Trains: in New York City B‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject New York City Public Transportation (assessed as Low-importance).

See discussion at: Category talk:New York City Subway passenger equipment

Hi, I linked over here from AN/I. It seems that both sides have some interesting information here, but are arguing about which set to present. One thing I notice in the history is that User:M12592 seems to feel a sense of ownership about the page, as per this edit summary [1]. Calling other editors 'intruders' is a definite instance of incivility. Please recognize that all editors want to present information here. The other major concern I have is that this edit warring has resulted in cutting out parts of sentences, making the page incoherent. Is it possible for both sides to ADD their information to the talk page in differing sections, and see if it can be synthesized into one, stronger, longer article? I will post notes to all recent editors. ThuranX 03:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) The first step towards this resolution, as I see it, si that the history section is contested. Can we get someone to commit to taking on the citations for supporting, or disproving, the history section? After that, a set of items each side wants included might need listing, then individual review (that is, item by item review, not one person review.) Thanks, all. ThuranX 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This has got to stop, User:M12592 is basically the same users: User:D12795 and User:DCarltonsm <--in which, currently blocked, Also the constant IP users who are sockpuppets of User:DCarltonsm. This person keeps clamming about the History (some parts are true) and Future Planned sections where he wrote is NOT TRUE, he did not provided his sources/back of his proof since September of 2006, See the article history page for details. I am amazed that this person keeps vandalizing non-stop.
  I suggest restore the page back to this and get a full protected tag on this article. I don't see this issue would go away soon. --BWCNY 04:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If you believe these three users are the same and engaging in block evasion, report it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. This goes for the IP users too.
  2. All Wikipedia content must be verifiable. Content without proper citations may be removed at any time. For most articles, content generally accepted as true is allowed to remain without citations, but if a statement is disputed, it must be removed until a cite is found, not kept indefinitely pending a citation.
  3. There is no policy which supports a blanket ban on non-admins from editing an article other than full protection, which is generally only used for severe editing disputes. I don't think we're at that point yet.

  Hope that helps. —Dgies^t c 04:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Well, there are two options, then. We can go to the sockpuppet resolutions, or if you can provide discrediting sources, then protecting it, or at least proceeding to the 'next level' of options will be much easier, because admins will have the demonstrated proofs needed to say 'yes, you ARE adding falsehoods, as per these three or four sources which discredit you. Further, if the information is, in fact, correct, then we can add it in a cited fashion and make the page better. I do understand that cleaning up other people's edits is less fun than adding your own information, but really ,that's already what much of WIkipedia is, building on others' works. I see nothing wrong with cooperating to make the page better, or at least build up a body of evidence to thoroughly refute the edits. the same set of actions has two outcomes, and those outcomes determine our future actions in resolving this. I'd prefer the citation and source method, because that precludes seeing the problem repeat later, or if the editor returns with another IP. ThuranX 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to find "discrediting sources" to remove something disputed. You remove something disputed if it doesn't have supporting sources. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability if you are unclear on this. Also, you don't call in admins to decide what is "truth" and then ask them to protect the "right version". Admins are only used to protect a page for a "cool off" period, or temporarily block users for civility violations or willfully violating community consensus. You may also wish to see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —Dgies^t c 05:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that nothing on this page is cited. Could I blank it, at least if I doubt its truth? --NE2 05:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be productive. Remember: WP:POINT. If there are specific statements/paragraphs you have a problem with, list them here, that way you can either build a consensus to keep or delete, or find citations. Just deleting content flat-out will spark a revert war. Build consensus on a particular position, then if someone keeps reverting, you can take it to WP:AIV. —Dgies^t c 05:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dgies, this article wound up on AN/I for a reason. Nothing in the non-history-having version is cited either. Should we delete all that as well? Obviously not, beyond the [WP:POINT]] reasons. Should we add the citation needed tag all over like it falls from a pepper shaker? Also a poor solution. Instead I suggested you work together. Since that's clearly not something you're interested in doing, why don't you step back from this, and let other regular editors try to work on this?

