This is anarchive of past discussions withUser:Danners430.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.

Stop changing back the class 90 thread, all information that i and many others put on is accurate.(Personal attack removed)DuanLW87035 (talk)00:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Information in Wikipedia must be verifiable and/or referenced - Wikipedia is not for original research - seeWP:VDanners430 (talk)09:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice spot of spotter site scot-rail.co.uk I have removed a few more references leaving{{cn}} in its place. Any others we should be having a crack at?10mmsocket (talk)18:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Not that I’m aware of at the moment - Scot-rail is just 100% user contributed, almost like a wikiDanners430 (talk)20:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi there. As a relatively inexperienced user, I'm not sure I understand why you've reverted my Class 33 edit, or what I should do to avoid it. D6515 is no longer under overhaul at Eastleigh, it's been back in use at Swanage for some time - I've seen it in use there, and it's also visited other heritage railways in the last couple of months. Not really sure what I could cite to say that it's operational (very few of the other entries in that column have citations). Must confess that having such a straightforward edit removed does rather dissuade me from further editing!Mwsmith20 (talk)14:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Mwsmith20, edits on Wikipedia should be cited using reliable sources - these could be magazine articles, news websites or books. For example, some good sources are RAIL Magazine and other such publications - they often have articles which detail stock moves, both on the mainline network and between heritage railways. Unfortunately I haven't found any sources which state it's back in service at Swanage - if there is such a source, then the edit is of course perfectly valid.Danners430 (talk)10:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Evening Danners, contrary to your opinion, D7659 is no longer undergoing repairs at Peak Rail and has been in service since 30th April 2022. I give you 3 sources as proof:1) Peak Rail website gives the locomotive as one which is 'Arriving at Peak Rail in 2022', in other words one of the locomotives which is operating trains:https://www.peakrail.co.uk/2) The main Peak Rail social media channel on Facebook regularly advertises when the locomotive is running, including at the recent Mixed Traction Gala held earlier in August:https://m.facebook.com/100083362060025/3) The locomotive also made an extended visit to the North Norfolk Railway from early June until late July in operational condition:https://www.nnrailway.co.uk/class-25s-norfolk-visit-extended/Hopefully this evidence is to your satisfaction, but if you still refuse to accept this, then I suggest you visit Peak Rail in person to see for yourself that it is now operational.Regards, GW1450— Precedingunsigned comment added byGW1450 (talk •contribs)19:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi GW1450, if you wish to re-add the information to the class 25 page, then the sources can be added as citations to the article. I am not a gatekeeper to the article - the sources belong in there, not on my talk page.

Your edit was undone as the information was unsourced at the time - like I said, you’re welcome to add the information with sources.Danners430 (talk)19:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Good morning Danners430. Can I just reiterate that I am a new user to this site and that I don’t edit things often. I think you need to be more patient please as whilst you might be using a computer, I am stuck with a phone so it takes much longer for me to edit things, so when you spend 5 seconds undoing things I feel like I have wasted my time even though my edit is completely valid. Instead of undoing it, why not try and find the source yourself? It can’t be that difficult as you seem like you know what you are doing.

170270-170273 are all with EMR now. I have had to edit this page twice now, and I am not sure why you are changing this back for no reason even though both 170270 and 170272 have been photographed as being in service with EMR, and 170271 is at Barrow Hill and is being prepared. All have left TfW.

By all means if you want the information to be wrong, fine. But I accept no responsibility for the inaccuracies you are applying.

Thank you for your time.ScotRail02 (talk)11:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi ScotRail02,

Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable - it’s built on verifiability, not truth. Photographs aren’t reliable sources underWP:UGC, and Twitter can really only be considered reliable if coming from a verified source (although I definitely agree a discussion should be had following recent events).

It’s not up to other editors to find sources for you - if you wish to add information to an article, it’s up to you to source it.Danners430 (talk)11:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

A better description than what I could ever write can be found at the bottom ofthis talk page.Danners430 (talk)12:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Is trimming a source's title likethis acceptable? I genuinely don't know the answer, but it strikes me as somewhat irregular. Cheers.XAM2175 ^(T)18:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve honestly never considered it either - personally I regularly trim source titles when sourcing my own content, when the “real” title is unwieldy or un-descriptive in some way. A perfect example is when citing Tweets from verified accounts.

