User talk:10mmsocket/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
10mmsocket, you are invited to the Teahouse!
|
Hi 10mmsocket! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC) |
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 10mmsocket! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 11:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
April 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Fabuloso, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.
Please exercise more care when employing semi-automated tools. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hey look, these warning templates can be a little intimidating, I realize your making honest mistakes. I don't really have time to offer you instruction myself, but WP:CVUA has or at least at one time had a decent cohort of volunteers to assist new-users with WP:RCP. Would be well worth your time to look into if that's a road you plan on going down. Cheers, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Deletion
Hi. Following on from our recent discussion about the poor quality of UK ambulance/fire articles I found this list article List of South East Coast Ambulance Service stations which I think is a good candidate for deletion, and have started a deletion request. Please support if you agree with my assessment. (User:Elshad) (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Deletion
Reporting back after your re edit of sources which for some reason you feel is necessary. Which also to be honest I find absurd you are NOT updating but instead are deciding to just remove the information. I bring you this, The sources i currently have is real life knowledge, visits and the use of Facebook pages, fleet lists, twitters and more to know where each and every appliance is based. Because of the childish behaviour and ignorance of specific users i will NOT be adding back the information as i feel you will abuse the free power and just remove the information once again. (User:J.Jonesey4002)
- Why don't you read WP:OR? If you do you'll know that all that personal knowledge is irrelevant as it cannot be verified WP:V by reliable sources WP:RS. Keeping original research off Wikipedia is not an abuse of power, it is protecting its integrity. --10mmsocket (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
PICT
I thought you might be able to edit this draft for the PICT Team, which someone else nominated for deletion. I thought it looked like a sensible article, welcome option and input. Tannim101 (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
- Of course, I would be happy to take a look. 10mmsocket (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Blanking of talk page
I am suggesting you read: WP:BLANKING. The talk page is not a personal homepage, and do not belong to the user. It is part of Wikipedia, and exist to make collaboration among editors easier. Policy does not prohibit from removing comments from your own talk page, but archiving is preferred. Besides, any record of past discussions can be found in the page history if ever needed, despite a more cumbersome access. --Robertiki (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Use of the Edit Summary
I have noticed your long edit summary: "disagree strongly. There is not a single instance online or in, for example council papers, where Shelford is referred to by his military rank. Very few retired officers choose to their rank in civilian life even though they are entitled to. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Army_officers and you'll see that it is only a minority that use the military title)"
Help: external links, as the one above, may be placed without square brackets, if there is no label. But internal links, which must have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ part removed, should be placed between double square brackets. It also required to remove the underscores in the link. Example, your link above should have been written
[[Category:British Army officers]]
otherwise it won't work.
I suggest reading WP:ES, and inter alia:
- Avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail, writing essays about "the truth" or long-winded arguments with fellow editors. For discussions, you should use the talk page.
And regarding other your summaries:
- Avoid inappropriate summaries. You should explain your edits, but without being overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack.
It is policy to avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. For example:
reverted edits by User:Example, see talk for rationale
--Robertiki (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
- Good advice, I didn't know that, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Medic Barnstar | |
| Thanks for all your work on medical related articles! I've seen you springing up on my watchlist fixing all that infuriating formatting and removing OR. (Sorry for reverting by prior barnstar) — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 08:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC) |
- Humbled, thank you. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Tactical Vehicle Crime Unit
Hello 10mmsocket. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tactical Vehicle Crime Unit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: While this article doesn't meet the WP:A7 speedy deletion criterion - it was a verifiably a of unit of of the Greater Manchester Police - I agree that that it might not merit a stand-alone article itself. Maybe a "former units" there?section . Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you. I'll look to merge it into a former units section of the main article. Should I just be bold and do that or does it need some formal discussions somewhere? 10mmsocket (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
James Ruse
Dear 10mmsocket
The changes I made to James Ruse like correcting the spelling of Lawhitton -should be allowed.
AS to removing the date of death for James Ruse 1793-1866 there is no death certificate ever recorded for James.
Also the first fleet did not arrive in Australia on January 21st 1788.
I am a descendant of James Ruse so would like the correct information to be displayed on his page.
I would also think that Wikipedia would also like the correct information displayed on their site.
Regards
Megz2401
Megz2401 (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Personal knowledge, also known as original research is not allowed on Wikipedia unless it can be substantiated by verifiable and reliable sources WP:V & WP:RS. It is a frequent frustration for new editors who know for sure what is true, but unless it can be verified it cannot go in the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks.
Hey! Thank you for taking care of vandals on Wiki but i'm not one! If you clic on the references on the elease history im editing on britney articles, ull see the date im adding is the one that is in the references. They do not correspond right now. Please, take a second to check before reverting to see if it is referenced, thank you! --AeAlForOne (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the reference is verifiable, then link the reference to the date that you change. If you don't know how to do this then look up reference naming. If the existing reference isn't named then change the original reference <ref> to something like <ref name = releaseinfo > and then duplicate a link to the reference by simply adding <ref name = releaseinfo /> (note the trailing / is important). But please don't change dates unless you link to a reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
oh ok ill do it next time. thanks! still learning . xx --AeAlForOne (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Any questions feel free to ask. There's also the teahouse where people are willing to help. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Extra Extra Read All About It
You altered my correction to the article I edited. While I don't doubt your expertise with regard to editing articles about the NHS, I don't recall you having any involvement with the 1993 TV show Extra Extra Read All About It. I was a cast member, and wrote the final episode which aired in December 1993. The series creator and sole lead writer of episodes 1 to 7 was Dublin based advertising copywriter Frank Sheerin. It is factually incorrect to credit me as sole writer of this show. The Wikipedia article presents the entirely false impression that I was behind this programme. I was a cast member and wrote ONE episode. Please revert to Radio Telefís Eireann, or indeed to me if you require further information. I view the continued dissemination of this falsehood in very negative light and resent the slur on my professionalism Morgan C Jones (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's really simple - provide a reliable source WP:RS that is verifiable by others WP:V that backs up the facts that you add to the article. Personal knowledge counts for absolutely nothing on Wikipedia - it is what is know as original research WP:OR. No references == no changes. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Cars in shows
Hi, while I obviously agree with deleting the majority of the pop culture sections from automobile articles, I think you may be tossing out a few babies with the bathwater. I know you have not argued about me restoring a thing or two (thanks - I know our first reflex is often defensive) but I think it could be made easier if you just moved your deletion threshold from, say, 99 to 95. Like the Magnum PI show or the Saint, both of which had huge impact on sales and image of those cars. I also do not enjoy having to revert an editor who is doing god's work, as it were. Thanks, Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I noticed your edits and held back on a couple of deletions subsequently. You make a good point, thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
KORWiN article
Hi, about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KORWiN article, you have reverted my change about numbers of seats that KORWiN currently party have. The page itself contains this information in two places (election result section and short summary), my change was meant to give more precise information at editted section (but I see that there sould be additional information that they were staring as a coalition and numbers of seats for coalition and KORWiN), because reader would be confused about two differnt information. And one question, should I answer directly to massege sent to me, or the way I'm doing it now? Rr4x4 (talk) 08:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. Posting here was OK, or you could simply reply to the message on your own page. If the number elsewhere is referenced then it should be OK to clarify as you did. You could also repeat any reference in the other place by giving it a name. See the pointers on your page about using references or ask and I'll give you more pointers. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
LARA ASM
Hello 10mmsocket.
I think that I understood your initial revert caused by disambiguation, but wonder (as I couln't find further justification) for reverting my second update?
Kind regards,
Eric — Preceding unsigned comment added by PetreEric (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes - see WP:DABRL and WP:DABMENTION - don't put red links in disambiguation pages. Write the article first. Shout if you need help/pointers with that. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| Legendary user. Thanks for alleviating my stress levels. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC) |
Regarding the page on the Kronstadt rebellion
Hello, 10mmsocket.
I apologize in advance if I mess this up; I'm new to Wikipedia.
I am quite aware that I may have looked suspicious editing the page on the Kronstadt rebellion page, but I can assure you that my intention was not to promote myself or anyone else, but rather to clear up some information on the page. I simply replaced this link from 2005 with this one, which is from the newest version of An Anarchist FAQ available. It is much better written and more accurate. Moreover, I thought it was necessary for me to add Ravil Ashirov's paper underneath the ICL-FI's Bolshevism vs. Counterrevolution article seeing how the stories that they tell are very different, given that the former contains documents and information that the latter omits.
My goal here was not to dissuade readers from supporting the Bolshevik suppression of the uprising, but rather to present a fairer, more balanced view of the uprising. From looking at your talk page I know that you hate original research and biased sources, but I do not think that what I linked was unreliable. Although it comes from the Anarchist Library, which has a pro-anarchist, anti-Bolshevik bias, the articles themselves cite from a variety of sources, including the same collection of documents that the ICL-FI's paper cited, to arrive at different conclusions.
I apologize for the inconvenience and respectfully ask that I can undo your removal of my edits on the Kronstadt Page.
Also, thank you so much for the welcoming wishes to Wikipedia!
