User talk:67.43.130.48

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Paul Cyr 21:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kitchener Page

Paul -- I don't mean to be rude, but it took me 3 hours to post all those corrections to the Kitchener page. None of it was original research on my part. I wouldn't know how to cite it -- I was born here and that was drawn from an accumulation of memories going back decades. If earlier authors had bothered to do *their* research, I would not have had to fix all the blasted mistakes.

Let's begin with the "statue" of Victoria in Victoria Park. It was put up in May 1911. Victoria was born May 1819 and died in 1901. Therefore it was unveiled at Victoria Day in the tenth year after her death. The war did not begin until 1914 and the city was still Berlin until 1916. So that whole paragraph is just plain wrong. And I provided a citation source to the Kitchener Public Library website (though I had to go hunting for a site which confirmed what I already knew).

You also took out the comments about Rockway Gardens, about the origin of the Radial pattern of roads, about the plans to construct a new highway to Guelph and much else besides. I worked on petitioning VIA Rail to get extra trains running through here 20yrs ago, so I know why they think we should not have more.

It was not I who did the big paste of city history from the municipal website which has been flagged by Wikipedia -- why don't you work on fixing that?

If you really really object to my edits, then I must ask you to address them one by one, not just undo hours and hours worth of someone else's community service because it is new information for you. Considered argumentation is always welcome. Luddites are not. Thanks. Bryan 67.43.130.48 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your effort and it is appreciated, but the threshold for inclusion is verifability, not truth. The information may make perfect sense and be 100% accurate, but without a source, it can not be verified. I've put a {{refimprove}} tag on the article and will go through it making sure it is properly sourced when I have more time later. Paul Cyr 00:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, then, would it not have been better to leave in my contributions and insert "citation needed" text in places where this might be required? You obliterated the citations I had provided along with all the rest of it, while leaving plagiarised material from the municipal website which had been flagged earlier for improvement. Of the last 25 "reverts" done on the Kitchener page, 16 were done by you. Are you improving the page or merely "guarding" it? Maybe some of my edits were not fully verifiable for their truth, but the information I displaced with those edits was absolutely verifiably false! If I had gone through the article with a hatchet deleting on that criteria, I would now stand accused of vandalism no doubt. Perhaps I can find citations for my contributions, but not all in one sitting. I was not finished editing yet. Rome was not built in a day. Some sources are simply not available on the web. So here is what I am going to do -- I am going to go back and edit again. I am going to leave in your header tag. I am going to be harsh on what I wrote earlier and take out some of the "commentary" edits and I will add in "citation needed" text as a marker for the future. Minimum -- the false information is coming out! Bryan 67.43.130.48 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith and take a look at WP:CITE for how to site sources other than websites. Books, videos and other sources are absoultely acceptable. Also, although I do appriciate the spelling correction, it is considered bad form to edit other users' comments, even if you are trying to help. Some users may not like that. As a sign of good faith, I've added a {{inuse}} tag to the article so that you can add information and source it later. Please try to be quick as possible and remove the tag when you're done. Paul Cyr 21:36, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was already familiar with the "assume good faith" rule. I almost cited that yesterday too. Thank you for the link to the Citation page -- it looks like none of the 3 models was followed through consistently on the Kitchener page. Did you catch the part about making a distinction regarding new edits between "doubtful and harmful" and "doubtful but not harmful"? If another user's contributions are, in your estimation, doubtful but not harmful, then you are supposed to tag it with {{fact}} and leave them alone for awhile. Anyway, enough with beating the horse.... But I am curious to ask -- just what is it in what I fixed that you have any doubts about at all? Anyway, we don't really need the {{inuse}} tag now -- that was yesterday and I have come to a pause already. The text of the tag says that it is meant for use over only a few hours. To meet your demands, I shall have to go the KPL or WLU libraries and look up stuff that I committed to memory decades ago and that won't be happening this week. Bryan 67.43.130.48 23:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)