User talk:Dinoboyaz

Hi i am Walter White fan I would like to dissagre aboit how you edit Teen Titans go because all you edit was old i add new information so can you please put the other information

Corris Railway

Please see note in the talk section before reverting the edit. RGCorris (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Flockton Flyer

Hello. With respect to your recent edits to this article, which I have reverted, please note that whether locomotive 6412 may, or may not, make return visits to the WSR is not relevant to this article. It is common amongst preserved railways for locomotives to visit other lines, and Wikipedia is not a stock movement list, it is an encyclopaedia.

Also, with the greatest of respect to you, your edit summary comment "there is no such thing as 'encyclopaedic' language" is simply incorrect. There certainly is language appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I suggest you spend some time reading the WP:MOS for some pointers. As one example, your edit began with a contraction, whereas this project's MOS states: "Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal."

Your "chatty" style, which is very appropriate for a blog, is also not appropriate in an encyclopaedia. I suggest you read WP:TONE for more advice.

Finally, if the Flockton Flyer article is to be changed, it would be because the locomotive's ownership had reverted to the WSR. If that happens, we will take our lead from the West Somerset Railway article, and more particularly from the List of rolling stock preserved on the West Somerset Railway. Thank you. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 08:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dinoboyaz. You have new messages at Talk:Union Pacific 844.
Message added 05:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway

Hi. With regards to R&ER locomotives, here's a photo of the Irt and the Mite in engineering workshops in Workington, having their overhauls completed - https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/945727_485490144852297_1200715737_n.jpg (Photo supplied by the R&ER P-way Foreman, on a Facebook group for the railway that I administrate).

Since the fire in the workshops at Ravenglass over Easter, the railway has been operating with Northern Rock and Wroxham Broad covering most turns, and Perkins taking charge of the "overnight" train and the 0930 ex-Ravenglass. Douglas Ferreira and Lady Wakefield are both offsite having new power units installed at TMA Engineering in Birmingham. I believe the plan is for Shelagh of Eskdale to receive the same treatment when Lady Wakefield is completed. I understand that Douglas Ferreira should be due back at Ravenglass fairly soon, though the work on Lady Wakefield will take much longer. There is the possibility of a steam locomotive from the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway coming to Ravenglass for the summer, as the two steam locos currently operational will not be enough to cope with the intense advertised level of service required.

Hope this is of interest! Eliot Andersen, R&ER volunteer driver and guard. Skarloey (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Stitch (Lilo & Stitch)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Technopat (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were only made becuSe for some reason, the second reference link was extending beyond th eagle and it bothered me. Dinoboyaz (talk)

LNWR working replica Bloomer at Tyseley

Hello. You suggest (on the 98.165.136.76 talk page) that Tyseley should be asked about this project started in 1986. I have done so, as have others, asking if there is a properly set up and dedicated fund, or (as they are too busy with other work) if the engine, which was 90% complete twenty-three years ago - since when there has been no apparent progress - could be finished elsewhere. The replies were unhelpful and most discouraging. (See the National Preservation Forum, in 2012 and for several years before.)

On Tyseley's website it is not listed among current projects; the website page dealing with it has not been changed for a long time.Hyjack7 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Class W1

The web page http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/database.htm#DATDE is also a self-published source. The sole mention is

... but not so many indulge in malicious gossip: The "galloping sausage" was a nickname for Gresley's "Hush-Hush" No 10000. (SIF - Richard Marsden)

to which I immediately ask: what is SIF, and who is Richard Marsden? At the top of the page we find that SIF stands for Sodor Island Forums, again, this is a self-published source.

The use of a term by the Rev. W. Awdry in one of his books is not evidence that the same term was used in real life. He wrote fiction - and so his stories, delightful though they are, do not constitute verifiable fact. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then consider this: would Awdry have written it in if it WASN'T a nickname? Dinoboyaz (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he would; maybe not. We don't know. We do know that he wrote a story titled The Flying Kipper, but the website merely passes over that title with no suggestion as to origin; so Awdry probably did make that one up. The only use of the term "Galloping Sausage" by Awdry is on p. 42 of Duck and the Diesel Engine, in the context of an rude remark, with no suggestion as to the meaning of that remark.

