User talk:82.11.66.40

February 2019
Hello, I'm 49TL. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 49 TL  22:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ableism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 20:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Student assignments
Mathglot (talk) 23:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced additions at Ableism
I see that you undid the revert at Ableism, to reinsert the preferred content you added earlier into the article. All content in Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE, which explain Wikipedia's core principle of Verifiability, and how to implement it. In addition, please have a look at WP:BRD, which says that when you make a bold edit and are reverted, you should raise a discussion on the Talk page of the article, instead of insisting on your point of view by reverting again. This could lead to an edit war, which is contrary to Wikipedia's principles.

Two other things to be aware of: Wikipedia articles cannot be used a reliable source; since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you can't source one article by linking (or referencing) another. The other thing, is that Wikipedia prefers independent, secondary sources. In your edit summary here, you say that "...the Equality Act 2010, linked here, the text of which serves as reference for all changes". But that would be a primary source; normally, you need a judge to interpret what the text of a law means. Wikipedia editors (not to mention readers) are not judges; in order to verify content, we cannot appeal to the text of a law, at least, not in the first instance. We would need to have an independent source, such as a newspaper, encyclopedia article, or other reputable analysis of what the law means. The reason for that, is that as it currently stands, the wording now in the article that you wrote, are your interpretation of the text of the law; this is called original research in wiki-speak, and is specifically forbidden by the WP:OR policy. We can't have Wikipedia editors as sources, which is what that section of text effectively is, now. Please find an independent, secondary, reliable source for that section.

I've added some citation needed tags to the section you modified, requesting that citations from reliable sources be added to confirm the content you modified. Please add citations to reliable sources that verify your content, or it may be removed again. The page Help:Footnotes may be useful to you. Per policy, unsourced content can be removed by any editor if challenged. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're assuming I haven't read those entries many times. it's entirely possible I've been editing wiki for longer than you have. It's getting to the point I've potentially been editing wiki for longer than some editors have been alive. It's also interesting that you title this "Unsourced additions in Ableism" when a reference was clearly provided. The previous text was inaccurate, and unreferenced, but unchallenged. I've corrected it, and put in the correct, and only authoritative reference, the actual text of the law, if indirectly. Equality Act 2010 itself references (Reference [1]) the text of the law as held by the UK National Archives. If you wish to copy the refernce directly to this article, feel free. As the text shows, DDA 1995, and all but a few fragments of DDA 2005, were repealed by the Equality Act 2010, leaving EA2010 as the applicable UK law for Ableism. This is not an arguable point.
 * "Section 211
 * SCHEDULE 27 Repeals and revocations
 * Part 1 Repeals
 * Disability Discrimination Act 1995	The whole Act."
 * Disability Discrimination Act 2005	The whole Act except for—
 * (a)section 3
 * (b)section 9
 * (c)Schedule 1 paragraphs 31, 33, 34(1) and (6) and Part 2
 * If you think my reference is wrong, _show_ it is wrong, or provide a better one, don't just revert the change (I'll be frank, I considered the only possible reason for trailing me back to this article and reverting the change, as opposed to adding a Cite tag, was some kind of personal animus/edit warring for making a point you disagreed with wrt editing of discrimination related entries as class projects)). If you think clear, accurate, referenced text is inferior to incorrect, unreferenced text that may give the reader an impression quite contrary to the law's intention, then wiki has a problem. Yes, wiki needs cited text, but there is so much of wiki that is uncited, that pedantry over the precise nature of what reference is acceptable, when the reference in question is literally the law of the land, and the change is replacing unreferenced and incorrect text, drives me up the wall. This kind of thing is precisely why I am not a more regular wiki editor. If you wish to revert the change, have at it, but consider whether you are doing it to make the article better.
 * (c)Schedule 1 paragraphs 31, 33, 34(1) and (6) and Part 2
 * If you think my reference is wrong, _show_ it is wrong, or provide a better one, don't just revert the change (I'll be frank, I considered the only possible reason for trailing me back to this article and reverting the change, as opposed to adding a Cite tag, was some kind of personal animus/edit warring for making a point you disagreed with wrt editing of discrimination related entries as class projects)). If you think clear, accurate, referenced text is inferior to incorrect, unreferenced text that may give the reader an impression quite contrary to the law's intention, then wiki has a problem. Yes, wiki needs cited text, but there is so much of wiki that is uncited, that pedantry over the precise nature of what reference is acceptable, when the reference in question is literally the law of the land, and the change is replacing unreferenced and incorrect text, drives me up the wall. This kind of thing is precisely why I am not a more regular wiki editor. If you wish to revert the change, have at it, but consider whether you are doing it to make the article better.
 * If you think my reference is wrong, _show_ it is wrong, or provide a better one, don't just revert the change (I'll be frank, I considered the only possible reason for trailing me back to this article and reverting the change, as opposed to adding a Cite tag, was some kind of personal animus/edit warring for making a point you disagreed with wrt editing of discrimination related entries as class projects)). If you think clear, accurate, referenced text is inferior to incorrect, unreferenced text that may give the reader an impression quite contrary to the law's intention, then wiki has a problem. Yes, wiki needs cited text, but there is so much of wiki that is uncited, that pedantry over the precise nature of what reference is acceptable, when the reference in question is literally the law of the land, and the change is replacing unreferenced and incorrect text, drives me up the wall. This kind of thing is precisely why I am not a more regular wiki editor. If you wish to revert the change, have at it, but consider whether you are doing it to make the article better.


 * (Yes, I'm pissed off with the attitudes I've encountered this weekend, primarily with Chris Troutman's "suffer undue sensitivities", which is precisely the kind of snide, ableist, comment that shows ableism needs to be better understood, but I've found your tone insufferably lecturing throughout, you seem to have lost sight of the point of an encyclopaedia, which is to educate people, not to elevate citation rules to holy canon)

82.11.66.40 (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming anything about how many times you have or haven't read the policies, nor how many decades you have been editing Wikipedia. I have no point to make about discrimination related entries, nor any opinion about this article, other than its content needs to adhere to Wikipedia policies, one of the most important of which, is that content must be verifiable, by independent, secondary, reliable sources.
 * That's your job, not mine; per WP:BURDEN. It's not the job of other editors to clean up after you; if you wish to add content to the article, great! Please add a reference at the same time. That's just one of the most basic aspect of editing at Wikipedia, and if you can't adjust to it, you won't last long here.
 * You seem to be making assumptions about my motivation. Please read WP:Assume good faith. My motivation is in improving the encyclopedia. Reverting an unsourced edit is in perfect accordance with Wikipedia policy on WP:Verifiability. I can quote you the specific portion of the policy that approves of removal of your content, if you like.
 * No, I don't think that. What gave you that idea? I think clear, accurate, referenced text is better. But that section has no references.
 * That is irrelevant. We are talking about this article; people interested in other articles can go deal with the problems in those other articles. I am trying to improve this article.
 * I don't so much "wish" to revert, as to ensure that the content is referenced by a footnote to a reliable, secondary source. I don't think Wikipedia should be saying what Mr. 82.11.66.40's interpretation is of some law, in Wikipedia's voice. Surely there must be legislative analyses of these laws, as there are of pretty much any significant piece of legislation, or a news story, or several, if it is as notable a bill as it seems to be. Please go find one of those, write up a citation, and add a footnote for it. That is what I am asking you to do, not to remove the content. However at some point, if the content remains unreferenced, then it should be removed, per policy.
 * I'm sorry you were offended by my tone. As a collaborative project involving millions of editors, including unregistered editors who are permitted to edit articles viewable by anyone in the world, a certain set of basic principles have evolved in order to maintain some order and quality in the encyclopedia. One of the chief of these, is verifiability. (There are others: WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:CONSENSUS, and many others.) It's really not optional, and either you go along with the policies and guidelines, or you should find another project that agrees more with your value system. If you continue to go your own way, and only provide valid references when you feel like, and argue with other editors who attempt to point out the chief policies of the encyclopedia as "insufferingly lecturing", your days here are probably numbered.
 * You are obviously intelligent, and I'm hoping this kerfuffle is just the result of your having a bad day, or maybe in reaction to some editor who rubbed you the wrong way about something, and that you will soon settle down and make the kind of good contributions that you have already made, backed up by the kind of citations that verifiability requires. At least, I hope so. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. We are talking about this article; people interested in other articles can go deal with the problems in those other articles. I am trying to improve this article.
 * I don't so much "wish" to revert, as to ensure that the content is referenced by a footnote to a reliable, secondary source. I don't think Wikipedia should be saying what Mr. 82.11.66.40's interpretation is of some law, in Wikipedia's voice. Surely there must be legislative analyses of these laws, as there are of pretty much any significant piece of legislation, or a news story, or several, if it is as notable a bill as it seems to be. Please go find one of those, write up a citation, and add a footnote for it. That is what I am asking you to do, not to remove the content. However at some point, if the content remains unreferenced, then it should be removed, per policy.
 * I'm sorry you were offended by my tone. As a collaborative project involving millions of editors, including unregistered editors who are permitted to edit articles viewable by anyone in the world, a certain set of basic principles have evolved in order to maintain some order and quality in the encyclopedia. One of the chief of these, is verifiability. (There are others: WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:CONSENSUS, and many others.) It's really not optional, and either you go along with the policies and guidelines, or you should find another project that agrees more with your value system. If you continue to go your own way, and only provide valid references when you feel like, and argue with other editors who attempt to point out the chief policies of the encyclopedia as "insufferingly lecturing", your days here are probably numbered.
 * You are obviously intelligent, and I'm hoping this kerfuffle is just the result of your having a bad day, or maybe in reaction to some editor who rubbed you the wrong way about something, and that you will soon settle down and make the kind of good contributions that you have already made, backed up by the kind of citations that verifiability requires. At least, I hope so. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you were offended by my tone. As a collaborative project involving millions of editors, including unregistered editors who are permitted to edit articles viewable by anyone in the world, a certain set of basic principles have evolved in order to maintain some order and quality in the encyclopedia. One of the chief of these, is verifiability. (There are others: WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:DUEWEIGHT, WP:CONSENSUS, and many others.) It's really not optional, and either you go along with the policies and guidelines, or you should find another project that agrees more with your value system. If you continue to go your own way, and only provide valid references when you feel like, and argue with other editors who attempt to point out the chief policies of the encyclopedia as "insufferingly lecturing", your days here are probably numbered.
 * You are obviously intelligent, and I'm hoping this kerfuffle is just the result of your having a bad day, or maybe in reaction to some editor who rubbed you the wrong way about something, and that you will soon settle down and make the kind of good contributions that you have already made, backed up by the kind of citations that verifiability requires. At least, I hope so. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)