I’d be interested to discover the official policy - in my eyes, and I’ll happily be corrected, a source title should simply be a one-line summary of the contents of the sourceDanners430 (talk)18:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I can understand a level of subjectivity when it comes to things like Tweets that don't have a "title", per se – personally I use either the opening sentence (a bit like a modern-dayincipit) or a direct quote of some other part of the Tweet that best encapsulates the point – but I would hesitate to endorse that view across the board. My understanding is that the detail of the citation has the primary purpose of allowing another person to find at some point in the future the work being cited. Obviously this is somewhat less of a concern now given that we have hyperlinks and web archives, but from that original perspective it follows that the title should be quoted near-enough to exactly (beyond very minor adjustments such as those along the lines listed atMOS:CONFORM, or perhaps some level of truncation). Hence using a newspaper article's headline verbatim, or indeed – a recent discovery of my own – using a magazine'scover date even when this results in a citation having a date some days or weeks in the future.XAM2175 ^(T)19:29, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense - in the example being discussed, the “trimmed” title was still a direct quote of the “header” paragraph, albeit trimmed and sentence cased. I’m obviously happy to leave as is, still an interesting thought howeverDanners430 (talk)19:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like it was an accidental paste from something else I was working on :-)Neils51 (talk)10:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Two points:

1. AtBritish Rail Class 390 § Avanti West Coast refurbishment, please remember to update the "as of" caption when you update the table, and;
2. Are you sure about the edits you made atBritish Rail Class 91 § List of Class 91 locomotives to the entries for 91110, 91111, and 91119? To the best of my knowledge they've neither been renamed nor reliveried, but rather their special liveries have been properly painted on (instead of being vinyl wrappings as before).

Thanks.XAM2175 ^(T)18:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

For the class 91 edits, I quote the article in Railways Illustrated - "91107 Skyfall has become the final member of the operational fleet to move to Wabtec Doncaster for repainting into the new LNER InterCity 225 oxblood colour scheme". Also from the same magazine, but page 23 - "all of LNER's remaining operational Class 91s have now been repainted following the release of 91107 in the Intercity-derived livery". To me that means that all the LNER Class 91s in service are in that livery.

As for the Class 390 table, I missed that point when I was editing - it's a bit of a mess in terms of syntax, so it probably got lost for me! Thanks for correcting it.Danners430 (talk)18:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

No worries re the 390 bit. Re the 91s – the article is referring to the ones that were left in VTEC livery, but I grant you that the wording is tricky:all of LNER's remaining operational Class 91s have now been repainted following the release of 91107 in the Intercity-derived livery says that all have now been repainted, butnot that they were all painted into LNER IC. The three specials were in fact all painted in their existing special liveries last year; there's coverage of 91119's repaint in thisRailAdvent article for a start. Note the paragraph91119 will re-enter passenger service on the East Coast Main Line in due course and will join 91110 ‘Battle of Britain Memorial Flight’ and 91111 ‘For the Fallen’ in having a unique livery, whilst the rest of the LNER 91s will receive a rebrand into the LNER ‘InterCity Inspired’ livery.XAM2175 ^(T)18:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense - sadly I didn’t have the context of other articles and info about the other locos. That’s why we work together on here! Thanks for your assistance with this.Danners430 (talk)18:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly! Thanks very much for your efforts too.XAM2175 ^(T)18:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Danners430. After reviewing your request, I haveenabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installingTwinkle orRedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revertclear cases ofvandalism only, and notgood faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used toedit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, seeWikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on mytalk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?15:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks for your trust :-)Danners430 (talk)15:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

TfL has agreed in the agenda (https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s19641/fc-20230308-item13a-class378-lease-part1.pdf) for

1. (2.1a) Terminating the existing 2007 lease and the 2013 lease relating to the Class 378 fleet
2. (2.1b) Purchase of the Class 378 fleet as described in this paper.
3. (4.4) The operational and fleet strategy is to retain the Class 378 fleet in operations on the London Overground until life expired in 2044

And they have explicitly mentioned on their budget in the cite PDF page 24 on the Other section:

(22/23 includes the purchase of the London Overground class 378 rolling stock (£281m), which will reduce cost

and risk compared to the current leasing arrangements.)

