Talk:Somali Police Force

message: I write to register a strong protest at this edit. I do not understand your removal of a 'more footnotes needed' tag when the first four sections of the article are *completely* unreferenced. This stands in *stark* contrast with your actions elsewhere where you go up to removing whole sections on the grounds of not being properly referenced, or referenced to sources which you find dubious. I will reinsert the tag, and just to clarify any confusion, mark individually each section which has no footnotes. Buckshot06 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That text is already referenced to the Library of Congress work that's linked to in the references section. This is the same LOC work that you copied and pasted material verbatim from on the Somali Armed Forces page, with the explanation that it is "public domain". So if that's alright there, it's alright on the police force page as well. No double standards. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You fail to understand. Citation needed tags, as you should know, mean that citations need to be inserted. Whether you personally know that the material is sourced from the Library of Congress is insufficient; by removing the CN tags, you break WP rules about such tags, which are not to be removed, only replaced with proper in-line citations. You may know they come from LOC, and I now know, having checked, but what of others? But in any case, I'm baffled?- why remove the tag in the first place - it invalidates its whole meaning! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. You appear to be contradicting your earlier assertions on the Somali Armed Forces page, where you argued that the same Library of Congress material (which you had pasted verbatim, without any inline citations) didn't require inline citations since that LOC work was public domain. At any rate, per WP:PLAG, an attribution template is sufficient for this: "A public domain source may be summarized in the same way as it is for copyrighted material (and cited in the same way as copyrighted material), but the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied or closely paraphrased, then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page (see the section "Where to place attribution" for more details)." This has already been done on the wikipage using Template:Loc. Middayexpress (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

text: As can be seen above via the bolded WP:PLAG text and its link to the attribution template category page -- where Template:Loc is subcategorized under :Category:United States government attribution templates -- a citation via an attribution template under references at the bottom of the page is the norm. At any rate, I have no interest in quibbling any further about the obvious; so I've replaced the spurious tags with inline citations to the already linked and templated Library of Congress work. Middayexpress (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Police force

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion