User talk:Semter

"vandalism" in edit summaries
I noticed you removed some "fact" tags in the Benedict XVI article. While I concur with your edits, I would be more hesitant in describing what you undid as vandalism, as you did in your edit summaries. It is possible that the tags were not the result of intentional attempts to disrupt the article and just the result of the editors' laziness in not reading enough of the talk page/archives or just coming up with good sources themselves.

Certainly, you may have been right. But when there is a doubt, assuming good faith is the right thing to do. And naturally, if you were privy to the motivations of the editor(s) in question more than I am, and knew it was vandalism, I apologize. Best, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The tags have been removed by other editors as well as me when I was not logged in dozens of times before. The facts are already sourced in main articles or does not not need further sources. The excessive use of fact tags whenever a new editor who has not followed the article and the discussion of it turns up is very disrupting. Semter 19:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree, except my point had to do with motive of the new editor. A new editor who does that is being bold (albeit somewhat lazy), not vandalous.  Just something to think about.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)