User talk:611fan2001

Welcome!

Hello, Trains13! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 14:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Trains13, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi NickH2001! 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 Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Walt Disney World Railroad and Disneyland Railroad

January 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Walt Disney World Railroad, 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 the 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. Your recent edits up through 25 January were acceptable, but all of your edits for today, 26 January 2019, either had terrible grammar, violated WP:TOOMUCH, or both. All of the notable content for the article that the average person would care about is already in the article, and it does not require further tinkering, except for when it reopens after the necessary TRON attraction construction is completed. I should also state for the record that your editing activity is very similar to the Lexington, South Carolina based IP user that ran this article into the ground a few years ago, and the fact that you knew to message me about editing the WDWRR article suggests that you are that same person. Keep in mind that now that you have an official username, unheeded warnings will result in blocks. The article is fine as it is, so please leave it alone. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 18:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Jackdude101. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You deleted the content you added to my talk page that I mentioned in my previous warning, and I reverted it. Doing that makes it look like you're trying to hide something and only reaffirms my theory stated above. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 19:13, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Walt Disney World Railroad, you may be blocked from editing. The content you deleted had a reference attached to it, and the reason you stated for why you deleted it is incorrect, as neither the Strasburg Rail Road nor the Tweetsie Railroad were mentioned in the content or the reference. The Strasburg Rail Road is actually not mentioned in this article at all. Making careless edits to any article is frowned upon, but when they are featured articles like this one, it's 100% unacceptable. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 19:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Disneyland Railroad. The edit you made to this article violates WP:TOOMUCH, too. I've told you this many times, but the Disneyland Railroad and Walt Disney World Railroad articles (both of which are featured articles) are set as far as history and current operations are concerned. You're just adding unnecessary bells and whistles that only you care about, and they make the article tedious to read for the general reader. Completely ignoring this and doing whatever you want anyway will not be tolerated much longer. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 18:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 04:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, from now on I would not disrupt anymore edits on the two Disney railroad articles unless if there are some duplicate links or minor errors on them. NickH2001 (user) 15:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. If you want to start any future discussions about these articles, start them on the related talk pages instead of posting them on my talk page. More people can be involved that way, which is ideal. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now about the "bells and whistles" section, I'm not going to add them anymore. Because I know they're not important to the Disney trains-related articles. NickH2001 (user) 20:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Would you mind telling me what your goal is with the constant tinkering and rearranging of sources in the WDWRR article? All of the sources have already been vetted by me and the people involved with its various reviews, so going over them again and again with a fine-tooth comb like what you're doing is not needed, and doesn't necessarily increase the article's quality. Sometimes it can even lower the article's quality, such as when sources are replaced with other sources that may not have the exact same information (this was the case with the edit you made today). There is also no reason to update archive links if they still work. Your time will be better spent applying this sort of treatment to articles that haven't been raised to Good Article status or higher. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 13:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed another reference today that had key information that the other sources for the same sentence didn't have. I'm going to need you to consult with me on the WDWRR's talk page about any future source removals, as it's starting to become a consistent problem. Please respond to this message in a timely manner to indicate your compliance. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 12:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. I reverted your previous two edits on the WDWRR article because it was an instance of Wikipedia:Citation overkill. In short, any piece of non-controversial information (which constitutes the entire article) should never have more than three citations. I went over this in a previous edit summary, but I'm posting it here on your talk page to make it official, and to inform you that any future edits where more than three citations end up in the same sentence will also be reverted. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 20:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

I reverted an edit that you made to the DRR article today because it upset (or derailed, if you like) the grammar in the related sentence. This is one of several edits that you have made where there were very obvious mistakes with basic grammar, so answer this question: is English your native language? If it's not, that would would be a huge revelation as to why grammar seems to be a challenge for you. Being a native English speaker is of course not a requirement to edit. Regardless, making sure that your edits are grammatically correct, along with things like being able to identify sources as reliable, and not making careless edits in general that require other editors to constantly clean up after you (like me), are all part of this: Wikipedia:Competence is required. To prevent any future mistakes like this, I insist that you propose any future changes to the wording of these articles on their respective talk pages. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 02:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Union Pacific 4014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metrolink (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to NBR S class does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norfolk and Western 611, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roundhouse. 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) 06:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading 2102

On Reading 2102 you tagged it for cleanup due to unreliable references. Could you put more details on the talk page? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I tagged the page, is because I felt the page contains Fan sites that were cite as unreliable sources. Trains13 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian National 6060 moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Canadian National 6060, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canadian National 6060 has been accepted

