User talk:Brian0918/Archive 15

Wikibreak

Hello. I'm just letting you know that PRueda29 ^Ptalk29 is on a Wikibreak. In his absence, I'm watching his watchlist and other stuff. If you can spare the time, take a look at his watchlist (on his user or my talk page) and help keep things in order for him by watching some of those. Thanks, :-) --hydnjo talk 04:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Brian0918,

Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB 14:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Grocer's Encyclopedia

Heya,

on the Grocer's page you mentioned that there was a full-text HTML version of the book...but unfortunately I can't seem to find it on that page. I poked around, but I just am missing it (I'm sure it's right in front of my face :P). If you could give me the URL for the HTML version, that'd be really helpful. Thanks. Womble 19:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding it. Womble 19:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

cfd vote

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I nominated Category:2007 births for deletion - see the cfd vote. Gerrit ^CUTEDH 17:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Heya old timer

File:Jimbo che red white name.jpg

Can you see it now?

After my lengthy hiatus, I have finally returned. I come bearing greetings (hey, man), and a question: have you considered putting Image:Jimbo che red white name.jpg and the like on t-shirts? You (and Wikipedia) could probably earn quite a few dollars that way. Plus, I could have a really cool t-shirt. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 07:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

List of GLB composers

Your message is completely unverifiable and arouses little sympathy and I am at a loss as how to respond. Hyacinth 10:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking around your message is fairly easily verifiable. I am now confused by your unwillingness to state that X is not gay. It seems that besides an apology that is all we can do to rectify the problem. Also, do you know how often these mirror sites update and thus how quickly they will no longer list X? Hyacinth 10:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

You have an amazing number of barnstars

Wondered if you'd come across Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements? Just thought it might interest you...why not add your own?

zyxst

A likely story!!! My nit-picking point was merely that it wasn't Old English. I was a bit brusque perhaps, but it was all meant in good fun. I apologize if I offended you. That said, thanks for the info, and what on God's green earth made you think to bring it up now? :-p Tomer^TALK 17:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Blocking of IP 82.34.45.47

Brian,

Craig Buchanan, a new user, has claimed he was blocked while editing from IP82.34.45.47 over the weekend, On the last time about 5 hours ago, you were nominated as the administrator who blocked him. I suspect but I am not sure that the reason you blocked that IP was that Mr Transit had used that account. Craig Buchanan has asked that this IP be unblocked so that he can create an account.

I would be grateful for your advice as to whether unblocking would be appropriate. Capitalistroadster 17:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Message from Lets Go Yankees

Thank you for retracting a block you place on my account. I didn't mean to breach the WP:3RR rule, and I thought it didn't apply to you user home page. Yankee Fan 03:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You just broke it again. --Viriditas 03:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Atheism

NB- I am not atheist. I put my self in the atheist category by mistake. Sorry- but good luck on your featured article project! --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 12:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, ain't he cute? He wants it as the featured article on Christmas. Militant atheists...just as bad as evangelical Christians. (Now you'll respond I'm a brainwashed Catholic. What you won't realize is I'm quite skeptical and always questioning, so I'm not some bible-thumper who believes everything I'm told.) GreatGatsby 00:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call him a militant Atheist just for supporting an article... anyways, Brian, thanks for the message. However, I'm still relatively new (been here just under two months) and I'm kind of confused as to how I would support the article. Do I have to wait until December 24 to vote on it? Respond on my discussion page, if you would, thanks! --mdd4696 05:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the data on the featured article. I'll read it when I have a chance. Its one of my favourite paradoxs, don't knowwhy I haven't read it before. :P --Crowley 08:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Just Curious

Why did you delete on the Mushnick Page?

Macau

How do I provide sources for edits? I'm new to Wikipedia.

For the Sands Macau & Venetian, see this links

http://www.sands.com.mo/eng/index04.html

For Wynn Macau, see this link

http://www.wynnmacau.com/intro.htm

Galaxy is a local HK operator so they don't have a great site but see

http://www.onlinecasino-news.com/20051124/macau_galaxy_casino_market_share_edd.aspx

This bond issue is being use to build the new casino.

Also, see:

http://www.gamingfloor.com/Macau_Casinos.html

Also, Las Vegas tourist revenue is about $14b with 1/3rd from Gambling. Macau's tourist revenue is about $5b but 90% from gambling. These are 2004 numbers. With Las Vegas growint about 10% & Macau growing 25-40% (from a small base), it's gamnling revenues will pass Las Vegas this year or next year.

