User talk:Fourthords/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Please try better next time

While I understand what you were trying to do on the Archivist page, if you had spent a couple hours researching instead of blindly removing all the "unsourced" material, then you could have made a meaningful contribution to the page. Instead, you set it back and forced someone like me to fix your error and add back in most of the material, with sources. So, please, if you are going to edit pages about archives, read more about the field before doing so. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion on the matter notwithstanding, removing uncited claims is a meaningful contribution. The Verifiability policy says, "All content must be verifiable. […] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Ergo, my edit—which consisted of more than removing unverified claims—was not in "error". Instead, the problem was when editors contributed content without citations to reliable sources.

Thanks though, for your further improvement of that article with sourced content; that's exactly what 'archivist' and all other articles need, too. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I guess, thanks then.Historyday01 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Kuwait City

Just as an explanation: While the source in the article states, that Mahboula is located 36 kilometres south of Kuwait City, in other sources (e.g. here or here) the very same area is presented as being within Kuwait City. Where does this apparent contradiction come from? Kuwait City doesn't exist as an administrative unit. Kuwait City as such can refer either to the agglomeration with 3 million inhabitants (of which Mahboula is clearly a part of) or to the town's historic core within the Capital Governorate (more ore less Sharq, Mirgab and Jibla, what you would call Downtown or CBD elsewhere, and that's what the distance of 36 kilometres refers to). This was an attempt to bring the information in line with what our article Kuwait City is about. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Construction Week source already in the article describes Mahboula as an administrative subdivision called a district, and I can't find anything to corroborate any districts being within Kuwait City itself. Now, the Engineering News-Record is from 1980, so a lot could have changed in the past 40 years, including official consideration that Mahboula is outside Kuwait City, but again, we don't have a source for that supposition, either. The Atkins source is much newer, but doesn't explicitly come down on where Mahboula is located.

In an effort to be transparent and as accurate as possible, I'll (later, not right away) incorporate the Engineering News-Record source alongside the claims of Construction Week and, noting the age of the former, leave it for readers. Ours is not to assume one way or another, of course. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the Atkins source titles: Mahboula Towers. Kuwait City, Kuwait. It can't get much clearer than that, I suppose ;-) I'm not sure, how you want to incorporate the (random) sources cited by me, but before it comes down to something like According to some sources Mahboula is located 36 kilometres south of Kuwait City, according to other sources, though, within Kuwait City, I'd prefer to keep it as it is.

I'm an old Wikipedian and have a pretty clear understanding of the merits of WP:NOR, but I do think, we are still allowed to use our common sense, and I hope I explained well enough, where the apparent contradiction originates, namely in two different concepts of what Kuwait City is: either the name of the huge agglomeration or, in a much narrower sense, the name of just downtown.

It's not surprising that you couldn't corroborate any districts being within Kuwait City itself, because Kuwait City isn't an administrative entity. The emirate has two levels of administrative subdivisions, namely 6 governorates comprising numerous areas (also called districts), but none of these correspond to either concepts of Kuwait City.

Anyway, I just wanted to point this out and leave the rest up to you. Keep up the good work! --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant that the Atkins source seems to be talking about a specific building or complex, not necessarily the same area (or "district") that the article's discussing. Yeah, though, something along the lines of "Mahboula has been variously described as XXXX^[x] or XXXX^[y]" is what I'll implement in the next day or so, unless you object. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael Landes

Hello. What kind of reliable sources does it take to keep Michael Landes' filmography credits, as well as when he started acting? Thanks. Martinc1994 (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A good place to vet common sources is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Jonny Kim

Hi Fourthords, I was curious as to why you undid my revisions on the Jonny Kim page. Although your revision is in accordance with WP:PRECISELANG, I don't think it conforms with anything else on Wikipedia— I have never seen "as of x date" in the children field on anyone else's infobox, nor have I seen "as of x date" in regard to a subject's marriage. I believed it was customary to let the source dates speak for themselves. Is there anything in the manual of the style that states we must write "as of x date" for this type of information? Thank you!Dog Starkiller (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Dog Starkiller

Although your revision is in accordance with WP:PRECISELANG I mean, that's your question asked and answered.

More generally, Kim is a young man; his quantity of children and the status of his marriage aren't immutable and actually easily subject to change by the standards of the US. One tactic is to say "Kim is married with three children" and hope that readers look at and correctly interpret our citations to understand when that information was accurate; mightn't they instead think it's accurate as of when they're reading the article if written in the present tense? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, while your edit is technically in accordance with the manual of style, I don't believe it is actually in accordance with the formatting of other articles I've seen on here. For example, Brenda Song and Karlie Kloss are young women, and their marital statuses and quantity of children are equally mutable; yet their articles do not include "as of x date" when it mentions their relationships/number of children. I took a look at the articles for some of the other astronauts in Group 22 (also young people)-- their spouses/children are briefly touched upon in their personal life sections, but this information is not preceded by "as of x date".

I understand your point, and I think I would agree with you if I had a lower opinion of the average Wikipedia reader. Is it necessary to write out the date of a source, when this information can easily be ascertained by hovering over the citation? In this case, I think it is acceptable to include the date in his personal life section, but writing "as of January 2020" in his infobox feels like overkill, and again, is something I have not seen in any other person's article.

Dog Starkiller (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries re: your formatting, so long as you'll equally forgive my further editing of it. WP:THREAD is the page that deals with how to indent discussions. I use {{paragraph break}} to create paragraphs in indented replies to comply with MOS:LISTGAP.

So what you're seeing is my compliance with the letter of the law (the prescriptive MOS), not what I see done everywhere else (a descriptive approach). I believe you that other articles aren't so details-orientedly specific, but I don't edit those pages. That argument has yet another page to which we point each other on occasion, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the long and the short of which seems to be... yeah, sometimes we break our own rules, and sometimes we don't. I just don't want to potentially propagate any incorrect information. I don't know how many children Kim has right now, over three months later: that number could be higher or lower, and for us to say in our (widely copied and used) prose that as of reading this article such-and-such is so, is incorrect.

Call it my combination of CYA and pedantry, but technically correct is the best correct. However, if you feel super-strongly that it would benefit the article to not specify when certain facts were accurate, I'd not understand or agree, but wouldn't edit it in further. Thanks for reaching out! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your patience and your links to various pages! They are all very helpful. I do appreciate that there are editors like you who ensure their articles are "details-orientedly specific".

I know it is a minor issue, but it's something that vexes me when I come across it on a page. I understand that each page has its own editor, with their own style, but for me, consistency with the formatting of other articles is paramount. It's mostly the detail in the infobox that I take issue with, so would you mind terribly if I were to re-delete that? Dog Starkiller (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of compromise and communal editing: no, I don't mind terribly. Thanks again for the congeniality. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and changed it myself here. Cheers! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I just saw your changes. Thanks and cheers to you too! Dog Starkiller (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Giannis Antetokounmpo

Hi there. I noticed that you removed a lot of material that people have since been restoring. From the number of items you listed in your edit summary, I'll assume it was because of "uncited claims in BLP". However, a lot of the material was not controversial. I understand it's a fine balance of dealing with unsourced text. I'm not sure if you are familiar with Antetokounmpo or were just generally going cleanup, but WP:PRESERVE is good to follow regardless e.g. consider using cleanup tags asking for sources. Don't feel obligated to respond. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of anybody else who may object to the removal of uncited claims or prose, I'll reply despite your charitable offer.