Canadian National 6060, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: U.S. Sugar 148 has been accepted

U.S. Sugar 148, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney World Railroad

Thanks for your edits today on the construction updates for the WDWRR. They were well-written, and the citations were formatted perfect; however, the author of both citations, blogmickey.com, is a clear example of self-published work with no apparent editorial oversight and hence is not suitable to be used in a featured article (see: WP:NOTRELIABLE). Unless you can find alternate sources that are reliable, this new info will unfortunately have to be deleted. Allowing sources like this to remain in the article could potentially lead to a quality review of the article that could remove its featured status, and I'd prefer to avoid that. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 23:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I've recently replaced the BlogMickey sources with the more reliable sources from WDW News Today. Trains13 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Southern Railway Ss classes has been accepted

Southern Railway Ss classes, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Great Smoky Mountains Railroad 1702 has been accepted

Great Smoky Mountains Railroad 1702, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications lists in articles

Why is it that you removed the modifications list I gave the GSMR 1702 page, but left the modifications lists in the pages for other locos, like R&N 425, GCRY 4960, SPLC 28, and N&W 475, alone? Also, I’ve been recently planning to add more detail to the history section of the 1702 page, since I want to make more existing steam loco wiki pages as detailed as possible, but first, I must know whether you think that idea is unnecessary or not. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number one consideration is to prevent an article from being removed with all of the unsourced information removed and the section of many modifications has none of them. In my opinion, some of these bits of "modification" information should be part of the history section and the GSMR 1702 should not treated as a railfan page. Trains13 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Three CP drafts that need taken care of

Hi. There are drafts for CP 1201, 2839, and 2860, and they all need to be taken care of. I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia pages, but I do know that a page for 1201 deserves to be made. I have added stuff to it, but I don't know the locomotive that well, which is why I was wondering if experts like you could finish it off. I also know enough to see that the pages for 2839 and 2860 aren't necessary, since a page for the Royal Hudsons already exists. Could you please do something about these? If you would, thank you, but if you won't, it's fine, I'll ask someone else. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can, but I don't have any motivations to build these pages. Trains13 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you at least help with any one of these ones. Draft:Hampton & Branchville 44 Draft:St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway 5 Draft:Sumter & Choctaw 103 Draft:Polson Logging Co. 2 Draft:Cherokee Brick & Tile 1 Draft:Nickel Plate Road 755 Draft:Nickel Plate Road 757 Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 10 Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 9 Draft:Dardanelle and Russellville Railroad 8 Draft:Phenix Marble Company 1 Draft:Leviathan (locomotive) Draft:East Broad Top 12 Draft:East Broad Top 14 Draft:East Broad Top 15 Draft:East Broad Top 16 Draft:East Broad Top 17 Draft:East Broad Top 18 Draft:Wilmington and Western 58 Draft:Wilmington and Western 98 Draft:Virginia and Truckee 11 Reno Draft:Virginia and Truckee 12 Genoa Draft:Virginia and Truckee 21 J.W. Bowker Draft:Lowville and Beaver River Railroad 8 Draft:Union Pacific 4420 Draft:Southern Pacific 1233 Draft:Southern Pacific 1269 You do not have to do all of them. Just the ones you feel like building. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's WAY.... too many steam locomotive pages to work on! I don't have time for them now, I have college work to do. Trains13 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said you don’t HAVE to take care of all of ALL of them! Just SOME. Do you even read everything thrown at you?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.169.64.51 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, dude, what the heck is your problem? /:( Trains13 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.169.64.51 (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Preserved locomotives drafts