Yours truly, UnknownZoomer (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but theanarchistlibrary.org does not look like a reliable source. My suggestion is you take it to WP:RSN and open a question on whether it is acceptable. As a collection of self-published articles I highly doubt that it is reliable and therefore is not acceptable as a reference. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Revision on "The Hundred"
Dear 10mmsocket, I see you've changed my statement under the broadcasting section. Can you help me understand why? Criclover94 (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's called copyediting - removing irrelevant / redundant text to improve the content. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Who owns Luka Babic wikipedia page
Hi,
I would like to know who has access on Luka Babic wikipedia page? Thank you Fenerfan111 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
- Nobody owns it. Wikipedia as a community created it under an irrevocable creative commons sharing licence. Why do you ask? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Definition of reliable research
Hello 10mm,
I have read what Wikipedia defines as a "reliable source" and it states "Dissertations – Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used." The source that was cited was a thesis vetted by the academic community. Please reinstate the citation in order to be in accordance with Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source.
- (talk page stalker) Sorry to butt in. I just thought I might point out that you're looking at a master's thesis, not a doctoral dissertation (the type of degree is always stated on the title page). The guideline explains that theses or dissertations at the master's level are only considered reliable sources if they can be shown to have significant scholarly influence. Most master's work doesn't have much influence because it's usually a person's first foray into significant research.
- One option: If you go to the thesis and find the statement you want to include, the student should have cited a reliable source for that statement. You can then look up that source, make sure it really says what you think it says, and then use that reliable source (instead of this thesis) to support your statement. Larry Hockett (Talk) 08:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Larry - thanks!
- @DustFigure - My comment about a Masters thesis is simple - how do we know that it was of acceptable quality? How did this student score? Was it a distinction / first, or lower? 50% can be a passing grade but that can mean there are still significant holes in the document. In this case I would argue that the document has not been formally published, it is simply available online as are many masters thesis. It is not in my opinion a reliable source and I certainly won't be reinstating it. Perhaps you might take it to the reliable sources noticeboard when others may have a different opinion WP:RSN. --10mmsocket (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Dealing with vandalism
Thank you for your contributions to combating vandalism. However, there are a few points you should take note of. A level 4im "only warning" is appropriate only for truly extreme situations, such as really serious libel. It is not suitable for normal everyday trivial vandalism, and even less so for adding of unsuitable links by a new editor who may sincerely not know that they are unacceptable. There is rarely any point in a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for an editor who has not been warned, or has not edited since being warned. Reports at AIV are quite frequently declined because of inappropriate or insufficient warning. Also, if there is any reasonable possibility that an editor may be acting in good faith, even if very inappropriately, consider giving a friendly note explaining what the problem is, reserving vandalism warnings for editors who either have continued after such friendly warnings or have started out editing in ways which obviously could not possibly be good faith but misguided editing. JBW (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Noted, thank you! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Wehni
You deleyed an update I made to the page on Amba Wehni. I said that a party from RMA Sandhurst climbed the peak in 1971. I was one of the four climbers eho did it. I forgrt the fourth, but tge other two were Albert Whitley and Peter Watson. Why is what I entered not aceptable? 20:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- You said "The mountain was climbed by a team from RMA Sandhurst in the summer of 1971. A film team from Anglia TV recorded most of the climb, but some reels were lost when they fell from the rocks during the descent." You need to provide verifiable WP:V and reliable WP:RS sources for the 1971 climb, and if not part of the same source for the film team & loss of the reels. Even if you know it's true because you were there, it's not permitted on Wikipedia because it isn't sourced - instead it's original research WP:OR. It's probably the most frustrating aspect of wikipedia for people who 100% know the truth because the truth means nothing if it can't be referenced. --10mmsocket (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Stop.
I’m trying to have a fresh start. It’s not sockpuppet I’m not using it to help cheese editor in a dispute. Just let me have a fresh start. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by British colonise (talk • contribs) 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- You say you want a fresh start but you are repeating the same behaviour that got your other accounts banned before - making silly edits to articles and 10-minute threats on article talk pages. How is that a fresh start?--10mmsocket (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok first 10 minute THREATS? It’s not a threat it’s just an amount of time that if nobody disagrees with the edit I will do it, I can’t wait a week see if anybody disagrees and it’s just a way of avoiding disputes.
And the same behavior? Cheese editor was assuming ownership of fire truck. Dairy editor backing up cheese editor. Potato was concerned about pumpkins. How am I doing any of those?
And silly edits. That is incorrect as edits is plural. I did one on the page for December 26 and I apologize for that. But my other edits, adding kiwis to see more of Australians. That’s a serious edit.
I do seriously apologize for what I have done on my previous accounts, and have taken a break and thought about what I did and I wish to have a fresh start. It’s not doing anyone a favor if we can’t let go what I did. I apologized and thought about what I did. There’s no need to continue with it. 08:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)British colonise (talk)
- Go to the Sockpuppet Investigation page (link is on your talk page) and put your defence into the appropriate section. It's up to the admins to decide if you are genuine. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lincolnshire & Nottinghamshire Air Ambulance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello
Hello,
Thank you for your hard work and contributions, particularly to articles like Tyne and Wear FRS. However, I must insist you please reverted edits that do not need reverted, including those by me and other users to pages such as North East England. I would like to work cooperatively on these articles, of course, and hope you will too because the Wiki community is stronger working together, not against one another.
Cheers again for all your hard work,
Cheeseburger
P.S I take your point about City of Durham, but not sure how to justify including it in the intro to North East England. It is really a small city, with a recorded population of under 30,000. Even Hartlepool's is over 90,000... If you can think of a way that works, let me know. I'd like to include it too because it is one of the most well known cities in the North East.
- Thanks for reaching out. w.r.t. Durham it's easy, it's a city, just one of three in the region. Now what about trying a few things yourself - like using edit summaries, or not uploading copyright violating images, and maybe noticing that others not just me are reverting a good percentage of your edits and try to understand why that might be. --10mmsocket (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
- "Cheeseburger" needs to start acting cooperatively, and stop using phrases like "I must insist...". A good start would be to WP:REGISTER, learn the basics of cooperative editing, and explain on each article talk page what they are trying to achieve. Although many of their edits appear to be in good faith, unexplained edits by unregistered editors are highly likely to be reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Lutheran World Federation
Thank you for the comments on the Lutheran World Federation page. You reverted an update on the current general secretary which is Martin Junge, the new one was elected in June but only takes over on 1 November, see https://www.lutheranworld.org/news/lwf-elects-estonian-anne-burghardt-new-general-secretary. Any advice on proceeding with that?
MakingThingsConnect (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes of course - see the other references on the page and copy the way that they are done, or see the "guide for citing sources" link on your talk page. The link that you have provided should be sufficient if you expand it out to be a fully-cited reference with title, etc. Hope that helps. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Review request
Hello, I saw your message on my talk page about my recent edit to Grand & Toy. I removed the banners because they have been on the page for 6 years. I saw in the history of the page that there have been a lot of changes and editors on the page since those were added. This is what the page looked like when the banners were originally added (the banners were necessary at that point): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_%26_Toy&oldid=666977596 Would you mind reviewing the content on the page to see if you agree that they are no longer relevant or needed? Doesn't look like they still apply in my opinion but I'm open to your thoughts. Thank you, TorontoToast (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Very happy to help. Ill get back to you shortly. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Hope that works for you. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Looks good, thanks for taking the time. TorontoToast (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Lukman Faily
Hello 10mmsocket :) You have deleted the article entitled "Lukman Faily" because of (unreliable references). I do not know how to improve that every single reference is reliable and I know that Wikipedia has its own regularities of writing such subjects. The issue that I had during the writing of this article is the lack of online sources but I can assure that every thing that I uploaded as a reference is true and the best proof is the official website of the Iraqi MFA. Looking forward to helping me with publishing the last changes. Sincerely yours — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliDiana1987 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry - I have no recollection of the article that you mention. I am not an admin so I cannot delete articles, although I have nominated a few for deletion. My best suggestion is contact an admin and request them to reinstate the article as a Draft or into your sandbox so that you can work on it to make it ready for publication. 10mmsocket (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Other stuff
Hey! Day here - I hope I'm doing this right. I'm new to Wikipedia, as you could tell from what you posted on my page earlier. I just wanted to apologize - in no way did I realize this was against the rules, and I want to let you know that it won't happen again. Thank you for introducing yourself, and thank you for keeping Wikipedia a place where information is integral. Imdavidday (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC).
Hello - I received your message today concerning the Class 88 article. I had originally planned to add the loco names based upon the fact that I regularly photograph these locos in service, so the names are clear to me in that sense. What constitues sufficient evidence of these being the correct names otherwise? Regards Scot66 (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
- It would be something like news article - such as the one on the other three named locos - ideally a reputable newspaper / magazine rather than a fan site. Photos are not considered evidence - although I can see little argument if you were for example to upload a photo to Wikimedia Commons of every single loco with its visible nameplate then construct a table with a thumbnail picture of each. Not exactly a reference but clear evidence. A bit geeky perhaps but these (and the 66's) are stunning looking locos when you're close up in the depot or even in the cab. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I just received your message earlier and I'm really sorry about that. This is my first time editing a Wikipedia page and I just learned how to do another section. Nevertheless, I already fixed it in the talk page.
Hello im curious to know why the music producers of a record was taking out expeditiously after my attempt to also include them along with the featured artist in the career section of the song they produced. These are my clients that I represent and want to make sure they get all the online visibilty they deserve. However, this is my 1st rodeo editing on wikipedia is it something I did wrong or that I don't know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Handberry (talk • contribs) 08:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's all about referencing. If you can provide a reliable WP:RS and verifiable WP:V source that shows the producer's involvement, then go ahead and add the new information and supporting references. --10mmsocket (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Important
We're no strangers to fire truck You know the rules and so do I A full fire truck’s what I'm thinking of You wouldn't get this from any other fire truck I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand Never gonna give fire truck up Never gonna let fire truck down Never gonna run around and desert fire truck Never gonna make fire truck cry Never gonna say goodbye to fire truck Never gonna tell a lie and hurt fire truck We've known each fire truck for so long Inside we both know what's been going on We know the page and we're gonna edit it And if you ask me how I'm feeling Don't tell me you're too blind to see Never gonna give fire truck up Never gonna let fire truck down Never gonna run around and desert fire truck Never gonna make fire truck cry Never gonna say goodbye to fire truck Never gonna tell a lie and hurt fire truck Never gonna give fire truck up Never gonna let fire truck down Never gonna run around and desert fire truck Never gonna make fire truck cry Never gonna say goodbye to fire truck Never gonna tell a lie and hurt fire truck Never gonna give, never gonna give (Give you up) We've known each other for so long Your edits been annoying but you're too shy to say it Inside we both know what's been going on We know the page and we're gonna edit it I just wanna tell you how I'm feeling Gotta make you understand Never gonna give fire truck up Never gonna let fire truck down Never gonna run around and desert fire truck Never gonna make fire truck cry Never gonna say goodbye to fire truck Never gonna tell a lie and hurt fire truck Never gonna give fire truck up Never gonna let fire truck down Never gonna run around and desert fire truck Never gonna make fire truck cry Never gonna say goodbye to fire truck Never gonna tell a lie and hurt fire truck Never gonna give fire truck up Never gonna let fire truck down Never gonna run around and desert fire truck Never gonna make fire truck cry Never gonna say goodbye to fire truck
Ashfaque Nabi
How can I create a Page with this name, your help will be really appreciable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afiu07081320 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Draft process for new articles is not my specialist. Go to the Teahouse - see the link in your own talk page - and you will get really good help there. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Minor change
Hello there. There is no reference to the definitive statement made in the article that I have edited. It was therefore prudent to have changed "mediated" to "may have mediated" in the article in question which you have stated. Please act according to your discretion. Auror812 (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi, 10mmsocket. Thank you for reporting Volarmediahouse at WP:AIV. I have blocked the user and deleted their userpage. Please note, though, that it's even better to report cases of promotional username + promotional edits at WP:UAA, which is patrolled by admins that specialize in such cases. Bishonen | tålk 07:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC).
- I learned something new. Thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the official website an editorial?
I'm not a sockpuppet, but a new made because I don't know the password. I've never pretended not to be someone else. And look at it. https://www.skku.edu/skku/about/s620/sub02_03.do The site is the official website of Sungkyunkwan University and clearly states that university approval was in the 1940s. What are you looking at to say no to? Okfneoc (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever you think it was called, the reference you gave in the edit is clear - it talks about "the university" back into the 1300s. Anyone checking that reference would be happy to support that this is one of the world's oldest universities even if different names may have been used in different periods.--10mmsocket (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
MicroImages, Inc.
This article has concerned me for some time, and you reminded me today via your prod to look into it again. There's further related articles all linked to the parent you've prodded, being TNTmips and TNTlite. I suspect all 3 of them are long standing non-notable spam. I've listed the latter 2 at AfD. -- Longhair\talk 09:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll take a look at the two AfD's and support as appropriate. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Hindu Diet
Please be more specific concerning the WP:NOR you claim I inserted ? thanks BLPcleaner (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Todor66.com
http://todor66.com/volleyball/Asia/index_Men.html
http://todor66.com/handball/Asia/index_Women.html
also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungary_men%27s_national_handball_team#Competitive_record
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fatma Ataallah (talk • contribs) 15:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Routine arithmetic is fine - but only when there are sources for the data. You just added what could be random data and large empty tables to articles? You are clearly an experienced editor with a newly-registered account so you must understand the need to provide reliable sourced WP:RS, not blogs or fansites. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sources should be properly referenced, not just added into an article as a bare URL or added as part of the edit summary. They must be part of the content. Futhermore sources should be reliable WP:RS. todor66.com is a fansite written by an individual, not a noted authority, not a noted publication, not an official source such as a sports authority. It's just stuff added onto the Internet by some well-meaning enthusiast. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
dear user , This site is the largest site for team sports results. I saw that it was also used in dozens of Wikipedia articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Asian_Men%27s_Volleyball_Championship
See the source of this article. This is the only site in the whole web that has old and valid results of team disciplines. How do you claim it is not valid? There is no other resource in the entire web space.
In basketball and football, the results have been accurately recorded by the relevant authorities. But this is not the case due to the weak structure of handball or volleyball. The source site updates the old results almost monthly by getting old archives. So we do not have another site at the moment. All the first ten rounds of Asian handball are referenced to this site
see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1987_Asian_Women%27s_Handball_Championship#External_links
I untagged User:L brouard
Hello,
I removed the speedy tag that you added to User:L brouard because it seemed to be a valid draft in the wrong place. I moved the page to Draft:Alice Brouard. I hope that the user will be able to turn the draft into an acceptable article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Good move and thank you for explaining. If I see this sort of thing in the future should I boldly do it myself, or seek the assistance of an admin? I err towards the former. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Note
On List_of_United_Kingdom_mobile_virtual_network_operators why did you remove Talkmobile? I agree with other users, that your removals are not beneficial to the wider community and the previous list should be reinstated.
How come you did not look at the source I wrote in the edit?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianwall (talk • contribs) 09:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
- It would be better to discuss this on the article's talk page. Talkmobile had no article and wasn't referenced. Why should it be listed? See WP:V WP:RS and WP:OR there's no exemption for those in any article.
- As for your source in an edit summary - they don't belong there, they belong in the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The full explanation is at MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#description. From what I can see, it's an organization and not a place, so it should probably also be using an infobox appropriate for organizations, hence the 'removal'.
I have no objection to any ultimate template you might prefer, but either a template is used or the page will eventually lose its styling. (I happen to be working on MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Bordered at present.) IznoPublic (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
- Understood. It's a very odd setup - the base is two very clearly defined geographical enclaves that exist within the country of Cyprus. But then again I now see that the area is fully covered by the article Akrotiri and Dhekelia and that this article is indeed as you say about an agency within that area. So that means your changes were indeed correct and I apologise. Have at it! 10mmsocket (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
FEMA
I have edited the FEMA page to reflect the truth about the organisation and not have it look like a Neil liversidge fan page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wimtaal (talk • contribs) 16:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- I can sympathise with that, but as someone with a clear conflict of interest, to do such a radical edit rings alarm bells. Do me favour - list on the article's talk page what is wrong and why, then another editor (like me) can make the necessary changes as we see fit. As an active motorcyclist I have an interest in the topic, but as I'm not a member of MAG I have no conflict of interest. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
SE Trains : Charing Cross - Dartford (via Bexleyheath) route.
I have edited the page to remove New Cross and St Johns stations from the Charing Cross - Dartford route as no services to/from Charing Cross serve New Cross and St Johns Stations. Source: https://timetables.southeasternrailway.co.uk/#/timetables/585/Timetable5b . 2A02:C7F:F65B:8A00:1014:BD5E:35EB:85AE (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
- Perfect. Add the source to the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Now you are just being very petty, I linked the article directly to what I added, and you still delete it because what? It isnt a source, if that isnt a source then I have no clue what is. And how is that the train information that is already there does not have any references/sources, for all you know they could have pulled that number out of their head, and when it says in the current Southeastern Railway page on wikipedia that there are 8 (30 future) with no reference, what you are doing seems very odd. Please sort it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trainsarecool123 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is really easy to format references. [This is an inline link https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/09/southeastern-city-beam-trains-enter-service-in-london.html], not a reference. This is a reference - <ref>{{cite news | url = https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2021/09/southeastern-city-beam-trains-enter-service-in-london.html | newspaper = Rail Advent | title = Southeastern City Beam trains enter service in London | first = Chloe | last = White | date = 29 September 2021 | access-date = 2 October 2021}}</ref>''' 10mmsocket (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
- And the onus is on you if you add information to "sort it out" 10mmsocket (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Heritage Unit Editing
It was Shown that UP 1943 Wasnt a Heritage Unit, a Heritage is to Honor a Past RR or Paint Scheme, and CSX 911, 3194 and 1776 Arent Heritage Units since they Dont Acquire Railroads or Past Paint Schemes — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreeperBoy844 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- So why didn't you explain that in your edit summary? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
PSU
Hi - I didn't want to revert the edit again without discussing with you first. So while the PSU article is actually poorly written, it states "As well as PSU they (full-time units) may be called..." which means that in addition to the TSG - who are full time, level 1 public order trained officers - the Met also has other PSU's, which are level 2 trained public order officers, or regular police officers who volunteered to be trained. They can be called up out of their regular units to serve as PSU's during large public order events, such as yesterday's World Cup Qualifier match. I can provide you with some reputable sources that discuss and distinguish the PSU and TSG within the Met if needed, but wondering if you would be OK with me reverting the change? Thanks! CityPride (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
- Reinstate if you want to, but maybe you can be more specific about the Met's other PSUs and give references in the article. That would improve it massively. Thanks for reaching out. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
FYI
re. in case you were not aware of which LTA this was, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting#21_September_2021 (AestheticalBeacon confirmed as a sock of this long-term problem, and, well, the newest one is quacking very loudly). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do dabble in SPI stuff as I learn more - there's a pernicious one who interferes with North East England related articles and emergency services (part of my core interest). I'll look and learn. I really appreciate the heads up. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
iPhone page
iPhone page is protected. Can you let me know do the reference "iPhone 9 is skipped." in the section iPhone X? Gldgenga471834gldben (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Go to the article's talk page and create a new section title something like "Edit request" and then list what you need to happen. The page is semi-protected, so once you have a certain number of edits / have had an account for a certain amount of time you will be able to make edits on pages like that yourself (always with references of course if you're adding new info). See WP:AUTOCONFIRM. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
That's semi-protected! Make me adminstrator! Gldgenga471834gldben (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Wait a while!! 10mmsocket (talk) 17:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Arbitrarly revert of edits
Hi
I see that you are arbitrarly reverting edits, mainly in airport pages, justyfing them (as long as I understood) because some references are deleted. Please be informed that ref.s on single routes have to be maintained as long as a route is announced, till it departing date. After that it can be removed as:
- 1 there is NO NEED of referencing any single route
- 2 excessive references led to heavy pages
- 3 Airport destination table recurrently have a ref. at the beginning, linking to airport page where all the ongoing routes are listed. This is ENOUGH for the established routes
- 4 Once a route starts, the refernce usually expire --> no longer meaningful
- 5 In case a reference still active is erased, WP AnomieBOT will authomatically restore it. This is also a smart tool aimed at maintaining proper and meaningful references.