If I am sufficiently familiar with an article's subject matter to source and cite its claims (assuming they're not original research or vandalism), I have done so. However, I'm often wholly ignorant of any particular topic—given the near-infinite scope of this project—and instead improve it as best I can otherwise.

Wikipedia:Verifiability says, "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 the contribution. […] Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." That page also links to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems, and suggests using {{citation needed}} templates, but they are not required. Furthermore, when 2162 articles are still flagged with citation-needed templates from 14.24 years ago (meaning there are productive editors today who weren't alive when those articles were left unverified), I not only doubt the efficacy of that process, but will not rely on it to bring articles up to the absolute bare minimum. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 06:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Exhausted" meaning etc

I was curious about your almost-reversion Special:Diff/1021299908 here to a {{Cite EB1911}} invocation, for three reasons. I do appreciate your keeping the |volume= though.

First, what does "exhausted" mean? As a long-time editor it's new to me and I just find it puzzling. Is there an explanation I can read?

The addition of the commented-out |accessdate= is, I think, superfluous, because I've always understood Wikisource citations as fixed forever (as long as Wikipedia itself lasts). Also: I guess the inclusion of |language=en, as forwarded to {{Cite encyclopedia}}, would be useful if the citation is ever copied to another wiki, but I have never bothered in thousands of uses. Still, if there are new consensuses I'm happy to learn. David Brooks (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I leave the comment "exhausted" alongside sources whose content—as it relates to the topic at hand—is exhausted, i.e. there's no more to be extracted from that source for the article. It's just meant to save my and other editors' time from rehashing a source, that's all. So, for Henry Hicks (geologist), I'm saying that other editors (and myself) needn't delve into that encyclopedia again; it's already been fished.

I employed |accessdate= because it's a listed parameter at {{cite EB1911}}, and I don't make assumptions as to what'll later be useful to other editors or downstream users. It's the same with |language=: if an editor wants to copy-and-paste a source into another language, having that parameter already present ensures they'll have the whole thing available to them; it also inflicts zero harm on the English Wikipedia to use the parameter (in the interests of thoroughness). Also, if consensus changes someday, and we want to change how we use those parameters on this wiki, the effort's already been spent.

None of these are hard-and-fast rules I've encountered anywhere. I did check though, and there're definitely no prohibitions. So if my doing so helps me and/or somebody else down the line, then why not? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Wayneleonard (cropped).jpg

The file File:Wayneleonard (cropped).jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sole use was for deleted article Leonard Soosay. No other likely encyclopedic use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, no objections at all. I just cropped it; the original uploader was Cookiesmonster88 (talk · contribs). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Peter Ostrum

Hello there. I noticed you undone my contribution to Peter Ostrum because you think it was creating ambiguity. Well, I believe adding two years regarding when the man got married is also ambiguous which is why I added something like "late 1980s" to suit both of them. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, "1987 or 1988" is not ambiguous; per the source, it is certainly one of those years. On the other hand, when is "the late 1980s"? If the late eighties are 1986–1989, that's doubling the range of possible dates and reducing specificity. Having lost that information, how does "the late 1980s" instead benefit the reader? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of The Signal (podcast) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Signal (podcast) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signal (podcast) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

TipsyElephant (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Rachel Washburn for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rachel Washburn is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Washburn until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, onel5969. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reginald Barclay

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reginald Barclay you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GeneralPoxter -- GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reginald Barclay

The article Reginald Barclay you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Reginald Barclay for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GeneralPoxter -- GeneralPoxter (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I saw it; thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reginald Barclay

The article Reginald Barclay you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Reginald Barclay for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of GeneralPoxter -- GeneralPoxter (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of material from Popeye (film)

Fourthords (talk · contribs) was already recently asked to be more careful about deleting material that appears to be unsourced. Please be more careful, seriously. Fourthourds deleted chunks of information from the article Popeye (film) and it seems that due care and attention was not taken.[1] The Production section opens by mentioning a book, written by Parish, and this book is also included in the Bibliography. Some of the text deleted starts with "Parish wrote" and "Parish notes" and it would have been far more appropriate to add a {{Citation needed}} request than to entirely delete those paragraphs. Please show the hard work of other editors the respect you would like your edits to be shown. I have improved the article and made the referencing clearer but there was no need for those deletions if Fourthords had taken the small amount of time needed to read the article.

It would be better if Fourthourds did not make large deletes in future and instead marked text as needing citations or made multiple smaller edits with clearer edit summaries. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Verifiability policy says 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 the contribution. […] Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Looking at my edit of 01:02, 29 August 2021, all of the claims I removed lacked inline citations to reliable sources. That page also links to Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems, and suggests using {{citation needed}} templates, but they are not required. Furthermore, when 2120 articles are still flagged with citation-needed templates from 14.5 years ago (meaning there are productive editors today who weren't alive when those articles were left unverified), I not only doubt the efficacy of that process, but will not rely on it to bring articles up to the absolute bare minimum.

As for helpfully linking to Help:Edit summary, I said of my edit to Popeye (film): WP:ITHAT; - stray spacing; - uncited claims; - empty infobox parameters; category alphabetization;. Again perusing my edit there, that edit summary succinctly provides and/or links to explanations for the edits I made. Perhaps you didn't click on the links in my summary, reading the explanations there? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Reexamining the basic guidelines might be more useful than you realise. It would be better and clearer if you were a little more verbose and less succinct and avoided using jargon in your edit summaries. It would be better if you made smaller more specific edits. It would make things easier for yourself and other editors too.

Did you read the article? From your actions it does not seem like you did. It can be upsetting when people point out mistakes but take a moment and examine your actions and response to criticism, you made a mistake by deleting those paragraphs and it appears you have made that same kind of mistake before, recently. Deleting large chunks of text without doing basic checking makes it seem like you are not trying to improve this encyclopedia by editing collaboratively. Doing it repeatedly after having been previously warned to be more careful makes it seem disruptive. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It would be better and clearer […] It would be better […] It would make things easier for yourself and other editors…^{[citation needed]}

I'm not sure which part of the Verifiability policy you consider to be a mistake, but until such time as its changed by consensus, it remains an English Wikipedia policy that still says, Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. I don't understand why you feel the retention of uncited claims is beneficial to the encyclopedia, but that really seems contrary to our many policies and guidelines.

