On 8/3/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, K P wrote:
Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one.
Like the generalized attack sites version, the harm caused by this is mostly in the discussion pages, not in the article pages. I hope you are not claiming that unless it's directly deleted from an article page, it isn't damage.
I can't claim anything without any basis for understanding, and since there doesn't seem to be any forthcoming that is a civil presentation of just what has been done, I'm not claiming anything.
But I don't see how you went from the question I asked to what my claims might or might not be.
I thought it was fairly straightforward: "I won't believe in damage unless you show me an article that was damaged by removing a reference."
"I hope you don't mean that the only kind of damage is in articles."
You used quotes, but that's not what I said within the quotes.
"Can someone please link directly to a current Wikipedia article, that should be changed, and list a proper reference to it that is not being used, to show the damage being done by this fracas to Wikipedia? Just one example of a specific article, and what should be in it, according to a highly reliable source--not a dozen, just one."
If the information is being kept out, and it is legitimate information, then certainly there are other references available, somewhere, that will contain this information. And presumably these references are not in the article, because if they were, the information would not be missing from the article. If it is only a fracas on a talk page, and no resulting damage anywhere to article content on Wikipedia, then that should be clarified to all who have to read this: there is no damage to Wikipedia article content.
I think I made a simple enough request, and muddying it up pretty much just shows that it will never be about damage to the encyclopledia, but always about spreading gossip--it's the equivalent of calling someone a troll, or of discussing a gossip column about an editor as evidence that Wikipedia is damaged. This is not my belief system, but my opinion from watching this.
Please simply quote me, when quoting me.
KP