Talk:SS South Steyne

Untitled
Unfortunately South Steyne is not operational due to (deliberately inflicted) boiler damage. Can I request that the incorrect statement be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blacklord (talk • contribs) 01:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability
I've removed this information a couple of times becuase of WP:V, however, the same editor keeps putting it back without sources. The articles existing sources, around which the new info is inserted (see the diff), do not show provide the inserted info. If such a WP:V source cannot be provided, the info should be removed. --Merbabu (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I've teased out the Andrews citation that does *not* provide the claim that an editor insists on inserting, and requested citations for those claims. The claims include very specific info on, what would be arson, was carried out. Diff showing uncited claims and my cite tags: Diff. --Merbabu (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In response to your comments on my talk page (which I've placed below in italics - better here on the article page so others can see/respond)...
 * ''Hello Merbabu,
 * ''you have sent me a message because you want to talk about the South Steyne. I was one of the people who restored the South Steyne in the 1970's when it was in Sydney harbour. I know a great deal about the Steyne and what happened to it both before, during and after the restoration I'talking about. Let me tell you once and for all time that the South Steyne was deliberately burnt and I have even met one of the blokes who did it(he's probably passed away now). Also the South Steye was not the first Manly Ferry to go up to Broken Bay. Acouple of the 'B' class ferries went up there round the 1920's. This is printed in a magazine about the Pittwater area and called the Pittwater online News. Please,please if you are the one that is consistently changing the article on the South Steyne, then talk to me first. Thankyou.
 * ''Regards John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stirlo55 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ...wikipedia's standard is verifiability, not truth. You should refer to WP:V. In short, wikepdia editors need to provide realiable published sources for their claims. It doesn't matter if one was there, the published source remains the standard. I have removed some of your text a few times and provided a comment each time in my edit summary. Please provide reliable sources for your contributions, otherwise they risk being removed again. Yes, i undertook a quick internet search last week and quickly worked out that you had worked on the Steyne in the 70s. If you have any specific sources or your own photos from the time you spent on the Steyne, they would greatly appreciated. --Merbabu (talk) 01:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Resolution
I raised this on 8 July on the talk page - and well before that in edit summaries. Per WP:V (wikipedia policy) the material for which we are seeking verification should be removed. As a sign of good faith i propose providing another 2 days (on top of that already provided) for a reliable published source to be provided. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 04:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)