Lastly, while it's possible I've removed cited material in the past (an accident for which I would and do apologize if so), I am careful. The editors at #Please try better next time, #Giannis Antetokounmpo, and #Deletion of material from Popeye (film) didn't allege I deleted material with citations, but instead felt put out by application of the policy that requires editors provide such explicit evidence for all claims. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:00, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The Verifiability policy is not an excuse and does not over ride simple common sense, just reading the article would have made it clear that the text was sourced but needed better references. It was a formatting issue not a deleting issue. Please be more careful. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The prose lacked inline citations, so I carefully removed it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Unlike Historyday01 (talk · contribs) above I'm not asking you to "spent a couple hours researching" I'm only asking that you actually read the article before deleting. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That's nice, but I don't want to be a part of this discussion. This is for you and Fourthords. No need to involve me. Historyday01 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I read the prose, and found it lacking inline citations as required by policy. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

And since you asked for a citation for "It would be better if you made smaller more specific edits. It would make things easier for yourself and other editors too." that is, as far as I can remember, paraphrasing the guidelines at Wikipedia:Reverting because smaller edits make it easier to make only partial reverts, and therefore easier for other editors to make the fixes and improvements you might actually want them to make without reverting any of your good changes. -- 109.79.160.61 (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Unless I miss my mark, Wikipedia:Reverting is an essay of unclear provenance, not a guideline. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You quoted the rule Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports[2] the material may be removed but that's some selective quoting, the same paragraph continues editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. There was nothing to suggest the text was contentious, this wasn't a biography, there was no need for a speedy delete of those paragraphs, it was film article, a fairly old article one in need of better formatting. The prose clearly stated at the start of the Production section the book that was being used as a source, and that book was also referenced in the bibliography. The author of that book Parish was named again at the start of the paragraphs that were deleted. It is difficult to believe you read the words and concluded the text was unreliable or "likely to be challenged" and would be difficult to verify, rather that you mechanically checked the end of the paragraph did not include a reference and robotically deleted it. Even if you might not have technically broken the rules you have certainly rushed to the deleting part and missed the spirit of all the rules, to improve and better verify the articles. -- 109.79.165.170 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

There was nothing to suggest the text was contentious. "Contentiousness" not a requirement for removing uncited prose, nor is it an allowance for not providing inline citations. It is difficult to believe… I cannot speak to your capacity for imagination or assuming good faith, and don't see the relevance. Even if you might not have technically broken the rules… I make every effort not to; I try to double-check the policies, guidelines, and manuals reasonably frequently (consensus can change, after all). …you have certainly rushed to the deleting part and missed the spirit of all the rules, to improve and better verify the articles. As I said above to the other anonymous editor, I don't see how the retention of uncited claims is beneficial to the encyclopedia: that really seems contrary to our many policies and guidelines. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Your edit on Krzyżewo, Braniewo County

Hi Fourthords, I wanted to thank you for your edit on Krzyżewo, Braniewo County in September 2020. It removed some unsourced claims (or as you put it, unverified claims, which I guess is the same thing). I did a search for the words "Before 1772 the area was part of Kingdom of Poland" and there are many articles with the same text - always unverified. If you agree that this is a good idea, I would like to remove that from every article where it's unverified. Hattie Cape (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm so late replying to you! It sounds like somebody might've done a copy-and-paste job to a group of articles. As for the claims themselves, yeah, the Verifiability policy is pretty clear that everything on the wiki should be cited to a reliable source. Do I think yours is a good idea? Yes, generally, but others have been unhappy with my application of policy (see #Please try better next time, #Giannis Antetokounmpo, #Deletion of material from Popeye (film), User talk:Fourthords/Archive 12#Query, and User talk:Fourthords/Archive 12#Tyler Honeycutt); while my percentage of pushback has been very low, your mileage may vary. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Dakota Skye

Hi,

I wanted to give you a heads up that I intend to update Dakota Skye’s page and I contact you as I have seen that you have had some previous editorial history with it. There is so much information missing that it gives an unfair account of her life, whether it be good or bad.

There is one particular key event in her life, that isn’t mentioned at all and sadly could be argued also contributed to her struggles. As I’m sure you understand when researching it, multiple citations are required to be added to include it and they all interlink. In so much so that existing copy will be expanded upon and other new information, as well as the key event will be added purely because they are mentioned in the interviews. I’m talking at the beginning of her career to 7 days before she sadly passed away.

The problem, I have it that I need to refer to web articles from adultDVDtalk and fleshbot, which I believe have previously been added then removed. Both sites have a history of legit interviews. Other pages in Wikipedia use them as citations. So I plan to add them back a long with a few others that interlink and it will all make sense and hopefully read as well as I intend it to (or it my head atleast lol)

Updates will be gradual and I ask that you give me time and excuse any mistakes, as I’m new at this

Thanks

JR

JackRidley (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Both adultDVDtalk and fleshbot were recently discussed at the reliable-sources noticeboard, here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 345#sources for a pornographic-video actress. It was decided that they didn't meet the requirements for reliable sources. If you want to use them, you'll need to get consensus for their reliability. I recommend broaching the topic at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If you can get a consensus, then I'll happily add the sources that were excluded during the AfD discussion recently. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I Disappear

Why did you remove the singles chronology? Both "No Leaf Clover" and "St. Anger" have "I Disappear in theirs. yawaraey (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

There's no reliably-sourced prose in the article about "No Leaf Clover" or "St. Anger". — Fourthords | =Λ= | 04:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Eager to Learn

Hi there, I am not a very frequent editor, but if I happen to be reading an article and information seems out of date or otherwise incorrect I will try to update it to be more accurate. I certainly want to stay within expected guidelines, so please let me know if my recent edit on Shia LaBeouf (song) is not satisfactory. The way that I approached it was that the information about number of views after five years was not as relevant as the number of views currently. This is similar to a page about a baseball player that shows current number of strikeouts, for example. Each game that is played potentially results in an edit for that page to be more accurate, but is not necessarily part of a published article. If my line of thinking is incorrect please let me know. I just happened to be reading the page on this song after watching it on YouTube and thought it was odd that the number of views represented data that was at least two years old and decided Wikipedia would benefit from more recent data. Thank you in advance for any insight you can offer. --Maestro616 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Maestro616

The way that I approached it was that the information about number of views after five years was not as relevant as the number of views currently. I don't understand how any number of views is inherently important. Salon found it worth mentioning, though, so I originally added that source. (I also don't understand your baseball metaphor, sorry.) I will concede that so long as we open with Salon's initial recognition of views, following that up with a more-recent count would be reasonable. Am I making sense? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Abraham Davenport

The 'one issue' seems to be the only notable one. Without that, I doubt he would warrant a wiki page. Valetude (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:NPOL says "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Mrs. Landingham GA

Hey, I'm trying to get Mrs. Landingham promoted to GA-status—i know you're meticulous with sourcing, but I didn't find the sourcing to back up guidance in the form of honest mentorship and good-natured banter. Could you help me out? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sure, lemme take a look over there later today. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind! It looks like your article was promoted before I saw your request. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 15:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

couldn't have done it without you! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Hello Fourthords, Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, thanks so much!! Well-wishes for you and yours, too! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagging pages for deletion

Hello, Fourthords,

Just a reminder that when you tag pages like Dracula (1975 radio program) for deletion, whether CSD, PROD or AFD/RFD/TFD/etc., you need to post a notification of the tagging on the talk page of the page creator. Your own talk page has notifications just like this. These notifications are made easier if you utilize Twinkle, and set your Twinkle Preferences to "Notify page creator"...then Twinkle will post notifications just like this whenever you tag a page for deletion so you don't have to. It also has other features like the ability to tag articles for improvements and it will keep track of your deletion taggings in deletion logs. It's a very handy tool for editors.

