User talk:Jeni/Archives/2016/June

A bit annoyed.
Good afternoon Jeni,

I would just like to inform you that I've taken the decision to reinstate my edit which you reverted on this page, as the information is correct. I find it quite rude that you simply chose to revert on sight instead of checking the information online (which would have taken you a few seconds, whereupon you would have realised the information provided is correct, and possibly added a reference to the article). The essay Revert only when necessary's first section is entitled "reverting drives away editors". I very rarely edit articles on London buses; indeed I am not a bus fanatic and probably couldn't tell one bus from another; but if another less experienced editor were to encounter this sort of petty lack of assumption of good faith, I'm willing to reckon that they might be driven away from Wikipedia. If my edit was a chunk of text, and hard to verify, I might have been less annoyed, but the fact that you reverted the name of the depot that this bus is serviced by- that's right, one name, easily verifiable by no less than 5 independent sources on the first page of Google when you enter the keywords "london bus route 18 depot", is a tad bit silly.

Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. The same has happened to me on a few occasions. Nearly all of the garages have been removed without being looked up despite being 100% correct! The Arriva London and Go-Ahead London routes and garages in particular can be found on their website, but the problem is is that Arriva London's are stored as a PDF file. To be fair to, she is following WP:VERIFY very well, however Jeni,  it would make editing a lot easier if you could attempt to look up the routes garage before reverting it, especially on the operators websites. The same goes for anything on the info box on London bus routes. A little more due care and attention is needed in future to avoid hacking other editors off.  Speaking of citing garages, thats a job for me to do, which i will start now (alongside counter-vandal work)! Class455fan1 (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I will revert on sight any unreferenced info added to the London bus route articles, just because those that add the information are too lazy to add a reference, doesn't mean that I will do it for them. Too much crap goes on those articles. Jeni  ( talk ) 18:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the stuff added, which then gets reverted are IP's who haven't read or don't know about WP:VERIFY, so you (and I for that matter) could at least find sources for the information, before removing it, and leave a reminder on their talk to add sources in the future. If no source is found (for example an operator/garage change), add a, as information will become available soon from the bus operator's website, when it gets updated. If nothing is added, then remove. Also, would you like to help me with what I am doing (adding citations for garages and vehicles, if it says to the remaining bus route articles)? I don't mind doing it on my own, but it would take a long time, so help would be much appreciated. Class455fan1 (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "I will revert on sight any unreferenced info"- I'm sorry, but this sentence is incredible and flies in the face of everything that this project is. I suggest that you have a read of Editing policy (policy not just an user essay), more specifically the section entitled "try to fix problems". Any facts added to an article that would belong in an ideal world "finished" article should be retained. Your self made policy is ridiculously stupid beyond belief. CN exists for a reason. Furthermore, WP:Revert only when necessary states "revert vandalism upon sight but revert an edit made in good faith only after careful consideration". I fail to see how your editing fits into this statement. At the very least, you are dissuading other, possibly new editors, from helping this project, at most, you are defying common consensus and Wikipedia policies. jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I entirely disagree. While I understand you're peeved you were reverted (which no one likes) Jeni is correct to revert unsourced additions. I do this all the time at President of Russia. WP:V applies to everyone and the onus is not on the reverter to go find sourcing to confirm or deny what's been changed. This is countervandalism 101. I know because I've taught CVUA for awhile now. Any time you add any content, add a citation. Let's remember that the essay you've mentioned several times is just that, an essay. It is neither binding nor does everyone agree with it. Thank you for your cooperation. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You do make a good point. I suppose could have looked up the information himself and cited, however looking up the info does actually help editors to collaborate with each other rather than reverting and causing people to become pissed off and starting disputes. The use of a  could also help, removing the information if nothing has been added for a while. Thats what I think, but I have to admit, as Jeni says on her user page "I'd like to make clear I am not perfect" is true. In fact, Nobody is "the perfect editor" and everyone has flaws on their editing. I think we've all learnt a lesson from this, and we should move on! Meanwhile, I will continue happily with the task I've said to do :)  Class455fan1 (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, I'll continue to revert unsourced information added to London Bus articles, we've learnt from experience that once added, nothing on these pages ever gets sourced. Jcc is just annoyed that he tried to add unsourced information and got caught out and feels like he should be an exception to referencing information on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned there is no further discussion to be made on this subject. If wishes to add unsourced information then I'm sure he will be welcomed at the Bus Routes in London Wikia where they care not for sourcing, or quality. Jeni ( talk ) 09:03, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Jeni, "Jcc is just annoyed that he tried..."- with the greatest respect, please drop your condescending attitude ("ignore XYZ; he's in a temper tantrum") and fall off your moral pedestal. You are not the guardian of the Wikipedia; in fact, if you look through my edits across the last 7 years, I have only edited bus articles once or twice before, if ever. Whilst I am sure you are forever scarred by your forced edits to Wikipedia, please assume good faith, or editors will end up being driven away; in fact, I notice that 10 out of 12 of your first edits to roads on Wikipedia fail to cite sources (pot, kettle, black). I am sure that both of us know that including a link to a Wikia where things are not done quite so well was completely superfluous, pretentious and not at all necessary (although, looking back at your past edits, you do seem to like quoting this Wikia as a way to get your own way). Chris, comparing Mr Putin's article to an article about a London bus route is disanalogous; mainly dear Vlad's page is 189,030 bytes long; the 18 bus's article is merely 2.81% of that. Bus route 18's article has had 145 edits made to it; Putin's has had 12,378. But all that is merely statistics, you cry! If you look at the edit in question- my edit was merely adding the name of the bus depot that this bus route is serviced by into the infobox, information that is indisputable and immediately checkable- whereas I heavily suspect the majority of the edits to Mr Putin's article is trying to insert a long string of gibberish, made up text resembling a fanfiction into his article (and going back to my first point, when Jeni inserted an infobox in her 10th edit to Wikipedia, she did not cite sources either). Then, that's an ad hominem, everything needs a citation, I hear you cry- but the information (the 2 word name of a bus depot) was so immediately checkable, that it seems ridiculous not to- in my time in Wikipedia, during which I have done plenty of anti-vandalism work, across a whole spectrum of articles, I have always endeavored to check even the most questionable facts for myself, because driving away editors is not what Wikipedia needs. I shan't comment further (although you are perfectly welcome to reply), as I fear this shall collapse into an argument, which I am sure is not what either of us want. Bury this in your archive; best wishes for the future and I can only hope that we will not meet again. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (sorry if I was a bit pompous here, but an eye for an eye and all that.)