![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apologies for the edit summary, but that is the perception when someone asking for a citation and source is disregarded as a drive-by tag, whatever that is supposed to mean. I read the article, noted that Wikipedia claims this fire lookout is "significant" (which is a highly objective term) and asked for a source that stated it was significant with the convenient templates that Wikipedia provides for that purpose, but it was ignored, and dismissed as "Rv drive-by tag" by an Acroterion.
I'm not sure why one would dismiss this request for a source, clearly whether or not something is "significant" is a matter of opinion, and it should be sourced, at least if this website is serious about its policies. I didn't mean it as a slight, sheesh. I can see why no one trusts this site and why new participation is falling off. If this is how you treat all newcomers trying to help, it's a wonder this site still exists at all.-- 208.82.225.245 ( talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Apologies for the edit summary, but that is the perception when someone asking for a citation and source is disregarded as a drive-by tag, whatever that is supposed to mean. I read the article, noted that Wikipedia claims this fire lookout is "significant" (which is a highly objective term) and asked for a source that stated it was significant with the convenient templates that Wikipedia provides for that purpose, but it was ignored, and dismissed as "Rv drive-by tag" by an Acroterion.
I'm not sure why one would dismiss this request for a source, clearly whether or not something is "significant" is a matter of opinion, and it should be sourced, at least if this website is serious about its policies. I didn't mean it as a slight, sheesh. I can see why no one trusts this site and why new participation is falling off. If this is how you treat all newcomers trying to help, it's a wonder this site still exists at all.-- 208.82.225.245 ( talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)