Gizza source

February 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

List articles

Looking at some of the lists you have started editing there are no citations at all, why don't you nominate them for deletion rather than emptying them? These are the types of lists that are very rarely going to be fully referenced. NtheP (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To User Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds), and User Jena (talk), who also reverted my helpful edits under the user name ANTONIOROCKS:

WP:What_vandalism_is_not Bold Edits: Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to articles in order to improve them. While having large chunks of text you've written deleted, it should not be confused with vandalism. If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors.

WP:DEL#CONTENT: If the article's content severely fails the verifiability policies, but when the topic is notable, the article may be reduced to a stub or completely deleted by consensus at WP:AfD.

Please immediately remove your warnings above or I will consider reporting you two for adding derogatory and deceptive accusations to my talk page. As experienced editors, you two know unsourced material can be challenged and removed at any time WP:Verification, and it is a violation of wiki policy to falsely accuse me of unconstructive editing and vandalism for removing unsourced material, material which was given fair warning with article template tags and my edit summary tags. Because you two are experienced edi:::tors, I do find this an obvious attempt to intimidate me into letting this gross violation of a core policy WP:Verification remain. My edits are helpful and are not in violation of the core policy concerning removal of unsourced material at any time. NtheP (talk) suggested I nominate these lists for deletion because he also doubted any interest in ever finding sourcing, but I chose the path of "alternative to deletion" WP:DEL#CONTENT in case there might now be some interest in finding inline sources. After I fairly tested the level of interest for a reasonable period of time, I observed no interest. Only after that test period did I delete all the unsourced names according to core policy WP:V. My edit summaries explained I was removing unsourced material from A to Z, so the material would be easy for anyone to find and work on. Now you two and an IP, who reverts and adds even more names without sources or edit summaries, are in violation of WP:Verification, WP:NOR and WP:Burden by reverting my helpful edits and attempting to smear my editing. These list articles are all clearly tagged to add sources before adding or reverting material, and these warnings are ignored by experienced users who are showing contempt for the core policy and me. The WP:Burden is on anyone who wants to revert this material to source it before it is added again to the viewable article. Work on these unsourced names in sandbox or the articles' talk pages as policy says, not on the viewable articles, which may be full of names added by vandals over the years. Gizza source (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Rather than simply blanking out the article, propose the article for deletion if sources are still not provided. On wikipedia, we have a special way of dealing with pages that lack sources - A program called twinkle in which will propose the article for deletion, and then the reviewing administrator will take a choice whether to delete it or not. I concur with your point that the article is not sourced, but that does not mean blanking the page entirely. Blanking in general is considered a form of vandalism which proves disruptive for the article itself. Before proceeding to give threats, I suggest you should ask the other users as to why is my edit being reverted. I'll say it again: You were right that you did notify the unsourced content in the article, but that does not mean you blank the article section completely - Put the article up for deletion in a few days or so if the article still has no sources. I'm sorry you've had a bit of a negative experience on Wikipedia, as have I and Jane. I'd recommend taking that threat off because that breaches Civility on Wikipedia. Have a nice day. Abhijay ^{What did I do this time?} 15:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both for removing your accusations and warnings. But now you come on my talk page again and falsely accuse me of making "threats" and being in breach of civility. My saying I will "consider reporting you two for derogatory and deceptive accusations" is not a threat or uncivil, it is my right as a wiki user to consider this option and protect my editing reputation. Please do the right thing again and strikeout your newest derogatory and deceptive accusation that I made "threats" against you two and was in breach of civility. Your own edits (as well as other editors) are lacking in understanding the core policies of wiki WP:V, WP:Burden and WP:NOR, or even the lesser guidelines by deceptively labeling two of your major reverts as "minor" in your edit summaries, which also lack any policy violaton explanation. It is also my right to attempt to prod users to source unsourced material (without pulling out the big gun of "nomination for deletion") by using the path of "alternative to deletion" WP:DEL#CONTENT - all in keeping with the core policy and pillar of wiki WP:Verification: removing unsourced material at any time and WP:What_vandalism_is_not which I already explained. You are using the tool "STiki", so you must know "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using STiki. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked."Wikipedia:STiki Specifically, what is it about the undisputed policy points I have made that you are having so much trouble understanding or accepting? I again suggest policy that these unsourced lists be placed on the talk page or in a sandbox while they are being slowly sourced, then slowly rebuild the lists as inline sources are found for each name on the lists. That is very reasonable policy and not difficult to understand. It will prevent vandals from adding any more unsourced names, which is a major objective of the pillar of WP:Verification. By attempting to keep these unsourced lists in the main article, users are knowingly undermining wiki's credibility and core policies, which will further collaspe if not enforced with more diligence and understanding. Gizza source (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

While your efforts to remove unsourced content are appreciated, your methods are concerning. Blanking pages without any discussion is not acceptable, blanking should only take place "for libel or privacy reasons as an emergency measure" (Wikipedia:Page blanking). Instead of blanking content you should start a discussion on the article talk page or begin the deletion process. One thing that should be pointed out is that what you did wasn't vandalism, but it was disruptive. While discussing policy you forget the pillars, one of which is that Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner, instead of repeatedly reverting editors you should discuss the problems you have with articles instead. --Mrmatiko (talk) 08:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me with this. I thought I was being respectful and civil to other editors by tagging the articles "unsourced" as a fair warning, and I always gave full edit summaries. I chose the path of "alternative to nomination to deletion" because I concluded these OLD articles must be notable or they would have already been nominated for deletion by now. I now get the feeling that if these articles are nominated for deletion and editors decide to not delete them, the articles will then be allowed to go on unsourced. Editors will then use the excuse that "it has already been decided not to delete this unsourced material" when anyone attempts to delete any of the unsourced material or request that it be sourced to comply with WP:V. To me, nomination for deletion is just manipulating the system to keep these articles in an unsourced state for eternity. Also, didn't Jimmy Wales recently recommend that all unsourced material be removed en mass to improve credibility? I will discuss the unsourced material on the articles talk pages and ask editors to comply with WP:V to improve the credibility of wiki, but I have not seen any interest in finding sources for any of these list articles I have been working on. Gizza source (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)