User talk:Wzucker3040

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Wzucker3040! Thank you for your contributions. I am Acps110 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article N (New York City Subway service), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question regarding message, and request for assistance.
Hi, I have been editing some pages of Wikipedia for several weeks. I could cite some sources of my information, but some of it is from personal first hand experience, which I would consider reliable. This is the essential impulse of my question to begin with. As you have now contacted me, we might then be able to clarify a few things. Please also note that I am a senior in years (well past 70) so that my personal recollections should, I feel, count for something even if not immediately reproduced in printed form. Some of the information I would provide also would come from sources experienced in a given field and thus deemed reliable, even if, again, not immediately reproduced in printed form. Do you now see the issue of what I feel I have to deal with? I see information perpetuated over many years that I know is incorrect, and would like to at some point be able to correct it.

I am new at this sort of thing, so please try to be a bit understanding.

I plan to edit material on other pages as well. However, I will be pleased to accept any constructive information, advice, and pointers that you are prepared to give in regard to future editing on my part.

Looking forward to hearing from you. However, at this point, I feel it would be easiest for me to communicate back and forth through e-maiol, so please allow me to provide you with my address, of course not to be shared with others. It is: w.zucker57@gmail.com.

Signed: Wzucker3040 (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing of Articles and Material
I left you a message, but I have no0t seen one from you, perhaps because I don't yet know how to access it. (I told you that I am still unfamiliar with the system here! I left an e-mail address for you which would be far easier for me all around.  Why do you not use it?

In any event, as I explained, I am in my senior years, well past 70. I remember happenings on the system that took place from the mid-1940's on. I see information on the site that is incomplete, or even in a few cases, actually incorrect. Much of this latter frequently gets perpetuated over the years.

I see "Your Talk Page" and "My Talk Page" but I am still not fluent in how to manipulate through this.

You ask for verification on every piece of information that I attempt to provide. Some of it as I already told you is from clear recollection, other bits of information are from senior members in the field who happen to be knowledgeable of a few more things than I am. How am I supposed to "verify" any of it? Should in the end we deny all readers this matearial, plain and simple?

And if I do manage to be able to verify any of this information, where I am supposed to put it? Is there a clear place or receptacle for this sort of thing. I must confess, I still do not understand the system, and am ready to abandon what I started out on. As I say, let the information be incomplete; it is no skin off my nose.

As a member of the NY Division of the ERA for all of forty-eight years, I frequently contribute to the regular publication, known as the "Bulletin." A few years ago, I collaborated with another member in a comprehensive history of the system. We put out the first of our efforts, the IND system and have plans to do the other two in order - the BMT followed by the IRT. We each dug through our respective sources of information and combined our efforts together.

Along comes our editor-in-chief who decides to make a few unsolicited contributions of his own. They actually raised more questions than they answered. These have to date not been either clarified or corrected, so I could say very crudely, that our article was "mucked up" by this intrusion.

Yes, it is very frustrating when one wishes to disseminate material of this sort, which is a reason why most choose not to make the effort.

Some years ago, shortly after acquiring my computer (in 2004, almost exactly seven years ago), I saw a site, JoeKorner's Korner (if I have it correctly; I may not, but I'm sure you know what I'm referring to). Remembering Joe from years ago from various ERA activities, fantrip excursions, etc., I contacted him, offering to supplement his material with other material that I had, mostly on car equipment. He thanked me for this offer and told me that he would include most of it. As a matter of fact, I saw only a tiny fraction of what I had offered him included, whereupon, I firmly resolved never again to offer him any material in the future, and have not contacted him since. let him run his site the way he chooses, as I say.

And it would almost appear that I am about to experience the same osrt of frustration here. As I already said, for my part, I can pull out of this entire venture, and I really do not care any more what becomes of any of this business.

Wzucker3040 (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is Wikipedia policy that every fact be verified in a reliable source, preferably a newspaper or other major news organization. If it was published in the ERA Bulletin, that would work, just cite the Bulletin using references. It is difficult, inconvenient, and unfortunate for me and many other editors in the railroad area, but basing things soley on personal knowledge is not allowed.&mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I hear you perfectly, and what you are saying. I understand what is involved. Unfortunately as a consequence, that will be the end of the entire matter. Wzucker3040 (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've combined your messages and moved them here to keep all of the discussion in one, easy to read section.


 * Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. I left you those messages above because other editors had not had the courtesy to do so when they reverted your edits to the N service article. Wikipedia exists to combine information that already exists into one cohesive place. Thus, it must be verifiable by including source information. There are many ways to cite sources, and those sources don't have to be online only. I use the cite web and cite book templates most often for sources.


 * For additional information about the learning curve of Wikipedia, I invite you to enjoy this user essay. My apologies for not responding sooner. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, we already had a back and forth about this matter, and I'm really desirous that we can handle everything in as amicable a fashion as possible, and at the same time provide to members and other interested readers the information that they frankly deserve, and one would think, rightly so.

