1,516
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 148:
Line 148: + + + + + +
→Pruning Needed
:::Not all have to be cited and some of these are going back up. Curious to why you feel some need citations yet you didn't remove all without citations. I will go point to point on each of your accusations. When a article has a disclaimer, not enough citations, removing them sort of defeats the purpose. Even though you gave a day for a reply.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Not all have to be cited and some of these are going back up. Curious to why you feel some need citations yet you didn't remove all without citations. I will go point to point on each of your accusations. When a article has a disclaimer, not enough citations, removing them sort of defeats the purpose. Even though you gave a day for a reply.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
(Unindent)
I was trying to be respectful and solicit feedback before the pruning, and I chose that term for a reason. I wasn't looking to wipe the entire page, and left uncited points which were not as clearly out of place as the ones I was removing. I also gave a brief explanation for why I believed each trimmed point should be removed. What I'd ask is that before any are put back, they are cited, or the reason why they don't need to be cited briefly explained.
I know people get sensitive when any edits are made to a ''"Liberal ----"'' article, so when I contemplate changes I keep it fair, and think about how people would want a corresponding '"Conservative ----"'' article to read. With that in mind, please apply the same consideration to the quality and validation of additions here. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:56, 31 July 2008 (EDT)