Sources

How do I provide sources if the link is to news articles that either require a subscription to read or that they simply expire? Also, how do I refer to non web based sources? LTKwok

thanks

Thanks for reverting the nutbar rant on my talk page Pete.Hurd 16:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Cite sources

I don't understand where you were going with this. Were you trying to say people aren't required to cite source for challenged additions (as you edit summary makes it seem) or were you simply strengthening the cite sources language to say they're always required by those sources. If the former, I don't see where the support for that is. - Taxman ^Talk 16:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Notes from Wiktionary

Brian0918, I saw your note on Wiktionary IRC about importing a word list. I don't know if you got my response there, but here it is again, just in case. Please ask the question again in Beer Parlour, to get the community's input as to where and whether they want such a list.

By the way, I don't think interwiki redirects are a great idea. At any rate, they're not working too well.

Thanks for visiting us. --Dvortygirl 17:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

[1] Hi, please to be learning the difference between a personal attack and sarcasm. Spiro Agnew was one of the first of the modern conservatives to use flowery vitriol to attack the "liberal elite" that this VfD vote was about. That vote was pretty much a direct quote of him. SchmuckyTheCat 17:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

1988

I don't have a problem with getting more sources, but going through and sourcing this whole monstrosity would be a mess. What were your ideas on the subject? I think we're doing a decent job of defending it, although I won't claim some cruft couldn't have crept in. Wikibofh 03:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

unsourced for lists

This tag inapplicable to lists. Sources must be inside items themselves. Otherwise the entries should be disallowed. There are two reasons for this, both boil doun to one at the same.

• The best place to verify info correctness is the article about the event. Here is where the knowledgeable eyeballs look into.
• The sources will most probably be external links. Experience shows that in 6 months half of them will be dead. Again, where do you think the better chance to update dead links: in the list with hundreds of them or in each individual article.

Sorry for undoing your work, but in such massive undertakings you better talk to people first. mikka (t) 03:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Omnipotence paradox for Christmas Day

I had a quick look at the discussion where you push for this and I find it a little... well, I shan't (since I don't know you) go so far as to say disingenuous but perhaps I would suggest you are having a little mischief at the Christian expense ;o) I'm not all together against tweaking the nose of the religious, but I would tend to do it on the talk pages rather than expect to win a controversial vote on the content of the front page. So, I'm afraid I won't be supporting you on this one. Perhaps I'll see you over at Talk:Age of the Earth some time ;o) --bodnotbod 07:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you know Wisconsin is "often-viewed?"

Does Wikipedia have page hit counts available anywhere? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

unsourced template

I noticed you adding this to a few pages... However you're ignoring the guidelines given at {{unsourced}} about putting it at the bottom of the page or in the empty references section (you're whacking it in at the top of the article) and even to not use use it when the article includes external links. Perhaps you could move this template from the head of the article to the references section on all the edits you've made? Thanks/wangi 14:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree very much with wangi on this point. Please go back and move the tags to the external links section or to the talk page. The top of the article is not the place for a tag such as this. Thanks. -Scm83x 15:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree too. Instead of making a valid point about the need for sources, what you are doing will simply piss off a lot of people and cause edit wars. Putting the site command lower might not seem so provocative. The way you are doing it, you are practically suggesting this article cannot be relied on. It may well have been made up. Its authors have to show some evidence that it is not made up. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand, Brian, and agree with the need for sources. But the way you are doing it will seriously backfire. You need to encourage people to do this, not adopt an approach which seems like an accusation. Plonking it at the top is guaranteed to backfire. It seems as though you are making an accusation against the authors. Or at least get a better less accusatory template that says something like Wikipedia strongly urges all authors to cite sources in articles. If you can provide any sources for articles, please add them in. The current template in the current location implies that the work is substandard, whereas it may simply be that the work is fine but the sources weren't added in people the authors, perfectly genuinely, didn't think WP required them. Doing it the way you are doing it is simply likely to lead to the deletion of the template by furious and offended contributors, not the adding in of citations. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No backlash? You've had to be jumping from user page to user page defending your actions. You've been showing up on my list practically by the minute. You have had to ask someone to stop deleting the template. Cop on, Brian. I agree 100% with what you are trying to do. But the way you are trying to do it will generate heat, not light. For someone whose actions are experiencing no backlash it is rather strange to find that leaving messages on your personal talk page produces edit conflicts! I can't remember the last time I visited a talk page where edit conflicts were happening. Be real. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 15:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the others posting here. Please cease and desist. Your plastering of this template, about which there is no clear consensus, is very nearly tantamount to WP:POINT. older≠wiser 17:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Cease and desist"? Are you the judge, jury, and executioner now? What specifically is there "no clear consensus" about? Most of the objections are about where the template should be placed. No consensus about where it should be placed is not consensus that it should not be placed. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:59