I'm not stating, of course, that ref.s in general are meaningless or useless, but in this case they can not be maintained.
Please stop to revert proper edits, in case of any info I remain at your disposal, in case you want to change something, please use pages' talk sections. Best regards Riktetta (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- We seem to disagree. Everything needs to be referenced and there is no such thing as too many references. Airport route tables are just masses of unreferenced listcruft and original research. They need fundamental root and branch reform but clearly that's not something I'm ever going to achieve on my own. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Edits
Hello, you seem to be reverting edits made to a Wikipedia page where I am updating OLD, OUT OF DATE information. Please refrain from doing so so the page can be up-to-date with the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMAScot (talk • contribs) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Read your talk page. Understand the implications of the COI issue here. Stop editing. Go to the talk page and tell others what needs changing. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand. There is no "advertising". It is factually inaccurate information being updated to be correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMAScot (talk • contribs) 10:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- You obviously don't understand. This is your own article. You should not be editing it. Go to the article's talk page, list what's wrong (together with supporting references as appropriate) and wait for others to make the corrections. You cannot edit your own article. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry
Im sorry if i did something wrong but i could not find any wrong spellings in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HelperUnknown (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
- Whenever you make a change on Wikipedia you should explain what you did in the edit summary. In the case of maintenance templates you should also give your reason why you think it is no longer needed. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Question to mistake I did
Hello 10mmsocket!
Thank you for your message on my board. I´m a little confused and maybe you can help me out! :) I added on the Kon-Boot topic new information's about the system where it works with. Those information I got are from the original website from Kon-Boot (https://www.piotrbania.com/all/kon-boot/). When you click here on "Supported Operating Systems", you can see that the changes I made, should be valid. So I was hoping, that you could point out my mistake here? I probably forgot something? Hope I don´t create extra work, I would love to be helpful and be part of this.
CelvinB (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you can provide a reference that shows those operating systems are supported, then add it to the article alongside the information that you add. There are some links about referencing on your talk page - or look at how others have done it in that article. Ideally a third party reference confirming OS support (i.e. not their main website) should be used - but theirs would be OK if nothing else is available. Feel free to ask again if you have any questions. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Bhima
Hello 10mmsocket!
I just added some general fact in the article of Bhima. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viratyuddh24 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Wikipedia needs more facts. You are very welcome to add general facts *if* they are supported by verifiable. references from a reliable source. See the links I left on your talk page for more info. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
???
The information was lies from the Bulgarian and Greek governments. The sources did not line up to the what the article said. If you're a Oswald Mosely fan account, I can understand that, but it is simply incorrect what the article included. By the logic of that article, Norwegian is not a language. It is just Bulgarian politicians in spreading propaganda. In the late 1940's Bulgaria recognized Macedonian as a language. Yugoslavia had a falling out with the USSR, so that is why this issue came about. I know that limeys are ignorant, but please make an attempt at understanding history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsfdaf (talk • contribs) 17:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
cancelling my edits
While editing the page I found a right page source at indiantechunter's page so I embeded it. What was wrong in that edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techshadow4 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
- See WP:RS then see indiantechunter's "about us" page. It's a single user blog. It's one person's opinion on tech news. It is not a reliable source. It's that simple. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi
Brother/Sister why did you revert my 2 edits ! Just click on the link , where it is written in blue that Super Mario Bros is the eighth most sold game. It is clearly written on that list, that Super Mario Bros are 6th most sold game and more than 58 million copies were sold. I would have put citiation but I thought it was obvious. Also, if you could help me, how to provide citiation in android. I would have done it IAmYourLOVE76 (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I have zero idea about Android or editing using Wikipedia from a mobile browser. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Charter flights
Hi...I need to clarify a doubt from you...could you please tell me whether charter flights can be added in an airport's article in the destinations section..?...would be great if you would answer this....thank you Adithya003 (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- No idea. Not my area of speciality. Try asking at the wikiproject page. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- Here you go - I think the answer is yes, you can include them - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Airports/page_content#Airlines_and_destinations 10mmsocket (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
EMR 156s for northern
Hi 10mmsocket, please revert the edits as the information on the Northern Trains page is correct (at time of writing). Please check the UK Rail Forums thread "EMR class 156s for Northern" as this is where all of my information will come from. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/emr-class-156s-for-northern.221430/page-5 The fact that EMR 156s are going to northern is already reference in the "future fleet" section of the page, so people should be aware that stock numbers will be changing. Thanks, Enterprise1701c (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- A rail forum is not a reliable source WP:RS 10mmsocket (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to reference it then, we already have modern railways reference in the "Future fleet" section, which proves that 156s are going to be transferred from EMR to Northern Trains. So surely that is enough to warrant changing the information, especially since information about the stock movements can be found online. Ethier way, at the time of writing, 156401/156402/156415 have have been transferred and we surley want the information to be correct? Any ideas for a reference would be great. Thanks, Enterprise1701c (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I have found another source to support 156 stock movements and added it to the "Northern Trains" page. While I believe the source is appropriate, the additional sentences could do with been changed to flow better if you feel like it. New source: https://www.ukraillog.co.uk/150-159 Enterprise1701c (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Edinburgh Airport edits
Greetings! I've noticed the referencing to the "independent source" guideline at the top of the destination section and removal of various content that "violates" it, including the removal of some including Vueling and Virgin Atlantic following the latter's launch of service to Barbados on 5 December. The corresponding articles would still list the services, as well as Virgin Atlantic's destination list which at least includes some amount of indpenedent sources. I'm curious–what is the rationale for the removal of some airlines from the list per "independent sources only", but not others, many of which are still present either cite the airline's press releases, or aren't cited at all?
I do agree that bare URLs to an airline's homepage is insufficient (me personally, I'm often tempted to at least alias duplicates when I see the same URL/source copypasted several times, and following launch, isn't exactly useful for future-proofing...I've also noticed who generally does these bare URL duplicate citations), though at the same time many scheduling changes are constantly loaded given the state of air travel these days, that not every route will have a journalist to write a piece on each one, where said journalists will be referring to airline booking engines most of the time anyway (or something equally unciteable, such as an internal reservation engine). Perhaps there is rationale for these changes to not always be added, and perhaps this is only vaguely related, but there was some discussion on whether the tables be present at all; editors seemed to agree that a sizable amount of volunteers keeping the information constantly updated was enough to leave them be, among other things.
Please advise. ChainChomp2 (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- I may have been a bit overzealous on one or two edits, but in general if the URL doesn't immediately take you to a page that references a particular newly-announced / to-be-launched-in-the-future flight, then it's not a valid reference. The worst offenders as mentioned are the bare URLs to the airline's front page. Happy to be reverted on the Virgin/Vuelling but I stand by my Ryanair changes in particular. As for the existence of the tables, they are a huge magnet for original research WP:OR. People see them, fiddle with them and others tolerate the fiddling. Before we know it we have a table that bears no relation to actual fact. This happens a lot with lists, which is essentially what this is - see WP:LISTCRUFT. I'd be in favour of removing them altogether - see WP:NOTDIR - just because we can list something doesn't mean we actually have to. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Edit war
You are getting into an edit war on Merseyrail. You are pushing your opinion. Wisdom-inc (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
- You need to time out Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Ayumi Morita Edit Rejection
I apologize, just trying to figure out how to cite an app.
These ITF tournaments are so low on the food chain there aren't articles written about them.
The info is accurate I promise. Wouldn't try to make up something so insignificant lol!
