User talk:2601:246:C700:558:7938:3E63:9048:84AA

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Someone using this IP address, 2601:246:C700:558:7938:3E63:9048:84AA, has made edits to NOOMA that do not conform to our policies and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider [ getting a username] to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.

Some good links for newcomers are:
 * Help contents – the main help page.
 * Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Again, welcome! Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Stop requiring sources for already sourced material. WP:DEADLINKs are still valid and no new source needs to be found. For some reason, videos do not require citations once they are released. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * So, back in the day (and since), Jimmy Wales made (and since has made) quite clear that the design of this platform was intended as a venue where both logged and non-logging individuals could peacefully co-work and co-exist. Despite the pax-inspiring allusions of your user information page, I find myself tempted to perceive that you do not agree with that design intention, despite the fact that the non-logging editor involved shares your faith, and the duration of their editing at this venue. (This inference derives from having Talk sections deleted here, earlier in the evening.) I intend no offense, but I do seek to call attention to treatment that appears to be less than collegial (which is a lower standard that what Paul, in writing to Corinth, might be argued to ask of members of the same family, as they relate). Feel free to archive or delete this, as you must. 2601:246:C700:558:7938:3E63:9048:84AA (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Do not think that I am looking down on you for being an anonymous editor, I am having problems with your expectations for sourcing. I would have the problem if you had an account or not.
 * I am not perceiving an offence, simply shame-tagging and requesting sourcing for content that is either already sourced or that requires none. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I realized that I should clarify this. You have incorrectly assumed that my opposition to your unnecessary tagging is due to being an anonymous editor. My problem with your edits would also exist if you had an account as well. The actual problem I have, and the reason that I undid some of your edits (but you'll notice that I did not remove them all) was inexperience. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Walter Görlitz, First, permanent deadlinks are useless as a means of content verification, yes? So why does not then apply (or hiding it, when a better source is found)? Second, I otherwise invite you to correct my expectations from WP:VER and other guidelines. I will wait for that. (Neither of our perceptions matter, except as exegesis of the policies and guidelines that govern this site.)
 * With regard to today's changes, I will wait and look back on what you revert, but be clear—permanent deadlinks are of no use with regard to WP:VER, and that guidance clearly would have us err on the side of adequate sourcing to make content verifiable (rather than retaining a status quo that keeps it unverifiable, and unchangingly so).
 * With regard to respect, and shame—with regard to the former I would say, we are called to consider the other as just as important as ourselves, and that means not overly imposing your interpretation of what is sufficiently sourced over another who has just as deep experience. (I'll not quote edit totals, or years at it, but will if you insist on that as a basis for offering the respect.) And on the matter of shame, as in shame-tagging (a new concept to me), I would simply say that if a tag has been in place for upwards of a decade, the status quo is insufficient to stimulate change, and so an objective analysis might suggest that something needs to change. Whether an increase in tagging results in shame or not is beyond what I can control, but I think there is work in the encyclopedia that would benefit if more people were less protective of appearance (and more people, honestly, felt ashamed of what they saw).
 * Finally, the "looking down" is still perceived—I am sorry to be combative—because the matters raised relate to you, and your treatment, and I think latitude is given that I be able to raise them on your Talk page. But you have continued to hide them (by deletion or moving). If the reversions of my edits are truly W:VER-based, and so are the upright responses, why does their discussion (and your subsequent behavior regarding them) not remain in the open? There is too much of hiding of realities here at WP, in my opinion. It is why it no longer has my unreserved support. Cheers, brother. 2601:246:C700:558:7938:3E63:9048:84AA (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. You are a new editor who still needs to learn the ropes. That would happen whether you had account or not. Editors with accounts are more likely to stick around or get blocked an leave. Anonymous editors can hide their behaviour (both past and future) and move on to other articles more easily, but the actions usually catch-up to editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)