Talk:Lyneham Primary School

Revert by Dan
Editor Danjel reverted my application of the maintenance tag -- which I had re-added stating in my edit summary "Undid revision 476040300 by Gillyweed (talk) Hi -- Please don't remove the maint tag, per wp:CHALLENGED, without providing refs for the uncited sentences".

I thought the edit summary quite clear.

I would have thought that a good faith editor could see which sentences are not referenced.

Yet Danjel reverted the maintenance tag, failing to provide inline citations for "the uncited sentences".

I would ask Danjel not to remove maintenance tags in the future without addressing the issue, or giving an appropriate explanation. Inasmuch as it is clear which sentences are uncited, his edit summary was not appropriate IMHO.

I'll now remove the sentences, per WP:CHALLENGED, and ask that they not be restored without appropriate inline citations.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Get a grip. There are many pieces of text which are not referenced in this and other articles (like "the sky appears blue...")You didn't point to which parts of the article you're having issues with and preferred the route of tagging the article without identifying any specific issues, THEN outright removing the text you apparently found problematic instead of asking for a citation as many MANY other editors do. I've reinstated one of the sections with a reference (which you could have found with extremely minimal effort). &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 05:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The ref improve tag is an accepted tag, where an article has sentences that lack refs. To make it clear, I also stated in my edit summary what the tag applied to.  There is no need -- contrary to your request -- for further explanation than that, or for individual tagging of each sentence.  Even the tag is simply a courtesy -- as the tag states, but as we know even without the tag reminding us, such sentences are subject to deletion.  I sought to provide the courtesy of a tag and reminder, and you deleted the tag despite the very clear explanation for it.  I hope that at this point you are clear as to the sentences at issue.  Please feel free to restore them with inline citations if you like.  And again -- please take this as a warning not to remove maintenance tags without an acceptable edit summary or addressing the problem.  Finally, please stay off my talkpage to the extent possible -- notices such as the one that you just left are better left on this article page.  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article has refs. You did not identify what text you had issues with. You're just drive-by-tagging. Take this as a warning: your approach to editing, and schools in particular, is problematic. Stop. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 06:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A couple weeks ago, you suggested I tag articles instead of AfDing them (even though it was Epeefleche who was AfDing them, mostly). Now you're admonishing Epeefleche for tagging articles.  Would you rather he just AfDed them?  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, with regard to the citations in this article, a couple of them have dead links. That's gotta be fixed  Purpleback  pack  89  ≈≈≈≈  14:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Would [I] rather" the article be AfD'ed? Is that a threat? I consider this conversation to be over. &tilde;danjel [ talk &#124; contribs ] 04:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)