User talk:Nick.deligtisch

June 2023

Hello, I'm Trainsandotherthings. I noticed that you recently removed content from Chicago, Fort Wayne and Eastern Railroad without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to New England Central Railroad, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. → Tanbiruzzaman 💬 12:53, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to New England Central Railroad, you may be blocked from editing. → Tanbiruzzaman 💬 13:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am working for Genesee & Wyoming and am trying to make these pages more accurate. Could you please explain what I have done that is disruptive? Thank you! Nick.deligtisch (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you need to properly disclose your affiliation with Genesee & Wyoming. Instructions for doing so are located at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Now with that out of the way, welcome to Wikipedia. I apologize for the templated messages above, but when editors see an account making edits that have issues and they haven't communicated, templates are the fastest way to send a message.

As to the substance of your edits, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Things like the current number of railcar storage spots available are not encyclopedic information, especially because they're subject to frequent change. I'll concede 263,000 vs 286,000 capacity may be relevant information. But if someone really wanted to know how much railcar storage a G&W railroad has, each railroad has or should have its G&W URL linked which easily provides that information. Interchanges are relevant information and should be added if missing, but they need a citation (for something uncontroversial like this, a citation to the railroad's website would be sufficient).

In this edit, you removed an existing and accurate listing of interchanges, cited to a reliable source, in favor of the same list but with excessive links and no citation. There wasn't anything wrong with the content there, all of the interchanges are correct (I would know because I personally rewrote and expanded much of the NECR article within the past year). I also brought Providence and Worcester Railroad to featured article status. I watch over most railroad articles in New England and try to ensure they all are accurate and make improvements when I have time. I've worked heavily on NECR, Connecticut Southern Railroad, and P&W as I mentioned before. There are a few other editors who do similar things as well. We're all volunteers.

Some of the articles on G&W railroads are in a sorry state and desperately need improvement (Columbus and Ohio River Railroad is embarrassingly incomplete). If I had the time to do so, every article would look like the P&W one, which I put a month worth of work into. But your edits have without exception not included any citations. Verifiability is a core tenant of Wikipedia, and additions to articles should in almost all cases be supported by reliable sources cited inline. It's also difficult for volunteer editors like myself to understand what you're doing when you do not use any edit summaries to explain your edits. When I edit an article, even if I'm just correcting a typo, I always always always include an edit summary.

As a G&W employee, I understand your motivation is to make the articles accurate because it may serve G&W's business purposes. I also want all our articles to be accurate because that makes a better encyclopedia. But it's important never to add promotional content, like you did with this edit. You say Portland and Western "is one of their most successful North American divisions." But we don't have any citation to back up that statement, so I reverted the edit. If you could point to for instance an article in Trains Magazine or Railway Age or some other non-G&W source that supports this statement, it wouldn't be problematic. If that statement is true, someone independent of G&W should have said so, and we would cite that rather than simply saying it in Wikipedia's voice without one or more sources to back it up. In the Providence and Worcester article, I wrote "Almost immediately, the independent P&W was recognized for providing exemplary service to its customers, in direct contrast with Penn Central; in 1974 the Rhode Island Department of Transportation recommended giving sole responsibility for all freight rail in Providence to P&W." This is sourced to an Interstate Commerce Commission publication which backs up the text [1].

This edit was worse. "BPRR is an essential railroad in the states of New York and Pennsylvania and is in high demand" is puffery that serves to advertise the railroad, and isn't backed up by any sources.

I've taken the time to type out all of this because there are ways you can help Wikipedia and make constructive changes. But there is a learning curve here, and extra rules when you're editing on behalf of a company. Most editors here will be willing to help you out, though as you might imagine there is some suspicion towards paid editors as the vast majority of us are volunteers. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. I have begun to add citations and edit summaries to my edits, now that I know it is necessary. I will also refrain from promotional content, although unintended. Also, I don't need to be paid by wikipedia. Is there anything I need to do to prove that I am working for G&W?

Thank you for your cooperation, and please reach out to me if you have any concerns of my edits - I am an intern and am completely new to the company.

Nick Nick.deligtisch (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Wikipedia isn't paying you - I know that. But you're working for G&W, so you need to disclose that via the steps indicated at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, even if it's an unpaid internship. From the paid contribution disclosure page: Interns are considered employees for this purpose. If they are directed or expected to edit Wikipedia as part of an internship, they must disclose.

We don't do verification or anything like that unless you were a Wikipedia-notable person editing under your name - the paid editing disclosure statement you'll find at the link I provided will be sufficient. You will want to use the paid template on your userpage (you can create your userpage by clicking on the red text that shows up as your name when you sign your talk page messages). As long as you're disclosing properly, there aren't any problems with you editing here, after all Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DMacks (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am working for Genesee & Wyoming in order to make our train pages more accurate and beneficial. Could you please explain what I did that is considered "soapboxing, promotion or advertising?" I mean no harm and am just trying to do my job. Please let me know, I have no intentions to vandalize Wikipedia. Nick.deligtisch (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick.deligtisch. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Connecticut Southern Railroad, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am confused. All I did was remove information that is outdated and inaccurate. For my internship at G&W, I am trying to make the page more accurate. Please let me know what I need to do to be able to make these edits and thank you for being polite and not threatening my account - I have no bad intentions. Nick.deligtisch (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the policies at WP:COIEDIT - particularly on how to raise edit requests on the talk page instead of making direct edits to articles for which you have a conflict of interest.

Also please do not remove sourced content (such as you did here diff) without adequately explaining why the sources are wrong - which again, is better discussed on the article talk pages first. Raladic (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the content in question at the Connecticut Southern Railroad article within the past year while improving and expanding it. "Outdated" was a lie and I can see no valid reason for removal besides attempting to whitewash the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a whitewashing also. DMacks (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Georgia Central Railway. Raladic (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what material was unsourced or poorly sourced. I know I had a source. I don't have bad intentions Nick.deligtisch (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources (such as a company website) are generally not allowed for sourcing, please read the above linked policies on what constitutes reliable sources. Raladic (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Heart of Georgia Railroad. Raladic (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: they'd already had several level4 warnings, including you'd already given one for 'unsourced'. My block is a stronger concern. Even if they resolve our bright-line about COI, that is obviously in no way an escape from the sourcing and other situations. DMacks (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had just placed this one for posterity and had incidentally reported them to AIV minutes before you blocked them after they removed their COI disclosure and immediately started editing directly again without sources, as it looks like they were WP:NOTHERE to constructively contribute. Raladic (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I don't understand what I did wrong. I used secondary sources man, please unblock me Nick.deligtisch (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. Raladic (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to promote a business; I'm just trying to make the page more accurate/factual. I don't have bad intentions. Nick.deligtisch (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning your intent, but Wikipedia has very specific policies on Conflict of interest editing as well as requirements on reliable secondary sources (which a company website is not) that should be followed by editors with such a conflict, which requires you to please first read the guidelines and familiarize yourself with the rules on making such edits in the right way. You can follow the guide here: WP:COIE on how to make edit proposals on article talk pages instead of directly editing articles, which is strongly discouraged for such conflicts. Raladic (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good intentions are nice, but continuing to breach Wikipedia policies is not. The integrity of the encyclopedia and its readers takes priority over personal concerns. To that end:

Do not directly edit articles related to your company. Use the edit request wizard to describe the changes you would like, and the sources that you are using to support them.
Wikipedia articles rely on sources that are both reliable and independent of the article's subject. Make an effort to find these as your sources.
Do not use company-authored materials as sources, other than in the most limited cases as described in WP:PRIMARY.
In particular, press releases are company-authored promotional material, and will be rejected. Do not use them.

I should also point out that if you are being directed by your superior(s) to edit Wikipedia, then you (and they) should read Wikipedia:When your boss tells you to edit Wikipedia. They need to realize that at no point does a company have any right of ownership or control over the content of Wikipedia articles that pertain to the company. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted edit proposals; how long does it take to get a response? Nick.deligtisch (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a specific timeline (there are currently about 150 pending edit requests, and hundreds of other types of requests as well). There is no formal queue or guaranteed service deadline and we're all volunteers, so you should not plan your real-world activities around it getting done by any specific moment. I think "days or a few weeks" is fairly typical for this sort of thing. But I easily declined your request at Talk:Providence and Worcester Railroad for massive removal of cited content from a recently-promoted featured article. DMacks (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges (see [2]).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. DMacks (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nick.deligtisch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry man, all I am trying to do is improve the railroad pages. I have followed all directions that have been given (at least from my perspective). I was told that I can't use primary sources, so I stopped and am using secondary sources. I really don't mean to do harm, I'm just trying to add more information. Please explain what I did on June 26th that was against the violations. Nick.deligtisch (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You removed the conflict of interest disclosure from your user page, and started editing articles directly. PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nick.deligtisch (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]