User talk:82.27.221.233

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

well thanks for that i have just mislaid my password, i it was earlier on today that i did those edits i have been putting the tilde x 4 on most edits since then although how can it go on the article, it looks messy do people do that?

i have been doing the tildes in talk since then until the last talk i did... i am there relying on the bot, anyway i was asking people to comment back on the talk page there and do stuff, i was writing too much talk to slow down i think its all attributable anyway82.27.221.233 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] West Lothian Question

It might help you to read WP:CITE. Unreferenced material is liable to be removed at any time. If you can't be bothered to find a citation for a set of statements that you claim are easily referenced, why do you think anyone else will? It's not that difficult and if you would like some assistance just let me know. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for that .. i do know that citation is desired for all content however any prolonged look at wikipedia over a range of topics will show that only about 15-25% of facts are actually referenced. this for the most part is not because they are untrue although some are presented with a non-neutral POV (which could still be done even were they referenced) but because it is in fact extremely time consuming to reference everything and most of us "know" far more trhan we remember the source to recently i completed a degree and wrote a dissertation which was in theory completely referenced, actually it gets very tedious to reference to the nth degree but anyway it is very time consuming eg to reference that DNA consists of the actual base pairs... there is little point as evryone in my field knows it, although it is always good to reference a textbook, then you have a secondary or tertiary link to the way back when historical stuff... but i drew the line quite wide and spent a great deal of time and care referencing... the fact is when you write about something you dont know about it is quite easy to reference as you have to look everything up anyway (although its harder academically than encyclopediacly as you want to go to original work) but when writing about something you know but learnt 5-10 years ago it is a mega chore... i believe by putting such material up on the pages it stimulates others who have a better command of the sources to reference it whereas if it was not up it might never get added even though a significant part of the topic... if someone who has a good and ready way of referencing reads something unreferenced they may as i quite often do put a reference in... pu if a particular matter is actually absent from the article then they may not even think of it... i believe strongly that wikipedia is a work in progress and in fact i myself do add references to other peoples authourships, as do many othereditors... you can see this by looking at some of the more obscure topics minority languages and many other examples. i have outlined how i think any wikifairy or whatever could clean up my contribution and it is not difficult it is just that there are not enough hours in the day forme to do it immediatly and wikipedia is meant to be a collaborative project.


with regard to the specific point i made it was widely mentioned in the media and indeed almost assumed in many articles radio tv commentaries that because of the far greater numerical support for and intensity of support for scots independence than for welsh added to the greater powers granted to the SP cf thwe WA that the outcome of devolution would be indepedance for scotland but not for wales, so the matter reported will not be unfamiliar to editors this side of the atlantic and they would be able to reference it... i believe it deserves inclusion as it was the actual outcome of the "west lothian" question that most people expected, in the undetermined future.

further if unreferenced material is liable to be removed then why are so many articles available in wikipedia which contain tags saying "this article is unreferenced please help by referencing it"?

anyway any help referencing that material would be appreciated i have pointed out two possible avenues i am sure there are more.

well times up on here for the mo82.27.221.233 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is time consuming to provide references, but if you don't provide them you will find your work constantly reverted or altered. You are correct about the 'unreferenced' tags, but that is not a reason to ignore basic procedure. If you copy what you want to say below and either provide a book or a web reference I can show you how to create one. Ben MacDuiTalk/Walk 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

i know how to make the references, i just dont have time mright to look them up, butterworths or the dept of justice site are not the easiest sites for example.

as for constant reversions i think itis odd that some things get reverted within minutes which are commonsense and someone with a currentactivity in the area could easily ref, whereas some obscure and unreferencable material hangs around for years with the tags on it? i think it is fudamental that if something is quite widely k nown it should be put up for several months, so trhat another person can reference it, i think the idea of wikis is to grow fast and address accuracy afterwards as it is constantly edited so i believe it is vital that it is possibole eg with the tags for one person to authour and others to amend and reference rather than just dropping stuff straigt off cos its substandard82.27.221.233 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)