kirkcaldy.jpg&diff=35597053&oldid=35595691 — Huntster (t @ c) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Huntster! I think that will get the file renamed and avoid confusion in the future. I appreciate your help. N2e (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Citation in article Slovenia

To what does "citation needed" refer: to life expectancy or suicide rate? If the last one, then citation is not needed, because link in the same sentence provide the fact. --Jonson22 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is for the entire paragraph, and both claims. The life expectancy claim is totally unsourced. The suicide rate claim is not correctly sourced per WP:V as Wikipedia is not considered a valid source for Wikipedia claims. See WP:CIRCULAR for more info. N2e (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added a source to the article for the suicide rate claim. Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that Wikipwedia is not considered as valid source. But at that page List of countries by suicide rate there is reference for provided data [2]. So I thought this is enough. I fixed and added needed reference. Thanks anyway. --Jonson22 (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Potential images...

It is possible that some kind of fair-use rationale could be devised, but it's going to be awful difficult to justify replacing any of our existing images. First, the image resolution will be significantly lower than our current images, and there is that watermark that we'd have to crop out. I'm not seeing anything in that video that would be useful except for, perhaps, the full graphic of Genesis (and even that isn't of very good quality). So yes, it is possible, but no, I wouldn't recommend it. However, once I make some more progress with my rewrites, I'm going to contact Chris Reed at Bigelow and see if he has any more quality graphics that he'd want to provide (he's responsible for several of our existing images). — Huntster (t @ c) 00:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Great answer. Thanks Hunster! I am pleased to know the usage rationale is possible, even though I agree with you that, in this case and due to the poor resolution in that small video, it would not be worth doing. N2e (talk) 18:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take another look

Could you please take another look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mondrian programming language discussion? I believe I have given good enough sources to necessitate the changing of your vote. Thank you. Silverseren^C 23:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Betty Parris

Please remove the CN tag you replaced in the article. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into the Talk page and discuss it there. N2e (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the way you have done this, and think it is contary to the spirit of the guidelines. You have made fixing this article harder. Troll somewhere else please. John5Russell3Finley (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not really that complicated. I added a {{citation needed}} tag to the "earliest appearances" part of the claim: "Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances...". I didn't delete the (unsupported) assertion. The existing (primary) source (at the end of the sentence) is not one which discusses in which works of fiction Betty Parris makes her earliest appearance. Thus, Wikipedia should not claim this as it is not supported by a verifiable, reliable secondary source -- so the cn tag should remain. Otherwise it is merely original research or synthesis. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Related response at User talk:Jeepday —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock (talk • contribs) 11:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I am copying User:JeepdaySock's response to User:John5Russell3Finley here, as a record of an Admin's position on the {{citation needed}} kerfuffle:

* On the surface I am not seeing a problem, I am also not seeing where you have edited the page Betty Parris, but assume it must have been as an IP. The summary by N2e here is correct. The statement "Betty Parris makes one of her earliest appearances..." is original research if the only source is the book listed. Tags should remain until the indicated correction is made. From your description above, and your comments on User talk:N2e it seems like you asking N2e to remove a correctly placed {{citation needed}} tag because you might find a reference someday. The most appropriate action would be for you to discuss it on Talk:Betty Parris where N2e started the conversation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that exactly comports with my position. I have focused on "discussing the article, not the editor." No fight has been started, nor intended. The article has a claim that is unsupported; the tag ought to stay until it is fixed. Quite simple, really.N2e (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild banking familty of France

Re your edit with comment "removed unsourced assertion that had been fact-tagged for more than two months; add back in if you have a verifiable source you can cite.)" - That the family's economic power declined is an indisputable fact and if unreferenced for two months, is meaningless. But nonretheless, that the section needed refs doesn't mean their power "increased". Why replace something because you claim it is unreferenced with another unreferenced statement? If in fact, you looked at ALL the family sections and the vast majority of the bios and related articles, you would see that one contributor (David Warner) who demonstrated a great deal of knowledge did it all including clear text on the family's decline of economic power. Handicapper (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure which edit you are talking about. I did a quick look and was unable to locate any edit where I removed claims on the "decline of the families economic power". The only recent edit (since April 2010) I seem to have made to that article is deleting the sentence:

Since 1916, members of the family have been vacationing at Megève, an exclusive ski resort in the Haute Savoie département of France, a place that Noémie de Rothschild is responsible for developing and where the family maintains a substantial investment.{{Citation needed}} (since September 2009.)

