| Revision as of 01:20, 6 January 2023 editRevirvlkodlaku (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users84,762 edits →Sourcing instead of removing← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:39, 6 January 2023 edit undoFram (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors247,926 edits →Sourcing instead of removing: ReplyNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| : Hi @], please try to be courteous when communicating with me (or anyone else, for that matter). It's much nicer, more collegial, and will get you better results in the end. It's not difficult to know what I want, but it's definitely easier when you have the willingness to see things from my perspective. I have deleted unreferenced entries, and I have removed reference tags that I felt were redundant, since they were appended to linked pages, where it is easy enough to see that Miso Film is a production company attached to the project. Those entries do not require additional referencing, IMO, whereas seemingly random, unlinked entries do. Hope that helps. ] (]) 01:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | : Hi @], please try to be courteous when communicating with me (or anyone else, for that matter). It's much nicer, more collegial, and will get you better results in the end. It's not difficult to know what I want, but it's definitely easier when you have the willingness to see things from my perspective. I have deleted unreferenced entries, and I have removed reference tags that I felt were redundant, since they were appended to linked pages, where it is easy enough to see that Miso Film is a production company attached to the project. Those entries do not require additional referencing, IMO, whereas seemingly random, unlinked entries do. Hope that helps. ] (]) 01:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::Hi, yes, we started off on the wrong foot, I know, I should have been more patient. I see your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. A Misplaced Pages page is not a reliable source, and some of the linked articles don't even mention Miso (e.g. Max Manus), so are no use at the moment as even an unreliable reference. Having one reference per entry ''here'' is not excessive and there is no good reason not to keep those. In general, I would ask you to be more considerate of other (certainly newish) editors and their edits; while recent change patrolling is necessary and lots of what you revert is indeed only revert-worthy, you also run the risk of ]ing editors and of removing good (but unsourced) content. Please consider sourcing it yourself or tagging it with CN tags instead of removing things, and certainly when you see (like here) someone starting to source things and it becomes clear that the added content isn't a problem. It is very hard to explain to editors that when they e.g. add unsourced entries to a list of other unsourced entries, ''their'' additions get removed but the original text can remain. All it achieves is driving off potential new editors and removing useful content, neither of which actually improves enwiki. ] (]) 08:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:39, 6 January 2023
 | Companies Stub‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Denmark Stub‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Sourcing instead of removing
Removing unsourced entries from this page isn't helpful, it is quite clear that the entries were correct. Much better to source them, to tag the ones you can't find with CN (after doing some good searching), and to add entries still missing from the list. But please stop removing entries just for the sake of it, it isn't helpful. Fram (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Can you perhaps explain why you are on the one hand so hellbent on removing unsourced entries, but on the other hand have now repeatedly removed the single ref from Dicte, 1864, ...? Because it gets harder and harder to know what you want or expect here. Fram (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Fram, please try to be courteous when communicating with me (or anyone else, for that matter). It's much nicer, more collegial, and will get you better results in the end. It's not difficult to know what I want, but it's definitely easier when you have the willingness to see things from my perspective. I have deleted unreferenced entries, and I have removed reference tags that I felt were redundant, since they were appended to linked pages, where it is easy enough to see that Miso Film is a production company attached to the project. Those entries do not require additional referencing, IMO, whereas seemingly random, unlinked entries do. Hope that helps. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, yes, we started off on the wrong foot, I know, I should have been more patient. I see your reasoning, but I don't agree with it. A Misplaced Pages page is not a reliable source, and some of the linked articles don't even mention Miso (e.g. Max Manus), so are no use at the moment as even an unreliable reference. Having one reference per entry here is not excessive and there is no good reason not to keep those. In general, I would ask you to be more considerate of other (certainly newish) editors and their edits; while recent change patrolling is necessary and lots of what you revert is indeed only revert-worthy, you also run the risk of WP:BITEing editors and of removing good (but unsourced) content. Please consider sourcing it yourself or tagging it with CN tags instead of removing things, and certainly when you see (like here) someone starting to source things and it becomes clear that the added content isn't a problem. It is very hard to explain to editors that when they e.g. add unsourced entries to a list of other unsourced entries, their additions get removed but the original text can remain. All it achieves is driving off potential new editors and removing useful content, neither of which actually improves enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)