User talk:Trainsandotherthings/Archive 1

Trainsandotherthings, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Trainsandotherthings! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

The GE-25 ton page looks really good so far, I'll try and drop some suggestions when I have a chance. I'd had it tacked as something to work on for a little while, as a page is desperately needed. Pokemonprime (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pokemonprime: Glad to hear the positive feedback! Last summer I worked with a railroad that has an operating 25-tonner, so I was surprised to see there wasn't an article on it on Wikipedia, especially when I did research and saw how many were produced (>500). I ordered a book that covers the 25 tonner among other diesels, and I'm waiting for it to arrive (hopefully within the next week) so I can use it as another source before submitting the draft. I'd be glad for any suggestions, help, or references you could provide, as this is my first ever draft. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: GE 25-ton switcher has been accepted

GE 25-ton switcher, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Spicy (talk) 06:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Trainsandotherthings

Thank you for creating GE 25-ton switcher.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

For a first article, this is well done.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whiteguru (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

GP9

Hi Trainsandotherthings, if you think that GP9 should redirect to EMD GP9, please begin a discussion at Talk:GP9. Redirect templates do no belong on disambiguation pages. Leschnei (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Leschnei: How do I go about that process? I am aware of move requests, but as this page is a redirect, what sort of request do I use to propose that GP9 redirects to EMD GP9? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You could go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. One of the first sentences is "If you think a redirect points to the wrong target article, this is a good place to discuss what should be the proper target". Leschnei (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catenary Maintenance Vehicle has been accepted

Catenary Maintenance Vehicle, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tie extractor/inserter has been accepted

Tie extractor/inserter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Spike puller has been accepted

Spike puller, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-Liance^{talk/contribs} 23:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Rollback granted

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. ~TNT (she/they • talk) 21:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I promise to use my new permissions for my evil plan to take over Wikipedia good only. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for creating Erie and Ontario Railway. Clovermoss (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the award, and thanks for suggesting the page. The article would not exist without you taking that photo. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Innapropriate Page Creations

I appreciate you trying to set me on the right track but I need know what pages you are specifically refereing to, I made pages just a couple sentances long a while ago like Ardvar, Unapool, Inverlael, Easter Fearn and nobody ever called them inappropriate I understand that my old articles about single locomotives isn't ok but what about my most recent 2 articles? Allnabad and Loch Dionard, Allnabad's article is smaller that that of Ardvar but it's been nominated for deletion and Loch Dionard has over 400 words but it is apparently to detailed even thought I could have easily doubled what I wrote. So what can I write anymore it seems before everything I wrote was fine but now nothing's enough, could you verify which articles I need to modify. N1TH Music (talk) 08:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:N1TH Music, the issue is that some of the articles you are creating simply do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. Individual locomotives rarely meet this guideline, but there are exceptions. These exceptions all have significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources, for example Union Pacific 4014 and Flying Scotsman (locomotive). That a locomotive is preserved does not automatically mean it is notable enough to have its own article. Take a look at Illinois Railway Museum for example - the museum may have hundreds of pieces of equipment, but only one is notable enough to have its own article (Frisco 1630).

The same applies to geographic locations - in fact, there is a specific guideline for these articles which is documented at WP:NGEO. Loch Dionard does not appear to meet these requirements. While it has references, they do not represent significant coverage in reliable and independent secondary sources.

I've seen that you have put quite a bit of effort into your articles, which is very good! However, that effort should be done in line with Wikipedia's policies, so it will not end up wasted. If I were you, I would focus my energy on improving existing articles rather than creating new ones for the time being. Making new articles is one of the hardest tasks on Wikipedia, and it takes time to get right. If you really want to make more new articles, I would use the Articles For Creation process, which allows for another editor to review your work and decide if it is appropriate for mainspace. I hope this helps!