It is precisely the issue of placement that is the subject of contention. older≠wiser 18:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

(responding to comments on my talk page) What you may or may not have discussed with the members of the arbcom is largely irrelevant unless you can point to some documented special grant of permission to do what you're doing. Otherwise, all I see is a whole lot of people objecting to what you're up to. older≠wiser 18:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"unsourced"

Brian0918, I find it questionable that you cut through article namespace, slapping "unsourced" templates on articles. If you want to draw attention to your cause, I would suggest you use the talk pages. Many of the articles you tagged have excellent "external links" section, which isn't as respectable as ISBNs, but even more useful in many cases. Also, you could take the time to actually compile a references section for one or two articles in the time you spend to tag dozens, which I would consider a more constructive approach. dab (ᛏ) 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

that's fine, I suppose. I tend to disagree with the sweeping "External links are not sources", but that's just my opinion. I guess people can always remove the templates if they disagree. Your approach seems rather aggressive, but of course if it leads to the desired result, cheers to you. dab (ᛏ) 15:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the external links and references sections serve entirely different purposes, so having an excellent external links section is not sufficient. The unsourced template should be used in such a case. He could simply work on adding reference sections himself, but it's clear that most wikipedians don't think about references, and the case should be made to them that this section needs to be in the articles they work on. Jacoplane 15:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I add my complete agreement with Dbachmann's original comments. Several pages on my watchlist have recently had {{unsourced}} added to them by you, with the comment:

This often-viewed article has no References section. Its content should be thoroughly sourced. See WP:CITE for methods of citation

Whilst I have no argument with the premise that articles should cite their sources, and I do so with most of my edits, I strongly believe that washing our dirty linen in public by putting tags like this on often-viewed articles is wholely wrong. If an article is often-viewed then it surely must be getting something right, and we should not be sowing unnecessary doubts in our non-editing readers minds by putting in tags like this. Tags are fine where the article is clearly lame, but in these circumstances we need to find other ways of communicating the need to improve the article. Isn't that what discussion pages are for?. -- Chris j wood 15:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced

There is no consensus that the unsourced template belongs on article pages, and there is almost universal agreement that it does not belong at the top of articles. This is a template meant for editors, not for readers, and per the template guidelines it belongs on the talk page. If you have serious questions about the accuracy of an article, which our readers do need to be warned about, please use the verify tag. - SimonP 15:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There have been long and detailed discussions of this issue at Template talk:Unreferenced and more generally at Wikipedia:Template locations. - SimonP 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it must be on the talk page, but general agreement is that it should be either on the talk page or the bottom of the article, not on the top of the page. If I am going to be moving incorrectly placed templates I will move them to where I feel they best belong. Rather than discuss this issue across a half dozen user talk pages, perhaps this should be merged into the long standing discussion at Template talk:Unreferenced. - SimonP 16:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Unsourced}} is not the template for potentially inaccurate articles, {{verify}} and {{fact check}} are. If you feel an article is not to be trusted, use one of those templates. - SimonP 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that all articles without references are useless and should not be trusted, then have the courage to use {{verify}}. You would quite quickly find out how many other people agree with your view that a page without references is a page not to be trusted. - SimonP 16:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You stated on my talk page only a few minutes ago that: "it makes no sense to require readers to check the talk page for this template before knowing whether the information can be trusted." - SimonP 16:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A discussion, which at least on the mailing list, has been pretty thoroughly shot down as an absurd overreaction. - SimonP 16:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are you putting the tag in every fricken page? JDR 16:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If a bot is going to be deployed, then let's wait for that to be done. These articles have been unrefereneced for years, so the couple weeks it would take to create a bot won't make much of a difference. In the off chance that the mass adding of this template by a bot is rejected, then mass adding by a human would also be suspect. - SimonP 16:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

