From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Please be patient[edit]


This discussion is going around in circles. The fundamental complaint is lack of verifiable sources. Ok, I understand that, so there is no need to keep going on about it - though the RSSB is an official source. Give me a few weeks to get more official sources sorted out. These things take time and in the meantime, adding more and more links is just giving credibility to the article and thus the argument for deletion slowly diminishes. You may say that quantity of links means nothing, only the quality of those links, but to the average Wikipedia reader a long list of links is more impressive than just a couple, which might not be how Wikipedia works but how the human mind works. It is also having the ironic effect of even more people outside of SimSig becoming interested and involved! Once I get those "verifiable" sources then everyone can be happy. Until then let's stop wasting our time debating each and every link. Geoffmayo (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to waste time debating each and every link if I could remove sources that do not meet the standard of Wikipedia:Reliable sources without being reverted. Pagrashtak 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
You've proven my point precisely - WP:REPEAT. While we're here, please tell me why the RSSB is not an official source? Geoffmayo (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Why bother?[edit]

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect here between a genuine desire to enter something of interest to a substantial body of interested spectators and a doctrinaire adherence to standards which may or may not have any relevance in the real world. After all, we already know from earlier postings that "to put it bluntly, truth has no sway here".

The question therefore becomes "Why should a volunteer operation waste a significant number of hours and effort in jumping through artificial hoops presented by people who wish to preserve a spurious adherence to "verifiable" sources, which could be as "verifiable" as a re-hashed press release?".

While I am not a programmer or developer of the Simsig software, I have been a hugely satisfied player on the simulations for 2 years. As part of that playing has been in multi-user sessions, I would suggest that this level of user involvement justifies an entry on a public repository of knowledge as that brings a substantial level of the "verifiability" that is demanded by the keepers of the Wikipedia integrity.

If Simsig is deemed unable to cross artificial barriers erected by the artificial barrier keepers, then I don't see any reason why the authors/creators/proponents of Simsig should waste their valuable time in making attempt after attempt to meet each new barrier after clearing the previous hurdle. For example, Geoffmayo has asked for patience while "verifiable" attributions are collected which is immediately rebutted by knee-jerk reactions.

The question then becomes "Would Wikipedia be a greater or a lesser repository on knowledge if the Simsig entry was removed because its proponents were unable to meet doctrinaire (and in terms of Simsig) irrelevant standards?". My own view is that Wikipedia would be a lesser resource without the Simsig entry, but why should the volunteers who need to invest their time have to fight a running battle in order to benefit the Wikipedia institution?

Postalmag (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hear-hear- if prefessional signalmen are not reliable sources when discussing signlling then nothing is. Ballymoss9018 (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Firstly, the MD of TRE has agreed to put a history of TRE section on their website which will specifically reference SimSig. Seeing as several pages are out of date, I don't know how long that will take to come to fruition!

Secondly, the IRSE are looking at SimSig with regard to mentioning it in their publications.

No actual proof yet, but progress nonetheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffmayo (talkcontribs) 20:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Received this morning:

Further to your suggestion, we would be pleased to receive and assist you with an article about your product and its benefits to the railway industry. This article would ideally appear around the May/June time this year within IRSE NEWS, so there is suitable time to prepare it with specific detail.

-- (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Added a reference to the Railfest2004 website (archived) which covered SimSig. Do you think we can remove the citation banner now? Jezhotwells (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User content[edit]

This section does still appear to be advertising the SimSig forum. ZoeL (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I fully agree with that as we have established above that the simsig website, presumably including forums, can be used as a primary source. I have removed the personal home page sitations and reworded accordingly. I expect that we will get some sources soon on the history of development and relationship to TRESim (see above).Jezhotwells (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment as of 2009-01-30[edit]

This is a good start as an article, but there is still a good ways for it to go. Namely you need to expand it, citing reliable sources to build areas such as development and reception. Scour the internet and add that information to the article. At this time, this will remain Start-class.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I may be a little touchy at this time of the (UK) morning, but I have to confess I feel just a tad patronised after I read the comments above considering the work that has gone into developing the entry and the constant battle against the Wikipedia hierarchy. Good manners forbids me from expanding on and citing the reliable source (from my point of view) under the heading "Why bother" in this discussion. Postalmag (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Progress as of 2009-06-06[edit]

