User talk:

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

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Smalljim. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to DOT-111 tank car seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  —SMALLJIM  14:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

see smalljim smalltalk for segue, thanks, Jim!


Broom icon.svg

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome!  —SMALLJIM  14:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rylands v Fletcher[edit]

I'm a bit uncertain about your attempt to invoke Rylands v Fletcher with respect to the Lac-Mégantic derailment. Legally, it might not make any sense at all to apply common law legal precedents in a civil code jurisdiction such as Québec. K7L (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that Quebec is a civil law jurisdiction. I have very little knowledge about Quebec law, except that in general it is the black letter law (lex scripta) that rules. Your guess is as good as mine. Does a Quebec court need to read (if only for guidance) an English decision??

Thanks for your comment! I have added 5 SCC decisions that may impact R v F in Quebec. See for research.

original research[edit]

Your edit has been reverted because it amounts to WP:OR. We rely on WP:RS secondary sources such as a newspaper for information like this. If you find a WP:RS that says the same thing as your edits, please feel free to re-add it. If not, please discuss this at the talk page. Also please familiarize yourself with WP:BRD. Thanks --Daffydavid (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

no youtube[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Laurens van der Post has been reverted.
Your edit here to Laurens van der Post was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed ( is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Séralini affair edits[edit]

As others have said to you on this page, please do not add original research to Wikipedia and please follow WP:BRD. You read the policy on original research at this link -- WP:OR. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm A.amitkumar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lac-Mégantic derailment, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.  A m i t  웃   18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your input, Amit. I have fixed the problems you saw. 19:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

oddly, someone vandalised my talk page to omit my response to Amit. I see now that wikipedia is a place for thinly-veiled violence.

Your recent edits[edit]

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Toronto Star piece on Mégantic[edit]

I'm not sure why you added this as only repeats information which is already elsewhere in the Lac-Mégantic derailment article. We already have the info that the CP mainline east of Montréal was sold to short-line operators in the 1990s after deregulation, that there's no prohibition on storing unattended trains on the mainline instead of the Nantes siding, that the regulations don't specify a minimum number of hand brakes and that individual railways may or may not bother addressing this in their local policy. There's no new, notable info here. K7L (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, please indicate the section in which the information pre-existed.

also note that there is no prohibition on repetition.

is the old info at 10% down the page? 90%?

this is not an academic paper, in which novelty is necessary

i'm curious about your response.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style, second paragraph, indicates "Writing should be clear and concise."
Including the same info twice in the same article would not be concise, and adds nothing of value. The sections where the info already exists are:

sorry, I had a look at your indicated "this" (see above) and could not determine whether at issue was the edit I made in the "chronology" section, or the "regulatory impact" section. can you please specify your concern?

It looks like someone else removed the duplicate info you'd added to "regulatory impact". K7L (talk) 17:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the info. i reverted it just now.

You've missed the point... by the time the reader gets to "regulatory impact" they've already just read Lac-Mégantic derailment#Background and already know all of this. Repeating it again is just a good way to lose their attention entirely. K7L (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

maybe so. but on the other hand, see my xplanation in the edit log.

Editor's summary: yes, but this is a 20,000 word article. if someone is looking for information on #regulatory impact, s/he is unlikely to read through 18,000 words of "events". a newspaper story =1,000 words. Undid revision 570021758 by (talk)
This doesn't make sense. The reasons the article is so awkwardly long are that you have added off-topic material (such as whether H2S is harmful on the Weibo Ludwig farm - this article is about Mégantic, non?) and duplicate material. If the article is too long (and not suitable for a WP:SPINOFF or WP:SPINOUT of lengthy subtopics) then it needs to be copyedited to be more concise, removing unimportant, off-topic or duplicate info. K7L (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

oui, if you want to know about 'regulatory impact' without reading 18,000 of fluff, like lawsuits and who did what to whom, it makes complete sense. the objective is not to trim the article for length because it is in K7L's opinion 'too long', the objective is for the article to be coherent. 'too long' has been obviated by this new-fangled www technology.

can you work your edit magic on my sentence about 'brakes'?... i wanted to include a record of the national post diagram of the brake system... PS: do you edit/write for a living? i like your style.

Adding duplicate information in an article is not appropriate. K7L has explained it well. See BRD. Also, please be aware of 3RR. Thanks --Daffydavid (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

what is 3RR? 3 ring release, or 3rd ring road (beijing)?

Have you actually read WP:BRD? When you are reverted you do not re-insert your edit while discussing it. I assume you are a new user here but your editing behaviour doesn't seem to be modified by any of the comments with links to pages that would help you better understand Wikipedia policies. If you are having trouble finding the correct links I would be happy to link them for you. --Daffydavid (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

David, you are unreasonable. Your edit to replace "3RR" with "WP:3RR" is uncouth, and I have reverted it above. I thought this forum would be a place for civil discourse. I find much to my dismay that it is not. The opportunity to begin anew is given below. Please forgive my placement of words in your mouth (see below).

3RR warning[edit]

Your recent editing history at Lac-Mégantic derailment shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.   — --Daffydavid (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring - Get consensus for your edits[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

odd that the edit info tags are missing here. who placed this on my page?? when?? why?? 74... mon AM 27 aug

reprise of conversation with daffydavid[edit]

Adding duplicate information in an article is not appropriate. K7L has explained it well. See BRD. Also, please be aware of 3RR. Thanks --Daffydavid (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

what is 3RR? 3 ring release, or 3rd ring road (beijing)?

Oh, sorry, 74. My mistake. In my haste, I omitted a wiki directive. Here are the correct links: BRD: WP:BRD ; 3RR WP:3RR. 19:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks, David, I have now read WP:3RR and WP:BRD and will get back to you soon on this topic.

A revert is just that, it's not editing out information that was there. WP:BRD was linked correctly but it's your talk page so have it your way. I do object however to the attempt to present a conversation that never happened. The precedent for adding the WP to the link was set in the conversation on my talk page when I committed a similar error earlier and yes, I could have entered a whole new line, but I erred in thinking you wouldn't mind the minor addition. Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. It's just confusing otherwise. Thanks --Daffydavid (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)