This could be interpreted as they have already completed or in process of transferring ownership from QW Rail Leasing.

Littlerabbit506 (talk)08:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I completely missed that in the original source - however, it doesn't look like it's already happened, at least there's nothing saying it's gone beyond a proposal yet. Perhaps it would be better to have that in the article as a proposal, instead of something that has "already happened"? Would be worth linking the second PDF too.Danners430 (talk)08:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey just want to say that there is a source that does have it[1]90.242.161.180 (talk)14:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Class 66, 66721 named Harry Beck - I saw this youtube videohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHxko_0GF5c which has this locomotive passing through hence my adding it to the named locomotive list. I cannot find any references to when it was actually named though :(Sfyffecollins (talk)14:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source as it falls underWP:UGC. A suitable source would be a magazine or news article detailing the naming. If it's only just been named, then it'll likely be in the next edition of Rail or Railways Illustrated, or similar publications.Danners430 (talk)15:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

In fact,XAM2175 has found a source and re-added the info :-)Danners430 (talk)15:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Danners430Hi, i see you've edited the information i put on the class 73s entry, i can confirm this as being true as i was present at the naming ceremonyAftv15 (talk)00:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) This is calledoriginal research ("I justknow it to be true!"). Wikipedia does not use original research to source information; theverifiability policy is very clear that we use references from reliable, published sources.Mattdaviesfsic (talk)05:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageBritish Rail Class 43 (HST), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)16:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

hi,

I read your message you sent me regarding the edit I made on 76079's status.

It's been withdrawn for overhaul and it currently stored at Pickering carriage shed. This is true because I visited the railway yesterday and I saw it stored in the carriage shed.JamesH2002 (talk)16:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You and I may know it to be true - but unless it's backed up by a reliable source, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Original research doesn't count towards that.Danners430 (talk)16:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Found a source and added it inJamesH2002 (talk)17:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that - if you can find a better source however, please do replace the one you added initially - it does look as though it'sWP:UGC, so a better source is very desirable.Danners430 (talk)10:38, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've tried looking fur a better source and can't find one at the moment but I will keep looking.JamesH2002 (talk)10:57, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, if someone creates their user page to negatively rant about a specific user or organization, that's covered by an attack page speedy deletion. Criticizing Wikipedia itself is generally considered to be okay- though there likely is a line that can be crossed in that regard(perhaps excessive vulgarity, threats of legal action, etc.), I don't think that post does.331dot (talk)11:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all - it probably flew close to the line with the phrase "wankerpedia", but it's definitely not an attack on individuals so that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for the info and the help in improving my knowledgeDanners430 (talk)11:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The edit was done as the engines are now no longer located at Fort William as they have returned south for the winter period. The section is being kept updated with genuine references and has been done so with previous locos including the A3 being moved to York for an event and 45212 returning home to the K&WVR for the winter. DO NOT REVERT77.103.154.52 (talk)00:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"DO NOT REVERT" is not going to stop anyone. Your edit added content which was not covered by the reference, such as loco owners. Unless it's properly referenced, it has no place on wikipedia.Danners430 (talk)10:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no point in replacing one section of uncited text with another. If you cared to look the 175s have been withdrawn, so applyingWP:COMMONSENSE then there is no way that they are operating services into Manchester.Inverkatun (talk)00:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It should not have been uncited in the first place. Readers should not be expected to hunt for cites in other articles to back up information in the article they were reading.Danners430 (talk)00:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Flickr is actuallygenerally unreliable. This photograph is not published anonymously, and Martyn Hilbert is awell published author of media on railways. So I actually think my citation is reasonable.YorkshireExpat (talk)05:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

If that image gets published in a magazine for example, then it can be used as a reference. An image by itself however falls underUser Generated Content, so cannot be considered a reliable source.Danners430 (talk)12:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

HiDanners430, I think "vandalism" may be an overinterpretation inSpecial:Diff/1190969996. Original research, perhaps; disruptive editing, perhaps... Vandalism, nah.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Mh, I hadn't noticed their edit summaries yet. Disruptive, yes.~ ToBeFree (talk)22:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand - was a little annoyed after reading the edit summaries!Danners430 (talk)22:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I've had yet another look and they're so similar that all are now blocked as sockpuppets. Thanks for your report!~ ToBeFree (talk)23:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Danners430, you wrote the text in the title of this section on my talk page, but that's not what I did - that's what you did!