I'll try to find a way to cite the app Bartolifan1 (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- If they are low on the food chain then they are not notable - see WP:NOTABILITY. If something is not notable then it doesn't belong on Wikipedia and should be removed. Sorry if that's not the answer you want, but without notability and reliable sources WP:RS content doesn't belong here. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Minor barnstar |
| For making a bunch of minor edits to HS2 rolling stock that made it look a lot better. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 09:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
- Thank you. Always happy to help improve content that other work hard to create! --10mmsocket (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
East midlands railway edits
I'm going to revert the edits about the class 153s, being withdrawn because these were actually cited with additional information! Please read my edits properly before reverting them! There is already a citation on this page to support 156s to northern, so I don't think we need to cite individual unit moves, but if it makes you feel better, I won't update 156 movements until we get an updated source from somewhere (I do keep looking for one). If you know a better way to cite individual unit moves between operators, please say so. Thanks 87.115.186.177 (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for being a but harsh before, it's just because I know the information is correct, I'm just unable to find a source apart from the one that's already on the page. I understand that any updates need to be supported by sources. Thanks Enterprise1701c (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- If something is sourced elsewhere on a page, then you should repeat that reference using the reference's name. If you don't know how to name a reference or make repeat calls to a single reference then feel free to ask. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. There is a citation in the "past fleet" table next to the text "Northern Trains" (it's called "More 156s for Northern") so there is information to support stock movements. I'm just trying to figure out how to cite every time a unit is transferred and I change the number of 156s. So some help with that would be great. Thanks, Enterprise1701c (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- What reliable sources are available? How do you know in the first place that units are transferred? 10mmsocket (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I know when the units are transferred because I see it on Rail Forum threads or on Facebook groups, but I can't use them as references Enterprise1701c (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Original research rules on WP are a big frustration. What you know absolutely to be correct and true cannot be included because it cannot be proved through reliable verifiable sources. It is what it is unfortunately. There's absolutely nothing you can do about it. Just focus on changing the stuff that you can provide references for. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
CORNWALL AIR AMBULANCE
Many thanks for coming back to me about my recent edit to the Cornwall Air Ambulance page. As the instigator of the project I have produced a booklet (published by LULU and sold through online outlets like Amazon) called 'GENESIS of the CORNWALL AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE' Some of the proceeds are donated to the CAAT charity. They also sell the book in their charity shops.
I have recently found enough additional material to allow me to flesh out the story of how the project was started back in the summer of 1986 and this will go towards a second edition to be published next year. In the very early days of the project during the period running up to the start date and for the following year or so we received much support from the public but there was a significant and voluble section of the clinical and political worlds that were staunch opponents. The CAAT were unhappy about me mentioning this aspect of the story for these people and organisations are now strong supporters. However, I think the time has come to include these aspects of the history and these will be included in the second edition of my book.
The NHS manage who became my partner in the project chose to air brush me out of the picture quite early on but as he was the one taking considerable risks in supporting the project within the Cornwall Health Service I let that go by. Sadly over the last 30 plus years the extent of the air brushing has widened to the point where the people now running the Air Ambulance Charity know very little about what really happened back in those early days.
At the tender age of 73 I am determined that before I escape this mortal coil the air brushing will itself be erased and the full story will emerge.
Naturally you know nothing of my bona fides and it is reassuring that you are taking the time to verify the material I have added. I have enough documentary evidence to show the truth of the matter and will gladly share this with you if you wish.
I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Kind Regards
Geoff Newman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoffincornwall (talk • contribs) 23:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- See my comments on your page about conflict of interest, which is discussed in fuller detail Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Wikipedia does not care about the truth, it cares about information supported by reliable sources Wikipedia:Reliable sources that are verifiable Wikipedia:Verifiability. Self-published sources, such as your book, with their obvious conflict of interest, are not reliable sources That can be a bitter pill for those who really do know the truth, but cannot provide sources to support it. It's unfortunate, but without it the credibility of the encyclopaedia would be seriously undermined. What seems like air brushing to you is simply stating the facts as they can be demonstrated to be true by reliable verifiable sources. Anything else is original research Wikipedia:OR and has no place here. 10mmsocket (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Airline destinations
I prefer it that Sean start giving bare links to independent sources than properly formatted ones to non-independent sources. After all, that is an improvement in sourcing. Training in proper formatting can be done later. The Banner talk 09:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- I can see that. Hopefully you've notice he uses two accounts but it should be enough to notify just the one. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have seen that. The Banner talk 10:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect though what are people meant to do, not every route will have an independent source for it and sometimes putting in a link to a non independent source is a good placeholder until such content becomes available for sourcing GeorgeN123 (talk) 00:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but for future routes I fundamentally disagree. Wikipedia:Listcruft is something I loathe - lists that over time grow organically with more and more unsourced information. So main train company articles already have this in their rolling stock sections. If new information cannot be sourced then it should not be added. I'm sure @The Banner agrees with me. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but you clearly don’t understand all the rules then as Wikipedia states the following:
“ If a change is merely "unsatisfactory" in some way, undoing/reverting should not be the first response. Editors should either make a reasonable attempt to improve the change, or should simply leave it in place for future editors to improve.”
You don’t try and improve the topic and you don’t leave it in place for somebody else to fix, but rather you just delete them which it says you should not do. GeorgeN123 (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Just for the record, I had to cleanup a-lot of the things you left behind by making this edit: [1]. I am fine with the font of the "remarks" being enlarged per MOS:ACCESS, but templates are another story. If you have an issue with the font size of {{Unknown}} then you might want to address it at Template talk:Table cell templates as I know a-lot of list articles use this in their tables. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
British Rail Class 150 - 150209/212
Hi @10mmsocket, I see you reverted my edit on the above page regarding 150209 and its formation with a DMS of 150212 after their respective accidents. Could I ask why this was reverted? Would this ref help in the matter? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
- Flickr captions might be acceptable if it was a photo and comments by the train company, for example. in this case it looks like it's an enthusiast and would therefore fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources 10mmsocket (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks @10mmsocket - although it seems User:Prepopots has already beaten me to it! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Airlines and destinations
Hi, can you just confirm what information should be visible on a pages reference list. I am assuming a link, the name of the organisation that published it and the date of publication.GeorgeN123 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Link, name of organisation (or newspaper/magazine if you're citing a news article) as a minimum. It is generally good practice to put in an access-date= so that other readers can see when the reference was added (or last checked/updated). If there is a publication date and author then both of those are a bonus (author tends to be represented by first= and last=). 10mmsocket (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
Hello,
is is possible to request CheckUser right now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Politialguru? You can make your decision, since you opened first (1 minute before I did, which is now deleted.) Thank you! Severestorm28 22:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- How do I do that? Feel free to do it for me? 10mmsocket (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Done. Severestorm28 22:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I can see now what you did. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wow that was a quick admin response! 10mmsocket (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Timetable Reverts
Hi 10mmsocket, I have all the TOC pages on my Watchlist (argh!) and I see a few times you have reverted information about current timetables, e.g. LNER train to Middlesbrough, and today the changes made to the West Mids Rly article. Could I kindly ask why you revert good faith edits (in my eyes), rather than finding a source for that information on their website, then:
- Adding this to the new information, or
- Reverting or modifying the changes made based on the information from the operator.
I don't like making these messages (I'm getting diagnosed with autism later this month hopefully, so I have problems with tone online and so on), but I just felt it was necessary after the number of these types of edits. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- See [[WP:BURDEN]] - it is the responsibility of those adding information to provide up-to-date verifiable reliable sources 10mmsocket (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Great British Railways Transition Team logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Great British Railways Transition Team logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. JaJaWa |hello 16:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I am not sure what you are talking about? The image is used exactly where the non-free logo rational says it is being used. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Train service routes
Hello. I made some changes to the Northern Trains page, and you undid it when I told everyone not to. You put "Please do not undo is like a red rag to a bull". You have also undone other pages that people have changed, as I have seen on your talk page. I was removing information that wasn't needed, simplified another route, and moved that route to another section on the page. I was doing that for a reason. You have also done this previously, and I want you to stop. If I change another please do not undo it. 88.97.111.167 (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC).