I deleted that sentence simply because it was not verified by any reliable secondary source citation. Let me know if you have any other, or more specific, questions. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor edit

While I agree that unreferenced material sometimes can (and should) be removed, please note that such edits (e.g., [3], [4] & [5]) do not match WP:MINOR. With the exception of dealing with vandalism, minor edit should never be used when removing material from an article. Though more commonly used (and arguably less significant than the deletion of sections), minor edit is also discouraged when adding templates, as it then is more easy to miss for the people most likely to deal with it; editors patrolling recent changes or with the page on watch. Cheers • Rabo³ • 01:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point Rabo. I was not aware of those criteria developed by the Wikicommunity on the use of the "minor" check box. Actually, in my case, I hardly ever think about it explicitly. The WP software allows one to configure a default for the checkbox, and I did that many years ago. I figured then that, as one who believes in significant change through the complex adaptive emergence of many small changes "at the margins", my changes would nearly always be "minor." But seeing there is a policy on it, I'll just change the default to not check that checkbox. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, N2e. You have new messages at Talk:Comparison of super heavy lift launch systems.
Message added 21:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Shell Flat

The article Shell Flat has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This proposed wind farm has essentially been abandoned, with planning permission application withdrawn, leaving this as a un-noteable abandoned project

Hello there N2e, I'm proposing the deletion of Shell Flat, as the proposal is dead, leaving nothing notable about the wind farm. I'm letting you know, because you seem to be the editor who's been most active on it in the last few months.

Ernestfax^Talk 10:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Then if that is the case, the Shell Flat wind farm ought to be deleted. I'll look into the AfD page. (BTW, I have no special affinity to Shell Flat, just trying to clean up Wikipedia after I did some work on other wind turbine/wind farm related pages.) Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Additional spacecraft template

Yes, I'm still wanting to make the template, I've just got a lot of real life stuff to attend to. Hopefully I'll be able to start tackling this in a day or so. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Super. Feel free to call on me if you want a sort of beta test review of it. N2e (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I've been thinking about this, and I'd like to come up with something that would replace {{Infobox cargo spacecraft}} yet accommodate crewed vehicles. So, individual groups of parameters would include "Specifications" (for general stats), "Cargo", 'Human factors' (using another name; includes number of crew, consumables time, etc...I need suggestions for these params), 'Mission data' (for use for individual missions, such as Progress launches, to include orbits and time aloft, etc). Looking at Infobox cargo spacecraft, there's just a ton of information that has no real reason to be in an infobox. "First docking" and "Second docking"? This is much better left in the prose. Things like periapsis and apoapsis isn't needed either, since most flights are going to have very similar data, and those fields are really only of interest on missions like Hubble and other conventional satellites. Perhaps simply something like "Average altitude", since most will be fairly circular. Basically, that infobox is beyond overkill for these types of spacecraft, especially since an Infobox is just supposed to cover the major points of what is already in the article, not be a standalone source of data. So, give me some ideas regarding human factors, etc, and I'm going to look toward paring down the cargo template in my rewrite. Keep an eye on User:Huntster/Sandbox/2; I'll toss up a list soon (I hope). — Huntster (t @ c) 05:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Great. Sounds like you are really thinking on this. I'll get over to your /Sandbox/2 location and try to help by providing "requirements" input and review. N2e (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I'm dealing with some medical problems right now, so that's going to limit me. Ugh, if it isn't one thing, it's another. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Mate. Hope you get to feeling better soon. Wikipedia and the space templates can wait. N2e (talk) 03:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Space debris

I removed the text about the Transhab from the space debris article. I moved it to the talk page with an explanation why I don't think the current form should be there, or at least located where it was. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to get over there to take a look. N2e (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Submission at Articles for creation

Your article submission has been declined, and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/BOTE was not created. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer, and please feel free to resubmit once the issues have been addressed. (You can do this by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article.) Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you may have missed the rationale I presented. I had left it in a <!-- hidden --> comment in the text of the proposed disambig page. (which I now think was a poor choice.) The point is, there are currently two WP articles on BOTE/Bote; therefore there should be a disambig page. I'll leave a comment on your Talk page. N2e (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

