68.184.205.133

October 2016

Hello, I'm RunnyAmiga. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Demagogue, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 00:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Since anyone with eyes and ears currently living in the United States
• knows the statement to be true, why don't you improve the article by
• adding a source rather than reduce the information content? I didn't
• find a web link, only seeing it in television news, but as it's obvious
• that it exists, why not make it better instead of worse? 68.184.205.133 (talk) 04:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:BURDEN. The onus is on the person who adds information to provide a source. clpo13_(talk) 07:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

clpo13, that doesn't mean somebody else cannot add the source if he or she should know it, it just means it isn't required that somebody else must add it.

If someone else can, isn't it better to make the article better rather than be pissy about it, if such is what someone else wishes to be? ("I don't have to do it, you do," said in a nasal voice.)

I have no emotional investment in this, but what you've written comes off as, whether you meant it this way or not, another apparent reflection of the WP:SNIDENESS which drives people from the project. (Yes, I see that you are a self-described WP:BURDENIST -- that kind of makes my point.) @Clpo13: @RunnyAmiga:-- 68.184.205.133 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll tell you a painful truth. The main reason I didn't allow your edit is because, as a pending changes reviewer, I'm sick and tired of seeing people add Trump, Clinton, or both to demagogue without a source. If it's added there, chances are I won't even read the entire edit before I vaporize it. I've done it several times so far this election season. Because this:

"...that doesn't mean somebody else cannot add the source if he or she should know it, it just means it isn't required that somebody else must add it"

is true but it's based on a premise that is as wrong as calling the sky green. You're damn right nobody has to come along and add a source but that's because nobody should have to. That "somebody else" who you seem to think should have added a source in this case was me, and I wasn't about to do anything of the sort. Your edit was a clear-cut violation of the ironclad rule about verifying contentious claims about living people and every second I'm spending looking for the source you had to include but didn't is a second that I'm violating policy by allowing your text to stand. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 17:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and a request

Hi, thanks for your fixes. Would you please consider leaving an edit summary when making changes? It's helpful for those of us that use our watchlists and it would also help you stand out from potential problem editors. Thanks again, Dawnseeker2000 00:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

---