User talk:Old Lanky

What a shambles this site is
Only back two or three days and it is already clear as day that the site has not improved one bit. If anything, it is much worse because it is evident that many good editors whom I encountered in 2013 have long since moved out. The dross, however, remains and there is much more of it.

"Anyone can edit" sounds reasonable. A good soundbite. Until you realise that what it entails is "any idiot can edit". And they do. There is a whole army of them.

The big problem on here is what the site politely calls "original research". I see it in numerous articles. Someone has read something and tried to write hi own account of what he has read without double-checking his facts. As a result, serious errors get into the article and, because the verifiabily rule is so relaxed, it stays there "pending a citation". Never mind pending, it is unverified so get rid. Immediately.

A knowledgeable editor comes along who decides that he will highlight the problems and remove rubbish. What happens? Some schoolkid who knows everything and understands nothing reinstates it all.

As I say, the site is a shambles. I have better things to do. Old Lanky (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't give up on us all. I see from the history of your user page that you wrote/developed the articles on Ansdell, Lytham, St. Anne's, and Squire's Gate stations! Thank you!! There are a lot of us who just want to work on articles. Please reconsider. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Seconded. You may need a nice break, but I hope you came back. Are you sure the site ever was any less frustrating for knowledgeable editors? See WP:RANDY. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC).