User talk:AustinDaveW
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, AustinDaveW, 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 Austin A40 Sports did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always 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.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm the Author of the definitive work on the Austin Pedal Cars - This is in book format. How can I quote my own work.
- Also the A40 Sports page is riddles with inaccuracies - It also quotes from a website which is not accessible any more.
- Again I have written the definitive book on this vehicle - how do I quote from it?
- Thank
- DAVID AustinDaveW (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- It sounds as if you have a conflict of interest, also that you have been conducting original research. I have provided several other links above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - I don't know what you mean - I am widely regarded as the world's expert on these vehicles and am a published Award winning author on the subject. The A40 Sports page contains a number of factual errors which I have now corrected. For example it originally stated (with no citation) that the Sports was launched at the 1949 Motor Show - it was not. Unfortunatley a number of journalists have coped this into theit drafts for articles. Fortunatle they sent them to me to proof before publication. This has led me to correct the wikipedia page. I have now provided citations as youy outlined. Would yo ming explaining who you are and what your official role is. I did not realise that Wikipedia had appointed officials. Many thanks. AustinDaveW (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- You make several exceptional claims - phrases like "definitive work", "definitive book", "world's expert", "Award winning" all leap out at me. Who has said these things about you? Anyone can claim to be an expert. As for officials, we're all unpaid volunteers but some of us have been editing Wikipedia for longer than others. In my case, it's 16 years. In that time, you pick up experience as to what may be problematic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, these things have been said about me and my work in the classic car field and also in the world of Austin. I am the winner of the RAC motoring book of the year. I am the Austin A40 Sports worldwide reprecentative for the ACCC amongst other positions I hold. I don't feel I need to justify myself and my expertise to a complete stranger. This is the first time I have tried to correct the errors on the Wikipedia pages which are leading to inaccuracies in the classic car press, leaking onto other websites, and false assumptions from A40 Sports owners. I assumed that this was a good thing, and would be welcomed by Wikipedia community - clearly from your response that is not the case. Interestingly the Bill Vance website and article has now been deleted. it was the source quoted on the page and the origina of many of the errors - it was based on his personal opinon about vehicle and had no references to fact, but seemingly it escaped your notice as editor.My mentor appointed by Wikipedia has not made any negative comments on my edits but If it is too problematic for you - then by all means delete my contributions and my account and leave the inaccuracies as they are. I will have to carry on altering them as they go to press. AustinDaveW (talk) 09:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- You make several exceptional claims - phrases like "definitive work", "definitive book", "world's expert", "Award winning" all leap out at me. Who has said these things about you? Anyone can claim to be an expert. As for officials, we're all unpaid volunteers but some of us have been editing Wikipedia for longer than others. In my case, it's 16 years. In that time, you pick up experience as to what may be problematic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry - I don't know what you mean - I am widely regarded as the world's expert on these vehicles and am a published Award winning author on the subject. The A40 Sports page contains a number of factual errors which I have now corrected. For example it originally stated (with no citation) that the Sports was launched at the 1949 Motor Show - it was not. Unfortunatley a number of journalists have coped this into theit drafts for articles. Fortunatle they sent them to me to proof before publication. This has led me to correct the wikipedia page. I have now provided citations as youy outlined. Would yo ming explaining who you are and what your official role is. I did not realise that Wikipedia had appointed officials. Many thanks. AustinDaveW (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
- It sounds as if you have a conflict of interest, also that you have been conducting original research. I have provided several other links above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please would somebody else explain our core content policies to AustinDaveW. Thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like a bit of an impostor, substituting for a much more experienced editor and admin than me, but if a different voice is required, then here comes one:
- @AustinDaveW, it's great that you're an expert on Austins, and congratulations on having reached such an exulted status in the Austin community.
- Having said which, it is important to note that Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable sources have previously published about a subject. We don't get to write what we think or know, we instead write (in our own words) what a reliable source has said. A core concept of Wikipedia is 'verifiability': pretty much every material statement should come from a reliable published source, and that source must be cited so that readers can check and evaluate it.
- Even edits by expert authors must be thus supported; the "I'm an expert and my say-so should be good enough" approach does not work here (let alone the "don't you know who I am?" one). In that sense, being a subject matter expert affords no extra authority over other editors, in what comes to adding or changing content or deciding what is or isn't 'correct' or acceptable, other than perhaps indirectly in better understanding some finer points of the sources that you're summarising. I don't know if you read the essay 'Expert editors' which Redrose64 pointed out? It's well worth reading, as it expands further on the various aspects of this subject.
