![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Did you intend to take out
| totalproduction =53 (Grant-28)
(Baldwin-25)
when you added
| uicclass = 1′D n2 ?
If so, why? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded a photo of the locomotive in its current (ugly) condition. Does it belong in the article? Ntsimp ( talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have two pictures on Commons- one of the completed new cab and one of the boiler. Could someone include those on the article? I can't seem to get it to work. D&RGW 223 ( talk) 14:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
D&RGW 223. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on D&RGW 223. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to know that if there are any plans to restore Rio Grande 223 into operating condition? 68.226.233.81 ( talk) 02:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I am considering moving up the ongoing edit disputes to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution possibly to seek a third opinion, however much of my concerns have been expressed on WikiProjectTrains and on User:DTParker1000's talk page. I will admit I have been fairly blunt with my opinions on the matter elsewhere, and to assume good faith editing I think it is best to offer a chance to explain my continued concerns here offering DTParker1000 and other users a chance to express their thoughts potentially avoiding escalation to Dispute resolution.
With that said, I stand firmly by my concern that the ongoing edits to the Rio Grande 223 page are detrimental to the page's purpose and degrade from the original quality of the piece. These are the primary issues I keep coming back to:
I can point out other concerns I have, however for brevity those are my continued issues with the ongoing edits. I do feel very passionate regarding the subject, however; to assume good faith I feel it is best to offer an opportunity to discuss it here directly before considering seeking further dispute resolution aid. Xboxtravis7992 ( talk) 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Below is a recent Wikipedia Talk post of Xboxtravis7992 and my response to it. He has apparently since erased his post, but I think it is worth showing, since he has again raised the issue, and won't let it die. His actions indicate that he is dead-set against including information in the Wikipedia article on Rio Grande 223 regarding the engine's historical significance. He keeps dreaming up new-and-improved pretexts to eviscerate that section. What his real motives are are best known to himself. Below is his recent post, and my response:
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am digging up this dead horse again, but looking at the changes to Rio Grande 268 and I don't feel like the added citations fix the core issues. A few of my concerns (from the latest February 20th revision):
1. At least two citations (#15 and #33) are to Wikipedia itself and not first or third party sources.
2. Citation #22 is to User:DTParker1000's own post on another website.
3. Multiple citations rely on the same author, Jerry Day's articles in The Prospector, which make me concerned that even when accurate third party sources are being used they are extremely limited to one perspective.
4. The citations notably from Robert Athearn, Lucius Beebe & Charles Clegg, and Gilbert Lathrop don't allay my complaints of weasel words and fluff text since that might as well be the holy trinity of railroad fluff text in my personal opinion (not to mention the many complaints elsewhere regarding Beebe & Clegg's sloppy research suggesting they make poor sources to use in general). Regardless, the tone of Athearn, Beebe & Clegg and Lathrop while often making for a good story fail to imitate the encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia and support the fluff text used in the article.
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MY RESPONSE:
Xboxtravis7992 is wrong. My response to his accusations is below:
1. I have no idea what he is talking about on his "Item #1." The citations he lists are not to "Wikipedia itself" as he claims.
Citation #15 was to the book "A Ticket to Ride the Narrow Gauge," by Herbert Danneman. Citation #33 was to the book "High Road to Promontory," by George Kraus. The section I submitted on the engine's historic significance was only 7 paragraphs long, yet it had 42 citations! Every one of them was to a book or a published article. None of them were to "Wikipedia itself" as xboxtravis7992 maintains.
2. Citation #22 was to the book "Rebel in the Rockies," by Robert G. Athearn. I presume what xboxtravis7992 is referring to is actually Citation #34, which was to an article I wrote entitled "The Significance of the Railroad," in the Ridgway Railroad Museum Newsletter. Just because I wrote the article doesn't mean that it is not factual, as xboxtravis7992 implies. This citation, by the way, was only one of three citations for the sentence in question. The other two were Athearns' book mentioned above, and Kraus's book, also mentioned above. By the way, the sentence in question simply stated that railroad freight rates were lower than the cost of transport by wagon or on the back of a mule. This fact is so obvious as to belie the need for ANY citations. But regardless, instead of attempting to dispute the fact, xboxtravis7992 attacks the source.
3. Jerry B. Day is the highly respected author of three different articles on C-16 engines (D&RG 223 is a C-16 engine). I read recently that he is now in the process of writing a book on the subject. Again, xboxtravis7992 does not dispute the text, he simply attempts to attack the source.
4. Speaking of "fluff"... This is another example of xboxtravis7992 offering no refutation of the facts in the text, but merely making ad hominem attacks on the authors - in this case four of them. Sheesh. When I was in school, we were taught that in a debate, it is fair to attack the opponent's facts or logic, but not to make personal attacks.
I stand by my text and citations. Xboxtravis7992, for reasons best known to himself, is displaying a pattern of finding any imaginable excuse to reduce or eliminate the section in this article on the historical significance of D&RG 223. This is the THIRD time he has done this.
The first time he did this, he disputed a couple of facts, and claimed that the historical significance section was inadequately sourced (even though it had sources cited for every single paragraph). Using this pretext, he then ELIMINATED the entire section.
I resubmitted it, and modified some of the text and doubled the number of sources.
Then, he ELIMINATED the entire section again, claiming it was "extraneous." He replaced the section on the historical significance of the engine with a section going into exceedingly meticulous detail on the mechanical history of the engine and its movements. Speaking of "extraneous" information... He included nothing on its historical significance.
I strongly disagree with the editorial philosophy displayed by xboxtravis7992. If we were to apply his definition of "extraneous," then the Wikipedia article on the Cotton Gin should be limited to the mechanical history of the relic, and not include a section on its historical significance.
Similarly, if we apply the editorial philosophy of xboxtravis7992, then the Wikipedia article on the Titanic should only be history of the ship itself, and not include information on its historical significance. He wants the article on D&RG 223 to go on for page after page on the mechanical aspects and movements of the engine, but can't stomach 7 short paragraphs on the engine's historical significance? And, then he accuses ME of being "unencyclopedic?" Sheesh.
This is nonsense.
Now, he accuses my section on the historical significance of D&RG 223 as being "fluff" and he attacks my citations. This is also nonsense. He is simply finding any excuse he can to eviscerate the section on the engine's historical significance.
As xboxtravis7992 himself admits, he is "digging up this dead horse" again. Yes, he is. And, he is wrong to do so.
I disagree with his editorial policy. I have cited multiple sources, and they are written by respected authors. Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even bother to challenge the accuracy of the text. He just accuses it of being "fluff." I strongly disagree with this accusation, and would appreciate it if a panel of other Wikipedia editors could review this series of malicious edits by xboxtravis7992 and put a stop to it.
Thank you. DTParker1000 ( talk) 17:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I haven't edited a Wikipedia article in a little over a decade at this point and lost access to my original account, but as one of the early editors of this article I would like raise awareness to the unreliability of some of the sources cited for the claims made in the recent additions. For credentials, I have a BA in Western U.S. History.
Gilbert Lathrop's books are folklore, and in many cases deviate widely from the verifiable historic record. I recommend that any claims drawn from his books be discarded.
Beebe & Clegg's books are notoriously unreliable for similar reasons. Their writing, while prolific and talented, is poorly researched and riddled with mistakes and myths. Similarly, I recommend that any claims drawn from their writing be discarded as well.
I would also counter specific claims made by DTParker:
1. "Prior to the railroad, most of the relatively arid West was largely uninhabited by human beings."
This is patently false, especially considering the large pre-Columbian and reduced but still substantial post-Columbian populations of Native American cultures. This phrase should be removed in its entirety as it subscribes to an old but now-debunked interpretation of American manifest destiny.
2. "Now farming became profitable. Now ranching became profitable. Now mining became profitable."
Farming, ranching and mining were all profitable before the railroads. The California Gold Rush if 1849 and the Pikes Peak Gold Rush of 1858 were both massively successful without the interference or help of any railroads. Ranching and farming were also profitable on the local market as well as in supplying these massive mining rushes with foodstuffs; in fact, Brigham Young admonished his followers in Utah to stop selling their wheat at high prices to the miners in California and Colorado and to reserve some for the local markets even if at lower prices to prevent starvation over the winter if the entire Utah supply was sold off to the mining fields. The only thing that the railroad changed was the ease and speed of transporting goods and raw materials which opened up new markets, but it didn't magically transform ranching, farming and mining from poverty to profitability.
I do partially agree with user xboxtravis7992 that the majority of the paragraphs expounding on an abridged analysis of Western United States development is irrelevant to the specific subject at hand, particularly the mention of eastern river and canal traffic, which is better suited to be described in an article about American railway development rather than a single surviving locomotive from a regional railroad company.
Tenminutesforrefreshment ( talk) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
DTParker1000, I am not any kind of "Wikipedia appeals process" (that doesn't really exist for content questions; the community at large is ultimately the "supreme court of Wikipedia" as that goes.) But I agree that what you wrote is bloated and inappropriate, and should not be in the article. Stop putting it back; there is clearly not consensus for it. I don't know whether the opinion of one more uninvolved editor will sway you or not, but there it is for what it's worth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Did you intend to take out
| totalproduction =53 (Grant-28)
(Baldwin-25)
when you added
| uicclass = 1′D n2 ?
If so, why? . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward ( talk • contribs) 16:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I've uploaded a photo of the locomotive in its current (ugly) condition. Does it belong in the article? Ntsimp ( talk) 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I have two pictures on Commons- one of the completed new cab and one of the boiler. Could someone include those on the article? I can't seem to get it to work. D&RGW 223 ( talk) 14:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
D&RGW 223. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 09:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on D&RGW 223. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to know that if there are any plans to restore Rio Grande 223 into operating condition? 68.226.233.81 ( talk) 02:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I am considering moving up the ongoing edit disputes to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution possibly to seek a third opinion, however much of my concerns have been expressed on WikiProjectTrains and on User:DTParker1000's talk page. I will admit I have been fairly blunt with my opinions on the matter elsewhere, and to assume good faith editing I think it is best to offer a chance to explain my continued concerns here offering DTParker1000 and other users a chance to express their thoughts potentially avoiding escalation to Dispute resolution.
With that said, I stand firmly by my concern that the ongoing edits to the Rio Grande 223 page are detrimental to the page's purpose and degrade from the original quality of the piece. These are the primary issues I keep coming back to:
I can point out other concerns I have, however for brevity those are my continued issues with the ongoing edits. I do feel very passionate regarding the subject, however; to assume good faith I feel it is best to offer an opportunity to discuss it here directly before considering seeking further dispute resolution aid. Xboxtravis7992 ( talk) 14:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Below is a recent Wikipedia Talk post of Xboxtravis7992 and my response to it. He has apparently since erased his post, but I think it is worth showing, since he has again raised the issue, and won't let it die. His actions indicate that he is dead-set against including information in the Wikipedia article on Rio Grande 223 regarding the engine's historical significance. He keeps dreaming up new-and-improved pretexts to eviscerate that section. What his real motives are are best known to himself. Below is his recent post, and my response:
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am digging up this dead horse again, but looking at the changes to Rio Grande 268 and I don't feel like the added citations fix the core issues. A few of my concerns (from the latest February 20th revision):
1. At least two citations (#15 and #33) are to Wikipedia itself and not first or third party sources.
2. Citation #22 is to User:DTParker1000's own post on another website.
3. Multiple citations rely on the same author, Jerry Day's articles in The Prospector, which make me concerned that even when accurate third party sources are being used they are extremely limited to one perspective.
4. The citations notably from Robert Athearn, Lucius Beebe & Charles Clegg, and Gilbert Lathrop don't allay my complaints of weasel words and fluff text since that might as well be the holy trinity of railroad fluff text in my personal opinion (not to mention the many complaints elsewhere regarding Beebe & Clegg's sloppy research suggesting they make poor sources to use in general). Regardless, the tone of Athearn, Beebe & Clegg and Lathrop while often making for a good story fail to imitate the encyclopedic voice of Wikipedia and support the fluff text used in the article.
Xboxtravis7992 (talk) 15:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MY RESPONSE:
Xboxtravis7992 is wrong. My response to his accusations is below:
1. I have no idea what he is talking about on his "Item #1." The citations he lists are not to "Wikipedia itself" as he claims.
Citation #15 was to the book "A Ticket to Ride the Narrow Gauge," by Herbert Danneman. Citation #33 was to the book "High Road to Promontory," by George Kraus. The section I submitted on the engine's historic significance was only 7 paragraphs long, yet it had 42 citations! Every one of them was to a book or a published article. None of them were to "Wikipedia itself" as xboxtravis7992 maintains.
2. Citation #22 was to the book "Rebel in the Rockies," by Robert G. Athearn. I presume what xboxtravis7992 is referring to is actually Citation #34, which was to an article I wrote entitled "The Significance of the Railroad," in the Ridgway Railroad Museum Newsletter. Just because I wrote the article doesn't mean that it is not factual, as xboxtravis7992 implies. This citation, by the way, was only one of three citations for the sentence in question. The other two were Athearns' book mentioned above, and Kraus's book, also mentioned above. By the way, the sentence in question simply stated that railroad freight rates were lower than the cost of transport by wagon or on the back of a mule. This fact is so obvious as to belie the need for ANY citations. But regardless, instead of attempting to dispute the fact, xboxtravis7992 attacks the source.
3. Jerry B. Day is the highly respected author of three different articles on C-16 engines (D&RG 223 is a C-16 engine). I read recently that he is now in the process of writing a book on the subject. Again, xboxtravis7992 does not dispute the text, he simply attempts to attack the source.
4. Speaking of "fluff"... This is another example of xboxtravis7992 offering no refutation of the facts in the text, but merely making ad hominem attacks on the authors - in this case four of them. Sheesh. When I was in school, we were taught that in a debate, it is fair to attack the opponent's facts or logic, but not to make personal attacks.
I stand by my text and citations. Xboxtravis7992, for reasons best known to himself, is displaying a pattern of finding any imaginable excuse to reduce or eliminate the section in this article on the historical significance of D&RG 223. This is the THIRD time he has done this.
The first time he did this, he disputed a couple of facts, and claimed that the historical significance section was inadequately sourced (even though it had sources cited for every single paragraph). Using this pretext, he then ELIMINATED the entire section.
I resubmitted it, and modified some of the text and doubled the number of sources.
Then, he ELIMINATED the entire section again, claiming it was "extraneous." He replaced the section on the historical significance of the engine with a section going into exceedingly meticulous detail on the mechanical history of the engine and its movements. Speaking of "extraneous" information... He included nothing on its historical significance.
I strongly disagree with the editorial philosophy displayed by xboxtravis7992. If we were to apply his definition of "extraneous," then the Wikipedia article on the Cotton Gin should be limited to the mechanical history of the relic, and not include a section on its historical significance.
Similarly, if we apply the editorial philosophy of xboxtravis7992, then the Wikipedia article on the Titanic should only be history of the ship itself, and not include information on its historical significance. He wants the article on D&RG 223 to go on for page after page on the mechanical aspects and movements of the engine, but can't stomach 7 short paragraphs on the engine's historical significance? And, then he accuses ME of being "unencyclopedic?" Sheesh.
This is nonsense.
Now, he accuses my section on the historical significance of D&RG 223 as being "fluff" and he attacks my citations. This is also nonsense. He is simply finding any excuse he can to eviscerate the section on the engine's historical significance.
As xboxtravis7992 himself admits, he is "digging up this dead horse" again. Yes, he is. And, he is wrong to do so.
I disagree with his editorial policy. I have cited multiple sources, and they are written by respected authors. Xboxtravis7992 doesn't even bother to challenge the accuracy of the text. He just accuses it of being "fluff." I strongly disagree with this accusation, and would appreciate it if a panel of other Wikipedia editors could review this series of malicious edits by xboxtravis7992 and put a stop to it.
Thank you. DTParker1000 ( talk) 17:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I haven't edited a Wikipedia article in a little over a decade at this point and lost access to my original account, but as one of the early editors of this article I would like raise awareness to the unreliability of some of the sources cited for the claims made in the recent additions. For credentials, I have a BA in Western U.S. History.
Gilbert Lathrop's books are folklore, and in many cases deviate widely from the verifiable historic record. I recommend that any claims drawn from his books be discarded.
Beebe & Clegg's books are notoriously unreliable for similar reasons. Their writing, while prolific and talented, is poorly researched and riddled with mistakes and myths. Similarly, I recommend that any claims drawn from their writing be discarded as well.
I would also counter specific claims made by DTParker:
1. "Prior to the railroad, most of the relatively arid West was largely uninhabited by human beings."
This is patently false, especially considering the large pre-Columbian and reduced but still substantial post-Columbian populations of Native American cultures. This phrase should be removed in its entirety as it subscribes to an old but now-debunked interpretation of American manifest destiny.
2. "Now farming became profitable. Now ranching became profitable. Now mining became profitable."
Farming, ranching and mining were all profitable before the railroads. The California Gold Rush if 1849 and the Pikes Peak Gold Rush of 1858 were both massively successful without the interference or help of any railroads. Ranching and farming were also profitable on the local market as well as in supplying these massive mining rushes with foodstuffs; in fact, Brigham Young admonished his followers in Utah to stop selling their wheat at high prices to the miners in California and Colorado and to reserve some for the local markets even if at lower prices to prevent starvation over the winter if the entire Utah supply was sold off to the mining fields. The only thing that the railroad changed was the ease and speed of transporting goods and raw materials which opened up new markets, but it didn't magically transform ranching, farming and mining from poverty to profitability.
I do partially agree with user xboxtravis7992 that the majority of the paragraphs expounding on an abridged analysis of Western United States development is irrelevant to the specific subject at hand, particularly the mention of eastern river and canal traffic, which is better suited to be described in an article about American railway development rather than a single surviving locomotive from a regional railroad company.
Tenminutesforrefreshment ( talk) 19:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
DTParker1000, I am not any kind of "Wikipedia appeals process" (that doesn't really exist for content questions; the community at large is ultimately the "supreme court of Wikipedia" as that goes.) But I agree that what you wrote is bloated and inappropriate, and should not be in the article. Stop putting it back; there is clearly not consensus for it. I don't know whether the opinion of one more uninvolved editor will sway you or not, but there it is for what it's worth. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)