Deletions

Listen, I understand that more pages I've created aren't notable and I've finally come to realise that after my individual locomotive articles were taken down I stopped making them and I turned back to the pages I originally made, like Ardvar, Unapool, Easter Fearn, and Midfield, none of them were ever proposed for deletion so why was Allnabad proposed for deleltion, everything seems very inconsistent as Allnabad has more words and sources that say Ardvar does and adrvar was reviewed and accepted and as for Loch Urigull, accidental I meant to talk about Loch Urigill which one person said was notable enough to be considored and as for the mountain, I know it doesn't technically count as a mountain but several sources said it was a mountain so I listed what the sources say, I've read through Wikipedia's guidelines and I was almost certain that the articles about individual Localities and about these mountains and Lochs were notable enough, and no I'm stuck, if I add more information to the articles, does that make them more notable or not, what am I supposed to do? N1TH Music (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The solution is to stop making new articles until you have an understanding of notability guidelines, which I'm afraid you do not currently have. Stick to editing existing articles. If you have issues with why specific articles you created were proposed for deletion, take it up with the editors who made the proposals, not me. That you have made so many mistakes is concerning and in my view evidence that you should be required to use the AfC process instead of making new articles directly in article space. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Cedar Hill Yard

On 24 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cedar Hill Yard, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cedar Hill Yard in New Haven, Connecticut, could hold more than 15,000 railroad cars at one time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cedar Hill Yard. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Cedar Hill Yard), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

A railway barnstar :)

		The Railway Barnstar
		Thank you for all your work on trains, railways and other related articles such as Railroads in New England, Erie and Ontario Railway, New Haven and Derby Railroad and congratulations on your GA and DYK of Cedar Hill Yard! — Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 17:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amtrak, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Times-Union. 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) 06:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cedar Hill Yard

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cedar Hill Yard you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DanCherek -- DanCherek (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

CT

I'm not sure how to write this to you, but the CT article as it is written (and change many times over the years!) is clearly biased, leaning toward an association of CT with MA and New England FIRST, instead of CT's place in metro NYC - the largest metro region in the US. Being neutral would simply talk about the state instead of claiming that it is the 'southernmost state in New England" - which is BIASED! CT is not "New England, but also metro NYC." It is metro NYC and called New England, which has ZERO meaning.

The problem with so many Wiki articles is that there are regional biases and propaganda that is put forth on so many that this site is hardly a credible source for many things, yet it is a great machine for propaganda. Anyone who wants to emphasize CT as New England must either not be from here or they must be from the Northeastern part or MA or RI areas. Most of CT is not concerned with new England and no part of CT is in metro Boston, so there is no relation there either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwriter4real (talk • contribs) 02:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Truthwriter4real: You can cry about "bias" all you want - until you back up your claims with reliable sources, you will continue to be reverted, by myself or by others. If you continue to force in your version of the page against consensus, you will find yourself blocked. Ironic that you complain about bias while injecting it yourself. There are plenty of sources to back up the assertion that CT is geographically and culturally part of New England. The burden is on you to find evidence to support your changes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1936 Northeast Flood

Hello! Your submission of 1936 Northeast Flood at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ergo Sum 17:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cedar Hill Yard

The article Cedar Hill Yard you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cedar Hill Yard for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DanCherek -- DanCherek (talk) 03:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

A bahn star for you!

		The bahn star award
		You still hadn't received one of these yourself, so here you go: #A railway barnstar :) but in German! ~~~~ User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cedar Hill Yard

The article Cedar Hill Yard you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cedar Hill Yard for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DanCherek -- DanCherek (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources taken care of

I did what you asked and added sources to New Hope like you told me to do. I feel like I should warn you though: not everything can be sourced, and it will take time to add those that can. Wilson9744 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wilson9744: If you are willing to add sources, I will refrain from touching the article for a few days to give you a chance to source things. Some of the notes sections will likely still need trimming, but the roster as a whole won't need to be deleted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reaosn why sources are needed for equipment rosters though? It's never been an issue before. Wilson9744 (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wilson9744: In the early days of Wikipedia, rules regarding original research and verifiability were not enforced very strongly in many parts of the encyclopedia. Today, Wikipedia is an extremely popular source of information for millions of people, and with that has come more strict enforcement of these policies.

