User talk:Autspectorder
Welcome!
[edit]
Hello, Autspectorder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I am pleased to present you with your very first service award, in recognition of becoming a Wikipedia contributor.
I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that may help you to get up to speed:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Simplified Manual of Style
- The Signpost, our newspaper.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or .
Again, welcome! C F A 💬 15:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I reverted the effect of that edit by restoring those non-breaking spaces and adding some missing ones. The code for a non-breaking space means that when you have US 52, that can't be separated by a line break. That means that we can't have the "US" appear at the end of one line and the "52" appear at the start of the next line, which can happen with US 52. A non-breaking space means that the combination has to appear together on a single line, which is preferred. Because our articles appear on a variety of screen sizes, from smart phones to wide computer monitors, with a variety of typeface sizes, we can't know when a specific instance of US 52 will appear at the end of a line for any specific reader. Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
October 2024
[edit]
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Demographics of the Arab world, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you seem to be making a lot of edits that are all the same: going through the list of articles with unsourced statements, then removing those statements. This is supported by one reading of policy here, but it's really not the best approach. If this super-simple strategy was all we needed to do, then we could have a 'bot do all of them in no time.
The problem is that this tag doesn't mean that the content is wrong, or that it must be removed. It could well be correct, if so then it's probably a useful addition to the article, merely that we don't as yet have sourcing meeting WP:RS that supports it. Sometimes it doesn't even mean that much, it's just a tag that has been added deliberately and wrongly as the result of a disagreement. This is why WP needs human editors, to make editorial decisions. We don't just leave it to 'bots.
What is much better is to use some judgement on these articles. What is the content? Does it appear credible or unlikely? How much sourcing would be needed to support it? There's a saying here, "WP:extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources", but equally, simple claims don't need sourcing more than the simple. Instead of removing the text, could you instead make it better by adding the sources requested instead? Here's one: Basting (cooking). A really simple statement, only tagged in the last few days, and cookbooks are hardly hard to find to confirm this. Similarly APS - sure, it's twenty years ago, which is a paper-based era when few of us still keep the magazines around, but that doesn't mean it's unsourceable.
Your blanket deletions, across every topic, are 'justified' by policy here and no doubt you will see that as an excuse. But it's still not a good reason for it, and editing to improve things instead could be so much better. I hope you will consider this, thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)