This article is within the scope of WikiProject Beauty Pageants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of beauty pageants, their contestants and winners on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Beauty PageantsWikipedia:WikiProject Beauty PageantsTemplate:WikiProject Beauty PageantsBeauty Pageants articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
There has been recent changes made by @Onel5969 on this article and I would like to start a discussion about it, especially since this person has been deleting significant portions of the article and using the "no reference" explanation as their reasoning. I've restored the article to it's status prior to their edits and started a discussion here in an attempt to stop would could be a potential edit war. So that way we can at least get some sort of consensus before going and making significant alterations to the article and potentially starting an edit war. IZ041 (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you do not remove your addition of uncited material, I will have no choice but to report you, as that is disruptive editing (please see #2 under WP:DISRUPTSIGNS). This is not a matter for discussion. It's already been discussed several times at ANI, and WP:VERIFY is not up for interpretation. I removed them after you refused to allow a tag saying that more references are needed remain on the article. That would have clued other editors that more work was needed. At this point, since the information has been contested, WP:BURDEN applies. Onel5969TT me22:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you added the reference tag despite there being a plethora of sources and you referenced WP:BURDEN as your reasoning, now in fairness, BURDEN does say certain unsourced material maybe removed if someone contests it, but it also says to add a citation needed tag as an interim step. What you did was label the entire article as more citations needed not the specific areas such as parts the titleholders table. Now the results summary section is just a summary of the placements as listed in the table this just makes it easier for potential readers who just want placement and special award information while those who want other information can simply just scroll down, BURDEN doesn't really apply as it is a quick summary of what's below. As for the titleholder table, yes there is some parts that are unreferenced but rather than labeling those specific parts, you labeled the whole article as poorly sourced despite the fact that there are plenty of sources in the article. When I saw the tag being added, I immediately thought that the tag was ridiculously added because of the long list of references, so I removed it. But then, instead of maybe listing the specific parts as needing a citation, you delete the information without out of the nowhere. I get your point but you don't go deleting parts of the article without taking into account the alternatives. And yes, I removed the more references needed tag but instead of tagging more specific areas, you delete them and cite WP:VERIFY and BURDEN as your reasoning despite that they both state that they're are exceptions and that you should consider alternatives and there are other alternatives than labeling the an entire article with dozens as poorly sourced. Now we can accuse each other of edit warring or disruptive editing all we want but the bottom line is that there are alternatives but rather than considering them you delete part the article as if no one is going to have a problem with it. What I'm doing here is at least compromising with starting a discussion about the issue but at the same time leaving the article intact until the discussion is over so there can at the very least talk everything over before going ahead with the changes. There are alternatives to both deleting those parts and labeling the entire article as needing more sources. IZ041 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is you do not understand WP:VERIFY. There were a plethora of items unsourced. The rest of your diatribe above is irrelevant. And you still haven't corrected your error of re-adding unsourced material. But you are correct, there are alternatives. They are called sourcing. Onel5969TT me02:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is you made a mistake and rather than accepting criticism, you go on and vandalize the page, now I added the citation needed tag to the parts that needed it, as what should've been done in the first place. That is the point I was trying to make and now I hope you're satisfied with the tags being where they're needed. IZ041 (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