This user called Doncram has been building up Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States and Draft:Preserved locomotives in Canada , but they both seem to be incomplete. If you have the time and interest, could you maybe help improve these drafts, anyhow? 47.223.120.112 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both won't be necessary, because there were way too many locomotives to add to the page, and you did not cite any sources whatsoever. Trains13 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I never added any sources that came from YouTube, Facebook, or Railpictures, but you say that all of the other sources I’ve added are unreliable anyway?! I’m sorry, but you’re fixing to make me rage quit. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Great Smoky Mountain News source, it uses information from YouTube. It was made using Wordpress and Wordpress is not a reliable source. Trains13 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well…at least let me ask this. How come you deleted the mod lists from 1702, 4960, and 29, but you’re keeping the lists on 425, 475, and 90, in which the latter three have zero sources? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any motivations to clean-up the 425, 475, and 90 pages. Trains13 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YOU need to understand that the Wikipedia wants the articles to be sourced with VERY reliable sources and the section of many modifications has no sources added whatsoever. These locomotives pages need to meet Wikipedia's target audience. Trains13 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These heavily-modified locomotives, namely 4960, 29, 18, and 1702, have had so many modifications after they were built, I just thought that they were worthy of having lists of their own. After seeing how the 475 and 90 pages were made, it just seemed like a good idea at the time I started doing it myself. You have already made it clear to me and a few anonymous users that Wikipedia pages can only have sources that came from books, magazines, newspapers, and websites made by the owner of the subject. If I had learned anything from contributing Wikipedia for the past two and a half years, it’s that not every source you see privately or publicly will be accepted. I have been trying my best to keep the mods lists on 18, 29, and 4960 alive by keeping reliable sources in them, but if you believe a modification page is unnecessary whatsoever, I’ll get around to moving some of the more critical mods into the history paragraphs. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, some of these modification details should be part of the history sections and some that were on forums, YouTube, and Facebook should not be added as they were cited as unreliable. Highlighting these nitty-gritty details about the locomotive is NOT how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. Trains13 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll gladly take care of that, but I have already deleted forums and sources and from YouTube and Facebook from these a while ago. Also, you don’t need to remind me with any kind of attitude; I saw you originally reply with “I DON’T care”. Seriously, I may not be doing everything right while editing Wikipedia pages, but my main motivation since the very beginning was only to give pages to individually preserved steam locomotives that I like, and I don’t always perfect them myself, because I assume someone might do it for me. I made those lists, because I was only lightly copying what others were doing, and I didn’t even realize they were probably inexperienced themselves. I mean, it’s not like I’m committing any real-world crimes over this… Someone who likes train writing (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're trying to add new info to various steam locomotives. That reminds me of myself when I was trying way too hard on the Walt Disney World Railroad (WDWRR) page back when I don't have an account at the time in 2015-2018. I've added some new info about the WDWRR's operations, locomotives, and whistles until the admins reverted my contributions many times, because I didn't cite them. After I received my own account in early 2019, I began to cause more counterproductive edits to the WDWRR page and being reported for that. I've apologized to the admins for the way I behaved, and I had to lay off the WDWRR page to rethink my behavior. Afterwards, I realize the WDWRR page was made to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and I decided to give the same treatments made to other well-known steam locomotives such as Union Pacific 4014 and Norfolk and Western 611. Trains13 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I can kind of see myself in that position... I might give this Manual of Style format a read to improve my skills after I complete two locomotive Drafts I'm working on right now. Until then, if you want to anyway, feel free to edit and/or improve any of the pages I have already created myself. Also, I hope the edits I made to your Alaska 557 draft aren't a problem... Someone who likes train writing (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry if I sounded a little too harsh on you. Trains13 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WMSR 1309

Locomotive 1309 has had “Super Choo” written on her smokebox since July 18th, 2022. WM202 (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the “Maryland Thunder” nickname as it is only used by unofficial sources not associated with the railroad. WM202 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I swear to God, NO: https://www.facebook.com/page/345300237969/search/?q=maryland%20thunder Trains13 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this when “Super Choo” merch is released by the railroad and not “Maryland Thunder” merch. Maryland Thunder was a short lived name given by a newspaper that everyone rolled with until the shop crews decided on Super Choo. When the new merch is released I expect to be able to change the nickname to Super Choo as per the wishes of the railroad and its employees. WM202 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but like I said, do not add a new information about 1309's new nickname until a reliable source has been given. Trains13 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of certain sources

On the page Savannah and Atlanta 750, you used a source from the website "Medium". This is a blog site, much like wordpress, and has already been marked as not reliable in the [1] perennial sources table. I'm writing to let you know that you should replace it as soon as possible. Replacing the source with 'citation needed' is sufficient for now, until a suitable source is found. Gorden 2211 (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my fault, it was User:23.169.64.51. Trains13 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney World Railroad

When adding new images to a featured article, and it's from Flickr, check to ensure whether commercial use and mods are allowed for the image. If they are not allowed, they can't be used. It's one of the many quirks I learned that you have to watch for when I raised this and a few other articles to featured status. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 13:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand of what you meant, thanks for the info. Trains13 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

I hope this isn’t too much trouble, but I need a little bit of advise. I am currently working on a page for a steam locomotive called Huntingdon and Broad Top 38, and in that page, I have mentioned that the locomotive participated in the 1985 NRHS convention. However, the only good source I could find was from wordpress, and well, you once told me that wordpress is unreliable for Wikipedia. That's why I am debating on whether I should add that source anyway, or add this one, instead. https://www.online-estatesale.com/Listing/Details/553368 . Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Written apology

Yo, I know you can see this message. While I was banned from editing Wikipedia, I’ve been thinking. I haven’t been honest with you or anyone lately. I’ve pulled all those “disruptive” edits, because although I do add real life info to certain pages, I also just wanted to have fun trolling around every once in a while. I now realize that was completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Wikipedia is an informative encyclopedia, and not a trolling site like Reddit is. I am sorry for being so rude to ya, Trains13. And I would also like to take a moment to apologize to User:Trainsandotherthings, User:Someone who likes train writing, and User:Davidng913 for my bad behavior.

Thank you for taking a minute to read this. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, man, and I've accepted your apology. Trains13 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad all is forgiven. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Union Pacific 4014

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Union Pacific 4014 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 Trains13 -- Trains13 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Hi, you're not supposed to create the GAN review page yourself. It should be created by the editor who is reviewing the article. That's why you just got a message saying that you are reviewing your own article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad... Trains13 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to block a user

Hey, do you know how to block a user from editing Wikipedia pages? I ask, because user JimmyHook won't stop restoring the Modifications lists on the 4960, 29, and 18 articles, and it's already getting on my nerves. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this user, but I told him to stop being so self-absorbed of his own ideas. Don't worry he got blocked recently. Trains13 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I felt so offended by Jimmy calling me a goody two shoes. Trains13 (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry…. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know I never meant to drag you into that Jimmy incident where he would offend you with harmful words. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay, I didn't know about that Jimmy Hook guy, until you told me. Trains13 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone who likes train writing: Only administrators have the power to block users. Please inform an administrator if something like this ever happens again. Going back into Jimmy's history, I'm very happy I didn't encounter him prior to him being blocked. Davidng913 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPR 2839

Hey, I was wondering if you know any relliable resources on Canadian Pacific 2839. I ask User:Someone who likes train writing and he said that you might know and resources. NorfolkandWesternBoi (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend reading this book, written by the late Jim Wrinn. One of its pages features No. 2839's excursion career on the Southern. Trains13 (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do this

[2] He's been rightly indeffed, there's no need to gravedance. I know he was a total jerk to you, but just move on and be the bigger person. This is the kind of thing that could get you blocked for making personal attacks, regardless of how deserving the target is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I get so offended by this guy calling me rude names. I've undid my message afterwards. Trains13 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas & Friends

Why doesn't Percy the small engine have his own padge? I want him to Ethan169 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "page". Because the page of the Percy character is deleted due to its information not being cited. Here's the manual instructions on how to recreate the Percy page. Trains13 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can u also ad his thomas & friends movie appearances Ethan169 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, dude, go learn some grammar. Trains13 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can i do it his movie appearance list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan169 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because everything is not 100% sourced whatsoever, and needs to be removed to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Trains13 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Percy The Small Engine has been reinstated as a redirect. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Union Pacific 4014

The article Union Pacific 4014 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:Union Pacific 4014 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Union Pacific 4014

The article Union Pacific 4014 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union Pacific 4014 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

East Broad Top steam fleet

Hello, I am a professional steam enthusiast, working for the East Broad Top Foundation. I couldn’t help but notice there are plenty of Wikipedia drafts about each of the surviving EBT 3ft-gauge steam engines, and nobody seems to be making any real effort to turn any of them into informative, encyclopedic pages. I also noticed you completely corrected pages about other engines and even helped nominate the one about UP Big Boy 4014 as one of the good Wikipedia articles. That’s why I’m asking you if you could please construct all of the EBT engine drafts into proper articles whenever you catch the chance, that way people can learn more about each survivor without having to look at one of EBT’s own websites, and do so while looking at proper grammar. Here is a source from jstor.org that could hopefully help out. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43518100?searchText=East%20Broad%20Top%20locomotives&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DEast%2BBroad%2BTop%2Blocomotives&ab_segments=0%2FSYC-6646_basic_search%2Fltr&refreqid=fastly-default%3A48449f8bd83c8386760df604bcf96557 If this source isn’t enough, you can always try searching on Google books, as well. 2601:680:C401:DC90:C0F4:4689:E5A:33BA (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask me, I'm not the perfect type of user that knows everything about EBT fleet. :P Trains13 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA nominees