Whether or not you use Twinkle, please post talk page notifications whenever you tag a page for deletion in the future. It's an important step in the deletion process, especially for PRODs because sometimes the rationale for a proposed deletion can be addressed and remedied by other editors. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I swear I thought there was a bot that watched for PRODs and automatically made notifications to the appropriate WikiProjects and editors. Might there have been once, and it's now out of commission? Either way, I'm sorry for continuing to use the process without keeping an eye on its details! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Little Lights Free Education High School for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Little Lights Free Education High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Lights Free Education High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Cisco 7920 IP Phone (cropped).JPG

The file File:Cisco 7920 IP Phone (cropped).JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused and unnecessary crop of File:Cisco 7920 IP Phone.JPG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 02:46, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort, but MrChrome (talk · contribs) uploaded that, not me; I just cropped it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 05:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

ATO Records

Hello, I would very much like to know why you felt the need to remove a ton of information that clearly is cited on their website? You removed it being independent, the founders, distributor, location, and all of its artists currently and formerly signed on? Did you even care to look at their website? It’s literally attached. I’m referring to this edit in particular [2]… now I will be adding majority of it back as it’s clearly sourced within their website. From your recent discussions on your talk page it also seems you have a history of doing this to many different pages. Pillowdelight (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Verifiability, an English Wikipedia policy, it says, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at how other record labels work on here. They never are scattered with citations especially since it would be repetitive if it’s directly coming from a direct link to the labels website. Now if the link was dead or non existent that’s a whole other story, than yes citations would be needed. Pillowdelight (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, from the same policy: "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 the contribution." Whether other articles are out of compliance has no bearing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Pilot (M*A*S*H)

Hi, while checking category updates I came across your user draft User:Fourthords/Pilot (M*A*S*H). This seems to have been forgotten, but looks suitable to be merged into the live article Pilot (M*A*S*H). Would you like to do it yourself? – otherwise I would be willing. – Fayenatic London 05:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not actually forgotten, though I say that full of chagrin. I have a giant stack of M*A*S*H materials that I'm still looking for (almost ten months after a move), with which I truly still intend to build a fuller article, plus the eventual incorporation of the data that's already live on the wiki. I appreciate the time you took to check-in; it's a good smack in the face that's helped me delete nine drafts that were truly chaff at this point. Thanks, — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Why removing the athletics section?

Why removing the athletic section, according to this edit? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asbury_University&diff=next&oldid=1094854018 jlog3000 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't actually remove the whole section (it's still there at Asbury University#Athletics), just the paragraphs that lacked citations to reliable sources IAW our policy on verifiability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, you removed a majority that is fact. Or is it because you find it irrelevant? jlog3000 (talk) 17:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed it because it wasn't cited. The verifiability policy says, "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 the contribution. […] Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:41, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Cited of what? As if it's not fact? jlog3000 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. I'm going to try and answer it, but please forgive me if I'm way off-base.

We cannot just write things we personally know to be true (that's a violation of the no original research policy). For example, I know lots of things about the University of Missouri–St. Louis, but I'm not a vetted and reliable source; I'm just some person. For that reason, everything written in an English Wikipedia article has to show where the information came from. The prose I removed from the Asbury University#Athletics section didn't have any sources for it; neither I, nor any readers, could verify that information by checking the original source; that's why I removed it according to our policy. (In contrast, the sentence about "Women's lacrosse" had a source for those claims, and so I left it in place.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Not have any sources? Sometimes it needs no source because some of the mentioned things could be shown on that school's athletic website for example. jlog3000 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes it needs no source because… That's incorrect. Everything needs a source. I already quoted the policy above. If you're making any claims in an article, you need to provide the source, and anything without a source may be removed until a source is provided. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? I understand that it's the other way around. Such as one improvising a certain factual aspect without actually using a source to provide due to copyright purposes. jlog3000 (talk) 00:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not kidding. You can go to the policy page now and read it (if you don't trust my quoting above). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Broadly deleting uncited statements is not the way to get editors to add sources

Just letting you know, since this appears to be your modus operandi. I know everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced, but remember that even if every single sentence or paragraph doesn't have a tiny number at the end doesn't mean it's unsourced. Maybe some paragraphs are all cited to a single source, so the citation is only added at the very end of the last paragraph. Or maybe the citation is a different format, like authors' names with years. Also, deleting uncited statements is not the way to go, as they remove information which other editors can potentially source and verify later. If you feel certain statement/s need a source, just add citation needed tags. No offense, but broad removal of uncited content can feel disruptive. Remember, do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. 49.144.192.56 (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

…if every single sentence or paragraph doesn't have a tiny number at the end doesn't mean it's unsourced. Apparently the verifiability policy says, "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 the contribution." Those tiny numbers or parenthetical authorial notes are both forms of inline citation, and I very rarely remove those. If I did so incorrectly, please point me to that citation and I'll definitely investigate further. …deleting uncited statements is not the way to go That's odd, because the verifiability policy says, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." If you feel certain statement/s need a source… I'm fine being on-board with the consensus of the verifiability policy and requiring all claims to be cited to reliable sources. No offense, but broad removal of uncited content can feel disruptive. Yeah, I feel the same way about editors who don't provide citations to reliable sources. Fortunately, (a) I don't edit Wikipedia based on how I feel, and (b) removing uncited material is allowed, while adding it isn't. Remember, do not disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. What point? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

any material lacking an inline citation ... may be removed The key word is "may". Yes, it is acceptable to remove uncited material, but it is not the number one must-do solution. And while the verifiability policy states that people should try to add sources when editing, that doesn't mean that they have the exclusive responsibility to add sources to their statements. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Adding sources or "citation needed" tags to uncited statements, if you feel they may have a grain of truth, fosters that collaboration. Frankly, deleting material for the sole purpose of highlighting the importance of sourcing is more disruptive than adding sources to potentially true statements. Always remember that being unsorced doesn't automatically make it a dubious or untrue "claim". 2001:4453:5F7:6400:9013:C9FB:2561:7B58 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

any material lacking an inline citation ... may be removed The key word is "may". Yes, it is acceptable to remove uncited material, but it is not the number one must-do solution. And while the verifiability policy states that people should add sources to their statements, that doesn't mean that they have the exclusive responsibility to do so. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Adding sources or "citation needed" tags to uncited statements, if you feel they may have a grain of truth, fosters that collaboration. Frankly, deleting material solely to make the point that editors should try to always source their edits is more disruptive than adding sources to potentially true statements. Always remember that being unsourced doesn't automatically make a statement a dubious or untrue "claim". 2001:4453:5f7:6400:549:47e1:e575:4d41 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

(To IP the first:) I've removed uncited claims because they're unverified, not to "highlight the importance of sourcing".

(To IP the second:) I've removed uncited claims because they're unverified, not to make any points.

