User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436

April 2022
Hello, I'm Pulpfiction621. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Stanislavski and Nemirovich-Danchenko Theatre have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 22:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC) User:Pulpfiction621 acknowledged mistake. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I left you a note on your talk page. It was indeed constructive. WP is not a repository for uncited/challenged information. Nor is that notable, actually. 2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Further - see my comments to you here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pulpfiction621#Vandalism 2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * And even further, see this .. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APulpfiction621&type=revision&diff=1083983247&oldid=1083982839 2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to InProg, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Peculiar Undertone (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC) User:Peculiar Undertone self-reverted. Pabsoluterince (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. jp×g 06:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously your warning is not applicable to my editing. Please see wp:burden. And self-revert. If you like, we can involve in this discussion some of the editors and admins. Thanks. 2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 06:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I've responded at further length in the section below. jp×g 06:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I was patrolling recent changes tonight and noticed your contributions. Just wanted to stop by and thank you for your hard work at keeping Wikipedia verifiable.

Helen (💬📖) 03:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC) 
 * Many thanks for your note. It's spring, so I thought some spring cleaning was in order. Some people don't seem to like it, though, I've discovered. They like uncited material being spread throughout the project. Appreciate your note. 2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Mass removals of content from articles
I realize that the passages you're removing don't individually have inline citations in them, but I find your edits concerning, for a couple reasons. The combination of these issues is a situation in which someone is mass-removing large amounts of text without checking to see if it can be verified, or indeed if it already is verified, from existing sources. The fact that you're doing it so fast means it is prohibitively difficult to check your work. I'd greatly appreciate if you would slow down. jp×g 06:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, inline citations for all sentences/paragraphs are not strictly required for all content; if there are general references on a page, it's often the case that "uncited" information on the page is coming from one of those references. To simply remove paragraphs and sections because they lack inlines seems almost as though you're applying GA criteria to all article text on the project, which is generally not done.
 * Secondly, the rate at which you're making these edits is troubling. After this edit, for example, you took merely 51 seconds to review this edit, in which 419 bytes are removed. You're moving between entire articles in less than a minute; it seems to me like it would be physically impossible to review the existing sources in that amount of time.
 * Thirdly, your extremely fast rate of editing seems to be causing egregious errors such as this one, where your edit summary is "d uncited", but the edit itself removes a reference. This had to be reverted by a recent-changes patroller.
 * Read wp:burden. Your above "warning" was uncalled for - I did nothing of the sort that you assert. I am cleaning up material that is completely uncited. Which of course is proper. There is in fact a proper way to provide inline citations to support text properly, and your suggestion that it is sufficient for challenged/deleted text to be supported .. maybe .. you would guess .. by some support other than refs is a personal view that fails to accord with wp:burden. As to your concern, none of the edits you allude to relate to removing text that is supported by refs. They have zero refs. There is not a wp:before analysis required; if you wish to restore the text, and wish to properly source the text (if there is indeed proper RS directly supporting citation availability), then of course that would be great. But to suggest that I have that burden suggests a misreading of our clearly written wp:burden. If I did make one .. a mere one .. delete of a citation, but not of cited text, I apologize; reviewing that article, that was clearly the case of an edit inadvertently removing partially a ref, a ref that was not supporting the deleted text, and then an inadvertent cleanup of the malformed ref via deletion rather than restoration; I apologize and will be more careful, and that I believe is a highly unusual and limited error (and not quite what you suggest it is in your characterization-seriously, that seems overdramatic in the extreme, as does your exageration that one instance was multiple instances .. why would you make that mischaracterization?). Let's stick with policy, specifically wp:burden, and not with essays and the like that are behavioral touchstones that have zero to do with what you intuit is my belief. Is there anything else?2603:7000:2143:8500:606B:77EB:AE0D:1436 (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * JPxG, inline citations are important for maintaining text-source WP:INTEGRITY, and IP rightly challenges sentences and paragraphs that are uncited. I also think you're jumping too quickly to pointed editing. For the most part the removals are fair enough IMO.
 * WP:POINT is not an essay. Do note IP, that the amount of edits you do does not excuse the mistakes you make. In this edit you remove a picture that was on the page. Here you leave behind a misformed sentence. Your mistakes are excusable but indicate that you need to be more careful (which reasonably means slowing down). Additionally you should really try to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM; removing material is very easy, fixing it is harder but is more constructive. This edit removed the kind of statement which is usually really easy to fix or disprove, clearly you didn't attempt to though. The warning, should have been level 1 not 2, given that you haven't displayed any unconstructive editing so far but it is called for. Now your favourate policy wp:burden states: Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. This I think is an important point to keep in mind when working collaboratively. There's no deadline on Wikipedia, so give editors some time to reference the material that you are challenging (only if you think it could possibly be verified, and isn't like libel and such). Regardless I think you have good intentions and you are showing good editorial judgement by removing lots of WP:ORy, promotional stuff. Thanks, Pabsoluterince (talk) 10:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)