Talk:Dark at Dawn

WP:V; maintenance templates

Per WP:V, please note that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." Similarly, removal of maintenance templates without addressing their issue is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll note a few things about this. WP:BLANK notes, "Page blanking means editing a page so as to leave it completely blank, or without any substantial content. Under normal circumstances, Wikipedia articles should not be blanked. If you think an article has no useful content, then either fix it, or else leave it in its present state and propose it for deletion." You have blanked the page, leaving it without substantial content, then tagged it for not having any substantial content, in contravention of this guideline. Second, WP:USI states, "Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines require all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed." Your edit shows no indication that you have made even the barest of attempts to assess the page's verifiability. There is no WP:BLP concern or anything particularly contentious about any of the content you've removed; it's basic background information about this ensemble. This is bad-faith editing, and hiding behind WP:V as policy does not make it justified. If WP:V required us to remove all unverified content (and it most certainly does not; it requires us to remove unverifiable content), we would have started wholesale gutting of articles long ago, but several large-scale attempts to do so have been reverted in the time I've been here. If you continue this unilaterally (and it seems you are making a project of it), I hope you get slapped silly for it. Chubbles (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That refers to blanking a page. The page was not blanked here. Plus -- this page has been tagged for lack of references for seven years. Seven. That's time enough for editors to seek to provide RS refs, and time enough after challenge for the info to be deleted. WP is not meant to be a repository for material completely unsourced, let alone not sourced to RS refs, and let alone challenged without action for seven years. Plus -- you removing a maintenance tag, without addressing the issue, is both a violation of clear wp rules, and unhelpful to the article -- the tag alerts others to consider addressing the issue if they can, and therefore serves to stave off deletion if it is possible, but your deletion of the maintenance tag only increased the liklihood it will be deleted without concerned editors having a chance to address the issue. Both your re-addition of uncited material, in violation of wp:v, and your deletion of the maintenance tag, were direct violations of our guidelines. I know you to be an excellent editor, but those actions were not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)