- You should properly explain why something is not need. If appropriate give a reference. Deletion without proper explanation will always be reverted. Sorry but that's the way it is. Nothing personal. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Edit warring
FYI, I have raised a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding User:Telanian7790. As you were a participant in the edit war, you may need to contribute. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- thank you 10mmsocket (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- b.t.w. are you going to revert his/her latest addition, i.e. the revert of your removal? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Given that I did the EW and 3RR vio report, it is best that I don't become a participant in the dispute. I'll tag it as disputed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks again. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Given that I did the EW and 3RR vio report, it is best that I don't become a participant in the dispute. I'll tag it as disputed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi 10mm, I added this category whist not logged in, I cannot see a reason why you would revert it considering it is marked as a C1 category station in the infobox. Please could you give reasoning for reverting? - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't disagree with Maurice Oly's reversion. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Politialguru
Looks like an attempt to build up a sufficient count of of pointless edits, in familiar subject areas, to circumvent page protections: User:AlexRunh. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ooh nice spot. Looks like editing has stopped now he's been rumbled. Watching though... 10mmsocket (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
User:2A01:4C8:1400:3A5:D8BE:FE68:5D5A:612E, User:2A01:388:261:150:0:0:1:15A, User:2A01:4C8:1423:17D3:91F4:DF55:E381:F52A, User:109.175.143.51. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Watching. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- They're going their dinger tonight; add: User:2A01:388:261:150:0:0:1:184, User:109.175.143.50 Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:2A01:4C8:1C0A:2815:20E3:FCD4:69AA:3C99 Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Sleeper: User:Francisbishopdown? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:2A01:4C8:1C0A:2815:20E3:FCD4:69AA:3C99 Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- They're going their dinger tonight; add: User:2A01:388:261:150:0:0:1:184, User:109.175.143.50 Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Electro-diesel multiple unit
Electro-diesel multiple unit ; why you delete all the edits, not just that about picture? please check and restore what was good (hitachi blues italian train) --5.171.9.166 (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
|
Thank you for making constructive edits to Gateshead Millennium Bridge while it was a DYK article! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC) |
Convert
So, we don't use that "convert" that template as a kind of default? Drmies (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand your point. I removed the second convert of 5 miles simply because the exact same convert was in same paragraph. It seemed redundant. Was that wrong? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't see it was already mentioned--no, I was genuinely curious. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Apologies for not explaining properly in my edit summary - something I always tried to do. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- See, there are parts of the MOS I know really well, but there's others where I don't. And whenever I write up distances, I do it the lazy way--thinking that there will be someone who'll put it in the right template if need be. That's why I was asking, because I didn't (or don't) know if that conversion template, for instance, is highly recommended or whatever. Same with conversions for "old" money amounts, that sort of thing. And, of course, what does a 10mm socket approximate to? 3/8? Drmies (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- 3/8 AF spanner/socket yes. A 10mm socket (or spanner) is what you can never find when you want it. The whole set is there but the 10mm is always missing. As for the conversion template I like using it because there can be no question over the mathematics and I liberally apply the abbreviation parameter when abbreviations are most commonly used, e.g. common for km, km/h, mph, mm, kg, lb; less common for inch and mile. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- See, there are parts of the MOS I know really well, but there's others where I don't. And whenever I write up distances, I do it the lazy way--thinking that there will be someone who'll put it in the right template if need be. That's why I was asking, because I didn't (or don't) know if that conversion template, for instance, is highly recommended or whatever. Same with conversions for "old" money amounts, that sort of thing. And, of course, what does a 10mm socket approximate to? 3/8? Drmies (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Apologies for not explaining properly in my edit summary - something I always tried to do. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- I didn't see it was already mentioned--no, I was genuinely curious. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
New message from DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Angel of the North § Angel model at Eggleston Hall Gardens. DBaK (talk) 12:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Just joined in. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
New message
Hi yea I’m the Newcastle International Airport guy, listen I’m sorry For mistakes I’m a beginner 2A02:C7E:1804:8F00:D094:F2EB:3A24:E92 (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
HS2 article and Wigan
Hi @10mmsocket, could you have a look at edits on the HS2 page again? Don't know enough about HS2 to know about how it will affect Wigan/Golborne. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Will do 10mmsocket (talk) 06:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- That article is a real mess - starting with the lead. I have tidied it up a bit but now really need to cross-reference that everything mentioned in the lead actually corresponds to something in the article. Any help you can give would be wonderful. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:51, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @10mmsocket: for your help with this - unfortunately it's not really my speciality (I have little interest in HS2 as a whole) so can only contribute my Janitor edits in this matter! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. I appreciate the heads-up. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks @10mmsocket: for your help with this - unfortunately it's not really my speciality (I have little interest in HS2 as a whole) so can only contribute my Janitor edits in this matter! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Just a FYI.
I know it didn't impact your decision to remove those lists, but I thought I would tell you anyways:
The Bristol City Council and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council councillor lists DID have a reference/source in those pages, all they were missing was an inline citation.
For the first one it is in the infobox on the right and for the second one it is the last reference before the See Also section.
That's it, that's all I came here to tell you. – 2804:F14:C060:8A01:8848:FCB0:DA3B:DA2E (talk) 08:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. FYI WP:NOTDIR means wikipedia isn't a directory or a random collection of information. Content may well be sourced but it doesn't mean that it should be included. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Yes there is a lot of mixup between ERTMS and ETCS acronyms on the Internet, even in places where writers should have been more serious and specific; ERTMS is just a global term for grouping multiple railway-specific technologies (in current state only GSM-R and ETCS, ERA also adds operating rules but I do not know if those are actually implemented somewhere or even formally defined) but it doesn't represent anything by itself. It should not appear in any text except one explaining ETCS or GSM-R or ERTMS itself; the signalling technology name is either ETCS or ERTMS/ETCS but not ERTMS. And writing "ERTMS Level 2" is just a mistake illustrating the mixup between terms since there is no such things like levels for ERTMS. I have made the modification because I think Wikipedia at least should be specific about that. — François [Discussion] 10:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
So there is
PEEL inspection of the Peelers? Hmmm. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Who ever said police have no sense of humour? 10mmsocket (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Telanian7790
If you're interested, Telanian7790 has made a complaint about me - [2]. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Bludgeoning. That did make me laugh. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- Me too. thanks for the support. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Just a note to thank you for making sure I was aware of what was going on over my bad editing :-) Afterbrunel (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
- No worries and thanks for the acknowledgement. My action was simply common courtesy - something that seems to be lacking in places! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Edit warring
You shouldn't have engaged in edit-warring on Talk:College of Policing, that's what noticeboards are for. Rather than reverting the original hat, you should have just moved the hab to the proper location. I understand your frustration with the other editor, just don't get baited into inappropriate behavior because of it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- Noted. b.t.w. I had never seen a Hat used before but now I know how to collapse stuff which is very useful. I agree I shouldn't have seen red and apologise. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Councillors
Has there been discussion on taking all mention of "Cllr" out? To me, it is a different type of honorific to Mr/Mrs, because it differentiates people who are elected members of a body from e.g. other officials mentioned on the article of a local authority. Rcsprinter123 (consult) 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- No just being bold based on precedent from other articles, e.g. things like US Senate and House of Representatives where the honorific "Senator" or "Congressman/woman" is not used. I think it unnecessary and anachronistic. I see your point but in 90% or more of the cases I have made edits I don't think it would have made any difference. Happy to discuss further of course if you think there's an appropriate forum to do so. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Northern Powerhouse Rail
Hi there, just wanted to let you know why I changed the formatting of the "nbsp"s at Northern Powerhouse Rail. I'd never seen {{nbsp}} - my experience is mostly with very basic formatting fixes, and I'm much more familiar with & n b s p; (pardon the spaces, I can't get the blasted thing to display correctly in text here...)
Some nbsps in the text at that article weren't displaying correctly. If you scan down the article now, you'll see several of them appearing in the text. When I changed them, I figured someone had just gotten the formatting wrong (I had also just fixed several broken ones at other articles, like: & nbsp; / nbsp; / &bsp;), so I just thought these nbsps in brackets were another error, and I changed all of them at Northern Powerhouse Rail. Now I see that the visible ones in this article are just missing a bracket, which I'll fix.
Hope that makes sense... just wanted to let you know my (mistaken) reasoning, and to thank you for alerting me to something new about formatting. Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for the message and understanding. I find it so much easier to use it. Also look at {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} - the former is great for formatting ranges of numbers and dates because you can be completely sure the correct dash is used. --10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- In all three cases, the templated form -
{{nbsp}}{{ndash}}{{mdash}}- is two characters longer than the html entities –—. The templates also take longer to process for zero benefit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)- Really good points, thanks. I doubt Wikimedia foundation is CPU or storage constrained, so the benefit as I see it is ease of editing and elegance. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- In all three cases, the templated form -
Citation template errors
Your recent changes are not quite right. The reason has to be specified with |reason=. MB 17:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Good catch thanks 10mmsocket (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing some of my bad edits, that was kind of you. I have now gone back and fixed the others. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
railscot.co.uk
Morning, just wondered where I could link to for the removal of the above URL as a fansite? Attempted to remove it from Rutherglen railway station but was reverted... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't but per WP:DUCK it looks like a fansite, it smells like a fansite, etc... Look at the contributor list - there's 347 of them. The whole look & feel is amateur. Every article has a named author but nowhere can I see any attempt to establish the credibility of those authors - and that's because they're all fans/amateurs/spotters. It's an amazing resources for fans of Scottish rail, but it is not encyclopaedic - WP:SPS etc. That said, maybe we should start a discussion at WP:RSN? 10mmsocket (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, that would be a good idea. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just started it over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#railscot.co.uk - feel free to add any comments. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- You beat me to it - I was just composing. Will do. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Been a couple of days without any opposing - do you want to start removing all the Rs links?
I think the name is something of a red herring - they seem to cover all of GB, judging by the website! I've created a redirect here to link straight to the section of the noticeboard, for ease. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Much appreciated. I'll take a crack at it later. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Just attempted to compile a list of a 'hitlist' of unreliable sources for rail articles here - any others you can add feel free to edit the page directly. Got a few but you will know more than me about others. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nice. I'll add to it for sure. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Removing external links
Why are you removing external links like this? Where is the policy or guideline that forbids them? Also, if the website "does not release images under a Wikipedia-compatible licence", the images certainly can't be uploaded to Commons, where the rules are stricter than English Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:External links is quite strict on the sort of links that should be allowed. Fansites like that fall foul as far as I'm concerned. If you feel different then revert. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then you should be linking it in your edit summaries, such as WP:ELNO#EL11 or whichever one applies. But I cannot find anything on that page about galleries that do not release images under a Wikipedia-compatible licence. You need to be accurate when giving reasons for making unilateral removals in large quantities, otherwise you can be sanctioned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Noted, thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Then you should be linking it in your edit summaries, such as WP:ELNO#EL11 or whichever one applies. But I cannot find anything on that page about galleries that do not release images under a Wikipedia-compatible licence. You need to be accurate when giving reasons for making unilateral removals in large quantities, otherwise you can be sanctioned. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Politialguru
User:Politialguru is active again at User:109.175.143.49. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Taking a break?