(In response to both IPs:) Secondly, every single editor sees the phrase Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources., which itself links to an instruction that says, If you are adding new content, it is your responsibility to add sourcing information along with it. Material provided without a source is significantly more likely to be removed from an article. When everybody sees those words, and then declines to provide the required sourcing, that is well-and-sufficiently "dubious" (a qualifier I cannot find at Wikipedia:Verifiability). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

If you were a librarian and a student asks you help find sources for their thesis, will you trash their outline and say "Your teacher told you to find sources yourself"? No. The good thing about Wikipedia is that everyone can help each other. Sure, editors must try to source their additions at all times, but it's also possible for other editors to come in and find sources themselves. Not adding sources isn't inherently an indication of irresponsibility or dubiousness; maybe some editors read something somewhere and added it to an article, but didn't source it, as much as they would like to, simply because they forgot where it is. If another editor knows what they're talking about, they can add the source themselves. As @Valereee: explained below, uncited information can potentially be true, and removing them will add an extra psychological step to those who just want to back up the statements. Next time, try adding sources yourself. Besides, not everyone who added uncited statements are still active, so you can't just expect them to come back and add sources themselves. 2001:4453:5F7:6400:605B:BC84:C1BE:6B3E (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Everything needs to be cited. If something's not cited, is there a Wikipedia metric for divining: what might be true, what "can potentially be true", what is a well-crafted lie, what is original research, and/or what's true but ultimately unverifiable? What is the consensus for objectively rating any uncited claims on a spectrum of probably-true-and-ignore-indefinitely to damaging-subtle-vandalism-and-needs-removal?

Not adding sources isn't inherently an indication of irresponsibility or dubiousness It is, as demonstrated by the instructions linked to from every edit-screen that says, "If you are adding new content, it is your responsibility to add sourcing information along with it."

If I don't notice it, please leave me a note here when consensus changes such that our policy no longer says "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." In the meantime, do you have specific articles of yours where you'd prefer I leave in-place uncited claims? I keep track of where I'm not allowed upon threat of drama. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How's this for a "metric of divination"? "Most statements are to be taken as potentially true, cited or not, except in cases of obvious vandalism. If you find a source that supports a statement, add it. If not, place a citation needed tag or discuss it on the talk page."

As I have stated before, editors are responsible for adding sources to their statements, but if they fail to do so, others can step in. Remember, Wikipedia is a collaborate effort to collect information. IMO, deleting information based on your personal interpretation of policy is antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia.

Also, are the multiple editors coming to your talk to disagree with your MO, including an established admin, not "drama" enough? Why don't you try adding sources for a change. It's not directly against policy. 2001:4453:5F7:6400:6CEE:6D7E:E92C:C507 (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

How's this for a 'metric of divination'? I don't know, do you have a link to that page bearing the weight of consensus? …deleting information based on your personal interpretation of policy is antithetical to the mission of Wikipedia. It seems that the "Any material lacking…" instructions at WP:V don't require any interpretation. Also, are the multiple editors coming to your talk to disagree with your MO… I only seem to have accrued 8–14 whole contributors asking about it. Why don't you try adding sources for a change. That wouldn't be a change, though. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

do you have a link to that page? It's not policy, but still a good thing to keep in mind if you believe that Wikipedia's mission is to propagate information through collective efforts. I only seem to have accrued 8-14 ... contributors It doesn't matter if 14 or 14,000 people disagree with you; if there's more than one, especially when there's an admin who's been around for 16 years who knows many policies by heart, then there's a problem. So why don't you be the one to find and add sources to uncited statements? It's encouraged, not too hard, and you'll learn a lot. 2001:4453:5F7:6400:D401:B75E:4313:6C83 (talk) 04:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not policy, but… Ah, thanks. It doesn't matter if 14 or 14,000 people disagree with you It does, though. Consensus is determined by the editing community at large, and isn't overridden by a few editors; 14000 editors, on the other hand, would likely exceed any discussion ever conducted on the project, and indicate a new consensus with which I could comply. As for an an admin who's been around for 16 years who knows many policies by heart, the policy page at Wikipedia:Administrators says, "like a real-world janitor might have keys to offices that some other workers are excluded from, admins have some role-specific abilities, but – also like a real-world janitor – they're not more important than the other editors." So why don't you be the one to find and add sources to uncited statements? Non sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not fundamentalist; while it's good to act within policy, your behavior shouldn't rely only on what is explicitly stated within the site's rules. Sure, policy says that editors are responsible for adding sources to their edits, but if they don't, others can always step to either delete them, add sources themselves, or flag them as needing sources for yet other editors to add. There is no encoded rule for determining if an uncited statement is potentially true or false, which is why I encourage you to read and/or add sources instead of deleting them outright. As Carter explains below, your favorite policy doesn't state you must delete uncited statements on sight; on the other hand, you are not required to add sources either, but the latter does much more positive changes to Wikipedia. To be honest, your broad removals in the name of policy make you feel more like a rule-obssessed dictator than the info-gatherers Wikipedia encourages us to become.

As for the point about numbers, it was a metaphor. What I meant to say was that if a person or group of people, no matter how big or tenured, takes issue with your behavior, you should listen to their criticism and encouragement, instead of focusing on creating counterarguments to any flaws their messages may have. And even from a literal standpoint, it seems the consensus is against you; you're the only editor who deletes every uncited statement they see because that is what they think policy needs them to do. 2001:4453:532:1900:1C9F:D7D0:47CB:E0E8 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

…others can always step to either delete them, add sources themselves, or flag them as needing sources for yet other editors to add. I also read the policy as saying that those are some of the options available to all editors. you're the only editor who deletes every uncited statement they see…^{[citation needed]} All this being said, it seems to boil down to: you don't like the application of policy as written by consensus. I'm sorry you experience displeasure, and would recommend that if you feel strongly about your preferred interpretation of the policy, you should gain consensus to change it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

deleting unsourced material

Hey, Fourthords. I see multiple other editors coming in to ask about deleting unsourced noncontroversial/nondubious material rather than simply tagging it as citation needed. You keep quoting the verifiability policy, but that isn't the only consideration. Yes, content needs to be sourced, but that doesn't mean all unsourced content should be removed. Valereee (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

…rather than simply tagging it as citation needed. There are unsourced claims, tagged with {{citation needed}}, that are older than many productive Wikipedia contributors; I'm not relying on that mechanic to maybe fix articles when I can do so. There are almost a half-million of those tags in articles right now; I'm not contributing to that backlog of other editors' work. …that doesn't mean all unsourced content should be removed The verifiability policy says, "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing likely-correct information does not equal "fixing" articles. In the case of information that is likely-correct but simply has no inline citation, it may mean the loss of information.

I'm going to suggest that because policy says something may be removed doesn't mean something should be removed. The policy about not restoring it assumes the editor who removed it had a good reason for removing it. Like they thought the content seemed dubious.

Often in articles -- especially ones that were written more than a decade ago -- we find no inline citations. But removing the content isn't always the answer. Ideally, the answer is finding the citations. When it's in my wheelhouse, I often do that. But when it isn't, I tag it as citation needed. That isn't the same as tagging it dubious. If information is dubious and has been tagged for even a few weeks, absolutely remove it. But information that is likely correct and has been tagged for ten years? No. Not simply because it's been tagged for ten years.

