User talk:NotAGroup

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Hyperinflation has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Vrenator (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All my edits had edit summaries. Please revert your revert. Thank you. NotAGroup (talk) 17:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing as InsbrookeInstitute. Gigs told me to change me user name. I did that and continued editing. Gigs thanked me on my InsbrookeInstitute talk page for my construtive contributions. Please revert your revert. Thank you. NotAGroup (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already reverted your revert - with an edit summary. Thank you. NotAGroup (talk) 18:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced edits to Fiat Money

I just had a look through your first few edits to the Fiat money article. I note your first edit was unsourced. Your next couple of edits were positioned such that they appear to be sourced to existing references, but I think this is incorrect. Am I right in thinking this is a mistake? You shouldn't add unreferenced material to Wikipedia. Note that unreferenced material can be removed at any time, and probably will be in a fairly popular article such as this. You have made so many edits it will take some time to review them all and I personally will probably not do so right at the moment. Continuing to edit without citing sources is probably going to be a waste of time as most or all of your edits will be reverted. - Crosbie 17:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. With respect, here is an example of how you may be over-reacting to normal Wikipedia editing:

You removed this paragraph from the Fiat Money article:

"A feature of all fiat money is its (typically exclusive) acceptability to the government for payment of taxes and charges. All fiat monetary units have the three functions of (1) medium of exchange (2) store of depreciating or appreciating real value (3) and depreciating or appreciating unit of account."

You state it is unsourced. First of all: I did not add the first sentence in the paragraph that you removed. It may have been there for years. You just remove it and state is unsourced. You can use that argument to remove maybe 60% or more of Wikipedia content. I am sure that the generally accepted norm on Wikipedia is that broadly generally accepted content does not necessarily need sourcing. If it is disputed, it needs sourcing.

So, please be clear: (1) do you dispute the content of the paragraph or (2) do you - as it appears - simply removed it because it is unsourced?

I added the very well known, generally accepted and broadly known fact that money has those three functions which can be sourced from numerous sources.

I appreciate your attention. Just be carefull not to over-react as you have already done above. Thank you. NotAGroup (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: would you support me if I remove most of the article because it is unsourced?NotAGroup (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect: please stop your vandalism: if you dispute any content, ask for citations. Thank you.NotAGroup (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed - see Wikipedia:Verifiability. I removed some of your material simply because it was unsourced. Other parts I removed because they were inserted in such a way as to appear to be sourced to sources which did not support the claims. I would have removed it anyway, simply for being unsourced. I will remove it again. I will not oppose deletion of any unsupported material. - Crosbie 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You quote: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed." Now you have to quote the Wikipedia policy on when an item requires a source. Thank you.NotAGroup (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Direct quote from Wikipedia Policy: Verifiability: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question"

With respect: Please revert all your reverts and state what you challenge. Thank you. I thus have the full right to revert all your reverts. And I will revert them. Thank you. NotAGroup (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NotAGroup for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Acather96 (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]