User talk:Notech25

Welcome!

Hello, Notech25, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page British Rail Class 43 (HST) did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Introduction to referencing
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Danners430 (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback and apologies as I am still new here

I recently visited Laira where the power car 43188 was stationed, and have photos of said power car.

About the information relating to the original decoration of both 43187 and 43188, I have a link to photos of 43188 before Geraint Thomas won the Tour De France, as well as current photos of 43187 taken in September and October of this year. If possible, I would like to avoid publishing my images.

Also, is there a way the article can be rolled back once the information is verified, I would rather like to avoid writing all of that again 😅

Thank you

https://www.flickr.com/photos/privicy_of_charlie/33874703722 Notech25 (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also I have noticed the decals on the side of 43188 which clearly state ‘Geraint Thomas winner of the Tour De France 2018’ or the like. These were added at the same time as the yellow leotard, so I feel this does not require a source. Notech25 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I also have photos of 43313’s cab in storage at Laira Notech25 (talk) 22:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Photographs and Flickr are not reliable sources under WP:UGC. What you are writing would also fall foul of WP:OR.

Also, simply re-adding unsourced content so you “don’t forget” is still adding unsourced content, so it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia as a general rule. Danners430 (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

To expand upon @Danners430's message, Wikipedia has a long-standing and generally-agreed policy on the verifiability of information that is included in articles. It begins:

In the English Wikipedia, 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. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.

This stands alongside the policy on using reliable sources. As part of this, there is a general presumption against the use of photographs found on Flickr as sources for Wikipedia content, which is explained in the policy on user-generated content.

With regards to your own photographs; even if they were not automatically disqualified by the fact that they're unpublished, they would almost certainly be invalid as a source on the basis that they constitute original research.

Please understand that your willingness to contribute is greatly appreciated nonetheless, but these policies are central to the ensuring Wikipedia's quality and integrity. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

So if there is information that is not mentioned by reputable sources that is clearly proven in a photo then the information is invalid? What about the cab of 43313? Accessing Laira isn’t normally possible, so the information will not be present anywhere else.

If the only source of a certain piece of information is a photograph (that can very easily be verified), then why is Wikipedia denying extra depth of knowledge? Notech25 (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia doesn't want information that hasn't been published by reliable sources. I have already quoted for you the first paragraph of the verifiability policy, which covers it very clearly. Said quote also contains a link to the policy on original research, which is equally applicable.
Thus it is not the fact that the something is proven by a photograph that is the problem, but rather the provenance of the photograph. If it has been published by a reliable source and it clearly and directly supports your addition, then you are more than welcome to cite it as the source of your information. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Why has the article been rolled back again? What have I done wrong this time? I have cited a website that published my photos, the photos clearly support my addition, yet it has still been rolled back. Notech25 (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the previous message sounding aggressive I’m not trying to be like that 😅 Notech25 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Murgatroyd49

@Murgatroyd49 please leave my edits alone, I don’t understand why you keep reverting them, however you will find they are correct and that you do not need to revert them. I also believe it is not very helpful if you just revert and don’t give a reason. Notech25 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason, as stated in the edit summaries, not just by me, is that you haven't given a reliable source. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

define reliable please, apologies I’m not trying to be aggressive however I am confused Notech25 (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You’ll find the photos are unedited, and that reliable is a relative term. I’ve been told by other users that I am more than welcome to use my own photos as a source Notech25 (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Your own photos would fall foul of WP:UGC and WP:OR. I suggest you have another read of the policy linked in the previous discussion by XAM2175. Danners430 (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It would not fall short of WP:OR as it has been published, and for a topic such as this there is no reason to fake a source such as a photo of a cab. Secondly WP:UGC says ‘largely unacceptable’ not entirely unacceptable. There are no other sources for this information, as access to Laira is not normally possible. Again, if you check the metadata of the photo you will see it is entirely unedited. Notech25 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And may I also ask that in future, instead of just reverting you actually communicate the issue Notech25 (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

In the specific case of British Rail Class 43 and [1]https://birchwoodjunction.co.uk/, the policy which would apply is WP:SPS. When discussing WP:UGC and WP:OR I refer to "your own photos", not the reference you added. The site is a blog, not a published source. Danners430 (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

How does a blog not constitute a published source? Notech25 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s been published has it not? Notech25 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Your recent editing history at British Rail Class 43 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Danners430 (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t undone anyone’s work, it’s mine that’s been being undone Notech25 (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is no other source available and the information is unique then you’d rather ignore it because it’s ‘unreliable’? Notech25 (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you also warned Murgatroyd49? Notech25 (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The history for British Rail Class 43 shows two reverts each by both myself and @Murgatroyd49, and four by yourself. Danners430 (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Also i don’t know how the history is recorded however there have been more reverts than that from Murgatroyd49 Notech25 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Is there not some way that another editor can confirm the reliability of a source seen to be unreliable? Notech25 (talk) 17:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)