I'm well aware of verifiability and wikipedia's policies on it. I'm also aware that this is a ridiculous content dispute that comes down to 'should this article have a history section, and are the facts in the proposed history section correct? To take the attitude that keeps happening here 'I can delete anything I don't like if it's uncited' is disruptive, which is also NOT a good attitude. It's ironic that you say exactly what I've said before about building consensus to someone else, but get hostile to me. 'Building consensus' doesn't mean getting your way. I actuall think having an accurate history section would help the page. The qeustion before the regular editors, beyond the 'work on it or enjoy a revert war', is how do we approach it? The easiest answer is sit down for 20 minutes, find a few online cites, add them, problem finished. Please consider taking this on, instead of arguing that removal's a better solution than teamwork. ThuranX 12:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm not a regular contributer to this article. And I don't care about its content very much. I was just trying to explain some relevant policy on content disputes and verifiability. If you don't want me here I'll butt out. —Dgies^t c 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I placed a "sectionrewrite" tag on the history section in the article. It needs a cleanup. BWCNY 05:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone with New York Times archive access can probably do something with these results. [2] is currently not loading or I'd link to a results page there too. --NE2 13:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 0964576503 should also be a good source, assuming [3] is a reputable publisher. (They should be, since the MTA references that book in [4].) --NE2 13:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although massive page protections (semi/full), vandals still get by, and it gets out of hand. Back during mid-summer is when this catastrophe started, IPs and the now-blocked DCarltonsm@msn.com didn't vandalize this page alone, but also some of the subway service articles and the other car assignments. They refused to provide sources, when there obviously weren't any, and we continuously reverted them. We called this the September 9 Fiasco because they kept saying that these changes would take effect on September 9. When that day came, the vandalism ceased, because there were no such changes. Then, I spoke to soon, the vandalized a few of the pages again providing a different date. After a while, it stopped, until recently, with the return of the sockpuppet DCarltonsm. That is pretty much the story of the subway vandals.

Despite massive reverts of unsourced information, most of the articles on rolling stock are unsourced to begin with. Unlike subway services, the MTA doesn't announce daily assignments to subway cars, as this is the same as announcing daily service disruptions. It's possible that the articles are incorrect to begin with. Many of the rolling stock articles cannot be verified. --Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution

I tried repeatedly to engage the editor in discussion. failing that, I investigated his contribution history, which led me to file a sockpuppet report, which has since been borne out, nad the editor, and numerous socks, are now banned. This may not fix the page forever, but it should make delaing with this stuff easier. That said, I would be fo the betterment of this page to work out a proper History section, with citations. Reliance on the 'If you add it, you cite it' excuse got this mess going, as I've stated. A little effort from involved editors could avoid this entire mess. Use the cites I found at the bottom. Find more. But fix this so that it doesn't keep happening, and all involved will be happier. ThuranX 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not all meet WP:RS, but may be good for backgrounds and jumping points for clearer research, the first, while thoroughly outside WP:RS, is a good first person account of rail history for at least the period in question:

• http://members.aol.com/bdmnqr2/carhistory.html

• http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1215/is_6_205/ai_n6134826

• http://www.nycsubway.org/articles/history-nycta1980s.html

That's three articles in about 10 minutes, not counting the sidetracking i got on about the Shimabara rebellion from this article, [5], which highlights the need for citation, because peopel are watching. ThuranX 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are Ying Dor and Ying Dor 2 socks of Carlton? If not both, is one an illegal impersonator of the other? waht's the deal. Should a a Checkuser be filed? ThuranX 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article says "Because 75-foot subway cars take time to load and unload passengers and cannot fit into the entire B-Division lines, more recent orders returned to 60-foot subway car.". HOWEVER, according to the 2008-2013 MTA Capital Program, the fifth 75-foot subway car (R179, according to the document) order is proposed, meaning that the quote above could be false! They are intended to replace R44 (75-foot). However, this is a proposal, no one knows if it will be ordered or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takuma Ishizeki (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People need to stop undoing, there are facts on subchat with R160s all on the Q and R68/As back on the N.--IGeMiNix (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SubChat is a message board. Please use Reliable Sources. Thanks. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]