User talk:Unclepips

Hi Unclepips,

Welcome to Wikipedia. The text you have added to M5000 needs to be verified by reliable sources. Please do not reinstate without providing citations. There is a discussion at Talk:M5000#Fleet section should you wish to discuss. Est8286 (talk) 20:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The information that I have supplied IS TRUE!! I have been at ALL the deliveries of the trams where I have provided the dates. WHY DO YOU KEEP DELETING MY INFORMATION?? ARE YOU CALLING ME A LIAR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclepips (talk • contribs) 20:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

No I am not calling you a liar, but what you are introducing is called original research. A key part of Wikipedia is that statements need to be verified by reliable sources. Facebook, blogs, forums, personal observations etc are generally not considered reliable. The 'trust me I was there' reason doesn't carry, if it did otherwise anyone could post rubbish and it would stand.

From the statement above you may also have a conflict of interest. Not sure of your involvement with Metrolink (and nor is it any of my business) but am guessing you have some sought of relationship, and thus you really shouldn't be posting on an organisation that you have dealings with. May also not be a great idea posting information on an employer, some jobsworth within might consider it giving out confidential information.

Much of the info in the table hasn't been verified, e.g. the stuff about signalling equipment is uncited and thus should not be included until a cite can be found. If there is going to be a table, it should be consistent across the whole fleet, i.e. list all 120 rather than the current format that is suffering from recentism where the older units are clumped in groups and the later ones listed individually.

Sorry if I coming across as a bit of a party pooper, but the policies exist to allow Wikipedia to maintain some sort of credibility. I have no doubt that you are posting with the best of intentions. Est8286 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I have NO connection at all to Metrolink, I am a very keen enthusiast. I have been researching information on lots of tramway systems, especially in the UK and information like I found on this page is very useful to me. As I have the CORRECT information on some of the trams (i.e. those after 3110) I have modified the original table that someone else had started.

You say that the information needs to be certified/verified by a reliable source?? So who exactly runs the British Trams Online website that is referenced and appears to be an accepted source of information? Who is to say that they (whoever they are) have just put their own information onto a website that they have bought a domain for? Just because it is on that website does NOT mean to say that it is accurate....... I could just register my own domain and post information on it...... Your argument does not stand true!!

I don't see you as a party pooper at all. I see you as being an idiot who is just deleting information for the hell of it, becuase YOU cannot verify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unclepips (talk • contribs) 13:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You need to read about original research, verifiability, and reliable sources. You also need to read WP:NPA, as it is not acceptable for you to call another editor an idiot. That sort of behaviour is likely to get you blocked from editing. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability and assuming good faith

Hello Unclepips,

Verifiability is a core content policy, and complying with that policy is mandatory. Assuming good faith is a behavioral guideline that editors are expected to follow, and during content disputes, editors are also expected to treat each other with civility. If an editor points out policies and widely accepted guidelines to you, please do not hurl insults in their direction. Instead, read those policies and guidelines, and comply with them in the future. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)