- As for citing your own book(s), this is normally acceptable, within reason and some constraints. There is useful guidance on this topic at WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:WEIGHT, and I guess also in a more general sense at WP:RS. Please see those, and if after that you have any questions, you may visit either the Teahouse or the Help desk for more advice.
- Best, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a more reasonable and less personal approach. The inherent problem with the approach you outline is that, as has happened on this page - there is so much factually inaccurate material published on websites that if Wikipedia is OK with people just webscraping that, in terms of it's content without checking if it is factually inaccurate, then there is a problem. Take for example Bill Vance's article (as cited before my edit), which stated that the A40 Sports was launched at the 1949 Motor show. This is factually incorrect, but using your criteria - because it was published on a verifiable (But wildly inaccurate) web source, Wikipedia has allowed it to stand for a number of years. This is resulted in this being requoted in print articles and being voiced by less knowledgeable A40 Sports owners, when talking about their cars at car shows. It was a cited but not reliable source because no one checked it for factual accuracy before it was cited. In this respect Wikipedia is responsible for rewriting history. Not a good thing in my opinion. All I'm trying to do is to lend my expertise to correct the many errors found on the Wikipedia pages which reflect my interest in Austins 1945 - 1954. I'm not interested in becoming an editor of Wikipedia - I haven't the time. I'll look at the articles you have posted to enable me to comply with your rules. Thank you. I presume my edits can now stand? AustinDaveW (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- I haven't looked at your edits, I've no idea whether they can or cannot stand. However, a couple of further pointers on this, in case they help:
- The notion of reliable sources is not absolute. Most people would probably agree that The Times is, on the whole, a more reliable newspaper than The Sun, but even that does not mean The Times gets everything right, or The Sun everything wrong. And if the question is whether one peer-reviewed scientific paper is more accurate than another, or one respected standard textbook more reliable than some other, equally respected one, may be impossible for anyone to say conclusively.
- Sometimes sources, even reliable ones, and even (or perhaps especially) 'expert' ones, differ – how many continents are there? is IQ a scientifically valid concept? what is, and is not, art? In such cases, Wikipedia doesn't even try to resolve the dispute or 'pick the winner', we simply state that sources differ, giving the range (or at least, a reasonable range) of opinions and citing the relevant sources against each.
- A key concept of Wikipedia editing is the 'bold, revert, discuss cycle'. This means that if you find something wrong with, or otherwise wish to change, an article, you should go ahead and do so, as long as you believe it is an improvement. If someone objects to your edit, they may revert it. If that happens, you should then discuss the matter with the other editor(s) on the article talk page, to arrive at a consensus. (Further changes may then cite that consensus as precedent, until the consensus changes.) This model is intended, among other things, to avoid edit warring, which benefits no one. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the additional information. Could you explain why - if a web source that has been cited disappears due to it being deleted, why it is not then removed from a page?
- So it would seem that Wikipedia exists - but cannot be seen as a source of absolute factually correct information. Just a conglomeration of previous web articles written by anyone who fancies publishing a web page. Pity really - it is a missed opportunity to provide the gold standard of online sources. The one thing that cannot be challenged surely is a matter of factually correct dates, and also information about vehicles - which was published from period factory brochures and information documents.
- I am actually wishing I hadn't bothered to correct the inaccuracies - as I seem to have inadvertantly stirred up a hornets nest of controversy here. I only got involved due to the spreading of disinformation about the A40 Sports that eminates from its Wiki page. All I was trying to do was put the facts straight. I don't think factual information about a Classic car is contraversial in any way. Thanks. AustinDaveW (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a more reasonable and less personal approach. The inherent problem with the approach you outline is that, as has happened on this page - there is so much factually inaccurate material published on websites that if Wikipedia is OK with people just webscraping that, in terms of it's content without checking if it is factually inaccurate, then there is a problem. Take for example Bill Vance's article (as cited before my edit), which stated that the A40 Sports was launched at the 1949 Motor show. This is factually incorrect, but using your criteria - because it was published on a verifiable (But wildly inaccurate) web source, Wikipedia has allowed it to stand for a number of years. This is resulted in this being requoted in print articles and being voiced by less knowledgeable A40 Sports owners, when talking about their cars at car shows. It was a cited but not reliable source because no one checked it for factual accuracy before it was cited. In this respect Wikipedia is responsible for rewriting history. Not a good thing in my opinion. All I'm trying to do is to lend my expertise to correct the many errors found on the Wikipedia pages which reflect my interest in Austins 1945 - 1954. I'm not interested in becoming an editor of Wikipedia - I haven't the time. I'll look at the articles you have posted to enable me to comply with your rules. Thank you. I presume my edits can now stand? AustinDaveW (talk) 10:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)