There is obviously a lot of resistance to the mass adding of this template, so why not have the discussions first, and then make mass changes. - SimonP 17:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The heart of Wikipedia is that it works by consensus, there really should be some sort of community wide agreement before hundreds of our most popular articles are altered. - SimonP 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

After thorough discussions with Jimbo, Danny, and others, I'm adding this to any popular articles that do not have references, in accordance with WP:CITE and its subpolicies. Why is making a lot of similar edits necessarily bad, and why are you hostile? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:37

I'll stop moving them, if you agree to work to obtain a general consensus for adding such templates prior to adding any more of them. - SimonP 17:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, so let's wait until that discussion occurs before taking any radical actions. - SimonP 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I shall thus stop moving the templates. - SimonP 17:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[moved above and below from my talk; see also User talk:SimonP#Unsourced]

Making a lot of similar edits isn't necessarily bad .... only if it isn't really necessary (akin to "tag spamming").

I'm not "hostile". You do seem to be putting this in every fricken page. The reference for the material in a top level article (eg., popular articles) is most often is in the lower article (one that is wlnked), is unnecessary, or is in "External links" (something I see that is used as a 'reference' for manythings ... but should properly be called a reference section).

Please, if you want to add the tag ... take some time and ask on the talk page the any popular articles that do not have "references" in your opinion.

Sincerely, JDR 16:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Should readers also be forced to figure out which external links could possibly be the references for our article? As per WP:CITE, we should be making it clear what parts of our article came from where. We are not a link farm, so we shouldn't simply be providing people with "other places to go to find trusted information", and we do not do original research, so we shouldn't make it appear that our content came out of thin air. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:56

Should readers undetstand that external links are possible references for articles? Should readers understand that the links are "other places to go to find similar information"?

IF an editor derives a part of an article from somewhere, that editor should making it clear where it is from .... and IF there is some question on POV (eg., need a ref for a stance that is not NPOV) or some question on accuracy problem (eg., some question by someone (perferable not a bot) as to the truthfulness of a statement) should this tag be put in, IMO.

And what does the "link farm" point have to do with this? External links have been providing people with "other places to go to find information" (eg, a layman's reference) since Wikipedia's inception as far as I can tell. A referenced piece of information can be as debatable as unreferenced piece of information (pending the reference and how it was cited). Even "other places" my be questiopnable on how trusted it's information is.

Trying to hide behind an "original research" arguement, doesn't justify the spamming of this tag, IMO. A majority of content hasn't came out of thin air ... and it's ficiteous to claim that it is.

Sincerely, JDR 17:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not claiming it came out of thin air. I am simply acknowledging the most common opposition to Wikipedia: that the content can't be trusted. Why should we enforce WP:NPOV but not WP:CITE??? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:18

• Also note that there has been discussion about having NullC create a bot to place this template on the rest of Wikipedia's articles which do not have anything resembling a source, so you're bound to see this template on more "frickin" articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 16:43

User:NullC? I hope not .... shouldn't this be brought up somewhere? It's be a shame to have to hunt down a bunch bot's edits when they are not needed. JDR 16:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of where the tag goes, I think part of the issue is that the tag are just being placed without any effort to fix the problem. I agree with Reddi that a comment should be added to the talk page before posting this tag. -Scm83x 16:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is easier for one person to get everyone motivated into fixing their own articles, which they wrote, and which they know what sources were used, than for that one person to go through finding sources for the same articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:03

The tag should be on the talk page. Only severe content (such as NPOV) problems should be flagged on the page itself. There's already plenty of defacement with various tags and flags that can distract readers, detract from the content, and disturb the alignment of other items at the top of the page. JFW | T@lk 17:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It is obvious that on Wikipedia we accord NPOV more importance than CITE. We have tolerated poorly cited material for a long time, and I'm completely with SimonP that these tags should not be on pages themselves. I am moving the template because I do actually care about the presentation of Wikipedia articles. I do share your concern about unsourced material, especially after the recent high-profile criticism Wikipedia has received, and I reckon you noticed that I've sourced numerous articles with adequate source material. JFW | T@lk 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Just because one policy has historically been more enforced than another doesn't mean it is right, just that we are lazy about sourcing our claims. That is not a valid reason for ignoring CITE. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:21

Not putting boxes on articles pages is not the same as ignoring CITE. JFW | T@lk 17:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Unsourced?