{{talkback|Kraftlos|Creating_a_disambig_page_for_Bote|ts=20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)}}

That's great. Thanks for offering another set of eyes on how to do that. N2e (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added a disambig tag to the existing bote article, in keeping with the decision twice made (original AfC request and again on my request for a review) by User:Kraftlos. Future work to improve bote will fall to other editors. N2e (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories 3

Regarding this [6]

You've removed a well known, commonly acknowledged fact. Again is it really productive to wander round wikipedia tagging facts and then going back to remove them. See WP:SOFIXIT, instead you make work for others, remove content. Why? Justin talk 20:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Justin—It appears reasonable people would disagree that it was a "commonly acknowledged fact." That assertion had a {{citation needed}} tag on it that was over a year old. The specific assertion I removed, "Gibraltar's coat of arms is unique in that it is the only armorial insignia that dates from before the period of British colonial administration.", has, I believe, several assertions within it that should not come out of the head of any Wikipedia editor, even one who is quite knowledgeable, and believes that such knowledge is "common knowledge." It could be true of course, but without a citation there is no way to verify the claim, which is not in accord with WP:V.

So I think we will have to simply agree to disagree, respectfully, as you once said on a previous occasion. Wikipedia's policy of verifiability is not optional; it is a core policy. A citation needed tag in an article is a courtesy to those editors who care most about a particular article, or are perhaps are knowledgeable or expert about where the secondary literature might support the assertions being made. Unless someone who cares comes along to reliably support the unsourced claims with inline citations, they have no place in a quality encyclopedia. Furthermore, per WP:BURDEN, it is the editor who wants the unsourced material to remain in an article that has the burden to cite it, or add it back to the article later once a source has been found.

If you think the WP policy ought to be changed, then best to take your comments to the Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability or Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources. Or if you have specifics about clearer citations or citation needed tags in a particular article, or why some particular article is different and need not comply with the core WP policy, I would suggest that particular articles' talk page is the best place to discuss that.N2e (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful if someone asks a question about your editing behaviour to presume its based on a personal attack. I asked you then and I ask you now if you really do think your editing practise is helpful. You drive by, you tag facts at random and in truth it is difficult given your practise of dropping a tag at the end of paragraphs to know what fact you actually dispute. Per WP:SOFIXIT, the idea of wikipedia is that if anyone can edit, that includes you and if you perceive a problem then you can fix it. My problem with your editing behaviour is you tag and expect others to do the donkey work, you create work for others demanding cites for well known material that in truth rarely needs it. In truth, I find your conduct frustrating, you make work but rarely from my interaction with you are prepared to do that donkey work yourself. When challenged you presume a personal attack and launch into a diatribe about policy. Tell me given that I've shown you where Gibraltar's coat of arms originates, why don't YOU think about finding a cite for the fact you removed. Justin talk 21:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC) See also WP:DTTR Justin talk 21:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

1) Justin -- As mentioned on your Talk page, I choose to focus on "the contributions and not the contributors." I occasionally make an exception with a very occasional user warning to help encourage good Wiki-etiquette, as I did in your case yesterday. (Note: User:Justin_A_Kuntz quickly deleted that user warning, but one can scroll to the bottom of the, now, historical archive page to read the deleted material.) The user warning was suggesting that you keep it about the encyclopedia, not the editors of the encyclopedia. As I said there:

Let's focus on the edits, and the improvement of Wikipedia, not on the editor. This is at least the second time you have turned a challenge of mine on some unsourced claim in an article into some sort of attack on my editing habits.

I am fine to discuss the article, and your opinion as to whether any particular edit is or is not helpful to improving the article, or is or is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. But the part of your comment that is addressed to the motive or attitude of another editor is out of bounds. Best policy is to discuss the contribution to the encyclopedia and not the contributor. Cheers. N2e (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this was at least the second time you have done this sort of behavior with me, I felt that a user warning was appropriate.

2) As to your question, yes, Wikipedia is made better by each removal of unsourced information from an article, as long as it is done politely and only after allowing sufficient time for editors who might want to support a claim to appropriately source it. N2e (talk) 01:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

"If it is true, it should be easy to supply a reference. If it is not true, it should be removed.

"I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar." ——Jimbo Wales, July 19, 2006