User talk:Snegkrib
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Tag removal
[edit]Hi - If you are going to remove tags ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]), please either address the reason for the tags (in these cases, failure to satisy verifiability), or make your reasons known on the article talk pages. I have reverted your edits until then. - Tiswas(t/c) 08:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tiswas. I edited/removed your tags in good faith because I consider them to be excessive and somewhat over zealous. I dealt with only a few of your most recent tags, and (unless you want to) it's up to you to rethink others from your vast number of edited pages. If I do that, then I am going to consider some of your other tags which are clearly irritating other members of the Wikipedia community.
The debate about what is and isn't a "reliable source" goes on and on. Wikipedia entries are not supposed to read like doctoral thesis. Serial tagging gives out the wrong message to casual users and other Wikipedian editors. It's nothing short of ironic that splattering verification tags makes Wikipedia look less authoritative than it actually is. Further, do we want to end up with almost as many tags as entries).
You are obviously more experienced than I as an editor, but brief perusal of your contributions prompt me to ask you to please be less "knee-jerk" in your tagging, and attend only to those entries obviously riddled with unreliable sources. Let's be reasonable. Hope you take my point on board. Kindly remove them and reduce your tagging across the board. It's clear by reading your talk pages you are getting increasingly unpopular as an editor.
Incidentally, I note on your talk page a reference you make to someone who as "just joined" Wikipedia suggesting they should be treated somehow differently. This should never be the case, not least since many Wikipedians have multi -identities and are not necessarily novices.
Snegkrib 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- The tags themselves are placed in good faith, as and where an article does not display adequate citations or references for claims made or facts contained therein. Perfunctory removal of these tags, without either addressing the issue or leaving more than a personalised edit summary is indicative of not being good faith (this, of course, being my own inference).
- Your concern that the tags detract from Wikipedia's authority are redundant - Wikipedia is not authoritative to start off with, which is precisely why verification is required from sources which are authoritative. The tags indicate that an article is not in itself canon.
- Your comments on popularity are misplaced. This is not a popularity contest, there are no polls, there are no policies or guidelines concerning the liking of another editor. If you think that I am being a dick,, you are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but any inference that you make is entirely your own. There are plenty of examples where tags have been addressed, and articles improved (by other editors and by myself), but an evidentiary hearing of this is both pointless and time consuming. If you truly feel that my editing is a problem, you should make your feelings known here.
- I can find only one reference on my talk page about new joiners, where another editor (incorrectly) labeled me as a new joiner. Either way, it is an established guideline to give new editors a little slack in their editing, as they become familiar with the sometimes labyrinthine policies and guidelines
- On the same subject, the default assumption is that editors have one account only, unless explicitly stated otherwise - Tiswas(t) 11:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Such as here - Tiswas(t) 16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Snegkrib, Wikipedia:Verifiability is a non-negotiable policy. Wikipedia:Reliable sources is a guideline on how we get there. Please don't remove tags as you've been doing, and most certainly do not use edit summaries to complain about what you see as "over-zealous tagging by an individual". That is fairly incivil. If you need help with deciding exactly what needs to be sourced and what doesn't, there's always the WP:HELPDESK and plenty of people there to give advice. ··coelacan 12:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Dubreq Stylophone
[edit]Could you add a citation for the Beatles reference on Dubreq Stylophone? Thanks. AndyBQ 04:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It is in shot. Buy the video/dvd. The Beatles are playing the instrument
