User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2018/August

Edits Romania

Hello, please have a read into what original research is, because it is clear you don't understand the concept. Data regarding GDP in the country infoboxes is provided by the IMF, which acts as a general source for all such articles. As you can see, no other country articles provide individual sources for each number in the article - and the explanation is simple: because you can track such info very easy on IMF's website. The data there is not debatable nor questioned and certainly not a personal opinion so it doesn't qualify as OR: "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed". I wonder how come after so many years on Wikipedia you cannot tell the difference. Anyway, I added a source for every number so you can rest assured it is not OR, however please be aware that your conduct - invalidating a valuable edit on Wikipedia - can be quallified as vandalism if done repeatedly. So behave. --Danutz (talk) 12:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danutz:: It's really that simple: if the source has not changed (i.e. you have to WP:CITE another source or another URL instead of the old one), then the figures should not change. That's all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There was no source?! [1] Have you even checked before reverting? Your edit qualifies as vandalism. --Danutz (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danutz: Don't be so cocky and don't cast aspersions. At your edit ([2]) you have changed no source, but you have changed the figures, it was natural for me to assume that the figures were made up. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

See? The WP:BURDEN to WP:CITE new/changed WP:SOURCES was not fulfilled, no explanation (edit summary) was given for the change, what was I to suppose? Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I really fail to understand why you would assume the numbers were not right, and why you did not bother to check or simply ask if you were in doubt. The numbers were similar to the older ones (so no obvious differences - like tenfold), they were easily traceable, there was no source anyway for the previous numbers and the edit was done by a registered user with a history of edits. Sorry, but your behaviour in this matter is unconceivable irrespective of your good intentions. Anyway, nevermind. Danutz (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danutz: It is upon the editor who performs the change to justify why the change is needed. You have done none of that: not citing another source, not changing the date of accessing the existing sources, not saying in the edit summary what you were doing, not using the talk page of the article. It is a good idea that in the future you use edit summaries in order to explain your edits instead of leaving other editors guessing about why you change figures. So, putting all blame on me and accusing me of vandalism is preposterous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danutz: In fact, your edit is an exemplary case of suspicious edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Origin of the Romanians Article. Thank you. --Cealicuca (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)