The point of citation needed tags isn't to remove likely-correct info. The point is to encourage someone to think, "oh, I know where to find that!" And then they go find it. Removing the information and tag altogether means someone has to come along and think, "Waitaminnit. I think there may be information missing here." That is a major extra psychological step.

This has been brought up to you many times. Just on the current talk that has been archived a dozen times, there are multiple expressed concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

A lot of your objections seem to hinge on your likelihood spectrum of legitimacy vs. dubiousness. I've never come across a specific metric for gauging whether prose is probably not a lie. Can you link me to such?

Every single editor sees the phrase Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources., which itself links to an instruction that says, If you are adding new content, it is your responsibility to add sourcing information along with it. Material provided without a source is significantly more likely to be removed from an article. When everybody sees those words, and then declines to provide the required sourcing, that is well-and-sufficiently "dubious" (a qualifier I cannot find at Wikipedia:Verifiability).

Whether the "point" of {{citation needed}}, neither you nor I can look at prose lacking in verification for a over a decade and know how many previous editors: (1) saw that, (2) found nothing, and (3) left the page in place for the next editor to "find that!" This site has been in the top ten worldwide internet destinations for most of its life; do we have a page that lays out the odds for how many different editors have passed the buck on whether Mohammed Jaifoon "declared himself the ruler of Dholpur"? It is perhaps a malicious or comedic lie by Shantidoot (talk · contribs)? How many have seen that and thought, 'it's probably true, and I don't personally find it dubious, or I believe it's true, or I personally agree with that assessment; the next editor can find the source for it.' Approximately 14.46 years after adding, we still don't know. No, I'm not going to cross my fingers, and bank on hopes-and-prayers that uncited claims are "likely-correct".

Consensus has agreed that: (a) everything should be sourced and cited, and (b) we may remove that which isn't. So sometimes I do. I truly wish that editors read the pages they're editing and provided the requisite sources for their contributions, but they don't, and that's not my failure, despite a whole 8–10 editors' objections. Do you have any specific articles where you'd prefer I leave the uncited information alone in contravention of policy? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The message here was an attempt at a low-key suggestion to maybe reconsider your interpretation of this policy, which I believe differs from most. The fact only 8-10 other editors have objected should not be taken to mean anyone else who has seen this was giving it a thumbs up. Most people will not complain. They'll just roll their eyes and move on. If you've had 8 people complain, it's quite likely 200 more are in agreement with them but haven't said anything. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If you object to the application of consensuses (policies, guidelines, and manuals), I will make an effort to avoid editing those pages where you have established your own SOP therefor. Please accept my advance apologies if I accidentally edit such pages of yours; I promise here that it's unintentional, and you may—of course—wholesale revert any policy/guideline/manual-based edits I make IAW this discussion (though you may need to point here for any other uninvolved editors). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, according to the government of Rajasthan, Mohammed Jaifoon did indeed declare himself the ruler of Dholpur. Valereee (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References

You've got mail.

Hello, Fourthords. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sin Shadow Fox (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't yet, actually. If you're game to talk here: what's up? If not, I'll check email again tomorrow. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Tomorrows good. It's not terribly important. Sin Shadow Fox (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother but have you received my email yet? Sin Shadow Fox (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, no worries! I've just checked now, and nothing Wikipedia-related has shown up since you asked. I've also just checked my account setting, and my email is apparently set-up properly. I've never used the function before, so I don't know how it works, exactly. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, well could i give you my email directly or would you prefer to talk here? Sin Shadow Fox (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume you want to speak on something Wikipedia-related? If it's something generic (or about me specifically), here's probably the best place. If it applies to just a single article, that article's talk page would probably be best (though let me know which one, because I may not be watching it). — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok I've put my email on the page's talk page Talk:Michael Landes#Copy of your message to Fourthords: Wikipedia email from user "Sin Shadow Fox" Sin Shadow Fox (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That I definitely do see! I'll reply there momentarily. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

So would the wiki page suffice as a citeable source or is there something else you would recommend? Sin Shadow Fox (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bawls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interplay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Aw, damn, of course that'd be a DAB page. Thanks, I've fixed it, now. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 18:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Football and not soccer

Hello,

Here are the full lyrics of "Marly-Gomont" the song performed by Kamini and the exact term used is "foot" (diminutive of "football"), "football" is the official term used everywhere but in the USA, the federation who held that sport is called Federation of International Football Association (FIFA). "Soccer" is just a local term, nothing else : [copyright-violating material removed] Carlo Colussi (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

My talk page isn't the best place to discuss a particular article. I've copied your comment here to Talk:Kamini (rapper)#quotes, and replied there. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Fourthords. Thank you for creating Abuse of Kylie Freeman. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Take Care with Deletions

Hi, I just added back in a statement to A-ca-oo-mah-ca-ye as uncited with a link to WP:V. A quick check of the source cited on the sentence prior to that revealed that the uncited info was accurate and included with that source. WP:BURDEN does state that it's the obligation of someone adding content to make sure it's cited, but there is an equal obligation under BURDEN to make an effort to address uncited material, not just cut it. Particularly on articles that have been around a while there's a reasonable chance that a statement was dethatched from its source during editing or that it was added at a time when general resources were considered as good as inline sources. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You're correct, the verifiability policy does explicitly say, 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 the contribution. It also specifically says, Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. These doesn't seem to be a requirement that every source already present should be consulted before removing uncited material. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The same section says When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. Simply saying "uncited," absent a WP:BLP concern, and deleting for that reason alone without engaging in at least a little investigation fails to meet that standard. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've only encountered a scant few editors who've not understood my edit summary (- uncited claims), but I suppose it's fair to guess that more might not. I could put my longer explanation in a scratch pad, and in the future, copy & paste it into edit summaries: "- claims that were unverifiable by their original editor, but accidentally added and have remained in contravention of the verifiability policy". Do you think that'd duly explain the concern, without requiring anybody to actually click through and read the policy? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that still goes against the spirit of BURDEN, unless you truly believe that published reliable sources do not exist and therefore the material may not be verifiable. Is there a reason you feel deletion is the better approach than adding a citation needed tag (an approach also suggested in BURDEN)? — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I may be misunderstanding you. Let me rejigger my inferences and try again.

Every editor is told, every time they edit any article, Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources., which itself links to an instruction that says, If you are adding new content, it is your responsibility to add sourcing information along with it. Material provided without a source is significantly more likely to be removed from an article. If any unsourced material was added to an article, it was done so intentionally. The original editor who was familiar with the claims, and who added the material: if they couldn't find the apropriate sources to add, I do not expect myself or anybody else to readily do so. This is also assuming the original editor wasn't being malicious with nonsense contributions, for which no sources will ever be found, but are otherwise sitting in articles indefinitely; how long should such lies sit in our articles (tagged and untagged)?

