Miscellaneous desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 23

verifying information

Hi, could someone please look at a source and verify that a certain quote is in that article? This article Blackwater Baghdad shootings has the following text:

On April 1, 2011, the Associated Press reported that the FBI scientists were unable to match bullets from the square to guns carried by the Blackwater guards and investigators found foreign cartridge cases not used by U.S. or Blackwater personnel.

I read it and the source and noted that this statement is a bit biased and misleading as an important part has been left out.

I added this text (quote from the AP article) (here in bold to show the added text)

On April 1, 2011, the Associated Press reported that the FBI scientists were unable to match bullets from the square to guns carried by the Blackwater guards and investigators found foreign cartridge cases not used by U.S. or Blackwater personnel though "shootings are not uncommon in Nisoor Square and those shells could have been left behind before or after the Blackwater shooting."

But shootings are not uncommon in Nisoor Square and those shells could have been left behind before or after the Blackwater shooting.

The source

Another editor removed my addition three times.

1) "that quote is not in the source."

2) this quote is NOT in the article. clearly you need to read it.

(i read it the third time by then and told him on the talk page where the quote is exactly.)

3) that is not the quote in the article. stop adding your pov

(I also told him not to attack me i do not like fights and edit wars, so i came here to ask)

My question could someone please look at the source (about the 11th paragraph) and verify that the quote is there and that it has been added to the article without changing the meaning. And if so could someone please add this to the article? That would be very kind. Thanks in advance. Kai9045 (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that quote anywhere in the article. What you inserted is a paraphrase, not a quotation. Quotations should ideally be verbatim from the source; any alterations made must be clearly marked (which you didn't). Please refer to Wikipedia:Quotations. A quotation would be: "Shootings in the square were not uncommon, making it unclear whether shells were from the shooting in question or from other incidents." Anonymous.translator (talk) 08:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. I think i found the cause for the confusion. :)) Silly me. It is actually a quote but from a different source. The statements are very similar in words and express both the same. I did not alter the quote but i confused the sources. This is the source.

"...shootings are not uncommon in Nisoor Square and those shells could have been left behind before or after the Blackwater shooting."

I will fix that in the article accordingly. Thanks again Anonymous.translator for your information and help. Kai9045 (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sent letter wrong postcode

hi. I sent a letter to an address in London but think i put the wrong postcode - completely wrong, from a different letter i had to send. since the adreess was fine, should it still arrive anyway? Thanks Amisom (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They sort by the postal code first. Once they send it to that postal code and the local carrier determines that there is no such address within that postal code, several things could happen:

1) They might return it as undeliverable.

2) They might determine the correct postal code from the street address, write that on the letter, and send it on.

3) They might just drop it in a "dead letter office", especially if it lacks a return address.

So, I wouldn't count on it being delivered. If it is, it would likely be delayed. I suggest you mail another copy, with the correct postal code. StuRat (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Mail prides themselves on delivering badly addressed mail. It will be delayed, because the automated processes won't work, but as long as there is enough on the address for them to identify the intended recipient, they will deliver it. --Tango (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i cant send a copy because it was a form, but i did put my address on the back so i should get it back if there's a problem.. But i put the right address and name of the company so Tango makes me hopful! Thanks. Amisom (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tango is probably correct. For all the grief we sometimes give them, postal delivery services make a pretty decent effort to make sure our letters get where they need to; there are all kinds of stories out there about cryptically addressed letters making their way to the right recipient, albeit sometimes with a delay. Matt Deres (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also matters how wrong the post code is. Have been in the same situation in the US. The UK should be the same, or considering the size of the country, better. If the first digit is off, in the US it can go thousands of miles astray, and a month or so delay is possible. If later digits/letters, then it will first end up nearer to the correct destination and be delivered quicker, with only a day or days delay. The best case being if the error is at the end & it goes to the correct post office, which will give hardly any delay. Post offices always strive to do #2 above if possible, as Tango says.John Z (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also depends on whether the street address is unique within London. Say the letter is addressed to 17 Kensington Church Street, that's no problem as there is only one street by that name. But a London A-Z I have here lists eighteen Victoria Roads so in that case the chances are lower. Sussexonian (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails the letter goes to the National Returns Centre in Belfast. There they open it and try to figure out the sender, to whom they return it. If they can't figure out to whom to return it, they keep it for 4 months (cf that last link) and then they dispose of it. Valuable stuff they auction off, the rest they shred (ref). I have to feel for the people there who have to hand-open packages, which are mostly innocent stuff but just occasionally are scary, if thoroughly incompetently made, bombs. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]