[This whole converstion was removed by Brian ... see the history here]

Great to see that you aren't claiming that the majority of the content di not come out of "thin air".

Enforce WP:NPOV and WP:CITE. Remember, though, one is a "guideline" (eg., it is not policy) and the other is "official policy". Acknowledging the common opposition to Wikipedia "that the content can't be trusted" does not dictate that this enforcement should allow spamming the tag. A citation doesn't necessarily mean that the "content can be trusted". Again, a referenced piece of information can be as debatable as unreferenced piece of information (pending the reference and how it was cited). As JFW states below, "Not putting boxes on articles pages is not the same as ignoring CITE".

Repeating again .... IF an editor derives a part of an article from somewhere, that editor should making it clear where it is from .... and IF there is some question on POV (eg., need a ref for a stance that is not NPOV) or some question on accuracy problem (eg., some question by someone (perferable not a bot) as to the truthfulness of a statement) should this tag be put in, IMO.

Can you provide who is the "common opposition" and particular instances that can be corrected? I understand that there are critical views of Wikipedia .... but spamming the cite tag is not a solution IMO. Many sources of information have "common opposition" that state thier content cannot be trusted absolutely ( ... CNN and FOX news are 2 that come to mind off hand that have poeple that question the credibility of the institution ...) and if a particular instances is pointed out that can be corrected. And, contrary to the critics, an encyclopedia as your only "trusted source" can lead to fundamental errors (if that "trusted source" (such as the EB) is wrong; which has, can, and will happen).

Sincerely, JDR 19:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., had to goto lunch ... so that's why it took a bit to respond)

I really don't see this discussion going anywhere productive. You are basing your disagreement on suppositions about false content, false sources, and false referencing. I am merely acknowledging the reality of the situation, that people do not think they can trust Wikipedia in general, and something should be done about it. Citing sources on as many pages as possible is a step in that direction. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 19:29

It's just not my "disagreement" ... several of other editors have the same concers on "shotgunning unsourced tags" ... as seen in the history link above ....

Who are these amorphous "people? "Some" do not think they can trust anything on the web in general ... knowning who these people are and what they are concerned with inparticular would be alot better than spamming this tag all over ...

Doing something about this does not mean that spamming the tag will resolve the situation ... better thing would be to go out and get references for the articles in question.

Sincerely, JDR 20:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC) (PS., Can you keep the discussion together at your talk page? or mabey goto the cite talk page or another talk page so the thing can be vetted out (such as Template talk:Unreferenced suggested by SimonP) ....)

I wouldn't have gone through with it unless I was comfortable that other Wikipedians I knew and respected were alright with it, in this case members of Arbcom and Wikimedia. How is my placing the template in the article not the first step toward getting the article's editors to add a references section? I've noticed at least two articles that have since added references sections, presumably because of my template. As I have repeated at least 5 times, it is easier for one person to motivate several others to edit articles they know about than to have that one person go through unknown articles searching for sources on content that person did not write. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 20:28

Could you please give a link to the discussion with the Arbcom and Wikimedia members? ... ??? ... (it may be helpful to this converstation [I'll check back] and ignoring other editors that you "don't know" isn't a good thing) ... ... moving on, adding the template in an article when it is not needed, eg. unsourced but othewise perfectly good articles, is not a good way of achieving the end of better references. Additionally, a "references section" is not absolutely necessary. It may be nice to alot of articles ... but it's not "vital" to all articles. .... I was also kinda waiting for you to state the refrain "one person to motivate several others " .... that you are only "passing the buck" (as I had seen you state before). Placing the tag on an article (especially when the person going through doesn't known about the article) will just have the tag removed (usually by the editors that put in the content in the first place) ... and the article will still have no references. AND, what about "some material" that is used from another article and put in a "main" article .... the sub articles have the references ... but it's be "too much" to have them all in the main article. A better thing would be to go out and get references for the articles that you know about ... or can find out about. It just seems to me that your time could be better spent adding references ... than trying to "pass the buck" to others .... Sincerely, JDR 20:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I was about to ask the same thing regarding this appeal to authority (the oft-cited conversation with arbcom and wikimedia members). I agree with pretty much all Reddi writes. older≠wiser 21:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussions running into late into the night last night and the night before on #wikimedia, including Danny, Mindspillage, and Jimbo. Jimbo was off and on, but both Danny and Mindspillage were in favor of it. If you would like to call it an appeal to authority, then I can just as easily call your statements an appeal to the masses. This is my talk page. I leave my comments on other people's talk pages, so it gives the appearance that I am all alone. If you want to discuss it, go to a central location like Template talk:Unsourced and stop wasting my time. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 21:11

