Talk:Carl Emil Pettersson

Section
I see someone has replaced the uncategorised, unreferenced, orphan, templates I removed previously and has now also added a template for inline citations as well. Please discuss, per WP:BRD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neotarf (talk • contribs)
 * What do you have questions on? There are two templates on the page.  One is that the article is an orphan, that is true.  I don't think it's impossible to deorphan this, my initial thought is that it could be linked somewhere from Pippi Longstocking.  The article would benefit from inline citations, an easy issue to fix if you have access to the source. Ryan Vesey 02:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it can be deorphaned, but I have only started the translation. But I am not an algorithm and I only have two hands; it does take time for me to translate, to research the various word choices (usually with several browser windows open), to proofread, to type in words, and to sleep. This would have been finished quite some time ago, but my wiki time is limited, and my attention has been diverted to more pressing discussions. Really, this is quite a waste of time, all of this placing and removing of tags, when we could be creating content.  Like building inspectors coming around and citing a house for not having a roof when the basement foundation has only just been poured. —Neotarf (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just ignore the tags and fix the article. There is no problem with leaving them there while you're working on it. It is a waste of time...so either create in your userspace or stop wasting time fighting and whining over perfectly legitimate tags. --Onorem♠Dil 03:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Onorem, please comment on content, not on the contributor. If you can show that this tag is legitimate, please do so, and without bullying. —Neotarf (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are no inline citations. The article is an orphan. There you go. I've explained why the tag is legitimate. --Onorem♠Dil 03:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What policy are you citing. This does not at all make sense. If you really thing it needs inline citations, why don't you add them.—Neotarf (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't a sofixit issue, it's a translated from the Swedish from a book that isn't accessible on the internet. It is nearly impossible for anyone who doesn't know swedish to add the citations. Ryan Vesey 03:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In regards to inline citations, there isn't a requirement for the placement of inline citations except in regards to contentious material; however, the fact is, articles are improved with inline citations. As such, there is zero doubt that the tag should remain as long as inline citations do not exist in the article. Ryan Vesey 04:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure if you still care to discuss whether the tags should be left or not, but the tags should be left until the problem is solved. As for the inline citation tag, the fact that the article it was translated from doesn't have inline citations doesn't fix the problem in this article.  I can attempt to get the book from an interlibrary loan from Harvard and scan the appropriate pages (to the best of my ability) and send them to you.  Let me know quickly, I've got the page open now. Ryan Vesey 03:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)As far as inline citations, please do look at the one template that I saw fit to place, that the article is a translation of an article on the Swedish wikipedia. I have already called attention to this in an edit summary and now I must spend time calling attention to it again. Really, there are so many pointless templates on this thing that the ones that do matter are not noticed. —Neotarf (talk) 03:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Explanation
Please explain your reverts Neotarf. Ryan Vesey 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, removed counterfactual material:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, ... Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
 * See also WP:SPS for the verifiability of self-published and promotional sources. Also WP:RS/AC: "Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material"
 * Per WP:BURDEN "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." and "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material..."
 * —Neotarf (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't explain why you removed it. The explanation I am asking for, is why do you believe the source in question was unreliable? Ryan Vesey 01:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, what original research are you referring to. Finally, what did "this is a translation" have to do with anything. Ryan Vesey 01:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've raised this issue at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Ryan Vesey 04:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)