User:Mattisse//myBox8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


--Timmy12 and MaxReg --

--Removing unsourced tags from unsourced articles -why?--

--My page is tied up in some king of editing conflict so I am replying here--

I see you have had trouble with their tagging. I have reason to beleive that they may be sockpuppets of Mattisse. Besides myself, other allies in fighting this idiotic tagging include Hanuman Das and Septegram. Let us know what articles you are having trouble with and I at least will put them on my watch list. Would you be willing to watch some other articles being tagged by these users? Ekajati (yakity-yak) 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll do my best to help out. I've blacklisted both users and will add some of the "usual haunts" to my watchlist. I made a habit out of browsing for Timmy edits every couple of days... I will try to do the same for this new potential/likely sock. Good luck! Anger22 18:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Removing unsourced tags from unsourced articles -why?

The articles are not sourced per WP:V policy. Wouldn't it improve the articles and the credibility of Wikipedia if they were? Plus you are not reflecting accurately what you are doing in your edit summaries. Maybe you could give me a satisfactory Wikipedia rationale why you are doing this? I would appreciate it. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 15:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If the articles were tagged by regular editors it would make a huge difference because those editors would then follow up on the tag with support from other regular editors to help them. But tagging articles(especially articles marked as Wiki-projects) and then doing absolutely nothing to try and improve the article itself, is not a positive contribution to Wikipedia. Perhaps tagging and then maybe sticking around and actually editing would be a better modus operandi. It would produce more support and in the end a positive sharing experience. Tagging and then walking away....is not much better than trolling and doesn't help at all. Anger22 16:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually I was planning to add sources as I have written articles on similar subjects {just started one on Casey Bill Weldon because it was red-linked in Memphis Jug Band. I have a great deal of source material on the subject, having been a serious blues fan for many years. I noticed the red-link for Casey Bill Weldon because I was fixing the "bunched up edits" problem on Memphis Jug Band. But it sounds like you are saying there is no purpose for me to be involved and I should just butt out? Mattisse(talk) 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Tagging 1 at a time would certainly help. And following up with citations....can never be wrong. But tag, tag, tag, tag, tag will not invite participation. Start with B.B. ....he deserves a GA rating and right now it wouldn't take much. Anger22 16:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Removing a tag without supplying a source can be considered vandalism, I am told. I am tagging for the improvement of Wikipdeidia, not at all to antagonize you. The tag does not harm the article in any way but rather can inspire others to improve the article which is my goal in the long run. Many articles have been dreamatically improved by the addition of such a tag. Mattisse(talk) 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagging is helpful. Serial tagging is pushing into the realms of WP:POINT. Better to do them 1 at a time and maybe post on the talk page why it's there and ask for assistance to make it go away...1 tag at a time. Anger22 18:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My page is tied up in some king of editing conflict so I am replying here

User:TomTheHand is replying to someone who listed references at the bottom of the article but did not specify inline the body of the article where that particular statement could be verified. Wikipedia:Harvard referencing is a citation system. To quote from its Citation section:

Under the Harvard referencing system, a book is cited in the text in parentheses, or round brackets, after the section, sentence, or paragraph for which the book was used as a source, using the surname of the author and the year of publication only, with the parentheses closing before the period, as in (Author 2005). If the same author has published two books in 2005, and both are being referenced in the text, this is written as (Author 2005a) and (Author 2005b). The specific page, section, or division of the cited work can follow the date in this way: (Author 2006, 28).

Newspaper articles may be cited by the byline, as in (Traynor 2005), though this is less commonly done, with most editors preferring to give the name of the newspaper and the date of publication after the sentence (The Guardian, December 17, 2005), or linking to thearticle using an embedded link, like this. [2] Embedded links, like footnotes, are placed after punctuation.

Now, maybe that is what you were doing in Robert Johnson. As I said, I find that ;particular article very difficult to follow. Mattisse(talk) 19:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The Robert Johnson article, as far as I can see, has an extensive reference section. A Wikipedia Administrator has even pointed that out. Articles that are ref'd in such a way do not need to be tagged as uncited because they are very clearly referenced in the appropriate section using the Harvard reference method(which is better than online webpages as far as I'm concerned) Adding specific links/footnotes can be done in later stages of an articles growth (like when it is being peer-reviewed or pushed for GA status) But being tagged as "uncited" is clearly an incorrect use of the tag. Again, these points have been stressed by a Wikipedia Administrator so I am not about to argue over removal of a tag that was "in the right". Anger22 22:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have rather tagged it as unsourced, but that has been removed twice now. On my talk page User_talk:Aguerriero admitted he was wrong to the admin who stated there that the article was unsourced. Then User_talk:Aguerriero went ahead and removed the tag anyway. So I put the citation tag on because the editors involved seem to think a list of references at the bottom is the same thing as citing sources and it is not per WP:CITE. The article has been there at least since April 2004 and is not sourced. The tag often spurs people into fixing up articles and results in marked article improvement. Mattisse(talk) 22:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem very busy on Wikipedia. When will you be finding the time to add all of these inline citations and footnotes? I have over 13000 edits on Wikipedia, most of them being vandalism rv's. But I think I can find the time to review that article(and all the other one's you've tagged today) once you have completed your extensive referencing project. I am looking forward to seeing the finished result. Perhaps, upon your completion, a peer review can be done or even a nomination for Good Article status be placed. Good luck! Anger22 23:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your good wishes! I ran across the articles in question today as I was adding a link to each one documenting each blues artist's induction into the 1980 Blues Foundation's Hall of Fame. If I did reverting like you do, I really would get into trouble so I don't dare do that except in cases of clear vandalism. I truly want Wikipedia to be good, but I find just writing articles the best way to stay out of trouble. But when writing articles, I always start with the sources first. I won't write an article if I don't have the sources lined up. And I won't dare try to "improve" any of the articles in question today! (Can you imagine what would happen if I tried that?) It's very tricky "improving" articles because it might anger someone, and then bad things happen. Thanks again for you good wishes! Mattisse(talk) 23:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And so, right back to where we were at the start of the day, you are tagging the articles and then walking away and leaving them unfinished. How is that an improvment? Is there any kind of satisfaction to these meaningless edits? It seems to be an awful lot of time dedicated to accomplishing nothing. Anger22 00:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't as a rule tag articles and just walk away. How uncivil and rude of you to generalize in such a manner. Why are you insulting me? Where is your evidence for your accusing me of such behavior? Mattisse(talk) 02:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw your note

On User:Aguerriero's talk page. I added the ip to the checkuser request. I think it will be a big help! Ekajati (yakity-yak) 19:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Eavesdropper! :) Not sure what help it'll be. Whether convict/clear as long as some quality editing is the result, Wikipedia wins. Anger22
Yeah I'm not exactly sure how the checkuser tool works, but I'm sure the IP address will help them match everything up. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popups

Popups are great, but you usually don't want to use the default summary for a reversion of something that's not vandalism, as you did here. Instead, just type a short explanation for why you are reverting into the summary box. Thanks! Λυδαcιτγ 21:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When I have time, edit summaries are handy. Sometimes there is no time. Also, popups aren't just for vandalism(although they come in particularly handy for that) Cheers! Anger22 21:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand, and it's no big deal, but I think it's better then to simply type "rv" alone, which is less insulting to a good-faith contributor. Λυδαcιτγ 01:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)