Hi, just wondered if you were just taking a break? Been off for 3 months or so... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
- Me, too. Where are you, 10mmsocket? You were busy, busy, busy and then just never came back one day. I hope you return should you want to edit again. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
@Mattdaviesfsic and @Liz thank you both for your interest in my whereabouts, I'm touched. I'm fine though. No issues. It's just that real life takes over some times. As the big Austrian man's character says "I'll be back" --10mmsocket (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Re: Hampshire Constabulary
Hi, the police area was actually renamed in July https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/790/made. Mike Rohsopht (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Great Cockcrow Railway
Hiya, just thought you might be interested in some of this original research, [here] - see page history for more as well. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nice one, thank you. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not happy with the removal of tags, especially the main {{refimprove}} tag. Can you keep an eye too? 10mmsocket (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Also note the COI for one of the major contributors. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Is Brunswick Green Doesnt Exist (talk · contribs) and Iexist69 (talk · contribs) the same person? I smell shenanigans... 10mmsocket (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Oh boy, I'll get mah broom! --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Great work, thanks! Will keep an eye on the page over the next few days, certainly. Thanks once again! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
At it again, worried I might be done for going past WP:3RR now - happy to be a Wikipedia martyr! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Just seen your message on the WikiProject - thanks. If you wanted to, have a look through Template:Ridable_miniature_railways_in_England for starters! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for removing the Roblox game messages from disambiguation and talk pages of British rail transport articles. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC) |
- Thank you! 10mmsocket (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello there... About the class 315 thing
Let me explain why I didn't include citation...At first I was just gonna remove the unit 315838 and 315847 from the elizabeth line section because there is about 10 videos of them being dragged away. I was going to move them into the scrapped section but then I saw that there are 61 units build but it said that 53 scrapped and 6 in the elizabeth line so thats a total of 59 unit. I thought like wait what happen to that 2 unit? Then I went and count all the scrapped 315 unit and guess what? It doesn't match. I remember I counted 39 scrapped units. So in my head I was like wait so they confirmed that there is 53 scrapped units but 39 units are listed only? I couldn't click on any citation because well it isn't a link. Then I thought hey maybe those editors forgot to add the unit number I have time why don't I do it. I didn't think to change the 53 units back to 39 units because if it wasn't confirm there is bound to be people like you who revert the edits. Thats why I decided to go on youtube and go through all the videos that were about 315 units being dragged away and put them into the scrapped section. Yeah. Thats it honestly but one more thing let us count the amount of class 315 listed as scrapped. 315801(1) 315802(2) 315803(3) 315804(4) 315807(5) 315808(6) 315809(7) 315812(8) 315814(9) 315815(10) 315816(11) 315818(12) 315819(13) 315820(14) 315821(15) 315822(16) 315823(17) 315825(18) 315826(19) 315829(20) 315831(21) 315832(22) 315833(23) 315834(24) 315835(25) 315839(26) 315842(27) 315843(28) 315844(29) 315848(30) 315849(31) 315850(32) 315851(33) 315854(34) 315858(35) 315860(36) 315861(37) wait is 37 units actually. Shouldn't people put 37 units scrapped and 16 presumed scrap or something, isn't that better? Moreover as I said earlier, There was many ideos and photos talking about 838 and 847 being dragged away 3 days ago. Which means they aren't opperating on elizabeth line anymore. I can't confirm that they are headed for scrap but they aren't part of elizabeth line anymore. Thats the end thx for reading. 42.98.8.2 (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- I appreciate the effort you put in, but there are rules against using things like youtube videos and flickr images. See WP:SPS and WP:UGC and WP:YOUTUBE. People's own videos and images simply cannot be classed as reliable sources. If it's a train company's own video or photo then that's something different. --10mmsocket (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- At least change the number of units from 53 to 37 if you like to follow rules this much because THERE IS LITERALLY 16 UNITS NOT CONFIRMED TO BE SCRAPPED AND YOU PEOPLE NEVER EVEN CHANGE IT 42.98.8.2 (talk) 14:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry for the caps btw. I am kinda mad that the number doesn't match only 42.98.8.2 (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Find reliable and verifiable references to support the number. Then it can be changed. It's often a real frustration for editors when they can 't post what they know to be true - but that's the way this place works unfortunately. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- 42.98.8.2, you should read WP:NOR and WP:V - these are two of Wikipedia's core content policies. If you cannot abide by these, you should not be adding or altering article content. If you can't locate reliable online sources, have you considered the railway press? There are several magazines which describe both the withdrawal from service of locomotives and units, also subsequent scrapping. See my posts at Talk:British Rail Class 332#Edits 13th January 2021 and User talk:Pkbwcgs#British Rail Class 317. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Colour contrast
Hi, can I check what tool you used to measure contrast for the Class 185 and 350 infoboxes? I'd previously checked both of them using the WebAIM Contrast Checker, which is one recommended in MOS:CONTRAST, and found that both combinations (black on #09A4EC or #00BF6F, respectively) did have sufficient contrast to pass WCAG AAA even with small text. That's not to say that they couldn't be better, but I'm curious as to how we achieved differing results. Cheers. XAM2175 (T) 11:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sure. I used the last tool on the same set of links - Snook. It looks at more than contrast, it also looks at colour difference and brightness difference (the first two results in the table). It was only the couple that I changed that failed. Others I have left intact, even though I plain dislike that arbitrary use of colour as a marketing affectation - especially using a TOC's colour for rolling stock. Of course "I don't like it" isn't a valid reason, but at the same time there should be a good reason for using colour and I don't think this is. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for that. If you don't mind I'll experiment to find colours that provide a better contrast, as we do have a general consensus for their use in this manner. XAM2175 (T) 12:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Of course. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Thanks for that. If you don't mind I'll experiment to find colours that provide a better contrast, as we do have a general consensus for their use in this manner. XAM2175 (T) 12:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Your reversion at Nottinghamshire Police
Concerning your knee-jerk "unsourced" reaction.
The content was added by a 2018 SPA, and has endured since; AGF decrees that it should be retained. I only restored it as it was improperly deleted by an inexperienced reader. There was no controversy, and, as such, WP:BURDEN is not applicable.
The correct - and polite - wikiquette would have been to add {{citation needed}}.
I then added ample sourcing from official accounts; there are other secondary sources that I avoided. Now you've now changed tack, with a complaint about including the name; this may be a fair point, but show me policy /guidlelines on this?
The only thing I couldn't verify was 2018 and silver commander. The rest pertained to the re-organisation of that aspect of the local force.
I can understand why editors are being lost. I am a 10-year registered username. Howay the lads .--82.13.47.210 (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- The formation of a department following the breakup of a joint department, plus a few words on what the department achieved, may be noteworthy enough to mention. What is not noteworthy at all is the name of the superintendent who runs it. The focus of what you wrote and the references you gave were all about him and not his department. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
10 trivial edits and then sleep...
I've seen your report about User89392 at WP:AIV. I agree with you that a new account which does ten absolutely trivial edits and then stops is highly suspicious, but there's nothing that can be done until they do something else: we can't block an editor on the grounds of that start. However, if you feel like keeping an eye on the account, and let me know if you see anything more, that may be helpful. From my experience I think there are two likely possibilities. (1) An editor who has created an account in order to edit one or more semi-protected pages, in which case they will probably start their "real" editing in a few days, when they get autoconfirmed. (That may be either an editor evading blocks, or an editor who has never had an account before.) (2) An editor who has created a sleeper sockpuppet, as a contingency, in case their other account(s) get blocked, in which case the new account may not come into use for months, years, or even never. JBW (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
- Good advice. Noted. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Hitachi Newton Aycliffe
Re changing [[Hitachi Newton Aycliffe|Newton Aycliffe]] to [[Hitachi Newton Aycliffe]] in infobox |factory= params, I would have said that this was redundant when the |manufacturer= param is already set to [[Hitachi Rail]]. It feels a bit like prefixing all the references to Derby Litchurch Lane with "BREL"/"Bombardier"/"Alstom" depending on timeframe. I can only really imagine using the "Hitachi Newton Aycliffe" construction in visible text should something be built there by a manufacturer other than Hitachi. XAM2175 (T) 14:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I disagree. There's a big difference between Hitachi Newton Aycliffe and Newton Aycliffe. Displaying the former as the latter is misleading/confusing. The factory is not the town and vice versa. I'd rather be accurate. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's fair. Would "Newton Aycliffe Manufacturing Facility" perhaps be acceptable? Hitachi have used that wording themselves and it avoids the easter-egg link without the apparent duplication. XAM2175 (T) 15:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's much better! 10mmsocket (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- That's fair. Would "Newton Aycliffe Manufacturing Facility" perhaps be acceptable? Hitachi have used that wording themselves and it avoids the easter-egg link without the apparent duplication. XAM2175 (T) 15:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Reply to FAMILYohK.Meade (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC), FAMILYokh.Meade deletion
Hello 10mmsocket, thank you for your concern and corrections.
2 points,
A) Yes, I am a new editor account. Taking a very long time to peruse the vast array of restrictions that are standard for this site are huge!
B) Believed that I was upon my drafting section in error. Hopefully the pages get stored so they can be 'edited down' / 'downscaled', to meet the Wikipedia restrictions over multiple phased edits as my internet connection has limits. Prior to a 'live' publication.