The point is this: the source that you have provided for the term "Galloping Sausage" is a fansite, which has sourced its information from another fansite; but we do not know where that other fansite obtained its information, so we have no indication of its authenticity.

The first ref that you provided used the term only in its title. It does not use it in text, nor does it explain its origin. It doesn't even mention Awdry, contrary to your edit summary.

In both cases, your sources fail the last paragraph of WP:NOR#Reliable sources for several reasons: the association of 10000 with the term is not verifiable; it's only a passing comment; you draw conclusions not evident in the references. Have respected authors with considerable knowledge of 1930s railway events (such as Cecil J. Allen, O. S. Nock or W. B. Yeadon) used this term? Has it been used by respectable railway publishers (such as Ian Allan, David and Charles or the RCTS), or by reliable literature of the period (such as The Railway Magazine)? I haven't found anything. It's not even used by the generally reliable LNER Encyclopedia. These are the reliable sources that we need for such a claim. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the second source actually came from Sodor: Reading Between the Lines by Christopher Awdry. Dinoboyaz (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Steam

Hi, Dinoboyaz. Look, I am not trying to be a prick, but let me explain to you what unconstructive editing means. It is an edit that is not technically incorrect, but does not benefit the encyclopedia. some people use the phrase "non-productive". Removing a link that is dead or broken only complicates fixing it. I think, but I am not certain, that the reason the link will not work is because it is "paywalled" Trains online is a subscription only site. I will attempt to contact the editor that originally placed the ref in the article and try to see if he can fix it or cite it from the paper copy of the magazine. Even if it is not paywalled, it still is not a good idea to remove dead links, as the dead link can usually be used to find an archival link from one of the many services that archive web pages. A much more productive approach is when you find a link like that to tag it using the {{dead link}} template so the information is still there for someone to go about fixing it.

Wikipedia is unbelievably complicated, and probably needlessly so. But it is what it is. You have made roughly 160 edits. I have made roughly 20,000. That does not make me better than you or superior in any way. It just seems common sense that when someone has done something more than 100 times the number of times you have, they will probably know a little more about it than you. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is assume good faith. I assume that you removed the link in good faith because you thought since it didn't work, that was the right thing to do. Please, in the future, would you assume good faith that if someone reverts your edit they have a reason? Thanks, and happy editing! If I can ever be of help, drop me a note. I am a train fan too...can you tell what my favorite railroad is by my handle? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 21st Century Steam. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. I do not understand what you mean. I can read the ref just fine on my computer. The proper course of action here is for you to talk about it, not just keep blindly reverting it. I don't know what browser you are using, but the page displays just fine on my computer using Google chrome. Be advised that reverting it again will put you over WP:3RR and you could be blocked for it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because it was on the computer, but on the iPad, it extends past the page. Dinoboyaz (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, WP:AGF!!!!!!!!!!! Now I have to go find someone else to put it back, because I am not going to break 3RR. Fix the settings on your Ipad; there is nothing wrong with the page. I am giving you a break because you are new. If I reported you to a noticeboard, you would most likely be blocked. Your unconstructive editing has now caused me to have to waste a bunch of time cleaning up after you. In the future, please do not ever remove a reference unless it can be proven to contain false information. And please try to listen when people try to help you. I explained three edits ago that you shouldn't remove a ref because the link isn't currently working, yet you went on and did it two more times. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; we are all supposed to work together to improve the encyclopedia. Instead of assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong, try to just understand that we are all trying to reach the same goal--improving the encyclopedia. Do you think I have nothing better to do than sit here and replace what you took off, even after you say that you get why you shouldn't? argggggh. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Railway 115 Class ‎

Hi, I've reverted your formatting change to the Commons category link there.

We don't generally format these. It's a template – if we want particular formatting, then we should make the template do it for everything, otherwise we'd have a huge number to fiddle with one by one. We don't generally use HTML / CSS to do formatting though MediaWiki either.

If we do need to change or format a Commons link (usually to hide a disambiguation link in the name), then the {{Commons category}} template takes two parameters: the first is the name at Commons and stays unchanged, the second gets any formatting needed. Normally they're identical, so we just specify it once and the template takes care. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it must be corrected: it hat gallery is now referred to as "115", not "155". Dinoboyaz (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the typo you were after. Thanks for fixing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]