Let me give you an example. Suppose someone comes along one day and says that one of the Union Pacific Big Boys is preserved at the New Hope Railroad, and adds Union Pacific 4014 to the locomotive roster. You and I would know that's obviously not true and would remove it if we saw it, but what about the vast majority of people who are not knowledgeable about trains and might assume that information is true? That is a somewhat ridiculous example, but I hope you get the broader point I'm making - citations allow for information to be verified. If someone wants to check if the roster is accurate, a citation allows them to go to the New Hope Railroad's website, or some other source, and verify that the Wikipedia article is correct. Verifiability of information is very important to ensure accuracy. Without any citations, readers have to trust that the person adding information is telling the truth. I'm not accusing you of falsifying information of course, but without any way to verify information, how can someone know for certain that the information being added to an article is accurate? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Karr book

You're doing a great job with the history of New England railroads. I'm busy with some other projects (mostly trying to get the GLX articles to GA before they open) but I'm glad to assist if you have need of my esoteric knowledge and/or crowded bookshelf. If you don't currently have a copy, I highly recommend getting the second edition of Karr's Southern New England book - it has much better maps and some important corrections from the first edition. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Thank you for the positive feedback! I was thinking about buying the updated version of Karr's book, along with the one he wrote about Northern New England Railroads. I'm glad to hear you recommend it, I will see if I can get a copy of both books.

As an aside, I am planning to get Amtrak to GA status one day. If you're interested, I'd be happy to do a joint GA nomination with you on that article, I think it's just too big for one nominator anyhow. I don't have any particular rush, and I have a few things I'm working on myself right now, but let me know if you are interested in this in the future.

I could use some assistance with Railroads in New England, which was my pet project last month. 100% of the article was written by me, so I could use another set of eyes looking over it. It needs some expansion, too. I have been focusing on other things lately, but I will be expanding it when I have the time and energy to do so. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Karr's Lost Railroads of New England is very useful, as is Robert Lindsell's The Rail Lines of Northern New England. Should you desire to build out your collection, others I use frequently are A Field Guide to Southern New England Depots and Freight Houses (John H. Roy Jr.), Connecticut Railroads (Gregg M. Turner and Melancthon W. Jacobus), and Steelways of New England (Alvin F. Harlow). Steelways might be a bit difficult to get due to its age, but it has a lot of details of the early years.

Amtrak is definitely on my GA horizon as well. If you haven't been introduced to Mackensen, he's the resident Amtrak expert here, particularly for the LD routes. I'll take a look at Railroads in New England when I get a chance. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Would you be okay with we joining the GA review for the NA&B (and possibly the Nashua and Lowell as well)? Both are in my area of interest, and I can add some more recent recent to complement your excellent 19th century research. I don't want you to feel like I'm stealing your thunder. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. You have access to sources (and photos) that I don't. The articles would be better off with your contributions. As you can see on my user page, I have more articles on railroads in the region that I'm planning to improve. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Good work on the railway articles

Keep up the excellent work with the railway histories! I have verified New Haven and Northampton Company @ DYK, so that should appear on the Main Page soon. Greetings from the West Coastway line, Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hassocks5489: Thank you for the kind words, and for reviewing my DYK nomination. I'm hoping to expand/create many more articles on the topic in the future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Haven and Northampton Company

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article New Haven and Northampton Company you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JackFromWisconsin -- JackFromWisconsin (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

AS-616

Hello, I saw your message, I do have a source that the AS-616 was 1,625 hp, this link says it's 1,625 hp but marketed as 1,600. this also applied to the AS-16, AS-416, and RF-16. http://baldwindiesels.railfan.net/engines/index.html

167.88.64.206 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)thatweirdwriterdede167.88.64.206 (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Thatweirdwriterdude: I see. I'm uncertain that this website is considered a reliable source per Wikipedia policy WP:RS. The issue is that it is considered a self published source, meaning there are strict requirements to allow its use as a reference WP:SPS. The rule is "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." I'm not sure that can be said for baldwindiesels.railfan.net, as I can't tell what the credentials of its authors are. In truth, I personally suspect you are right about the 1,625 hp claim, but on Wikipedia the requirement we have to follow is that we report what reliable secondary sources say on a subject, even if anecdotally it is known to be wrong. I do see the website cites several books; if we can find corroborating information in one of those books or another reliable secondary source, the 1,625 hp rating can be substantiated.

I took a quick look at the website, and while it seems well run and cites sources, I cannot definitively comment on if it is acceptable as a Wikipedia source. If you want to change the information on the Baldwin and Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton locomotives based on the site, I'm not going to raise an issue with it; just make sure you cite the website when you change the information. Otherwise, someone else may remove it for being unsourced. If you need pointers on how to add citations, I'd be happy to help.

