Talk:Buckland, Buckinghamshire

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

UK geography Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

unsourced commentary[edit]

I have deleted unsourced commentary [1] from this article per WP:V. Please do not violate site policies and do not reinsert anything without proper sourcing. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i have restored content and added unreferenced template as per policy deletion of content is always a lst resort except where it is contraversial. Tmol42 (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No dear friend. Policy requires proper sources, not templates. Since you want the material restored, the burden of providing them is on you. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. You have to either provide proper sourcing, or let it go. I am deleting unsourced commentary again. Do not restore without proper sourcing. Do not edit war and do not try to insert unsourced content in violation of site policies. Thanks.OrangesRyellow (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't patronise me. If you choose to selectively quote policy selectively excluding sections you clearly know your argument has no substane in this case. As you well know the next sentences of the policy from which you quote says ...... Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step.[3] When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.[4] If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.

Preemtively threatening me with edit warring is a feeble attempt to bully another editor and demonstrates a lack of courtesy to others. Accordingly, I object to your removal of this text and would be grateful if you let the tagged article stand whilst I and other editors seek citations. I trust your committment to upholding the highest standards of the Wikipedia Project will override your desire to push your weight around unnecessarily. Tmol42 (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I am trying to patronize or bully you, you are completely misreading the situation. My problem is with unsourced content, not you. I have clearly demonstrated that if you want the material in, the burden of proof is on you to add sources. You appeared to be acting as if it was enough to add a template for the material to stay. If you are willing to provide proper sourcing within a reasonable time, I am willing to let the material stay for that time. How much time do you think is needed ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look around Wikipedia and you know there are literally thousands of articles lacking citations. I cannot understand your motives here in wanting to remove content without at least encouraging the improved verification of the document. Far better to have looked for appropriate citations. Frankly I would have been able to fix the article by now instead of continuing to argue the toss here.....2 minutes should be long enough to fix it, time me if you like.Tmol42 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must be a magician, I am not :-) !!!! You are as good as your word, my problem is solved now. So, there is no point arguing further on this article. However, I don't accept that it is proper to let unsourced remain just because there is lots of other unsourced stuff. Thanks anyway :-)OrangesRyellow (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]