User talk:Piz d'Es-Cha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Piz da la Margna

Thanks for your correction! Ericoides (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Fly-by tagging'

Hello, and thanks for your message on my Talk page. I understand that you feel I'm not being useful and turning Wikipedia into 'a big mess' by simply adding tags to articles rather than correcting their problems. While I accept that it may not be very useful, I believe my behaviour is supported by policy. One of the founding pillars of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability, makes clear that all theoretically contentious material added to Wikipedia must be sourced. I accept that I was probably over-hasty in adding the 'unreferenced' tag to the various Alps articles - none of the material there is 'likely to be challenged'. But, at least in theory, it should all be sourced.

We have these policies for a reason (to stop people adding anything they like to Wikipedia), and the templates exist for a reason too: to draw attention to an article that does not meet with Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and needs somehow to be corrected. Yes, it would be better to correct it myself, but I can't always do that, and I feel adding a template such as {{Unreferenced}} (which adds the article to Category:Articles lacking sources) is better than doing nothing.

I'm sorry we disagree on this, but I don't intend to stop the 'fly-by tagging', as you call it. (Although I'm happy to stay away from certain areas, like the articles on the Alps, if you so wish.) If you continue to feel my behaviour is unacceptable, I suggest you file a request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. Thanks for reading, and happy editing. Terraxos (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. It looks like I have been a bit too over-aggressive in my tagging. I apologise for placing unnecessary templates on those articles, and from now on I will only use the 'unreferenced' template when I see something in an article I think is actually factually incorrect, or at least open to question. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Terraxos (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Zutphen Railway Station'

I do not believe that my statement that Zutphen has a 'small railway station' is false. Have you been there? It only has two platforms. Fair enough it has trains to other cities with larger railway stations but this hardly classes it as 'an important regional railway station'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.195.47.157 (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)