Unsourced template

Which bit of my (now archived) message starting Whilst I have no argument with the premise that articles should cite their sources did you not understand?. I have reread it, and I can see nothing that could be read as me suggesting that articles should remain unsourced????. I merely suggested that sticking ugly little templates on unsourced but othewise perfectly good articles was not a good way of achieving the end of better references. -- Chris j wood 20:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Disappointed to see you are essentially ignoring the valid concerns of others by deleting their messages to your talk page. Poor show. wangi 21:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with chris and others, and its my personal opnion that you're WP:POINT. Slapping the ugly template at the front of decent articles is quite counter productive, although i agree that these articles need more sources. Agnte 21:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It may not be productive, but it certainly isn't counter-productive. As I have now stated for at least 7 times, it is easier for one person to motivate several to edit and fix their articles that they wrote and of which they know the sources, than to have that same one person go out and find possible sources for text that he didn't write. Take this discussion to Template talk:Unsourced and stop spamming false accusations of WP:POINT. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 21:08

It is not deleted from my talk page. It is archived because the discussion was essentially stagnating, and my talk page is not the place for the discussion in the first place, as several others have pointed out. If you want to complain furhter, go to Template talk:Unsourced. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 21:05

The link to the archive on your talk page is very small and not obvious. I certainly missed it. I've never seen anyone archive discussion from the same day before... wangi 21:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And I am supposed to know the history of what you have seen... how? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 21:08

Article choice

How many articles do you envisage adding this to? Morwen - Talk 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Shotgunning unsourced tags

In Roman Catholic Church the refereces are easily visible as external links. If you had taken the time to track those link you would have seen the big three reference works, and the population reference. I get the idea you just shotgunned the link down without clicking them. I went through the silly exercise of moving them to a new reference section. You have a point on the Caribbean page there was no external links nor a reference section. If you are going to do this, then do it right. If you are going to shotgun tags on stuff, please stop. Dominick ^(TALK) 17:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• The only reason I've had to place these links on several pages is because several pages don't have reference sections. I was simply acknowledging that the article doesn't follow WP:CITE. How are readers supposed to know which external links are just links to "other related sites" and which external links are sources? This isn't just my opinion either. I discussed this thoroughly with members of Arbcom and Wikimedia. It's just that I am the only one of us that is going through the tedium of adding the actual templates. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-1 17:53

Years

Please give me the links to the places where this discussion waas caried out. I do agree that I must be missing some points. In particlular, I don't quite understand what this would mean "to discuss a year in detail"? Can you show me an example how it was done?

If you mean what I think, then AFAIK this would be one huge original research and POV, and its "NPOVed" form will simply look like the lists we have only withour bullets and various opinions. IMO the current lists must be left as they are: just lists. And year summaries could be separate articles: 1984 in the world, 1984 in Poland, 1984 in Africa, 1984 in San Francisco, 1984 in Apopka Snake Farm, Soutrh Carolina, USA. It is much more convenient to separately maintain "articles proper" and lists related to articles, like Jews and List of Jews

In any case, in the current state I have already explained why this is wrong.

Finally, if you are making such sweeping changes based on some consensus, you better put it into the comment line, so that people would try to understand reasoning. Wikipedia is not democracy, but there is no arbcom's cabal either.

I undesrtand your desire to make wikipedia better. But 90% of its articles are in miserable state, and slapping a sticker or several of them on each non-perfect article will hardly make its better. We are not in Mocrosoft or Ford Motors here. People are working here in their spare time. And I can easily imagine quite a gew of them to get annoyed by excessive and pervasive commandeering. People already complain that policies and guidelines grew worse than in is some bureaucracies, and now you are placing "No smoking" on every corner. mikka (t) 18:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)