User talk:Whitaksm

Welcome!

Hello, Whitaksm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Washington Metro has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Epic Genius (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I tried to post this a week ago but don't see that I succeeded. I guess this qualifies as a dispute and I will do my best to follow the guidelines as described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I welcome suggestions as to how to proceed. IN the meantime, let me repost what I tried to post a week ago:

"earlier today I edited this [1] article to make clear the fact that Washing Metro is another name for WMATA which operates Metrorail, Metrobus, and other service. I also asked that the name of this article be changed to "Washington Metrorail" to reflect that. I provided a link to WMATA's own site at http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/? Which explains and corroborates this fact. I later received an email telling me that my changes had been undone for lack of "verifiability." What could be more credible than WMATA itself? My changes should be restored."

Whitaksm (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Whitaksm. I know nothing about the subject itself, so my advice is general. First, you've taken the direct and appropriate step of posting to the article's talk page. I suggest that you add there the diff of your edit (which would be this). That makes what you added – the subject of the text your proposing – more easily accessible, without anyone needing to go to the article history and search it out.

Second, I suggest you go to User:Epicgenius' talk page and ask him what he meant when he said it was "not true" in the edit summary he left when he reverted you. Actually, he will be informed of this post by the notification system since I linked his name just now, so that's essentially already taken care of.

Regarding the verifiability policy note that we prefer reliable secondary sources. In any case, a citation like <ref>http://wmata.com/about_metro/?</ref> – a raw URL – is very poor attribution. If that source is to be used, you'd want to cite it in a manner something like: <ref>{{cite web|url=http://wmata.com/about_metro/?|title=About Metro|publisher=Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority|year=2015|accessdate=August 25, 2015}}

I'm not sure, but it seems to me that in your edit you not only made a change to conflicting content, but also took away some content that was not in conflict with that change. Be aware that user's are very sensitive to blanking of content – especially when it is sourced – so please keep that in mind.

Regarding the name, be aware that though you may or may not be correct about the underlying issue, it may be relevant for you to know that articles are usually titled by the name they are commonly referred to in reliable sources. Please see the common names policy, as well as Wikipedia:Official names. It also may be that, even if it's correct that the true entity is Metrorail, after that is explained at the start, the article should still use "Metro" to refer to that subject throughout, as the more common, shortened name. After all, even in your edit you said "(WMATA or Metro)", so it seems it would still be correct to use that in most places where it currently is used.

If discussion does not settle the issue, then yes, you can follow the dispute resolution system, such as posting to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, seeking a third opinion if only two are involved and starting a request for comment.

Knowing how to link in any of those processes will make your posts easier to follow. Don't use URLs when wikilinks are all you need: not "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Metro]" nor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution but [[Washington Metro]] and [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] (which format respectively as Washington Metro and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitaksm and Fuhghettaboutit: I apologize if I came across as brusque in that edit summary. It's just that "Washington Metro" is the official name, as is stated in this source, which is in the lead. It is branded "Metrorail" per the official website. And Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority is a entirely different entity altogether, as it is the parent company of Metrorail and Metrobus; however, Metrorail is commonly confused with WMATA because WMATA is often called "Metro". Epic Genius (talk) 02:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me! 2

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit and Epic Genius.

I found this message in a box on user talk:whitaksm Help me!:

"This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse"

I gather from that message that the user talk:whitaksm Help me! discussion I began on 26 August 2015 has been shut down. To quote Epic Genius, that's more than brusque.

In an attempt to follow the "normal protocol" described at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution I first edited the Washington Metro article. In response, my edits were removed.

I responded by posting the query / explanation under user talk:whitaksm Help me! -- it seemed to me that this step would be part of the recommended "discuss with the other party" protocol. Rather than having a discussion, however, as I wrote above, the discussion was shut down.

I don't want to take this to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution so I will make another effort, following what I understand to be protocol, to resolve this through this discussion. I hope to have a discussion this time. Let me try to pick up where I think we left off:

To respond to your very last statement, Epic Genius, it is wrong to say that "Metrorail is commonly confused with WMATA because WMATA is often called 'Metro'." [Emphasis mine] WMATA is Metro -- this is exactly the point and the issue. The confusion arises when people refer incorrectly to MetroRail as Metro. You seem to want to use Wikipedia to make MetroRail become synonymous with Metro. I don't think that is what Wikipedia is about.

First, on "verifiability."

Epic Genius, I am not looking for an apology but I find your response inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated interest in "verifiability." Why do you rely on a third party source rather the official WMATA website on this matter? I believe the statement on WMATA's official website, which reads "The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) was created by an interstate compact in 1967 ... " should be dispositive of the matter and that you should bear the burden of demonstrating why your unofficial source should be used instead. Why is that not so?

Second, about the specific subject at hand.

Fuhghettaboutit, you say you don't know anything about this topic; Epic Genius, you don't say what you know but I see from your pages that you write about rail (which may impair your neutrality on this subject); for my part, though I'm just a dog, I think I know a fair amount about Washington Metro and transportation more broadly. I don't want to take the time to write an essay and you don't want to read an essay about the history of race and transportation in the North America, but transportation has been fraught with racial issues since the first slaves were brought over in cargo holds. If, however, you are (or anyone is) interested, I would recommend listening to a terrific program aired on public radio called "Back of the Bus: Mass Transit, Race and Inequality," produced by TransportationNation and WNYC with support from the Rockefeller Foundation.

Surely we all know not to believe everything we read. Apropos this discussion, last year upon the opening of WMATA's Silver Line running through Tysons in Northern Virginia, Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institution was quoted saying that opening this new rail line was transforming Tysons from an "exclusively auto-oriented 'edge city.'" That statement was nonsense -- Tysons has long been served by buses. You have to be careful who you believe.

Further with respect to race it is worth noting that the majority of MetroRail riders are white and the majority of MetroBus riders are non-white. I think Puentes was looking at transit from a white perspective, and I think to call MetroRail "Metro," as this article has done and continues to do, is to continue to look at the matter from a white perspective. I think it is wrong to do so.

PS: For all I know, Epic Genius is Robert Puentes. Or I may be Robert Puentes, for that matter.

PPS: My experience here is not very good. Without taking away anything from the fact that Wikipedia has had a positive global impact, I find the interface is terrible and discourages people from participating. Sheesh.

Whitaksm (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitaksm: You said: Epic Genius, I am not looking for an apology but I find your response inconsistent with Wikipedia's stated interest in "verifiability." Why do you rely on a third party source rather the official WMATA website on this matter? I believe the statement on WMATA's official website, which reads "The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) was created by an interstate compact in 1967 ... " should be dispositive of the matter and that you should bear the burden of demonstrating why your unofficial source should be used instead. Why is that not so?

Thank you for pointing this mistake out. However, WMATA isn't the same as Metrorail. WMATA is the agency that operates the transportation systems. WMATA is the parent agency of Metrobus as well as Metrorail. This is comparable to New York City Transit Authority operating New York City Bus and New York City Subway, respectively. Epic Genius (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Epic Genius for your reply and for leaving this question open.

I appreciate that you acknowledge "this mistake" and therefore I am reverting the text to how I had edited it as of 2015-08-18T08:59:13. At Fuhghettaboutit's suggestion, the diff is available here.

I am confused by your use in the next sentence of "however," where you write "However, WMATA isn't the same as Metrorail. WMATA is the agency that operates the transportation systems." I am in complete agreement that WMATA isn't the same as Metrorail and that WMATA is the agency that operates the transportation systems, so I don't understand what the word "however" is meant to convey.

I also appreciate the efforts of the thousands of Wikipedia contributors and, Fuhghettaboutit, your point that users are very sensitive to blanking of content. I did so in this case because the only purpose served by the reference was to support using a name that was incorrect. Now that the name has been corrected, I don't see any point in preserving that reference.

I appreciate further discussion.

Thank you. Whitaksm (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaksm, I guess we are better off continuing this discussion at Talk:Washington Metro where more editors and readers could respond to the recent article modifications. I am away with limited internet so I cannot do it myself. Thanks, Epic Genius (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]