User talk:Nuncio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This edit suggests to me that you are not familiar with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, or Wikipedia's deletion policies. Please try to improve articles constructively rather than simply issuing ultimatums to other users. Thank you. --Dynaflow babble 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV component because it may be incorrect but is not necessary to justify deletion of uncited content anyways.

Wikipedia policy is clear in its indication that uncited or original research should not be on wikipedia (and thus should be deleted). Rather than follow the Wikipedia BOLD, revert, discuss cycle policy and simply delete the uncited content (the entire article) I thought it was better to give the author an opportunity to respond or properly include citations. The Wikipedia deletion policy clearly allows for deletion of "content not verifiable in a reliable source," and there are no citations to evidence that the content is verifiable as such.

Leaving it open ended by not specifying a date at which content should be removed if not cited would leave the flag and comment weak and unenforceable. In other words, it seemed rather a fair comment to me, certainly I can't be expected to cite the uncited work myself when I don't have the citations to find out where it is, right? Please tell me how I can be more constructive in the future; it was not my intent to be unconstructive or threatening, simply to seek improvement in a prematurely published article.

Uncited content such as this is inherently either not properly referenced research or original research. In other words the content is either from sources which aren't indicated and thus the content is not verifiable, or the content is from the author, possibly through living or working at College Nine for example, in which case the content is original research).

Nuncio 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR prohibits original research, not uncited material. There is a major difference. An article based on original research cannot be "saved" because it is not third-party verifiable -- not because it doesn't happen to be third-party verified. The "Ikea College" line is the only thing in the article that strikes me as possibly being original research and non-verifiable, but even that may have come out of City on a Hill Press or the Fish Rap Live.

Gutting articles because they contain uncontroversial unsourced statements, even if "Wikipedia-legal," will usually be seen by other editors as disruptive behavior, intended to make a WP:POINT, and you will likely find yourself on the lonely end of a multiparty edit war (biographies of living persons are somewhat different in that regard, but, then again, College Nine is not a living person). The "correct" response to being annoyed by the article's sourcing would be to improve it. Google is your friend in this regard. Also, the previous editors of that article have left external links in place of citations (laziness!), and they would be as good a place as any to start looking for sourcing; almost all of what you're looking for is probably one or two clicks away from the article. You can find in-line citation templates and other useful tools at WP:CITE to add in what you find.

I do realize you're trying to be helpful, but there are much more constructive ways to improve an article than issuing ultimatums to other editors and then washing your hands of the matter. If I can be of any more help to you, feel free to contact me at my Talk page (just click "babble"). --Dynaflow babble 23:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Dynaflow. In regards to my own contributions to this article, I haven't made a substantial edit in about 2 1/2 years. The only portions I have personally written define what College Nine is, describe its location within the University of California, Santa Cruz and state what the college's motto/theme is. If you don't know what I'm talking about, see the "Organization" section of the UCSC article. Back in November 2004, I created articles for every UCSC residential college that didn't already have one. Back then, while citing sources was considered important, inline citations mostly consisted of simple web links, even in featured articles. In a sense, the article does "cite its sources": the College Nine home page and the other web pages in the "External links" section. While we could find better sources, the article is not quite "unreferenced".

You have indicated that you dispute this article's compliance with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Could you please point out specific passages and/or terms that you dispute? Dynaflow and I both agree that the "Ikea College" passage may be troublesome, but I see nothing else. NPOV and OR disputes arise from specific passages that violate policy, not the mere possibility that an article may not be in compliance. szyslak 23:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Senate Homeland Security Ad Hoc Subcommittee

The information can be found on the "Jurisdiction" section of the Main committee, all the way at the bottom.

Thanks. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)