User talk:Jerry M. Ray

SNCF article
Hello Jerry My apologies for not replying sooner; I haven't been around that much recently. I see the paragraphs you wrote were added, though the suggestion to use them as a replacement for what's there wasn't; there tends to be a reluctance to deleting material that is sourced, as a rule. I've trimmed some of the duplication in the current text, and put in another proposal on the talk page. I'll see how it goes... Xyl 54 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jerry, very much appreciate your cautious actions in this regards - it's a model for wikipedia COI editing. Are you being helped sufficiently at the moment, or do you need anything else done? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'll take a look WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jerry, thanks for your note; my apologies once more for not replying sooner. On the changes to the SNCF page, I haven’t had any more feedback on trimming the Reactions section: To cover all the bases I have asked Nick-D and ShazOt for comments before going ahead. On the subject of the HT page I would suggest posting it on the talk page there, as you did on the SNCF page. I would suggest a preamble that mentions .a) the conflict of interest issue and .b) that you want to replace the section with a new text. Something like: ''I have reviewed the France section of this article, and wish to address some inaccuracies; due to a WP:COI issue I am raising the matter here for approval. I would like to replace the existing text with the following…. /edit the existing text to read….'' Try and keep as much of the original as you can, particularly sourced statements, but you can reword stuff, change emphasis, add counter-points, if you feel what’s there is unfairly weighted, or misrepresents what the sources say. And it's worth keeping it brief; the Belgium section (for example) is three times as long as any of the others, though I wasn't aware that Belgium was significantly more at fault than any other part of Occupied Europe. So it gives the wrong impression. Anyway, good luck, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all who have replied here, I appreciate your interest in my request. Xyl 54, that is very helpful advice and I aim to make good use of it. I am still working on that draft at present but will propose it as you suggest once it is ready. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust train
Hello Jerry Thanks for your note: My apologies, again, for the delay in replying; I was trying to chase some things down before replying, but I’ve had no luck. I thought I’d seen somewhere that DB was in the competition with SNCF for one of the American contracts, but I haven’t found anything to that bears that out. Do you know the answer? There would be a certain irony in this whole issue if that was so. I've posted a comment at the HT talk page; if there are no objections forthcoming I'll do the swap in a couple of days, unless anyone else does it first. Thank you for your patience, BTW, and for so scrupulously following the COI guidelines; I hope it hasn't been too frustrating an experience for you. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerry, I've just commented on the proposed text - it looks good to me. I'd also like to thank you for the way you've gone about proposing this change. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, done. It slotted in easily, no dud references or anything. Well done! Xyl 54 (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Sorry, I should explain that dud references bit; sometimes when a big piece is replaced it messes up the references. If (for example) any are the first instance of a ref used in several places, it throws up cite errors which have to be found and fixed. But that went in with no problems. Xyl 54 (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

SNCF, again
Hello Jerry: Apologies (yet again) for not replying sooner to your note; I've not been around much recently. I've also been trying to think of a solution, and been drawing a blank. I've looked at your proposal (which is fine, and has been added now) but I feel the issue needs de-emphasizing in the article; not giving undue weight, in fact. I've made a proposal in the talk page to that end. I'm also not entirely clear about the objection that SNCF received payment; after all, slaves in America received payment, yet no-one would claim because of that they were in collusion with their owners. Also, a lot of the work in the camps was done by the inmates, but again it would be the height of insult to suggest they were culpable because of that. i think one of the aspects of this that bothers me is the suggestion (here, and here) that SNCF is being targetted over this, in a way that others are not; I haven't seen any evidence that SNCF actively sought this work (though it appears they didn't object either), which would make them no more or less culpable than the French government, or than the rail companies of any otehr ocupied country (and far less culpable than the governments and rail networks of the Axis powers. Anyway, just my two penny-worth: Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Xyl 54. Thank you for mentioning this to me here. I have seen your recent comment on the discussion page and have followed up with you and Bahnfrend over there. Thanks, Jerry M. Ray (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Jerry Thanks for your note. I did see your reply at the Talk:SNCF page, but felt, on reflection, that the original argument (by yourself and Bahnfriend) was sound ie. that the content was better seated where it was. I have also been looking for information to expand the page, but more in the historic than in the present-day sense, so it may not be as much help: I'm amazed, now I look at it, that the page doesn't mention Andre Chapelon, for example! Anyway, all the best; I will chip in with what I can. Xyl 54 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)