Leave a message Send an Email

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

If you want to tell me I'm wrong about one of my edits (or worse), you may wish to familiarise yourself with the key policies and guidelines listed here before attacking me.

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Mattdaviesfsic is a relatively new editor that has been doing, as his talk page points out, "the work that all too often goes unappreciated". Well, that is exactly what this award was designed to do: give a deserving editor a pat on the back for a job well done. Matt is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways focusing on Southeast UK railway station articles.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Mattdaviesfsic

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 27, 2022

Does "the work that all too often goes unappreciated" which is exactly what this award was designed to do: give a deserving editor a pat on the back for a job well done. Matt is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways.

Recognized for

improving SouthEast UK railway station articles

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Buster7, I'm touched Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been noticed that you have taken to removing vast swathes of information from various miniature railway pages on the basis of lack of citation.

This information is often difficult to impossible to cite, but verifiable (if only by visiting in person)

Please consider whether in this case your edits are in the spirit of wikipedia. (Thinking specifically wikipedia is not compulsory) 2A00:23C7:2222:8E01:D8E6:890F:7D31:B6D2 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information you are talking about would fall under the umbrella of original research, so should not be on WP in the first place, indeed the very lack of citations means that it could very well be wrong anyway! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is any harm done to anyone by small pages, of interest to a niche community, who keep the information up to date and correct, having non-cited or primary source info?

By all means tag the pages to note the lack of citations, but outright deleting swathes of information curated over years is destructive and punitive.

What is the benefit to leaving stubs behind in your quest for 'improvement' when your demands for citation are not met?

In a lot of cases, the wikipedia pages (which have existed for ages without causing harm to anyone) are the only repository for this community-correlated information and I struggle to understand why your quest for policy following should trump the interests of the people who read and maintain the pages. 2A00:23C7:2222:8E01:B950:29E0:65D:53E4 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My reply above stands with reference to WP:OR. If individuals want to maintain such a list the website can be used for that purpose, not Wikipedia. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that Matt has also done this to Bure Valley Railway's page. I would encourage Matt to read relevant section of note in WP:CITETRUTH, "If a statement is not a quotation, is not an extraordinary claim, is not controversial or challenged or likely to be challenged, and is not a negative statement about a living person, a source is not required."

In any case, names of engines and number of coaches on a railway are not controversial nor are they extraordinary claims. Almost all of the information and the table deleted could have been cited in seconds by going to the railway's own website, which I think is a valid source in this case, as per WP:ABOUTSELF.

This behaviour is tantamount to vandalism (edit, 02:11 UTC : I retract this statement - I do not mean "vandalism", I mean "disruptive editing" WP:DIS ) in my opinion. Your intentions for removing original research are noble, but I feel strongly that the site would benefit more from your efforts if you were to make an attempt to verify/cite information you think is controversial/in dispute instead of deleting it immediately, and even then considering whether a citation is strictly required in each case. Zazzfasd (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITETRUTH is an essay. WP:OR is policy. And removal of improperly-sourced promotional content is not remotely disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Editing a post after it has been replied to [1] makes following a discussion difficult, and is strongly discouraged. You are wasting your time arguing here anyway. Find sources, and then discuss on the relevant article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to this sentence in WP:OR:

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Anyone with access to a railway can visit and see the nameplate of a locomotive, and does not need further specialised knowledge to infer the name of the locomotive from their reading of the nameplate. Zazzfasd (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Visiting a railway' is original research. And that is my final reply here, since this isn't a remotely appropriate place to be discussing this. Mattdaviesfsic is under no obligation whatsoever to respond to ill-informed accusations of vandalism and/or disruptive editing, and is fully entitled to simply delete such posts. Which is what I'd do if someone carried on like this on my talk page. Stop posting here and participate in discussions in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zazzfasd:

1. You are misinterpreting WP:OR. Less than two lines above your quote is the line "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." which very clearly excludes primary sources that are not published, such as the physical railway itself.
2. This is reinforced by WP:V: verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Note again the qualifier re previous publication.
3. @AndyTheGrump is correct to refer you to the talk page rules. WP:REDACT is the specific point.
4. Andy is also correct to note that there are better places for this discussion. If not the talkpage of a relevant article, there is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.

XAM2175 ^(T) 12:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunswick Green Doesnt Exist 10mmsocket (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favour and keep an eye on Wirral line and Birkenhead Dock Branch. I'm removing some UGC sources - Youtube & Flickr links - and would appreciate some backup if the natives get restless. Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for letting me know. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm thinking removal of UGC references is something to focus on for a while... 10mmsocket (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarrail (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, yes, I am the same IP - a former editor who returns occasionally. My name, when I had an account, was SchroCat. The tube crash was one of those I took through FAC a long time ago, and I pop back to check on whether any problematic changes have been made. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]