User:HuskyHuskie/tagging questions

WP:PEACOCK

 * While I don't really oppose removal of unsourced material, what does WP:PEACOCK have to do with it? --Muhandes (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The unsourced assertion that those residents are notable.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 01:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you ever read WP:PEACOCK? It has to do with using puffery, nothing to do with unsourced assertions. I'm just suggesting a correct edit summary will ease the life of everyone. Best regards, and happy editing.--Muhandes (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'm not the only one who has a problem with your understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Might I make a friendly suggestion?  I notice that only about a third of your edits are in the mainspace, and in fact, you have less than 2000 edits there.  The single largest contribution you have is to various users' talk pages, where you have over 500 edits with the vague edit summary "tag".  I wonder if that ES is something generated by a program, because I must tell you, I looked at a great number of those edits and found few cases where "tag" had anything to do with your message.


 * Despite your userbox indicating that you would never want to be an admin, your editing profile is exactly like a lot of editors who hope to impress enough to go to RFA. But if that is your goal, I gotta tell you, you're not going to make it.  You'd be a lot better off if you actually spent some time contributing to the content of articles, and learned about policies through article creation, instead of just spewing forth messages citing policies, especially when you do so in a not-so-bright manner, like the PEACOCK issue in this section. (BTW, what you did at Italian beef was not ignorant; you were within the letter of the rules, I just disagree with it, and I think a lot of editors would as well.  But others would take your side, I admit.)


 * Anyway, I'm sure you'll say you aren't trying to get a mop, and that's fine--I sure can't know what's in your head. But the one thing that you really, really need to do is to provide meaningful edit summaries.  I say that as someone who has a terrible record--percentagewise--of leaving summaries, but when I do leave one, I try to actually leave something useful.  Your "tag" summaries might as well be blank.  HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't you have anything better to do?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that's kind of what I felt like saying to you when I saw you doing your drive-by tagging on . . . what was it, Italian beef, I think? But instead of making an unhelpful comment like that, I actually explained what I was objecting to.  I may be gruff, but I do try to explain specifically why I do what I do.  That's my problem with (the admittedly little) of what I've seen you doing.  You place these tags on articles without explaining why they're there.  That's why the article has a talk page.  If you think something needs to be sourced, tell us what it is.  Don't just tag because you see something unsourced.  Let me ask you, would you tag the following for its lack of sources?

''Bears are mammals of the family Ursidae. Bears are classified as caniforms, or doglike carnivorans, with the pinnipeds being their closest living relatives. Although there are only eight living species of bear, they are widespread, appearing in a wide variety of habitats throughout the Northern Hemisphere and partially in the Southern Hemisphere. Bears are found in the continents of North America, South America, Europe, and Asia.''

''Common characteristics of modern bears include a large body with stocky legs, a long snout, shaggy hair, plantigrade paws with five nonretractile claws, and a short tail. While the polar bear is mostly carnivorous and the giant panda feeds almost entirely on bamboo, the remaining six species are omnivorous, with largely varied diets including both plants and animals.''


 * Not one source is there, and there's a lot of information. Should it be sourced?  Go ahead and tag it (it's the first two paragraphs of Bear) and see what happens.  You see, if you wantonly go around tagging anything that's unsourced, you're going to run into a lot of opposition, for reasons that I tried to touch upon on my post that you have not responded to earlier. Exactly what was it that you felt needed a source?  Because there's more unsourced material in those two paragraphs than there were in the entire article on Italian beef.  All I'm saying is that it is incumbent upon the tagger to explain himself when he says something is unsourced.  HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Look, leave me alone, and stay off my talk page.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you want . . . I do recognize not everyone is up to a reasoned discussion of their actions. I won't be back. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)