Talk:Lamport and Holt

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Transport: Maritime

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Maritime task force (assessed as Low-importance).

My revert

I reverted a massive addition here. There's something odd about it. Aside from the many unsourced entries, the citations that are present show accessdates ("retrieved") from 2016 etc. I have no idea if the cited sources are reliable but I did check the contributor's edit history and this seems not to have been something built up in a sandbox over many months and then copied over to the article. It could, of course, have been created impeccably off-wiki and then pasted here, previewed for markup errors and committed, and I also cannot see why anyone would want to post anything other than correct information to an article such as this. Nonetheless, it could do with an explanation, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a subsequent revert a few days ago on the basis mainly of WP:SPS, although I also really do not think people should completely usurp articles with a version drafted in user space or offline - it is the antithesis of collaborative editing. However, it seems from this conversation that the SPS may be ok because the author is some sort of expert, even though neither I nor the person I asked to review my revert were either made aware of it or able to work it out. I'll leave it to others to decide - completely fed up of the transport types who simply do not care to work with the wider community. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the longer, informative and properly referenced article. There are plenty of articles that are insufficient and get completely rewritten. Any hard feelings by an editor over this are less important than Wikipedia having articles that are correct and useful to the encyclopedia user.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]