SimSig has finally been published in the IRSE News. Is everybody happy now? Can we remove the "nominated for deletion" banner which, as we all know, was unjustified in the first place, and which now serves more as an insult? (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

No. The "Nomination for Deletion" banner at the top of the talk page is simply part of the history of this page; no insult is intended or should be taken. I suggest that you add the IRSE News reference to the article page, so that everyone can see that the article is supported by this reliable source. Hopefully this should help avoid it being nominated for deletion again. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of common standards[edit]

I have just looked at another page on Wikipedia ( and there is at least one external link that is blatant commercial advertising. Why has this page had to suffer so much grief in regards to "advertising" of a non-profit-making, non-commercial co-operative when other sites can carry blatant commercial advertising without any comment whatsoever?

Postalmag (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just because another article is sub-standard doesn't excuse the slip. There are over 3,000,000 articles on WP and the editors are all volunteers so sometimes things slip through the net. I will look at the page you mention. You can always comment on article talk pages when you see something that is wrong and youc an always add tags or even remove material if it is not permissible by policy. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

COI issues[edit]

Article may have WP:COI issues as one or more of the main editors of the article may be closely connected to the subject. User:Jezhotwells and User:Postalmag are two of the main editors of the article, and both usernames are very similar to two usernames that are very heavily involved on the SimSig forums - Jezhotwells and Postal respectively. The article therefore may not conform to COI guidelines and should be edited by someone unconnected to the subject. Osarius Talk 00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I and User:Postalmag indeed participate in the SinSig user forums. Are you saying that people who play this sim can't edit an article about it? Like people who play Warcraft can't edit Wikipedia articles on it? Come on. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
SinSig - now that looks interesting Postalmag (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
That is not my meaning at all - the COI policy doesn't forbid you from editing the article, but as it appears that you are heavily involved on the SimSig forums, you may promote the subject by using peacock words etc.

SimSig has been commented on by Professor Jörn Pachl of University of Braunschweig - Institute of Technology, the Rail Safety and Standards Board, the North London Society of Model Engineers and the National Model Railroad Association of the USA.

So? Who are these people and organisations? - why did they comment and more importantly WHAT did they say? That sentance is practically meaningless.
All I'm saying is, be careful what you put as it may contravene COI policy. I shall remove the COI template. Osarius Talk 10:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia COI page states "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested.". Why has my disclaimer been removed from the article by Osarius?Postalmag (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it again. No offence meant: you/WP:COI said it yourself: "...on the TALK page". Not in the actual article. I've moved it to here, and took the liberty of pruning off the last sentence. No WP:EW please! OrbiterSpacethingy (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

No problems with the edit and no wish to get involved in any WP:EW - and thanks for the way it has been done. However, my paranoia has now kicked in and I can't help but think that the level of investigation required to cause previous moderator intervention can only have been driven by a hidden agenda.Postalmag (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no moderators here, just editors. Some editors (admins) have sysop rights but these rights can only be exercised according to fairly clearly laid down criteria - they are the rights to delete pages, block editors or . Any editor can nominate an article for deletion or tag it with notability tags or take similar actions. Admins have no special powers of censorship, they are just ordinary volunteer editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Semantics! Once you are paranoid it doesn't really matter whether someone is tagged as moderator or editor, they are still out to get you. Postalmag (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

COI Disclaimer by Postalmag[edit]

"The Wikipedia Conflict of Interest standards note that "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged—but not actually required—to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested." Please note that one author of this page posts as Postalmag here and also contributes to the SimSig forum as Postal. Therefore, anything you read on this page which that author contributes puts you potentially at risk of receiving misleading, biased or otherwise tilted information. As that author, I affirm that I believe anything I have posted on this page to be truthful and honest. Postalmag (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on SimSig. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)