User talk:Texvanwinkle

Old 666
Texvanwinkle,

Hello. Your edits to the Wikipedia article Old 666 have been reverted. In your edits, you removed verified information and sources, and replaced it with an essay- or story-like dramatic summary of events on Old 666. In the future, when making edits, please write in | encyclopedic style, and properly source your information.

Regards. DasReichenz (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * DRZ,


 * I received your message regarding my revision to the "Old 666" Wikipedia entry. I agree with your perception of the style following the history section of the aircraft, though I do have to point out that I was largely following the style of what was already there.  Even so, I do see editorializing on my part which lends itself to a dramatic story form, so I'm going to rewrite it with the encyclopedic style more in mind.


 * As for removing previous, verifiable sources, the entry previous to mine, and to which you reverted, is inaccurate on a number of major and minor points, due to the inaccuracies in the sources on which it is based. Simply because a source is verified doesn't make it accurate.  That, and because I did not use them as the basis for my revision, is why I removed them.  I see no issue with removing inaccurate and/or unrelated sources.


 * In terms of properly sourcing my own revision, my first reference is to a comprehensive history of Old 666/"Lucy" available online which provides a lengthy list of primary and secondary sources, several of which are online, others, such as interviews with the crew members, which obviously must stand on their own. So I'm unclear how such a source does not count as proper or verifiable.  Most newspaper articles, on which vast numbers of Wikipedia entries rely extensively, are less well sourced.  Is it simply that its online sources should be on the Wikipedia page itself?  If so, I can provide those, but it didn't occur to me that such lengths would be necessary if the source material itself lists them.  The second source I provided, however, is as direct and verifiable a primary source as one can find: a PDF of the flight log for pilot Jay Zeamer, available at the Pacific Air War Archive hosted by George Mason University, which directly supports all sections of my revision dealing with the aircraft and missions flown by Lt. Col. Zeamer, including some you marked as needing a citation.  Hence my listing it as a reference rather than a footnote.  So your input on how my sources can be more properly Wikipedian would be welcome.


 * I will rework my entry as soon as possible. I hate to see information I know to be inaccurate remain in public view any longer than it has to.


 * Thanks,


 * TexVanWinkle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texvanwinkle (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Tex,
 * First, when responding to messages left on your talk page, please respond on the page the first message was left - in this case, your talk page. I have moved your response here. Please also follow talk page conventions when responding, i.e. using colons to properly indent responses, and to use the four consecutive tildes to sign your posts.
 * Second, please see Wikipedia's encyclopedic style guide (also known as WP:Topic) for tips on how to write articles in a way which are neutral to the topic. For citation help, please see WP:CITE. Remember that all information must be cited, or else it is impossible to verify its accuracy, or determine its origin. Note: citing other Wikipedia pages for non-Wiki related material is improper; citations should be to material outside Wikipedia, such as from books, papers, websites, or other reputable sources. You have indicated you have sources for "Old 666" - please consult WP:CITE for the proper method of referencing them in the article text, and producing them at the bottom of the article. Check out Wikipedia's list of featured articles for real examples of good editorial practices.
 * I have not yet had time to review your edits to Lt. Zeamer's article; please make sure you follow the same conventions there.


 * Thank you, and have a happy new year!


 * DasReichenz (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)