User talk:Touchy Feely Dan

Unusual account activity
Hi. Your initial pattern of editing suggests you're not new to Wikipedia. As a courtesy, I'd like to inform you of our policy that prohibits the use of multiple or alternate accounts. Will you please let the community here know whether you've edited Wikpedia previously, and what account(s) you've used to do so? --OhioStandard (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have not edited wikipedia at all until today. What is it that you finds so unusual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touchy Feely Dan  (talk • contribs)  00:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

is there a reason you are following me around and re-adding all that material, without providing a citation as requested? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touchy Feely Dan (talk • contribs)  00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)      comment moved here from Ohiostandard's talk, by OS

Deletion of "citation needed" materials
Dan, frankly some of the edits were/are disruptive. Just because a line of info (or more) has a 'citation needed' tag from a month ago does not justify removal. The tag serves to alert editors, such as yourself, to do a little research and find the citation. --S. Rich (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive? HoW? I was just introduced to wikipedia the other day by a friend who's been editing for years. He gave me some good tips on getting started, and recommended I familiarize myself with some basic policies like neutral point of view and verifiability. I read those policies, and among them foun dthis insightful statement, form the perosn who cmae up with the idea for wikipedia: " Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", WikiEN-l, May 16, 2006: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." Some of the material I removed has been tagged with "needs a cite for more tha ta yera" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Touchy Feely Dan (talk • contribs) 01:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, your friend gave some good advice, but consider what the "citation needed" template is for. By itself it is not a license to remove the material. Like I said, it alerts other editors about the lack of citation. WP has indexing services (article scanners) that look for articles with such tags and different WP Project editors (and others) use these indexes to find such articles. Then they evaluate the particular material, and if they can't find a proper citation, they delete it. From what I see, you've looked at a handful of the 3 million plus articles and removed material simply because of the cn tag. Just because the tags are old does not justify an un-considered removal. Some of the stuff you took out was plausible; and some other editor had reason to put it in. I'm asking that you use judgment when removing such material. For more guidance, look at WP:BURDEN. Keep in mind that the "Burden of Proof" requirement cuts both was: 1. on the editor who wants to add the material, and 2. on the editor who want to remove it. In your case removing recently tagged cn material does not meet the burden of proof. Learn, enjoy, and happy editing. --S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Dan, your follow-up edits with the three "!!!" in each editor's comment suggests you are getting worked up over this. Come on -- exercise a little WP:COOL.--S. Rich (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrators noticeboard for incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --OhioStandard (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, again, TFDan. If I'm mistaken about this, then I hope you'll forgive the mistake. There's certainly nothing personal intended, of course. Nor could there be, if you're genuinely a new user, since I could know nothing about you, personally. But Wikipedia has such a tremendous problem with banned users who create new accounts and then continue editing as before that some "false positives" are inevitable. I'd ask that you please try to be patient for the day or two that it'll take to get this properly sorted. It's in no way required, but you should feel free to ask the friend you mentioned as a long-time contributor, the person who got you started editing, to drop me a note on my talk page. We certainly want to do everything we can to encourage new users, so perhaps that would help clear up any doubt or confusion about this more quickly than our usual process will be able to do. Best regards, --OhioStandard (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)