User talk:73.174.36.17
== January 2016 ==
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you made a change to an article, With the Beatles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
- Even "facts" require sources on Wikipedia. Carefully read WP:V. You have the options of finding reliable sources, or getting consensus on the article's talk page. And you are required to do one of those rather than simply restoring it unsourced, per WP:BRD. I'm not arguing about fundamental Wikipedia policy. Sundayclose (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be "bold" here. Truthfully, the majority of simple facts don't, but now one, YOU, interpret it that this does, as of a few days ago, and are now going to act as a roadblock. I remember once, on this type of issue, an editor declared, "It doesn't matter what one editor does or does not know" about a subject; except that, it entirely does, more or less by "definition", because that utterly defines what an editor considers to need a "source", and what doesn't. (BTW, speaking of BRD, which exactly is the "revert" here; my having the info in, or your taking it out?) From my standpoint (and I admit this is subjective), I would suggest that you find a consensus that the information must now go -- but 'mob rule' can be a tricky thing. As for a "source", it's basically "the Beatles' discographic track information", or whatever is considered the source of THAT. That's it: whatever the track information source is, that's the source -- some info, not 'interpretation' or 'opinion', just raw data, purely objective, obtained from reading that. Beyond this, I'm not gonna waste my time on this piddling matter anymore (so much for my supposed boldness). Good day. 73.174.36.17 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, facts do require sources. Again, please read WP:V. And no, it's not my responsibility to get consensus to remove the information; "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I won't continue arguing about this; it's fundamental Wikipedia policy. So this is my last comment. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- "With the Beatles is the second studio album by the English rock group the Beatles. It was released on 22 November 1963, on Parlophone, and was recorded four months after the band's debut Please Please Me. The album features eight original compositions (seven by Lennon–McCartney and 'Don't Bother Me', George Harrison's first recorded solo composition and his first released on a Beatles album) and six covers (mostly of Motown, rock and roll, and R&B hits). The cover photograph was taken by the fashion photographer Robert Freeman, and it has been mimicked by several music groups over the years."
- This entire first paragraoh of the same article is unsourced. Do you want to remove it, or shall I? 73.174.36.17 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- First you should know that information in the WP:LEAD does not require a source if and only if it is sourced elsewhere in the article. But more importantly, your implication is, "other unsourced stuff exists, so why can't my unsourced stuff be added?" You don't need my permission to remove anything that you consider inappropriate, but don't expect Wikipedia to allow you to add unsourced information just because it exists elsewhere. Wikipedia is a work in progress; it will never be perfect. But that's no excuse for making it worse. Now, again, this is my last comment. I will not indulge your unwillingness to listen to simple English. To that end, I am taking this talk page off my watchlist. I suggest reading a few basic Wikipedia policies rather than try to endlessly argue with me. Start with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:SYN. Sundayclose (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK, feel free to wallow in your own obstinacy and hostility. 73.174.36.17 (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- First you should know that information in the WP:LEAD does not require a source if and only if it is sourced elsewhere in the article. But more importantly, your implication is, "other unsourced stuff exists, so why can't my unsourced stuff be added?" You don't need my permission to remove anything that you consider inappropriate, but don't expect Wikipedia to allow you to add unsourced information just because it exists elsewhere. Wikipedia is a work in progress; it will never be perfect. But that's no excuse for making it worse. Now, again, this is my last comment. I will not indulge your unwillingness to listen to simple English. To that end, I am taking this talk page off my watchlist. I suggest reading a few basic Wikipedia policies rather than try to endlessly argue with me. Start with WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:SYN. Sundayclose (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, facts do require sources. Again, please read WP:V. And no, it's not my responsibility to get consensus to remove the information; "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I won't continue arguing about this; it's fundamental Wikipedia policy. So this is my last comment. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be "bold" here. Truthfully, the majority of simple facts don't, but now one, YOU, interpret it that this does, as of a few days ago, and are now going to act as a roadblock. I remember once, on this type of issue, an editor declared, "It doesn't matter what one editor does or does not know" about a subject; except that, it entirely does, more or less by "definition", because that utterly defines what an editor considers to need a "source", and what doesn't. (BTW, speaking of BRD, which exactly is the "revert" here; my having the info in, or your taking it out?) From my standpoint (and I admit this is subjective), I would suggest that you find a consensus that the information must now go -- but 'mob rule' can be a tricky thing. As for a "source", it's basically "the Beatles' discographic track information", or whatever is considered the source of THAT. That's it: whatever the track information source is, that's the source -- some info, not 'interpretation' or 'opinion', just raw data, purely objective, obtained from reading that. Beyond this, I'm not gonna waste my time on this piddling matter anymore (so much for my supposed boldness). Good day. 73.174.36.17 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Even "facts" require sources on Wikipedia. Carefully read WP:V. You have the options of finding reliable sources, or getting consensus on the article's talk page. And you are required to do one of those rather than simply restoring it unsourced, per WP:BRD. I'm not arguing about fundamental Wikipedia policy. Sundayclose (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |
