User talk:DominicRA

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, DominicRA! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunetra Gupta UnHerd interview

I don't know if you're aware, but your paragraph on the Sunetra Gupta page about the UnHerd interview was deleted on 7-Dec-20, and it's not clear to me why. The deleter Alexbrn is suggesting that the sources cited at the time of deletion are unreliable, when they seem anything but.

You might want to look at the Talk page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Sunetra_Gupta#UnHerd_article Ml66uk2 (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed. I've reintroduced the paragraph but rewritten it slightly and changed the medRxiv source to something else (I guess that one must have been their issue?). DominicRA (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024 - Lucy Letby

Look, you are going to be reverted again shortly by someone. When that happens, please do not revert again. Ideally just self revert now. You are in danger of exceeding the Three revert rule and then you will be banned for edit warring. Please don't do that. Your contributions are good, but be very wary abut reverting against an RfC. That never ends well. Cheers. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice. I won't self-revert but I won't undo the next one from someone else. I did expect resistance, but it's just quite frustrating when excessive adherence to procedure makes things sclerotic and leaves control in the hands of those willing to invest the most time. DominicRA (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The thing about the procedure is that it keeps things sane. If your edit were left to stand then very soon someone will come along and put in other changes that swing in another direction (it is clear there are various views as to what that sentence should contain). And then we would just have revert wars, and nothing else on the article would get done. The RfC has created a stable sentence. I am sure it could be improved, but we need the process so that it is improved cautiously and defensibly. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello, I'm Aydoh8. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Peter Denny, 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. Aydo h8^[contribs] 23:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well the truth is that my sources are indexed versions of several records (birth certificates, censuses, marriage certificates, etc.) at an ancestry site. I'm very confident that my edit was accurate (not least because I'm descended from one of those daughters) but I understand that strictly this may all be interpreted as original research. Though if we're to be sticklers for policy, why does the rest of the family section, which also cites no sources, get to stay?

I see three immediate options:

1. a less informative article that removes everything not cited with a RS

2. the current version which arbirarily included only part of the truth, without citation

3. my edit, which is the same as 2 but includes the full picture wrt children

I know my preference.

P.S. have you looked at the article? Effectively nothing is cited. But it would be daft to delete it all. DominicRA (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]