Either way, when I remove unsourced material, of course it's probably unverifiable—why else wouldn't it be sourced? I don't mind verbosifying my edit summaries duly (either the example above of something of your instruction), if you think it's necessary for those consensuses to be linked and explained each time. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, those are the current expectations for new content added. Over the years those standards have evolved. The answer to your question "Why else wouldn't it be sourced?, particularly for older articles, can be as simple as when it was written the general sources were considered sufficient and inline sourcing was less common. In other cases, over the years, various edits may have moved the citation away from the statement. In the case of A-ca-oo-mah-ca-ye, a quick look at the source for the first half of the paragraph showed that the information removed was included in that source. Moving the citation from the first sentence to the end of the paragraph solved the concern. That's all I'm asking: Before you cut content, take a quick look to see if it is actually verifiable or is even sourced elsewhere in the article.

Obviously, there are cases where an addition is clearly nonsense or where a WP:BLP violation is involved where deletion is the correct immediate fix. Beyond that, the mere presence or absence of a reference doesn't mean something is true or false. I recently cut a line in the Louisiana Purchase article that said the U.S. shipped gold to Napoleon as part of the purchase agreement (a claim added in 2007). There were sources on the paragraph, but checking them didn't supported the statement and some additional research showed it was completely wrong. Simply looking for unsourced paragraphs hadn't discovered that wrong information.

You recently cut a large section from the Mushy Callahan article excising his movie career, but didn't change the section head or the lede that both mentioned his film work. A reader seeing a section head "Retirement from boxing and movie career" and only a quick mention of him staying in LA to peruse a career in the movie industry would have been better served with the more detailed information about his work as a technical advisor and trainer, all of which a quick Google search verified in general (although it took longer to build out more precise sourcing), even if it was flagged as needing sources.

BURDEN says you may cut uncited material (not must), but it equally says you are encouraged to seek a source or to flag it instead of cutting (with the obvious exception of contentious material about living people, which should be cut). I think the chopping of content without actually examining it (and seeing if the cut has impacts in the remainder of the article) doesn't necessarily improve the project. Instead, I think it's reasonable to do some research or add a CN flag if you don't have the time or inclination to research. Even if those flags linger, it's a hint to readers to question the statement and a prod for editors to fix it. Cutting material simply for the lack of an inline cite doesn't do that. You can chalk it up to different philosophies for approaching edits, but I'd just ask you to take care with deletions and to consider using CN flags unless you're reasonably certain the information is bunk. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

BURDEN says you may cut uncited material (not must), but it equally says you are encouraged to seek a source or to flag it instead of cutting I'm also not required to, though. You can chalk it up to different philosophies for approaching edits… It is probably just different interpretations of where the emphasis should lie, and that's not an acute problem. I lay more weight on the responsibilities of preceding editors and the prima facie reliability of the project. Consensus says neither is truer, and I think I understand your POV. …I'd just ask you to take care with deletions and to consider using CN flags unless you're reasonably certain the information is bunk. I do sometimes use in-line tags like {{citation needed}}, {{unreliable source?}}, and others; that decision is typically guided by my intuition about certain articles, and also whether I expect retaliation. I certainly don't take a dim view of your asking; I appreciate the input. Though I will still remove uncited claims from articles, know that your well-articulated and thoughtful discourse may stay my hand more than your silence would've. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the comments in the spirit which they were offered. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Deletions again

Fourthords, since the last time I contacted you about repeated complaints from multiple editors about you deleting content for being tagged citation needed -- when the article does contain sources that support the content -- you've gotten two more complaints. It's only been two months, and you've had long arguments with at least two people here on your talk alone, and you just aren't taking any of this criticism on. If a bit of content in something other than a BLP is not dubious, removing it isn't the best way to handle it. Finding a source is the best way to handle it. I even showed you back in August just how easy it was for me to find the source for the content you'd removed. The person who put the tag on may not have even known what they were talking about. They could have been a vandal for all you know. The answer to a citation needed tag is not to remove content. It's to find the citation.

I am really concerned about this. You are abusing that policy. Valereee (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to take this guy to ANI? 2001:4453:532:1900:1C9F:D7D0:47CB:E0E8 (talk) 10:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd rather chew my own arm off. I'd like to find almost any other way to handle this, preferably by convincing Fourthords that what they're doing is the opposite of helpful editing.

Fourthords, are you going to continue to remove content for no reason other than it having been tagged for what you perceive as too long? Valereee (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#BURDEN_and_the_removal_of_tagged_content. Maybe we can discussion clarifying whether simply being tagged makes it removable under BURDEN, which I believe applies to contentious material, not simply tagged material. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about attempting to change the consensus; feel free to do so, and I will abide by the policy—changed or not. As such, do you need my input in your new discussion? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Nope, I'll report back if there's any clarification. Valereee (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Will I continue to remove uncited prose IAW the verifiability policy? Probably, yes. However, your latter implication that I only do so for no reason other than it having been tagged for […] too long is inaccurate, and may be coloring both the meaning behind your question, as well as my actions overall. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears that since our conversation at #deleting unsourced material, only Tcr25 (talk · contribs) has been here to ask about my deleting uncited material for which other sources in the same article may satisfy (at #Take Care with Deletions). Sin Shadow Fox (talk · contribs) at #You've got mail. was asking about reliable sourcing and the IMDb, DPL bot (talk · contribs) at #Disambiguation link notification for August 7 was just notifying me about accidentally linking to a disambiguation page, Carlo Colussi (talk · contribs) at #Football and not soccer was ultimately about the principle of minimal change, and SunDawn (talk · contribs) at #I have sent you a note about a page you started was an automated notice about an article I wrote.

…and you just aren't taking any of this criticism on. Really? I thought Tcr25 and I had a rather amicable discussion, since when I've only removed unsourced material IAW WP:V—at articles in which I didn't comprehensively check every single other source in the article—twice: at the articles Coolio and Ryan Fournier because they were both receiving high levels of attention and scrutiny by the non-editing public.

The answer to a citation needed tag is not to remove content. It's to find the citation. According to the verifiability policy, they're both answers. You are abusing that policy. As I said to 2001:4453:532:1900:1C9F:D7D0:47CB:E0E8 (talk · contribs) above, this seems to boil down to: you don't like the application of policy as written by consensus. On top of that, you're taking issue with a narrower SOP (when sources may already exist in an article, but aren't duly cited), which seems to have been answered satisfactorily by users who weren't equally "really concerned" and vaguely accusing me of "abuse". I would recommend that if you feel strongly about your preferred interpretation of the policy, you should gain consensus to change it. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Heather Rich

Congrats on the edits you've made. I can assure you her father was severely burned (cannot recall if they were electrical burns or not) in a workplace accident. I know this isn't really a reliable source, but it is specified here (and I believe in a few documentaries). Regards, and thanks again. K.D. Kieronoldham (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's quite likely that Mr. Rich's workplace injuries were accidental, but "A Bend in the River" (the source cited) doesn't make that distinction, and for us to do so would be original research; I don't remember any of the other used-sources making mention of this aspect of the case, but I'll keep an eye out. (I also agree that Chilling Crimes doesn't meet muster as a reliable source, but their source might, if you wanted to reach out.) — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For your edits ad general diligence upon the Heather Rich article. Kudos, and thanks. Kieronoldham (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, wow! These're a blast from the past! Thanks so much! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your changes

