User talk:Daphne737: Difference between revisions

Hi, Daphne737. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. ~~ Alex Noble – talk 11:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Materialscientist (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daphne737! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 19:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Daphne737! I noticed that you recently made an edit at List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives and marked it as “minor”, but it may not have been. “Minor edit” has a specific definition on Wikipedia: it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please also do not use bare URLs as citations – they’re unhelpful to readers and are subject to link rot. Please use templates like Template:Cite Web. Danners430 (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Daphne737, thanks for your edit to List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives. Please don’t use bare URLs as citations though, as they are unhelpful to readers and are subject to link rot. Please use templates like Template:Cite web instead. Danners430 (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives, but you didn’t provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it’s important that article content be verifiable. If you’d like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 07:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The web page I was editing is a list of Peckett locomotives. Flckr is a source of photographs and this includes historic ones including images of Pecketts. The purpose of the list is to identify locomotives of this type and where there are historic photographs that is evidence that they exist. Whilst it is appreciated that the comments made by the person putting their imnages onto Flckr may not be accurate or properly researched adding missing locomotives to the list based on the presence of images is appropriate. Further research could then provide better referencing but that would not be possible if the entry iOS not there at all. Blanket deletion of items is not helpful. Requesting a better reference is fine Daphne737 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content on Wikipedia must be sourced with reliable sources – this is not optional. Flickr is classed as user generated content, so is not a reliable source. The onus is on you as the person adding or changing content to provide a reliable source – if you need time to do research, then do it before adding the content, not after. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that you are aware that Wikipedia is itself not generally considered to be a reliable source. By its own definition it is itself “user generated content” falling into the category of “….. most wikis, and other collaboratively created websites” I (like pretty much every serious academic) never use wikipedia as a source that I would cite in my research but it is a useful starting point. With the list of Pecketts, surely the aim is to try to create as accurate a list as possible by pulling together as much source information as can be found. It is not an academic subject where years of scholarly research is merited nor is that actually possible for this topic. Yes there are some records from the manufacturer but those are incomplete. THey also only give the starting point of its history and not detail of its life in service or final outcome. An individual photograph or an oral history comment may be all that is now known of a particular locomotive and as such that source may only be on a single personal website. It is however a valuable primary source. To simply delete without proper consiuderation simply means Wikipedia has less information and make it even less useful as a source Daphne737 (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct that Wikipedia is not a reliable source – it’s even covered by WP:CIRCULAR. That doesn’t negate the fact that it should be as reliable as it possibly can, which means that content must satisfy WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have just removed my latest addition. The locomotive number 1668 existed and was built 1n 1928. The evidence for that is the worksplate (currently on sale on ebay). How do you suggest putting that information onto Wikipedia? If I cite the ebay webpage then no doubt you will say “Ebay is not a reliable source”. As far as I can tel nothing has been published about Peckett 1668. Your assistance in making sure Wikipedia is updated and accurate with this information (rather than just removing it) would be appreciated Daphne737 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Guidance said most likely due to iCloud Private Relay being turned on – that is now turned OFF Daphne737 (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason=Guidance said most likely due to iCloud Private Relay being turned on – that is now turned OFF Daphne737 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not blocked – you were simply caught in an autoblock. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 18:46, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait 24 hours for the block to clear before trying to edit. That should do it. — Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of Peckett and Sons railway locomotives, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]