Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
:It is YOU who is CLAIMING that the tags are relevant. It is just a CLAIM, it is not BINDING. Users are not bound to take your words at face-value. If you want to question the validity of a certain source as RS, the right place to discuss that is ] which I am sure you know of, from your Carnatica.net fiasco -- ]<sup><small>]/]</small></sup> 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
:It is YOU who is CLAIMING that the tags are relevant. It is just a CLAIM, it is not BINDING. Users are not bound to take your words at face-value. If you want to question the validity of a certain source as RS, the right place to discuss that is ] which I am sure you know of, from your Carnatica.net fiasco -- ]<sup><small>]/]</small></sup> 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
::On the other hand, I suggest you take a break and cool down before making any further responses, so that you are civil, calm and rational. 2 sources (especially, those 2) are not enough to form the basis of an entire article. ] (]) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove tags prior to consensus being reached about why the tags shouldn't be there
Removing relevant tags prior to consensus has been reached constitutes vandalism, and again, this is a Misplaced Pages policy. I have reverted your revert, as the tags are relevant, and the onus is on the editors who want the tags removed, to demonstrate why they should be removed as has been indicated by an administrator on another editor's page. Please refrain from removing tags in the future, unless they are obviously irrelevant, which isn't the case here. I have also briefly outlined why the tags are relevant, currently. Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is YOU who is CLAIMING that the tags are relevant. It is just a CLAIM, it is not BINDING. Users are not bound to take your words at face-value. If you want to question the validity of a certain source as RS, the right place to discuss that is Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which I am sure you know of, from your Carnatica.net fiasco -- ¿Amar៛08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I suggest you take a break and cool down before making any further responses, so that you are civil, calm and rational. 2 sources (especially, those 2) are not enough to form the basis of an entire article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Amarrg: Difference between revisions
Add topic