Your profile of activity does you much credit. Shall adjust next attempt better. FAMILYohK.Meade (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion
You tagged User talk:Hippohoppo57 for speedy deletion as promotional, which didn't make any sense. I guess you meant to tag User:Hippohoppo57, which certainly was promotional, and a copyright violation too, so I have deleted that. JBW (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Apologies, you're right. Finger trouble. I'll try to be more careful. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Recent edit on Southern (Govia Thameslink Railway)
Following your message on my talk page, I would like to clarify that my changes were made as Southern's [December 2022 timetable] states that during the off-peak, Cooksbridge is only served by the Victoria to Eastbourne service. Victoria to Ore services do not stop at Cooksbridge. I should have made this clearer in the edit summary. Apologies for this. --Nutfield001 (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for acknowledging. Good luck with future editing. Don't hesitate to ask me or others in the Railways wikiproject for help. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Elected Hereditary Peer pages
OK
If you look at Michael Brougham, 5th Baron Brougham and Vaux and Charles Chetwynd-Talbot, 22nd Earl of Shrewsbury.
I enclose a link and I also enclose the article to show you he was elected as an Hereditary peer to sit in the Lords as automatic membership is repealed. 86.191.237.115 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- It's really easy. It couldn't be simpler. Put the reference in the article when you add information to it. "Look here...", "Look there..." is not a reference. A reference needs to be in the article itself. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Also note, you cannot use Wikipedia as a reference. See WP:CIRCULAR. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999 search Shrewsbury
Class 755 dashes
FYI, those dashes you replaced in the Class 755 article were actually already en-dashes, just entered directly using the Unicode character U+2013 (this one: "–") rather than using a template. It's the first option on the "Insert:" row of the lower toolbar if you're using the Source editor. Depending on your font preferences they can, in fairness, be hard to distinguish from a hyphen in the edit window, but they appear correctly in the final page. Cheers. XAM2175 (T) 12:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure about that. When I used {{ndash}} on the first row then did "preview" the dashes showed up as different lengths. Very interesting point though, thanks and I'll look at it in more depth. 10mmsocket (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, that's odd. I just tried the comparison for myself and they look identical (in Chrome on Windows 10, using the Vector legacy skin). XAM2175 (T) 13:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Safari on MacOS Ventura. Hmmm.... Thanks. I'll have a poke around. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, that's odd. I just tried the comparison for myself and they look identical (in Chrome on Windows 10, using the Vector legacy skin). XAM2175 (T) 13:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Earl of Shrewsbury
Rolling stock reversions
Hiya, controversial edits I've made reducing contents of some pages has not been an easy battle! If you wouldn't mind adding to your watchlist List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway (which has now been protected), List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway and Bo'ness and Kinneil Railway, that would be a great help - thanks. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- 100%!! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hiya, just a note to (remind you?) about WP:COLAS. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- I click "reply" to a topic. It looks like that might bugger up slightly because it doesn't do asterisks. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hiya, just a note to (remind you?) about WP:COLAS. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
NET Tram Top Speed
Hi, you recently reversed a change where I changed the top speed of the NET Tram network to 70 kph. While this was due to the Croyden tram crash, the top speed of the Citadis trams and across the network is 70 kph which is a fact, so why does it require a source to edit incorrect information? The top speed is 70 kph. 82.7.128.23 (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is based on facts with sources cited to back them up. It is not based on personal knowledge. If you change the speed you give a source to prove it. Simple. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Hiya, would you be able to check the (highly likely) WP:SPS/WP:UGC website which an IP has added to this page? My ISP has blocked it for whatever reason...! Thx Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Very much SPS. Website footer says `"This site and its content Copyright © 2023, by Douglas C. Bailey". Removed. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
"virus infected site"
I would like to inquire what exactly you mean when you said that it was a virus infected site. I might agree that the source was not reliable. Sorry for the reversion. Thank you, CutlassCiera 19:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- (Talk page stalker) If this is in regard to British Rail Classes 371, 381 and 471 article, and this diff in particular, I actually think you're in the right, @Cutlass. That particular link leads directly to a PDF that appears to be a supplement from issue 183 of Modern Locomotives Illustrated. Other articles, however, have had links to HTML pages hosted at the same domain (railway-centre.com) which seems to have been hijacked at some point in the past and now redirects links on its pages to various other naughty websites. Some uses of it as a citation have been configured with
|url-status=usurped, which disables the link to the live version and shows only the archive link, but there appear to be some which weren't set that way. This is separate to the question of whether pages at that domain are considered to be acceptable sources. XAM2175 (T) 19:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)- Go to the website and click any of the menu items on the left. The site has been compromised and tries to take over your device. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I addressed that point:
- The edit that Cutlass reverted was to a PDF of a supplement from Modern Locomotives Illustrated and thus there are no menu items to click, and,
- Older archive versions of the website pages are not compromised.
- Therefore, the question simply needs to be "would those pages be suitable sources if they did not contain compromised links?" If yes, they can remain in articles so long as an archive link is provided and the citation template includes the parameter
|url-status=usurped. XAM2175 (T) 20:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)- I think they're dangerous and we should avoid the site - which was never a good resource anyway. I would question whether the stuff they host isn't actually COPYVIO. But if you want to reinstate some that point to intact documents like PDFs then I won't object. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I remember seeing it cited in a few articles here as being a Colin Marsden work, but I realise that they may not be accurate (and also that Marsden doesn't have a 100% perfect reputation either). In any case, I'd actually been working to replace references to that site with better sources where I'd encountered them in my big article clean-ups so we're mostly on the same page – I just hadn't considered them problematic enough to warrant systematic action. Cheers. XAM2175 (T) 21:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think they're dangerous and we should avoid the site - which was never a good resource anyway. I would question whether the stuff they host isn't actually COPYVIO. But if you want to reinstate some that point to intact documents like PDFs then I won't object. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I addressed that point:
- Go to the website and click any of the menu items on the left. The site has been compromised and tries to take over your device. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
steamlocomotive.info
It's a really good website. www.steamlocomotive.info 62.252.18.98 (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a good website, it is self published / user generated content. See WP:SPS / WP:UGC. Do not add it back to Wikipedia. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is an official online website dedicated to Steam Locomotives all around this planet. Plus, they have pictures of some of these locomotives.62.252.18.98 (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Official? By what authority? It is user-generated content created and published by enthusiasts. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I don't mean it's official as in a company. I mean it's official in that this guy makes sure his information on these engines is accurate. Plus, he has pictures.62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- The pictures are copyright so no use whatsoever to Wikipedia. The fact it is one guy is exactly why it is UGC/SPS. Did you read the links? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I read all the links he gave. I am not saying they are HIS pictures. I am saying that you see the locomotives where they are. In the places I am trying to tell you they are at.62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- But you cannot use it as a reference because it fails UGC and SPS. It's that simple. Don't add it. If you keep doing it you will be blocked from editing. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. I read all the links he gave. I am not saying they are HIS pictures. I am saying that you see the locomotives where they are. In the places I am trying to tell you they are at.62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- The pictures are copyright so no use whatsoever to Wikipedia. The fact it is one guy is exactly why it is UGC/SPS. Did you read the links? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I don't mean it's official as in a company. I mean it's official in that this guy makes sure his information on these engines is accurate. Plus, he has pictures.62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Official? By what authority? It is user-generated content created and published by enthusiasts. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- It is an official online website dedicated to Steam Locomotives all around this planet. Plus, they have pictures of some of these locomotives.62.252.18.98 (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
OK. But can you just trust me on the preserved engines I want to add? I won't use these links from steamlocomotive.info 62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Everything on Wikipedia needs to be sourced - see WP:VNT. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- No. Unsourced information isn't allowed. "Trust me" is what people say when they're pushing their own opinions or interpretations. See WP:OR. A lot of editors get frustrated at this. They find it difficult to accept that unsourced information isn't allowed at all. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK. What about heritage railway sites that are about the specific railways?62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- So, South Somerset Railway's own "official" website may be acceptable if you want to reference the fact that a locomotive exists. However if you wanted to to add more about its history or other informationt then you'd need a much better source. Organisation's own websites are known as primary sources and are not preferred / to be avoided if at al possible - see WP:PRIMARY. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I shall return tomorrow with proper sources that prove my work.62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- I look forward to it. Feel free to take a look at WP:RSN if you want to check whether a source is reliable. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- All fixed.62.252.18.98 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Some of those are fantastic, especially the science museum ones, thank you. Note: user-uploaded photos on flickr are not considered to be reliable sources - it falls under WP:UGC. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- All fixed.62.252.18.98 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- I look forward to it. Feel free to take a look at WP:RSN if you want to check whether a source is reliable. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK. I shall return tomorrow with proper sources that prove my work.62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- So, South Somerset Railway's own "official" website may be acceptable if you want to reference the fact that a locomotive exists. However if you wanted to to add more about its history or other informationt then you'd need a much better source. Organisation's own websites are known as primary sources and are not preferred / to be avoided if at al possible - see WP:PRIMARY. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- OK. What about heritage railway sites that are about the specific railways?62.252.18.98 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message on my Talk page. Yes, I had had a brief discussion with Jonty Wilde (talk · contribs) and noted the CoI. I asked him for a reference so I could add the new post and avoid the existing refs being removed - he didn't respond but I have now found a ref and put it in. It's not an especially strongly-referenced article and I'll continue to keep an eye on it. Tacyarg (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you! 10mmsocket (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Editing and data source
Hi, I was looking to try and fix some inaccuracies with the information on a page. A lot of the information on the page is slightly incorrect. It has been taken from sources that previously published simplified and incorrect data.
I can fully understand there being a desire to prevent malicious manipulation of articles upon the site but a swift look at the edits I had undertaken would have seen that nothing was malicious or incorrect it was just seeking to address inaccuracies and make the site more accurate. Stansted TTS (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you are connect to the subject of the article as it would appear then you should not be editing it. Otherwise, please provide sources for the corrections that you are making. See WP:RS, WP:V. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)