Jump to content

User talk:Chris j wood: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary
Line 33: Line 33:


:Sorry, but what claim?. The edit you reverted was purely a deletion; no claim was added. Wikipedia requires sources for all information included in an article. Sources are '''not''' required for removing information from an article, especially where that information is itself unsourced. -- [[User:Chris j wood|chris_j_wood]] ([[User talk:Chris j wood#top|talk]]) 13:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
:Sorry, but what claim?. The edit you reverted was purely a deletion; no claim was added. Wikipedia requires sources for all information included in an article. Sources are '''not''' required for removing information from an article, especially where that information is itself unsourced. -- [[User:Chris j wood|chris_j_wood]] ([[User talk:Chris j wood#top|talk]]) 13:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

::The claim was that the Waterloo and City line runs on Bank Holidays. This was from a personal observation so was original research. The claim was unreferenced. Q.E.D. [[Special:Contributions/86.149.141.8|86.149.141.8]] ([[User talk:86.149.141.8|talk]]) 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:18, 11 July 2017


Request for FAC review

Hello Chris,

I've launched a candidacy for featured article for Palais Rohan in Strasbourg, but so far I've only been getting the rough treatment for the images and strictly nothing on the content: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Palais Rohan, Strasbourg/archive1. You did care about exactly that kind of article and place a while ago, which I remember fondly since it encouraged me to edit resolutely. Could you maybe have a look into the candidacy? I would be very grateful and it would be good for Wikipedia, too. All the best, Edelseider (talk) 08:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Green Park Business Park has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not seeing evidence of WP:GNG. Excessive detail based on primary sources (or unsourced), and some routine coverage. I see the wind turbine has received some minor coverage that isn't actually coverage of the business park (and not quite enough to carry notability on its own).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. The article certainly needs work, but I think that common sense suggests that a business park with dozens of buildings, hundreds of acres of grounds and thousands of employees ought to be notable. For now, I have replaced the proposed deletion with a refimprove, and made some improvements (actually wholesale deletion of the gazateer-like info). I will work on finding some more secondary sources; I'm sure they are there but the trick is finding them in the volume of real estate sales and marketing material. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Rodda

For an explanation of my change to Matt Rodda, please see WP:NICKNAME, " Notable distinctions can be explained in the article, but avoid (for example) adding a nickname, or a contracted version of the original given name(s), in quotes between first and last name. For example: Bill Clinton, not William "Bill" Clinton." Edwardx (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

With reference to my revert of this edit. If you read the edit summary you will discover that the edit was made on the personal observation of the person making the edit. This most certainly is original research and is not permitted. -- 86.149.141.8 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that Wikipedia:No original research prohibits the inclusion of information in a Wikipedia article based on original research. And the edit you reverted did not add any information to the article, so it cannot possibly have violated that prohibition. What it did was remove information for which there was no cited source within the article. Admittedly the originator of that edit didn't help by over-justifying the removal; all (s)he really needed to say was 'removing uncited information'. As a matter of politeness, I've added the cite needed template to the article (both in lead and detail) to give you or others a chance to come up with a source for the line not operating on public holidays (I did look for myself, but failed to find anything), but if a source is not forthcoming it will inevitably be deleted. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the claim was unreferenced. -- 86.149.141.8 (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what claim?. The edit you reverted was purely a deletion; no claim was added. Wikipedia requires sources for all information included in an article. Sources are not required for removing information from an article, especially where that information is itself unsourced. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was that the Waterloo and City line runs on Bank Holidays. This was from a personal observation so was original research. The claim was unreferenced. Q.E.D. 86.149.141.8 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]