In general, please make sure you provide references when you add or change information. If you change the horsepower rating on a locomotive article, but do not provide a reference supporting it, this creates a disconnect between what the article says and what its current references say. References are vital to ensure that we do not violate Wikipedia's rules about original research WP:OR.

And finally, thank you for working to improve Wikipedia's articles on vintage diesels, many have not been updated or improved in a long time (over 10 years for some!). I hope you'll continue to improve them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your information, I’ll be sure to add sources, and I’ll look into the website more closely. Thatweirdwriterdude (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Haven and Northampton Company

The article New Haven and Northampton Company you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:New Haven and Northampton Company for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JackFromWisconsin -- JackFromWisconsin (talk) 00:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Haven and Northampton Railroad

The article New Haven and Northampton Railroad you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:New Haven and Northampton Railroad for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JackFromWisconsin -- JackFromWisconsin (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of New Haven and Northampton Company

The article New Haven and Northampton Company you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:New Haven and Northampton Company for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of JackFromWisconsin -- JackFromWisconsin (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

LIAR! It was moved to a new title!!!! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

CSX Transportation edit

Hello Trainsandotherthings Thanks for your assistance. I apologise for breaking the reference, I am using an iPad & it looks like I mistakenly just cut part of an existing reference without deliberate vandalism. Hopefully all fixed now. I have added a second reference for clarity. Cheers fir your help, I do struggle on writing as I am a Dyslexic Autistic person. Cheers again. EC.

Eco-climber

DYK for Railroads in New England

On 25 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Railroads in New England, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first railroad in New England was powered by horses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Railroads in New England. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Railroads in New England), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The Nuclear Warfare Barnstar

		The Nuclear Barnstar
		For your creation of Railcar-launched ICBM, I award you this barnstar to recognize your dedication and contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of nuclear warfare. Display this with pride... just in a lead-lined case. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 15:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, and for your advice that helped me create this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Flatcar vs flat wagon

Flatcars are confined to N. America, flat wagons are confined mostly to Europs. Both articles are "regional" in scope.

This page is about North American practice. For usage in Europe and other countries following UIC practice, see Flat wagon.

This page is about the railway goods vehicle in Europe and other countries following UIC practice. For North American practice, see Flatcar.

. Please read the "hat notes" old chap. Peter Horn User talk 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa, You already took care of that. Peter Horn User talk 13:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 1936 Northeast Flood

On 2 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1936 Northeast Flood, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1936 Northeast Flood directly led to the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1936? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1936 Northeast Flood. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1936 Northeast Flood), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Nominal fee

I believe Nominal fee should probably redirect to Peppercorn (legal) - they appear to be the same thing. (I didn't want to perform the merge myself in case I'm mistaken.) Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: That's interesting, I didn't find that article when I searched to see if an article on the subject existed; Nominal fee was a redirect to Real versus nominal value (economics) which didn't actually discuss the topic at all. The issue with Peppercorn (legal) is that it is almost entirely exclusive to United Kingdom law, it fails to provide a global perspective. For that reason, I think the Nominal fee article can be justified as well. They certainly cover similar subjects, and I could see them being merged, but I think just redirecting to Peppercorn would miss the global perspective I'm trying to provide. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Passenger train

Hi Trainsandotherthings, the above now shows up on new page patrol (as it was a redirect converted to an article), the copyvio reads 93% at the moment (see copyvio tool report), as I don't want to yet tag an article being dealt with by an experienced editor like yourself, could you have a look?, perhaps the content on the webpage Rail Pass was copied from the original Train article? You might let me know later what you think. Thank you JW 1961 ^Talk 17:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Nearly the entire article was split out of Train. I wrote a few sections, such as the Commuter rail paragraph, which I can confirm are not a violation. I'll take a look and see if there is any infringing material, and remove it if so. I'm rewriting the passenger train section on Train, so any potential copyvio material from there is only an issue on Passenger train. I'll let you know what I find. I suspect it's an instance of reverse copying, since the train article has not had a fundamental rewrite in a long time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Joseywales1961: The website in question is a mirror of Train (though out of date now since I started rewriting it). No violation is here, it was a false alarm. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the rapid reply, have a great evening JW 1961 ^Talk 18:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad

On 5 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad was also known as the "Red Line" because it was consistently unprofitable? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nashua, Acton and Boston Railroad), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out at CCI. Your help is greatly appreciated, especially as you been tackling an old and long CCI as your first case! Keep up the good work :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! It's nice to know someone appreciates me going through those old diffs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	Nice work on the references for the Milford-Bennington Railroad article! Whiteguru (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

For some extra energy while you keep hacking away at train - great work :) MSG17 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings, if you're gradually going to turn Train into GA, that'd be dope, and your username would make more sense. 61.84.62.63 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I've been wanting to improve some of the top level articles related to trains, and now that I have some experience with the project, I decided to take this on. I'm hoping to get it to GA very soon, and to FA in 2022. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for New Haven and Northampton Railroad

On 10 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a branch line of the New Haven and Northampton Railroad was so difficult to build, the area was nicknamed "Satan's Kingdom"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/New Haven and Northampton Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, New Haven and Northampton Railroad), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Blanket deletion

I would advocate that you hit pause on your massive deletion of Woody films. One specific AfD does not indicate a consensus for deletion of all films; the one I looked at has a claim to notability (starting research into children's cartoons due to the violent images) and had multiple references. Are you deleting en masse, without looking at the content? Ifnord (talk) 02:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Hello, I'm Ifnord. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Barber of Seville (1944 film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This is the second film that I reviewed that you deleted (redirected without merging content). It was voted one of the best 50 cartoons of all time. I note your deletion is merely minutes apart, there is no way you are actually looking at the content. Please revert this massive article deletion and look carefully prior to removing so much referenced content. Ifnord (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

They were almost all created by the same (banned for copyvio) user. For what it's worth, I did a quick check on each for references supporting potential notability before redirecting. And let's be clear, redirecting is very different than deletion. If you have an issue with it, I am more than happy to do more AfDs, I believe consensus supports my actions.

The vast majority of the "references" are trivial mentions in a few books that fail to establish notability, or links to self-published sources online. You'll notice many of the articles I redirected had tags indicating they had issues with notability.

And knock it off with templating me, that's just intentionally being obnoxious. I had made no actions in between you posting the first comment and you dropping that template. If you're so perturbed by this, revert my redirect of that article and I will immediately AfD it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You have redirected 100+ articles. You want me to go through and revert each one? Ifnord (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The vast majority of them utterly fail WP:N, and have 1 or ever 0 references, but if I have to list every last one of them at AfD I will do so. I stand by my actions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I only looked at two, and they both appear notable and well referenced. Ifnord (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"I only looked at two" well there's your problem right there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You're telling me you think [1] meets WP:N? It absolutely fails it. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No. I told you that [2] and [3] are both referenced and have claims to notability. These were the first two I checked. I would say that the onus is on you, who is removing content, to look at each article objectively prior to removing that content. Ifnord (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Take further discussion to ANI, not here. You started the thread and escalated this, make further replies there. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You are being childish, but very well. Immediately going to ANI is absurd. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see any other resolution. I asked you to self-revert, you say you stand by your actions. My choice is to go and undo 100+ redirects manually or to have another set of eyes (who can more expeditiously undo this massive deletion) have a look. Ifnord (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings, I have to aggree with Ifnord, it does meet WP:N, and it is a better idea to merg the episodes into a single series with Episodes including. Chip3004 (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

See the 12 examples I posted at ANI which show that this is all a waste of everyone's time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan

On 16 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Turkish government tried to have the German music video "Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan" taken down because it insulted Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdoğan. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,626 views (718.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021—nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad

On 16 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad never actually reached Boston or Barre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious

trains and other things

Thank you for quality articles around trains, such as Boston, Barre and Gardner Railroad, Railroads in New England, New Haven and Northampton Railroad and Cedar Hill Yard, and for other things such as Erdowie, Erdowo, Erdogan, writing in teamwork, for encouraging merges, for - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2669 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Trainsandotherthings, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Sennecaster (Chat) 02:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally, someone welcomes me to Wikipedia! :p Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Train lights

On 20 November 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Train lights, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first train headlight was simply a bonfire on a train car pushed in front of a locomotive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Train lights. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Train lights), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)