That line was followed by:"As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in".

Your advice for what I should do, is EXACTLY what I did - leave the dates in the predominant format of the page (see below). I did NOT change the date format: I changed the date from "2023-05-22" to "2023-12-31"[2].You changed the date format (and the date) to "31 December 2923" as part of undoing my edit[3]. I simply undid that undo - which passively undid your active changing of the date format.

Personally, I'm not fussed about date format, and happy to be corrected constructively - and if you had simply edited the page to have that date format for that date, I wouldn't have cared. However you seem to be very aggressive about which date format is used (undoing edits, slandering me on my talk page).

But do you actually care about date formats? The date I edited had been there in the wrong format for (at least) 7 months. The paragraph above the access date we changed has the following dates: 23 May 2022 (in text), 2022-05-19 (date field of cite news template), 2022-05-31 (archive-date field of cite news template), June 2022 (in text), 2022-06-08 (date field of cite news template), 14 June 2022 (archive-date field of cite news template), 6 June 2022 (in text), 2022-05-27 (date field of cite news template), 2022-06-03 (archive-date field of cite news template) [predominately the yyyy-mm-dd format, especially inside citation templates like the date I changed is], but yet you didn't change them to the format you apparently passionately want them to be in, despite being there for about 18 months!

So, the question is - do you actually care about the date formats? or is this merely an excuse to undo my edit out of some sort of malice towards me? Either way, thanks for the reminder about why I edit wikipedia far less than I could and I'll see you again in a couple of years when I've forgotten once again why I was steering clear of editing wikipedia with a 10 foot bargepole: certain users making it unenjoyable and not worth the hassle.

Happy New Year86.18.220.144 (talk)19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion on your talk page - I shall continue the conversation there to avoid splitting the discussion.Danners430 (talk)19:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong diff for you fifth example at ANI. I think you meant the next edit[4] rather than the one by Turini2[5]. --LCUActivelyDisinterested«@» °∆t°22:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! Oh well, looks like it's been resolved either way... My apologies to Turini2!Danners430 (talk)14:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries ... weird what you find when you google your username!Turini2 (talk)12:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I was rather very confused to see a diff in my archives!Danners430 (talk)12:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The information provided by realtime is reliable info showing that the engines have moved by rail from one location to another. 44871 & 45407 have both returned home to the ELR & 45596 has returned to the ELR, what other site do you want the info from RailAdvent.80.192.53.153 (talk)19:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

If you would care to read the edit summaries, I have twice now linkedWP:REALTIMETRAINS. RailAdvent is definitely a better source to state they have moved. However, it doesn't say anything about their status in service, boiler tickets etc.

And since you appear to be posting on other people's talk pages, might I suggest you read your own, where I've left multiple messages over multiple months, which appear to have been ignored?Danners430 (talk)19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been reading your messages if you do not mind.80.192.53.153 (talk)19:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well then please do take heed, especially about the way you write sources… templates like Cite Web exist for a reasonDanners430 (talk)19:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

To be honest the image you have added is no better than the one Class444SWRail was trying to foist on us, mainly I suspect, because it is one of his. His latest suggestion (Preston) is better. The image taken at Piccadilly shows the underframe detail which neither the two latter ones do.Murgatroyd49 (talk)12:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd suggest starting a thread on the talk page then - I only changed it to stop the constant back and forth... it was a 30 second search on Commons :DDanners430 (talk)12:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Danners430, the location of 60007 & 61306 is 100% correct as Crewe TMD, but I’m struggling to find the source for 61306. I thought the link I provided for 60007 was correct as it should have been the movement for after it failed in Edinburgh last December. It was dragged back to Crewe by 20132. I will have a proper look when I get on my PC later as I was editing on mobile earlierIsaacArrows47593 (talk)17:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't dispute the accuracy of your info - however without reliable sources it doesn't belong on WikipediaDanners430 (talk)17:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The photographs we're kept seperate from the notes section, for a reason. Having the photograph positioned above the notes makes it even bigger than it's supposed to be, having the photographs in a seperate box and the notes in a seperate box makes it easier for people to understand also. Plus it makes no sense having photographs in a box which isn't related, they are better in a seperate box than mixed up as 44806 has a large number of notes in it presently and you having the photograph above these notes makes it even bigger than it's supposed to be.— Precedingunsigned comment added by80.192.53.153 (talk)00:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you take your comments to the talk page on the article instead of canvassing different editors.

