User talk:Derache123

Hello, I'm DrStrauss. I noticed that in this edit to Adobe Flash, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. DrStrauss talk 14:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I didn't do that, but this is now resolved. Derache123 (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

My above-mentioned contribution was reverted without any justification. I had provided verifiable sources that demonstrably corrected the original text you restored. Therefore, I have little understanding for the fact that the old, incorrect text was restored. Please review the facts I cited in my post and provide justification for your reversal of my post! Mount Beatle (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for leaving a message and my apologies for the non-descriptive edit message in my revert. I removed that content primarily because the sources cited are posts from a personal blog, which are not generally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. Furthermore, it generally was not written in the impartial, encyclopedic tone that is expected on Wikipedia. If you are able to find other sources for this material that are considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards, I would encourage you to rewrite this content using these sources, while also keeping in mind Wikipedia's standards for style and tone. Derache123 (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply. I can only partially understand your comments. Specifically, I must disagree with your statement: “the sources cited are posts from a personal blog, which are not generally considered reliable sources for Wikipedia.” That is not entirely correct: in note 2 of my post from August 20, 2025, I did refer to a personal blog, but the source is clearly stated in the blog post and clearly documents the bike trial in 1947. So it is not just a reference to a blog, but a citation of a detailed source that anyone can verify if they wish.

With regard to the origin of the term “Trialsin,” the blog I mentioned provides highly interesting and very revealing detailed information, even including photographic evidence, which should actually be given greater weight than the current “is said to have been invented by Pere Pi.” Mount Beatle (talk) 12:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the blog post contains original research does not change the fact that it is still a personal blog, which is a self-published source. Wikipedia has high standards for its sources, and self-published sources such as blogs are not generally considered reliable by the community and should only be used in very specific circumstances. This is not a matter of my own personal opinion, but is policy at Wikipedia. In this case, given that the sources you provided are supporting an exceptional claim which is outside the mainstream consensus in the sport, use of a self-published source is not acceptable. I would encourage you to review the relevant Wikipedia policies regarding sources, and rewrite the content using reliable sources instead, if such sources exist. Derache123 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)