Talk:Ak Chut Vaya, Arizona

2019 comments

Since apparently I cannot post up-to-date information on this community on the main page, I will list it here.

Ak Chut Vaya was a populated place on the Tohono Oʼodham Reservation, in Pima County.[2]

Problem parts apparently ?

One: 'WAS' populated place. It was designated a populated place by the USGS decades ago when it was inhabited (see below).

Two: Location of place on reservation. It is on the reservation, click on the map link. Location is ON the reservation. How is that unsourced referenced ? This is specifying WHERE it once was.

It has an estimated elevation of 2,434 feet (742 m) above sea level. As of 2019, the townsite consists of two abandoned buildings and can be classified as a ghost. The site is approximately 2 miles from San Miguel.

Three: Clicking on the aerial map indicates here that there are two abandoned buildings, no longer inhabited. I cross-referenced older maps on the "Historic Aerials" website against them (you cannot link explicitly to the image -- you must type in name of locale, select date and zoom in). There is no wording stating this is a ghost town, yet VISUAL proof of researching pages (Google Maps & Historic Aerials AND USGS Topo Maps) all confirm this is the case. So, to the editors who seem to have a problem with this, what references do you desire to place the above facts onto the article page ? DJ Jones74 (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to learn how to source information. Look at WP:RS for a start. Then look at WP:CITE and WP:CIT for how to reference and footnote. Making statements like "...and can be classified as a ghost." are nothing more than WP:OR and are forbidden on WP. You really have to learn WP guidelines and policies, and stop wasting productive editors' time. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I've been here for 12 years doing edits and you, sir, are wasting MY productive and valuable research time. I don't need a lecture from someone who appears to do nothing more than delete things not to his liking and is thoroughly and completely unhelpful and hostile. Those links you cite ARE OF NO HELP to me. No, if you think you're remotely productive or helpful, what you need to do is cut the crap and assist when asked to do so in order to get this edit posted on the article. You and others have not been helpful in the least and indeed seem to delight in removing well-researched work. I don't see you doing anything to improve this page and get information out that is up to date. I cited three specific sources (Google Maps/Historic Aerials/and USGS maps) to confirm this locale no longer is a populated place and is a ghost town. I told you that other than for the map coordinates linked from the page, there is no way to explicitly link to the other locations. Is visual evidence cross-checked against older maps and topos not "proof" ? Again, how about helping in this matter, otherwise your position here serves nothing more than to keep this website factually incorrect and out-of-date, and deliberately so. DJ Jones74 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

No, you really need to read up on a whole bunch of stuff. The fact that you've been editing for 12 years and still want to add uncited info to articles is not something I'd want to admit publicly to. And I'm sorry if links to WP policy and procedures are "ARE OF NO HELP to" you. That's pretty sad. And no, visual evidence is never admissable on WP, that's pretty much the definition of original research. And now I'm done talking to you, as that seems to be a complete waste of time and effort. Next stop is an ANI report if you continue to insist on ignoring WP guidelines. Oh, and you might want to read up on WP:CIVIL as well. Seems to be another WP concept you have no use for. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Visual evidence showing the exact location of a site proving it is no longer in existence is not admissible ? So, by that reckoning, I'd have to physically go and photograph the non-existent site and load said pictures to Wikipedia to prove it ? No, wait, that wouldn't be enough, because it might be anywhere. What would be the baseline for that, exactly ? I cited three references and that wasn't enough. That is ludicrous. Nope, you just don't want to help to make these articles work, and I've been more than civil and patient with you and your compatriots. Just because I don't have perfect HTML skills or submit a work that YOU deem to be perfect or meeting these subjective standards you personally impose, you feel emboldened to delete the work en masse and criticize the person for daring to make an edit rather than work with them. I think that is shameful. 12 years on here and treated like dirt all for doing nothing more than keeping pages up to date and factual. DJ Jones74 (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi DJ Jones74, would you please be able to show us a link to a reliable source (for example a government website) where it says that it's now a ghost town? If you can give this to us, we can help you to include it in the article as a source. Will be more than happy to help you. But without that, we won't be able to change the article. I know it can be frustrating, but what matters is what the sources say, as Onel5969 has explained. Please let us know if you have this. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)