User talk:80.192.53.153

Use of citation templates and bare URLs

Hi there, please make sure to use the correct citation template such as Template:cite web or Template:cite magazine when writing references. Bare URLs with partially paraphrased titles such as those used at British Rail Class 40 and List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway are subject to link rot, whereas full citations assist readers greatly even if the webpage is removed in the future. Danners430 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @80.192.53.153, I notice that you're still adding a lot of bare magazine references - please ensure you use the correct templtes. Danners430 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice as well that you appear to be using citation titles which are made up, such as "timetable for one of the 2016 trains", "Timetable for one of the 2023 trains" or "Seeing out boiler ticket at East Lancashire Railway" (although as I do not subscribe to Trackside, I cannot verify this). As per the documentation for citations, titles should be the title of the article/page being cited, not a description of the page. Danners430 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@80.192.53.153 I notice you're still making the same edits to West Coast Railways - please use meaningful citation titles, not made up ones. Danners430 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again at SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes - made up titles, nearly completely bare URL… getting hard to assume good faith here… Danners430 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And again at Tyseley Locomotive Works. Please stop. Danners430 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, West Coast Railways, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0. 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 noticeboards.
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. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at GWR 6400 Class, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Open SPI

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message regarding sockupppet investigation on my IP address the links that have been included we're genuine references from magazines including off RailAdvent but im not the best when it comes to adding additional required information. I do include where the information comes from alongside the name of the article either in a magazine or off RailAdvent and I always make sure that the correct reference information is added regarding page numbers, the magazine it's from alongside what site it's off. I just sometimes forget to add a title to the editing work that has been done. 80.192.53.153 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm… a sock puppet investigation has nothing to do with what you've been adding as edits - it's because it's believed that you are another editor who is editing while logged out.

Note that I shall not be posting any further comments on the issue here, as it's better kept to the SPI page. Danners430 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Moylesy98 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

80.192.53.153 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This IP Address is not related to the person who has been blocked. Whoever it was that got blocked might live in the same location or wherever but is not related to this Moylesy98. I have been providing links with proper evidence and references to proove its real.

Decline reason:

This is less convincing than the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98. Yamla (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

80.192.53.153 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Referenced information added then unfairly blocked

The information added was referenced infomation from magazines and genuine links from websites including Steam Railway magazine and links to West Coast Railways alongside the titles of the articles in the magazines. A further block doesn't seem fair for providing genuine information which was referenced and was genuine. 80.192.53.153 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked because you are a WP:sockpuppet account of User:Moylesy98. That is the only reason for block. The block has not connection to the quality of information you added. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

80.192.53.153 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My IP address isn't connected to this account and it was being used to provide genuinely and sensibly recorded information which shouldn't result in being given a permanent block so quickly when I was adding information which hadn't been added when it was supposed to have. The account in question whoever it was owned by isn't connected to me while I dont have a wikipedia account. The Moylesy98 account clearly links to someone based around my area but this IP address isnt connected to them. I was reliably using the site to provide actually recorded information.

Decline reason:

On balance of evidence, I don't believe you. PhilKnight (talk) 00:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You would have a far better chance to post and request an unblock under the Moylesy98 account. That is, after a long period of no sockpuppet accounts and full disclosure of ban evasion attempts. Even if it is true that this IP address has nothing to do with the Moylesy98 account -- which I seriously doubt -- the evidence of them being connected is so extensive and specific that no reasonable editor with experience is likely to think otherwise. There is no block exception for "very good contributions." The whole idea of a block is that the behavior of an editor is so untrustworthy that the community rather avoid the bad contributions even at the risk of losing out on good contributions. You current approach of "I'm not that editor and my contributions are good," is very unlikely to be a successful one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.