User talk:Dfadden

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ipima Street light rail station, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ipima Street light rail station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 10 § Defunct/disused/former railway stations on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:57, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elouera Street light rail station, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elouera Street light rail station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Dfadden. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Manyallaluk, Northern Territory, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:08, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Ngurah Rai International Airport, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:28, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks Danners430 for the notification. A couple of things. First of all, I have been editing here for 14 years so I am indeed aware of WP:V. I would have preferred you reach out to me and ask for clarification of why I handled it the way I did, rather than immediately reverting. However, I will as always assume good faith and explain to you what happened here.

The news of this announcement only broke less than 2 hours before it was added to this list, well before the airline had confirmed any of the details. As such, the initial source provided - from a publication which of questionable reliability - came out before the airline's own formal press release. When i made the edits you reverted to reflect the service was seasonal, I did leave the url of the press release that confirmed this in both edit summaries by way of an explanation. This is contrary to your own edit summary which claims you were rolling back "unexplained content removal and addition of unsourced content".

As you would be aware, secondary sources are preferable to primary ones, so I was waiting for updated reliable secondary sources to appear on Google to add as inline citations backing up it is a seasonal service per the press release. These were available at the time you reverted my edit and restored the incomplete information based on the unreliable source. but unfortunately, you beat me to it.

I have now updated the inline citation to a source that accurately reports the information provided by the airline. I hope this clears things up for you, and I will aim to do better with more specific edit summaries in the future to avoid any confusion. If you do have any questions or concerns with my edits in the future, please reach out to me here to discuss! Thanks! Dfadden (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

I thought I had replied to this - obviously the app failed for me...

If you've been on Wikipedia for 14 years, and are aware of WP:V, then you'll know that sources go in articles and not in edit summaries. A reader cannot be expected to hunt for sources in the page history. The only sources that matter are those in the article, and the source that was there contradicted the edit you were making. That is the only reason the edit was reverted - you made an edit which contradicted the source in the article, and didn't provide a source to verify your claim. To reiterate - the source in your edit summary is all well and good, but it doesn't satisfy WP:V because it's not in the article.

I know you'll reply with "oh you could have done it for me" - however it is your responsibility to provide reliable sources for your edits per WP:BURDEN, it's not for others to tidy up after you. I appreciate this was a mistake - and that's why there's a level 1 notice here instead of a threat to go to ANI or something silly.

As for not reaching out... I'm a recent changes patroller. I have never come across you before now. When I leave a user warning template, I don't go into someone's Wikipedia editing history to find out who they are - if they've never received a level 1 warning, and their talk page is somewhat empty (like yours is), then I leave a level 1 warning and that's it (unless there's a no templates please notice of course). Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:22, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Aside from the fact my talk page has an archive and thus far from empty. I would have thought my edit summary would be enough for you to consider WP:BURDENWAIT might apply here. The information i provided in the edit summary was enough to challenge the quality of the information in the source provided (something a new changes patroller should be interested in) while I went away and found a better, non primary source. But at the same time, it was not completely incorrect with regards to the date so I chose not to immediately remove it while i found a better source. Had I replaced the original inline citation with the press release, I would have expected somebody to say it was a primary source thus unreliable, which is why I didnt do so as I said. I would have thought a new changes patroller would have taken the basic step of confirming the original source was accurate and not contradicted by more reliable ones via Google anyway...

This really is really a storm in a teacup over quite a minor thing, which is now fixed as I had always intended to do. Believe it or not, my goal here was to improve the encyclopedia, addressing something that was obviously wrong promptly while balancing other off wiki responsibilities. Had you come across this edit an hour or 2 later, I would have added the updated inline citation and we wouldnt be having this conversation. So I really dont know why you are even mentioning ANI as the step you could have taken as an alternative to a level 1 warning had I not explained it to your satisfaction. Thats hardly WP:AGF and comes across more as somebody who is just trying to prove a WP:POINT and would indeed by very silly. Good day! Dfadden (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)