User talk:Timtrent/A good article

Hi Tim thanks for this article very interesting and informative article C~S~W (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it and found it useful :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

I found That very useful Thank you so much for sending Me Here!!! ACase0000 (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re Patriarchal Code. I read your article. I'll try to understand what I'm doing wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Louise Goueffic (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

deletionism considered harmful, except when it is not

I've added some citations. Suggest a sentence explaining that *abusing* citations like this, taking them out of context and such, should never be done. Furthermore, this is a nice seque into cautioning wannabe-deletionists, who will go snark-tagging and getting rid of perfectly valid and truthful information, as revenge for all the times *they* tried to add WP:The_Truth and were reverted. Information sans cites *is* perfectly legitimate. It only requires a cite if it is challenged, or is likely to be challenged, as unverifiable/incorrect/wrong/false/etc.

Beginners need to know that when they delete something unsourced, they are issuing a challenge to the editor that added the material. They are slapping them in the face with a heavy gauntlet. This should never be done lightly. This should never be done as a matter of course. Always preferable for the challenging-editor, rather than fobbing off the work, to open up a talkpage discussion of the matter, do some WP:GOOG legwork, and in general just see whether snark-tagging (let alone cold-blooded deletionism) is in fact worth fighting about. Because reverting good-faith edits, *is* starting a fight. WP:NICE strongly applies.

Furthermore, I definitely would like to see a sentence about the converse corollary. Already covered: you cannot add something into wikipedia just because it is The Truth, if somebody challenges you, find a Reliable Source that actually *says* your sentence is the truth. Missing in action: you cannot *remove* something from wikipedia just because it is *not* The Truth... as long as there is a Reliable Source, wikipedia must reflect what that source says, no matter how false/wrong/incorrect the sentence may be. That goes double for immoral/obscene/blasphemous/inappropriate sentences: Reliable Sources trump all else.

Then, a bit of WP:BLPTALK and also WP:COPYVIO might be worthwhile, so that beginning editors are not timid about reverting Dangerous Bad Things that can only harm wikipedia... plus, alerts them to the special case of BLPs, where especially super-good Reliable Sources are of paramount importance. Thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@74.192.84.101: I've come to your thoughts afresh. I wanted to give myself some time and distance to absorb them. I do not own this essay, so please enjoy adding things within the spirit of helping a new editor enjoy their time here. I also have no objection if you choose to move it from my user space to Wikipedia: space, giving it a great title and good shortcuts

Fiddle Faddle 21:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]