User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:2432:BAE0:294F:5869

April 2022
Hello, I'm Volten001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Atlant (appliance company) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Rather add citations instead of removing content Volten 001  ☎ 07:27, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I did. Furthermore, please self revert. See wp:burden. 2603:7000:2143:8500:2432:BAE0:294F:5869 (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Just thought I would ask
Why are you removing parts of Belarusian articles that in of themselves have NO SOURCE and saying that they are uncited, but leaving everything else there (that is equally as uncited) and not even adding a unreferenced template? In  example you've removed a good portion of the page, including some of the items in the list in the second diff, but I just don't really understand your logic: What makes all the other content in the page alright to leave behind? – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:6806:8777:318E:F1A3 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone else can choose to remove other material that is uncited. I am removing material that I view as more appropriate for removal. There are different reasons to remove material in my view, with some material that is less relevant, has a higher cruft component, etc., more advertising, more puffery, etc., being more appropriate for removal in my view - though another person could have a stronger view about the material that I have not removed. If you wish to restore it with RS refs, please do. Otherwise, please do not restore it, so as not to violate wp:burden. Your question "what makes all the other content "alright" to leave behind misses the point. The starting point is what to remove. Not "what is alright" to leave.


 * WP policy reads: "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." "Any material." That is all.--2603:7000:2143:8500:2432:BAE0:294F:5869 (talk) 07:50, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * But you also could be more helpful and add unreferenced templates to pages that need it, that would help the people who want to maintain those pages (if they exist) with more to work with than when you leave them with a good portion of the page missing, really I don't have any problem with you removing things, it's just the way you're going about it gives the impression you're coming at it from the point of view of someone who does not want possible Belarusian propaganda to stay around (which hey fair enough, there's a reason I only reverted that particular one), but at the same time, I still don't see how you could ascertain that the information you removed was not originally sourced in the now dead external links (which is the wrong way to go about it, but if it was true it would be way more appropriate to use templates). – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:6806:8777:318E:F1A3 (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out per WP:5P5 That there is no firm rule in here. I see what you're doing but sometimes you should add citation needed template instead of outright removing uncited claims. Opecuted (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That "should" assertion is not what our policy says, though I respect that it may be an individual viewpoint. We have loads of uncited material, and this is completely in accord w/wp policy. I understand that editors who embrace uncited material may like it. But there is a misreading of our policy if one believes that uncited material must only be tagged and not deleted. That is clearly now what our policy says. 2603:7000:2143:8500:EC3F:22B3:7EF7:A032 (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)