Talk:City-state
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Apples&Manzanas in topic Deleting unsourced material
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the City-state article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 years  |
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deleting unsourced material edit
I deleted a bunch of unsourced and false claims. My edits have now been reverted twice. Wikipedia policy makes it very clear that these reversions are unacceptable. WP:PROVEIT. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please explain what you want to remove and why. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- My edits all had edit summaries. I don't need to explain anything here. The material I deleted was all unsourced. The burden isn't on me to prove anything. People aren't allowed to describe whatever they want as a city state just because they feel like it. Material needs to be in line with what reliable sources say. This is Wikipedia 101. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia 101 is discussing any major changes you make to an article. You were very selective in what unsourced claims you were removing, and instead of tagging the lack of sources so that the situation could be improved, you just unilaterally go on a deletion binge. Both of those are poor form. If you are not gonna engage constructively here, then your edits will be reverted. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Then you don't know how Wikipedia works...I've tried to explain this on multiple occasions to you nicely. It is not 'poor form' but is rather entirely permissible and normal to delete unsourced claims which you believe are likely to be false on Wikipedia...it's kind of cringe that I need to explain that. It is, however, poor form to continually restore unsourced material into the article and revert me without any decent explanation. In fact, that's actually a breach of Wikipedia's rules, not just 'poor form'. You've ignored me bringing up WP:PROVEIT a Wikipedia policy on many occasions, which feels like WP:ICANTHEARTHAT. I've explained this policy to you many times now, so I also remind you of WP:POINT. As for this comment of yours, "You were very selective in what unsourced claims you were removing", yeah okay lol? I can delete whatever unsourced false claims I want...I don't have time to fix everything, but I can try to fix whatever I have time for...Like how is that relevant? I'm not sure what you actually expect me to say on this talk page....People wrote random unsourced rubbish on the Wikipedia article, and I deleted it...The end. If you can find reliable sources which describe any of those places as 'city-states' then go for it, you are welcome to restore the deleted material at any time if it is supported by a reliable source. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are still not engaging in discussion as per WP:TALK guidelines. You can discuss your edits as per WP:BRD if you want to make them. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have endlessly engaged in discussion with you. The material was unsourced, it got deleted, and I showed you the relevant policy: WP:PROVEIT...That's literally it. Like what on Earth else do you want me to talk about here? Whether I like tea or coffee? Whether I prefer the colour blue or red? Just so you realise, what you are doing is literally against Wikipedia rules...likely multiple of them. I have to assume you may be unaware of Wikipedia's rules, based on the responses that I'm getting, but that doesn't excuse continual ICANTHEARTHAT. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]" Do I need to spell it out for the 100th time? ALL CONTENT needs to verifiable, the burden is on the person who restores such material to cite it. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your lack of proper engagement could not be better illustrated than by complaining about content that I have removed before you made your comment. Truly an astounding performance overall from you here today showing a complete inability engage with other people in problem-solving. All of this could have been avoided if you had simply said what you wanted removed and why, and we could have explored options. Good luck going forward with that attitude. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- "All of this could have been avoided if you had simply said what you wanted removed and why"...You have to be kidding me. Every one of my edits had edit summaries and I pointed out WP:PROVEIT as my rationale on so many occasions. You really seem to have a problem admitting when you are wrong. You've been warned about this exact kind of behaviour from other editors in the past, and you have clearly violated this policy on multiple instances, and yet you still can't admit you've done anything wrong. There is no excuse for you to continually disrupt Wikipedia any more. You've been warned before. You know this policy exists, so stop pretending that it doesn't. I was hoping you would learn something from this but your snide response indicates that you haven't learned much at all. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Your lack of proper engagement could not be better illustrated than by complaining about content that I have removed before you made your comment. Truly an astounding performance overall from you here today showing a complete inability engage with other people in problem-solving. All of this could have been avoided if you had simply said what you wanted removed and why, and we could have explored options. Good luck going forward with that attitude. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- I have endlessly engaged in discussion with you. The material was unsourced, it got deleted, and I showed you the relevant policy: WP:PROVEIT...That's literally it. Like what on Earth else do you want me to talk about here? Whether I like tea or coffee? Whether I prefer the colour blue or red? Just so you realise, what you are doing is literally against Wikipedia rules...likely multiple of them. I have to assume you may be unaware of Wikipedia's rules, based on the responses that I'm getting, but that doesn't excuse continual ICANTHEARTHAT. "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the contribution.[3]" Do I need to spell it out for the 100th time? ALL CONTENT needs to verifiable, the burden is on the person who restores such material to cite it. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are still not engaging in discussion as per WP:TALK guidelines. You can discuss your edits as per WP:BRD if you want to make them. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Then you don't know how Wikipedia works...I've tried to explain this on multiple occasions to you nicely. It is not 'poor form' but is rather entirely permissible and normal to delete unsourced claims which you believe are likely to be false on Wikipedia...it's kind of cringe that I need to explain that. It is, however, poor form to continually restore unsourced material into the article and revert me without any decent explanation. In fact, that's actually a breach of Wikipedia's rules, not just 'poor form'. You've ignored me bringing up WP:PROVEIT a Wikipedia policy on many occasions, which feels like WP:ICANTHEARTHAT. I've explained this policy to you many times now, so I also remind you of WP:POINT. As for this comment of yours, "You were very selective in what unsourced claims you were removing", yeah okay lol? I can delete whatever unsourced false claims I want...I don't have time to fix everything, but I can try to fix whatever I have time for...Like how is that relevant? I'm not sure what you actually expect me to say on this talk page....People wrote random unsourced rubbish on the Wikipedia article, and I deleted it...The end. If you can find reliable sources which describe any of those places as 'city-states' then go for it, you are welcome to restore the deleted material at any time if it is supported by a reliable source. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- Wikipedia 101 is discussing any major changes you make to an article. You were very selective in what unsourced claims you were removing, and instead of tagging the lack of sources so that the situation could be improved, you just unilaterally go on a deletion binge. Both of those are poor form. If you are not gonna engage constructively here, then your edits will be reverted. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
- My edits all had edit summaries. I don't need to explain anything here. The material I deleted was all unsourced. The burden isn't on me to prove anything. People aren't allowed to describe whatever they want as a city state just because they feel like it. Material needs to be in line with what reliable sources say. This is Wikipedia 101. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)