One possible source of information whereby some of what I report can be verified would be B of T/NYCTA records, if we must have a verifiable source. It is frankly not an easy manner to acquire any of this in hard form. Some material put out by the private companies (IRT and BMT) has also managed to survive. In order to put some of it out, it is necessary to add some suppositions, meaning possible opinions for what did in fact take place, in order to make at least chronological sense out of it.

Members upon acquiring such information tend to hoard it for various reasons, and frankly, I must admit that I am not entirely innocent of such! But at the same time, I do feel that it is important, as far as practically possible, to provide information as complete and accurate as can be done. At this point, I think that we both see the considerable problems in this venture.

I could make some suggestions as to how some of the categories are set up, in order to make them perhaps easier to deal with when contributing information, but at this point I will hold back on it unless asked for any specifics such as I am indicating. Again, I wish to do this as tactfully as possible, to reach an ultimate goal of providing information that I am certain that most would be delighted to receive.

This should take care of a few things, and I'm glad that you gave me the opportunity to clarify where I stand. I look forward to your next message. Wzucker3040 (talk) 16:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you have a treasure trove of source information that would be extremely valuable to this project. For general discussion, a project discussion page has been set up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. As for problems with Wikipedia's approach, the only maddening aspect to me is vandalism. I have a very large watchlist and I spend a considerable amount of time reverting vandalism. I knew right away when monitoring edits that yours were not vandalism and you are here to help. I look forward to your sources to disprove misinformation.

Mine was decidely not vandalism. I am anxious about such things myself, as I have seen much misinformation get perpetuated over the years.

You did provide a means to seal into the body of the contribution the verification sources. You would be surprised how computer illiterate I am. I can make the attempt to implement what you suggest, but in the end will end up needing someone to walk me through the steps. But that is a separate issue.

I accept as valid information that coming from senior members in the ERA organization, who when they were still around were considerably older than myself (and I am approaching 76) and I did in fact judge the credibility of the information from one person to another. Even today, there are some senior individuals still around who could be quite useful in this regard. But many have related what they clearly remember; other have retained records. I could give a list of names, but seemingly this is not what would be acceptable to Wikipedia, which is too bad. Yes, I do have a treasure trove of legitimate information. I even retain that which I have noted from personal observation and verified with others. But in general, as far as information coming from others go, I can assure you that I quite definitely filter out that which sounds illogical, senseless, or plain crazy. Over the years dealing with this sort of thing (I am an ERA member since the beginning of 1963 and started going to meetings a few months before) I've developed a sixth sense for what is acceptable, even in the case of conflicting information. I suspect that all these issues are a matter of major concern to you as well - forget for the moment about Wikipedia. But I am open to any suggestions on your part, except that the insertion process still baffles me, and the verification of material can get pretty sticky.

I await next hearing from you. I feel that we can manage to work it all out. Wzucker3040 (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To insert a source into an article, the templates such as cite web, cite book or cite journal are inserted inline after the sentence you are sourcing. Wrap that with and the software will automatically fill out the reflist at the end of the article.


 * For example, is valid markup for a source. The template does the heavy lifting, and is all wrapped by the ref tags. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Four-color deck edits
Please refrain from writing extensive paragraphs in articles without backing them up with references; doing so is against Wikipedia policy. Other issues with your style of writing include phrases like "One outstanding deck that must be mentioned," "The multicolored picture cards and jokers were especially beautiful," and "It would appear that green for this suit would make a degree of sense." Such comments violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view and original research policies. If you're so inclined, feel free to discuss edits with me or on the talk page before putting them into the article, but please be aware that Wikipedia isn't just some ground for discussion and "cool fact," there are rules that accompany edits which need to be followed. JaeDyWolf ~ Baka-San (talk) 10:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but please understand, I'm pretty new as far as using Wikipedia to contribute information.

As far as what I attempted to offer, as I mentioned, I got the information from one Albert W. Field, who was an interesting individual in his own right, having many and varied hobbies (as in fact I do myself). He was one of the world's premier playing card collectors, in addition to being a specialist on the work of Salvatore Dali (whom he knew personally), a member of the Oratorio Society of New York, and president of a railroad club for a number of years (which I am a member of myself, in addition to being a professional musician and a US currency specialist, as well as a playing card enthusiast). Anyway, you get some idea of who I am and who he was.

I copied the information from his collection at the end of 1977 and the beginning of 1978 when I visited him. I still retain this information on paper, both as rough notes that I took, and later, neatly organized to an extent. Would it be more acceptable if I simply furnished the lists of what I had copied, which remained in my posession for now over thirty years. Incidentally, as I stated, I am new to using these talk pages and how to use them, so I don't even know whether you are getting this message from me. That is the first concern of mine. Secondly, as far as verification (I can easily refrain from any editorialization tht you would object to) is concerned, I can only suggest that one needs to determine what happened to his collection after he passed away. Of course, in addition, there are varieties that I myself have obtained from e-bay or other sources, some which correspond to what Mr. Field had in his collection, many others that did not so exist. I can only air the situation with you and from there let you decide whether you wish to accept the information, which I'm sure others interested in this topic would be delighted to read. But it is your call at this point. Wzucker3040 (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)