Your changes ([3]) make absolutely no sense. Basic grammar and syntax. Please review. Thanks. 107.122.161.18 (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The edit summary there says, category alphabetization; {{use mdy dates}} update; {{unbulleted list}};. That was to explain that (a) the categories of that article were alphabetized, (b) the |date= parameter for {{use mdy dates}} was updated to indicate the article's continued and current compliance with the appropriate date formatting, and (c) the infobox list of spouses was updated with {{unbulleted list}} IAW MOS:UBLIST. What bearing do you think these three changes have on the "basic grammar and syntax", particularly since they aren't visible to the reader as prose? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Refixed. Guess it's just my OCD, LOL. Yours. 107.122.161.18 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to think that "emerging church movement", "living people", "people from Edina, Minnesota", and "year of birth missing (living people)" are proper nouns requiring capitalization. They aren't, and don't need to be capitalized in contravention of English SOP, nor should you edit war over capitalization that's otherwise invisible to the reader. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 00:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox edits...seeking your experience and know-how

Hey Fourthords,

Noticed your simplifying of an infobox at the Humptulips, Washington page - [4] - and had a couple of questions that might help me be a better editor:

1. Is this to help simplify the infoboxes, ridding it of unneeded or redundant parameters?

2. Or is it more along the lines of cleanliness at it's end point, i.e. they're overstuffed to begin with?

3. Should skinning-down the infobox be standard practice and something I should be doing?

I'm currently undertaking the additions of infoboxes on CDP's and unincorporated communities in WA state, and want to make sure I'm not adding to a maintenance/editing backlog by using a full-throated template (I'm currently going with the grain of those infobox layouts as already incorporated throughout WA town/city/CDP/et all articles).

If you have the time, I'd love your feedback especially considering your experience and respectability here at Wikipedia. TheGREYHORSE (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

One reason I'll remove empty parameters from the infobox is because they'd been unfilled for a long time (15.15 years in this case), and if they're still blank after all that time, then they were unlikely to be filled usually due to non-applicability or other reasons. I've also seen that newer editors will, upon encountering blanks in a template, feel compelled to "finish them", assuming that blank variables equals incompleteness; removing the blanks will discourage that assumption, while sometimes leaving some (like an |alt=) is to actually encourage that activity. Infobox templates also change over time, and it's best practice to return to the source —e.g. {{infobox settlement}}—for the optimal and standardized parameter names and variable spacing, which leaving the original October 2007 version of the template might discourage. There're also lesser concerns like time spent scrolling past unused parameters and a general desire for tidiness.

However, absolutely none of this is codified (that I'm aware of). They're just my intuitions and personal practices that don't conflict with any policies, guidelines, manuals, or other editors. I wouldn't dive into editing an article for the express purpose of examining its infobox code; at Humptulips, Washington I was adding the cropped photo as my primary edit, and then made those other hopefully-uncontroversial edits while I was in the neighborhood. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are you going around deleting Wikipedia Pages - and then re-directing to articles that aren't the actual Wikipedia of the person?

Title. Why are you doing this? Why are you deleting Wikipedia Pages - Creating new Wikipedia Pages for no reason, and then attempting to link your new Wikipedia Pages to the old ones by re-directing from the Main WikiPedia profiles you are deleting? This is being updated to confirm you have been reported to AN/I. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 64.231.234.195 (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

That's unclear, but I'll meet you at ANI and continue the discussion there, instead. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Suicide of Louis Conradt

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Louis Conradt a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Suicide of Louis Conradt. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It appears that you tried to give Louis Conradt a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Suicide of Louis Conradt. I didn't. The content of the latter article was originally and entirely developed independently of the former. Suicide of Louis Conradt was created from whole cloth, and then Louis Conradt was turned into a redirect. I'm gonna remove the {{history merge}} (and link to this discussion in my edit summary) because I'm worried a bot might make a technical mess by trying to merge two different wholly distinct article histories. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems I jumped to conclusions. Apologies for the inconvenience. Kleuske (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

No worries! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Charles Robert Jenkins/Ten Zan

Hi - I've requested a WP:THIRDOPINION about the Charles Robert Jenkins/Tan Zan question. Regards, Muzilon (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I was confused by the duplication, but then I saw that it's part of the process. Carry on! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced template

When you're adding a template to an article for referencing problems, such as you did a couple of days ago at Orlando Jones, you do not backdate the template to the original creation of the article — that results in the regeneration of long-deleted redlinked maintenance categories such as Category:Articles needing additional references from November 2004, that don't have a legitimate basis for recreation at all but cannot be left as unresolved redlinks either. You date the template to the month in which you're adding the template, i.e. February 2023, regardless of when the page was originally created. For one thing, the table you're tagging as an "unreferenced section" wasn't in the article yet as of 2004, so it isn't a 19-year-old issue — so what's important in the context of that template is not "how long has the article existed", but "when was the referencing problem noticed and tagged for". Bearcat (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The "unreferenced" templates automatically categorize their pages into "Category:Articles lacking sources from [Month YEAR]", e.g. Category:articles lacking sources from February 2023. At that category page, it says, This category combines all articles lacking sources from February 2023, which means "articles which have been lacking sources from the month February 2023", not "articles which were found in February 2023 to be lacking sources". The Orlando Jones article has had an unreferenced filmography section since its creation, meaning that entire section has been wildly out of compliance for 18.2 years. Since that sort of long-standing failure is profound and important to realize, and given the self-description of the category pages, I've always dated the {{unreferenced}} templates to whenever that article or section first lacked sourcing; you're the first to contradict my actions and those pages. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 14:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

U. S.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Talk:Robert Rozier#U. S.

---

Hi Fourthords

NFL players have U.S. ... even murderers such as Dahmer, Bundy and Gacy have U.S.

Just wondering why this page do I get such feedback. I'm not going to get into all the ins and outs of Wikipedia, rules and wording etc.

I'm hoping that in a few months Robert Rozier isn't the only former NFL player left. Many editors are doing what I'm going. Hundreds a day.

Believe me, I'm not here to aggravate you.

Thank you for hearing me out. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actress - Tami Stronach

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Talk:Tami Stronach#Actress - Tami Stronach

---

Hello, how are you, im. sorry i couldn't find any more information on Tami Stronach, and also i thought that the entry rateyourmusoic.com was a reliable entry and i didn't relaise that it wasn't she was really only ever known as a child star in The Neverending Story as the Childlike Empress and she became famous even though her appearance in that film was a mere 3 minutes, the movie Ultra_Low is listed on IMDB, which may also not be reliable, and although that role she is listed as having a starring role, it is a independent film from a small studio, so there may not be much written on it. I have found another article about her, i don't know if this is exceptable either, but gives a few details about her ancestry background, i dont know if she is referred to as American , but she resides in California, and with her family has lived in several countries and the film The Neverending Story was made in Germany, site is Mamamia.com.au/neverending-story-empress-tami-stronach/ .kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.14.227 (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.