" 

 == The issue appears only to be the old uncited/needsmore tags == 

 Summary: 
 The beatings of this article will continue until editor morale improves and they start citing everything that I am demanding, and I will continue to delete large swaths of this article's content, regardless of its correctness, of which I know nothing about, until my demands are met. Policy is on my side so you demoralized editors who feel you are being unfairly treated by me have no recourse except to bow down to my will, or see your work on this subject matter mercilessly ripped to pieces by me and the might of my deletionist hammer (backed by bureaucratic policy of course). Hahaha! Neener neener neener! 

 As unpaid editors contributing good faith high-quality technical edits of their own free time, some editors may feel that being repeatedly ""shouted at"" and ""called on the carpet"" by an overbearing and unrelenting managerial deletionist *******, they find it rather difficult to spur the motivation to comply to the deletionist's every whim. 

  

 The solution to this current debate seems rather simple. A knowledgeable editor such as Spinningspark merely needs to look at some of the cites already included in the article, and declare the cites included already fully cover the entire breadth of the article, and thus remove all such uncited/needsmore tags, perhaps inserting a few new ones for just specific sections. 

 Doniago is unable to dispute removal of said needsmore/refneeded tags because it has already demonstrated it knows nothing of this subject matter other than the presence of said tags. 

 Doniago who knows nothing of this subject matter and apparently does not care to involve itself in such matters such as actually knowing anything about the topic, and merely narrowly focusing on old cleanup tags, without knowing the meaning of either the text or the cites, is now left with nothing to do because all the old refneeded/needsmore tags are removed except find another article to start vandalizing in the name of ""improvement"". 

 (Like player piano maybe?  oops, sorry, Doniago is already busy deletionist vandalizing that one, another narrow technical topic of little-dispute but alas not well cited and (gasp) needsmore tags more than (gasp) six months old, so it DEMANDS the heavy-handed Doniago to delete ANY further additions if uncited, ever. I was going to start expanding and improving it but after some run-ins with Doniago he took all the fun out of even trying to start improving it.. so **** it, the article can rot.) 

  

 Cites? Yes, eventually. If it's a real problem for you personally, you are certainly free to add them if you actually care to learn anything of the subject matter. 

 However, deleting what you don't understand in a technical subject matter article simply due to the presence of a old refneeded tag seems rather unproductive and divisive, and unlikely to get the quality results you are arrogantly demanding of the other unpaid volunteer editors of the article. 

 And yes, I know we're supposed to discuss the topic, not the editors, but this really is a lot about Doniago's deletionism attitude and demeanor, which reminds me more of a schoolyard bully than an adult editor contributing to the knowledge enhancement of millions of people. 

 Doniago makes no attempt to either cite or verify anything, it only deletes based on the presence of aged cleanup tags, which may themselves be of dubious placement by people who also don't understand the subject matter. 

 Doniago's editing methods do not inspire camaraderie and cooperation with other technical subject matter editors, who are most likely going to continue trying improve and cite these articles, even after Doniago has moved on to some new article to flog. 

  
 When we have other uninvolved bureaucrats come in and say But he does have policy on his side it is exactly like some schoolyard bully running to tell on the other kids and then triumphantly smirking while seeing the other kids get in trouble. It makes for a very divisive and abrasive working environment. The other kids just want to reach through TCP/IP and whack said bully with a large trout. 

     

 : Ooops, my mistake. According to policy, you don't need to declare to anyone here that you know anything about a topic to edit it. We don't care about degrees or experience. 

 : So rather than requiring some editor known to be knowledgeable of the topic to remove citeneeded tags, we really only just need some random anonymous IP editor to decide the article is cited well enough (even if they don't understand the article at all) and remove al