Crazy question: is any Wikipedia user allowed to nominate pages as GA’s, now? I saw you do something like that for ACL 1504. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked the 1504 page that I recently copy-edit, I thought it will make a good candidate for the Good Articles section. Trains13 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relax

Dude, you need to calm down, I did nothing to you. I was being very polite to you when I was explaining myself. Seriously, you have to calm down and not threaten users over their edits on locomotive articles. Just because you don’t like a certain users edit doesn’t mean you need to revert it and argue with them about it, I’ve seen your edit history of harassing users over their edits on locomotive articles. Your behavior towards users is unacceptable, sending messages like that towards users is a violation against the policy. Because it can get you blocked if you continue this behavior towards them. You can’t just threaten users like that over their edits. Plus, like I said before, I was being very polite to you and yet your still complaining about a small little edit I made, which it’s not even a big deal to begin with in the first place. Please, you can’t do this to innocent users. I already told you that I didn’t argue with you, I explain it to you politely in my edit summaries and yet you continue to make a big deal out of it. Please, I’m asking you politely to stop this behavior. I was only adding in a little info on No. 475 receiving a centered headlamp when it returned to steam in September 2019, headlamp info for locomotives don’t actually needs sources. Even in the photo of the infobox of the article it has a center headlamp. Please don’t come to my talk page and threaten me about it please, I really don’t want to start an argument about this little small edit. You have to chill and just talk it over politely with users about it and then it will work out better, because of you talk calmly to users about it, then I bet you it will work out a lot better for now on. Doing that will help you be a better user. 2600:1000:B01D:FA84:7505:9C1F:AB6F:A4E4 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, someone from California, let me make you a deal, I'll calm down and be polite to you once you've readd this info about 475's headlight reposition by citing a source from one of the train books or magazine articles. Trains13 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned before, I’ve tried and tried, but still couldn’t find one yet. But your telling me your only polite to users whenever they follow your orders over sources? Yet I tried my hardest to be nice to you and yet you continue to treat me horribly. Seriously, what is your problem!?!? I’ve been trying to be nice to you and yet you continue to be a jerk towards me. Can you please just stop this behavior, it’s really uncalled for. I’ve tried my best to help you become a better user when I explain all that stuff to you, but it turns out that it’s not gonna work out. I’m sorry, I really am sorry. I just want to improve edits and this is the behavior I get. You could of politely told me to not add it again instead of threatening me. There is no need for that, again, please don’t come to my talk page and threaten me again please. 2600:1000:B031:FA06:EC4C:7231:1A5D:C01C (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I sounded so harsh on you, because I was so frustrated at you adding an info without citing a source. If you ask me, I used to be in the same position as you are in. Trains13 (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At least you were kind enough to apologize to me now, it makes me feel a little better now. Because I really was getting stressed out over those messages you keep sending to me. I really didn’t know what else to do to talk you through this during this conversation, because my anxiety couldn’t take the pressure for you anymore, I didn’t know what else to do. At lest you still apologized, it made me feel a little better. I really do wanna forgive you, but I just don’t know. I’m afraid it’s gonna happen again. 2600:1000:B01B:2A26:AC11:4116:2FF4:7A3B (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Your recent editing history at Norfolk and Western 475 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the anonymous California-based user started this. It added an info without citing a source whatsoever. Trains13 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who started it. It doesn't matter who's right. It looks like y'all are starting to work things out, which is good, but it's important to remember that there are only limited exceptions to the three-revert rule. Sometimes admins look the other way when one party in an edit war is clearly adding unconstructive content, but this edit war also has reverts like this one, where you revert not just the original edit, but also the addition of a source, with the edit summary "Don't argue with me!" That's not okay. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, I've blocked that IP range for a month, as the user was evading a block on Special:Contribs/2600:1000:B000:0:0:0:0:0/44. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already worked it out now, he apologized to me and I told him I’m trying my hardest to forgive him. I didn’t restore that info I added back anymore and I physically told him that I won’t restore it again until I find a reliable source next time. P.S. I think your mistaken me for another IP user. 2600:1000:B04C:32A0:E9D5:3DB5:9AFF:5B87 (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]