Tomtroszak

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Boiler explosion

Your repeated edits have destroyed the lede. Please make your edits without removing the lede. Thank you. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

what is a lede?

The lede is the opening section of the article, which gives a brief synopsis of what the article is about. Every article has to have one. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read this: WP:TUTOR before editing further. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

More at WP:LEDE. Please read it before altering Boiler explosion again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi all, I was just trying to correct some of the information presented in the article, which is very, very incorrect from both a scientific and historic point of view. I am uncertain if you are undoing my edits completely because you object to my errors in "style" or if you believe the content of my edits to be wrong. In either case, the information that I entered is both correct, and verifiable from numerous sources. The original article (as I found it) is neither correct or verifiable, and should be deleted altogether, in my opinion. If you all would rather have the article stay wrong, then I will leave it alone. I wrote my text from memory, but was going to add the references as time permits. Please advise specifically as to why my edits have been undone, and I will decide if it is worth the effort to try to provide the references. I have more than 600 books in my library, and do not wish to waste my time to collect all of the dozen or so citations if they are simply going to be deleted wholesale, like the first definition I presented. Thanks! Tom

A large part of the article's talk page is devoted to the deficiencies in the piece. Indeed, a common thread is that it needs a complete re-write. In fact, it's terrible. Read the guidelines, proceed in small steps, and get going! You will find that an edit that doesn't meet the style guidelines for readability, layout and so on will be removed, so familiarize yourself with these, and how to write better articles, first. Good luck. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Old Moonraker, Thanks so much for your thoughtful response. I have very limited time to devote to wikepedia, so I simply succumbed to the temptation and clicked on the "you can help" link without reading the style manual first. When [User:RepublicanJacobite| deleted the first version, I thanked him for the reference links, but somehow didn't save my changes to this page, so he/she never saw my thanks. I have briefly perused the info at the links provided by both of you, but am still unclear as to exactly what else I had done that was incorrect, other than deleting the "lede", which I then attempted to fix. I did attempt to proceed in "small steps" by allowing a lot of the irrelevant existing info to stay, but simply re-writing it so that it was sensibly and grammatically more correct. Ultimately, the entire article just needs to be replaced, period.

I will indeed take the advice from both of you and have a much more thorough look at the above referenced references (as time permits) before attempting another edit, but it may be awhile, so in the meantime I offer the following idea for you consideration: Perhaps you (or others) who can recognize the correct, verifiable content that I have submitted thus far, could help me and the article itself by allowing this new information to stay, and help correct the style deficiencies manually as new edits, rather than simply "undo" ing all of my work at one shot. This is just an idea. If you do not wish to attempt editing the article itself, but can recognize specific deficiencies that you can bring to my attention here, please do so, and i will be grateful for your effort.

In other words, if my revision contains correct and verifiable information, but is deficient in terms of style or readability, perhaps you or others could help fix that as we go along, and educate me in matters of style in the process. It seems that my revision of the article as it stood (briefly) would still be preferable over the "original article" which contains neither correct or verifiable info. But, instead of accepting my efforts to help improve the article as a whole, you and others simply hit the "undo" button, which is rather discouraging to any further effort on my part. My current concern is that if every person on the discussion board can see fit to delete my entire edits without explanation at any time, and the entire article must again be re-written to unknown standards for unknown reasons then I fear i may never be able to "please all of you".

It is interesting to me to note that you very rightly point out that "an edit that doesn't meet the style guidelines for readability, layout and so on will be removed"... but an article that is completely erroneous and has no meaningful references will be allowed to stay. This doesn't bode well for the future of mankind, as "truth by consensus" can ultimately only result in an Idiocracy at best. I believe that the lack of verifiable content (in the original article) alone should qualify it for "challenge and removal" but I have no idea how to go about this and still not sure whether it's worth the effort.

If I receive no other information, I may review the style guidelines as time permits, dig up all of my references, then replace the entire horrific "original" article at one swell foop. If this approach does not "stick" then I have no idea as to how to proceed. I did see the discussion page, but I currently do not feel that I have time to engage in it, as there are many different opinions presented, but very few facts. At least one of the discussion participants is in fact presenting correct information, but no one (except me) had acted upon the article itself.

So, thanks for writing, and if you have any specific criticisms that would be helpful, send them on. Thanks for the good wishes, and likewise to your endeavors!

Tom

p.s.: I have no idea how to contact or reply to you or RepublicanJacobite or anyone else for that matter other than putting posts upon this page and hitting "save page". Since you seem to have responded to my queries, this seems to be working. If you know a better way to communicate, please pass it on. Thanks again.