Rebel in retirement
Welcome edit
|
Recent edit to Air France Flight 4590 edit
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Air France Flight 4590, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
March 2016 edit
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Avro Vulcan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. (Hohum @) 15:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Can you give me your authority please for making this statement? I served at RAF Scampton on a Vulcan Sqn. I am my source.
- (talk page stalker) But the trouble, with the greatest respect (and that is not repeat not sarcastic) is that you know that for sure, and no-one else does. I know some stuff about, say, trumpets and Stefan Zweig where I absolutely *know* that I am correct, but I can't quote it because I can't cite it. The same goes for your off-the-record comments about Concorde - if they are only off the record then yes, they may be the absolute gospel, but we can't use them. It's sad and frustrating for someone who knows what they know and is new to this environment, but it's the only way the encyclopaedia can operate. Please have a look at stuff like WP:RS and WP:V and anything else that's in your Welcome message
(oops, you haven't got one, will send you one in a mo)(now sent) and you'll start to see the problem. Remember that it's on record that we prefer verifiability to truth, which sounds insane at first, but actually is not. With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Under what authority are you adopting this 'policing' role? You didn't say. Any source has to begin with facts that might or might not be published in some medium. If an author makes a statement in a book about facts which he was party to, then writing the facts in the book does not give those facts any greater status. I have chosen not to commit this information to any other journal; therefore, Wikipedia becomes the source which others might quote.
- This isn't worth my time. Sorry, and good luck with your editing career. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, the whole basis of which is that everything in it can be verified from sources that meet Wikipedia's definition of reliable. Any information you add should be verifiable against a reliable source - personal knowledge does not count. If there are no reliable sources, then the information doesn't belong in an article.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is the Internet. The trouble is that for every real expert in their field, we have a dozen fruitcakes who think they are. As WP needs to find a practical way to manage this, the way chosen is to restrict things to meeting WP:RS and WP:V: basically needing statements to be backed up by independent comments made by recognised authors, or by authors published through reputable editors. Yes, this is a limitation on what WP gets to publish. OTOH, the alternative would be Geocities. It's not perfect; it's the best we've come up with.
- So you can't be an RS, but you can be an editor (in the newspaper sense). As someone with hands-on experience, you're better equipped to be a very good editor. You know what's important. You know what needs to be included. If you choose from out of the vast pile of published Vulcan material (and yes, not everything published is equally good, but that's a separate problem) then you can put together what needs to be done, and you can source it as needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @Andy Dingley: I was about to say much the same. WP:EXPERT might provide some useful context here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- The "authority" is the wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No original research and the associated guideline WP:RELIABLE. Editors don't need any special individual authority to point issues out to you. Please familiarise yourself with how wikipedia operates. Essentially, it includes what is said in what it considers reliable sources (see link provided), not what individual editors know, however well informed they are. They are likely to be able to find a reliable source if they are well informed though. (Hohum @) 00:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks @Andy Dingley: I was about to say much the same. WP:EXPERT might provide some useful context here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
6 March 2016 edit
This is your second friendly warning. If you continue to edit war (see WP:EDITWAR) as you have been doing at Concorde and Air France Flight 4590, you risk your account being reported and losing your ability to edit Wikipedia. Neither of us wants that to happen. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Just who are you? Are you trawling all over Wikipedia looking for things you don't like? What authority do you have to pontificate on another person's contribution? And to whom would I be reported? Let me know and I'll gladly speak to them.
- Just because facts are not written down in some other journal does NOT mean that the facts are invalid. Facts have to be introduced into a public medium by someone who knows the facts for the first time. That then becomes a source, or you have a circular argument that nothing is allowed because it hasn't been created previously. There has to be commencement of a source and just because no one else has the information or has not committed to another document does not mean it is fiction.
- Who are you to tell me I do not know what I'm talking about. I worked on the very Vulcans I am writing about. How more authoritative can that be? What are your qualifications in that field? I don't need to consult any other source. I was there, on the ground and in the air. That makes my contribution factual. If I were a research scientist writing about cutting edge research there would be no other sources or references. Rebel in retirement (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- You might find WP:SECONDARY clears some of this up. (By which I mean a description and explanation, more than a justification) Andy Dingley (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Who am I? Just an ordinary Wikipedian trying to be friendly and to introduce you to our ways of working before the admins come to throw you out for making such a noise. If you do not quieten down you will likely be reported on the administrators notice board, either for incidents or edit warring, where you can follow my links to see for yourself what happens next. Your other concerns have also been answered above and plenty of links provided for you to follow up in more detail. Please do follow them up - for your own benefit. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for this guidance. I had misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. I had no idea it was such a heavily structured and restricted entity. From the rather imperious comments made by the established encyclopaedias about Wikipedia, which have appeared in the press, I had believed Wikipedia to be a much more egalitarian compilation of knowledge, calling upon the knowledge and experience of the people to enrich and expand existing material, rather than just another encyclopaedia straitened by traditional formality. Clearly, I was wrong. Not that I'm bothered, that's Wikipedia's loss. Obviously, it can be whatever its creators want it to be, but I do feel it is missing a real opportunity to capture wider knowledge. Perhaps a more enlightened knowledge environment will develop with time, as the true concept of a Wiki suggests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki where it states "A wiki is not a carefully crafted site for casual visitors. Instead, it seeks to involve the visitor in an ongoing process of creation and collaboration that constantly changes the Web site landscape."
The following statement, from Wikipedia on its Five Pillars page, is interesting in this context (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars) - "Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles." It seems the situation on editing has not evolved to follow this founding ethos.
However, I would like the opportunity to discuss the philosophy of Wikipedia more fully with the Administrators. Presumably, they are genuine employees. Can anyone indicate, please, how I can contact them directly, rather than just end up on a another Q&A board?
In the meantime, I am impressed that so many people are willing and are able to devote their time to overseeing the pages of Wikipedia searching out 'contraventions', apparently 24 hours a day. Receiving emails from other editors very late on a Sunday night was a little surprising.Rebel in retirement (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- You are half right about Wikipedia. Admins are actually just ordinary volunteer editors who have been granted greater system privileges through a democratic consensus vote. Policies can be challenged, but a newcomer unfamiliar with our ways is unlikely to make much headway. Yes, we have some pretty heavyweight restraints, but hey, this is the Internet! Anybody can, and often does, pretend to be an authority just so they can use us as a soapbox for their propaganda. A steady sprinkling of these come over IP addresses which betray Government inspiration around the world: more than one state organisation has been blocked wholesale at one time or another. Our defences against such abuse must be extremely robust. Our insistence on verifiability and sourcing is both a safeguard against such nonsense and also a vital pillar of our egalitarian ethos. Otherwise, opinionated or outdated experts could too easily browbeat the mere enthusiast. Rather, we find that experts often excel at giving shape and balance to topics and at referencing sources that the amateur enthusiast may never have come across. Sadly, this means that the genuine expert must first understand and learn to work within these constraints. I hope you can. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
March 2016 edit
Hello, I'm Ahunt. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ahunt (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)