And again… welcome to the world of finally communicating… perhaps now you'd feel like looking atWP:ANI where you've been reported for multiple things, and have ignored messages about…Danners430 (talk)00:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

If you look at thisthis diff, you'll see before I made any edits to the pageBritish Rail Class 810, the citation references on that page had an inconsistent mixture of date formats - some were inN Month Year format and some were inyyyy-mm-nn format. Whilst copyediting the page, one of the jobs I did was standardising all references on using one justone format. I chose theyyyy-mm-nn format for simplicity, as I had also ensured that the page had the{{Use dmy dates}} tag. This means that the date format would alwaysdisplay asN Month Year in the article, even if in the underlying wikitext it was written asyyyy-mm-dd.

It wasn't an 'error in cite format' or me choosing to change date formats willy-nilly - quite the opposite! The page was incorrectly using a mixture of formats, it wasn't easy to see which was the 'original' format, so I just chose one to use - whilst being particularly careful to ensure that as per{{Use dmy dates}}all dates in citations would show inN Month Year format.

By reverting my changes, you will have changed the page from having just the one date format into having a mixture of formats. Therefore, I reverted your changes to put the page back to using just a single date format.DrFrench (talk)23:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

You’ve missed one crucial point - I didn’t revert your change at all because it added some valuable additional content. Instead I manually went through the whole article and altered the date formats to DMY throughout - so there is no “mismatching” dates.

Also, it’s worth noting that following your edit, there were still a fairly large number of DMY dates remaining, so there were a mixture of formats at that stage.Danners430 (talk)07:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In fact, double checking the history of the page, I even made the edit summary “date format audit” - nowhere does it say that I’ve reverted any of your changes, so I don’t know where you got the idea from…Danners430 (talk)07:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

And you've missed themost crucial point. I was not guilty of doing what you accused me of in the first place (i.e. "unnecessarily changing date formats").

I'm not a subject expert. I copyedit. I try to clean-up good faith edits in order to improve/standardise pages when I see something wrong on them. And I try to improve as much as I can, especially when it comes to adding or improving citations/references. I may be 'guilty' of not managing to standardiseall of the citation dates in that article, but it was a good faith attempt to pick one format and make all citation dates uniform - and also ensuring that the display text (which surely is our primary concern here) was always correct. I certainly was not "unnecessarily changing date formats" - as there was not already a uniform date format on that page.

I try toWP:AAGF, but I feel your use of the{{Uw-date}} template on my talk page was both inappropriate and inaccurate. I'm not intending on making a bigger fuss over this and I'm not going to make any future edits to theBritish Rail Class 810 article either.DrFrench (talk)21:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that way - bear in mind that template is a notice, not a warning - I didn't want to warn you and didn't think you did anything wrong or acted in bad faith - it's simply a way of letting you know of something. In this case you did alter date formats unnecessarily in my opinion - if we don't agree here, then that's fine and we can move on.Danners430 (talk)21:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The information added regarding daytrip railtours run in 2010 by Tyseley included reliable references from the former site UK Steam, this being in the days before RailAdvent came along so is the only prooveable site that these tours ran as YouTube links aren't accepted aswell as facebook posts.80.192.53.153 (talk)17:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to determine when it's nothing more than a bare URL with a short, sometimes meaningless title… as I've mentioned I don't know how often on your talk page, which despite your assertions seem to be getting ignored, templates likeTemplate:Cite web exist for a reason…Danners430 (talk)18:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I was sent this website by someone on an external forum during a discussion about the performance of the units, it's not my own website. I thought it might have been a good idea to update the article with more accurate statistics, however I agree that the source doesn't look very professional and therefore probably shouldn't be used as a reference. Apologies.Brobro2343 (talk)15:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: I did check over the maths they provide on there and they are technically correct calculations, make of that what you willBrobro2343 (talk)15:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the webpage - but that doesn't mean it can be used as a reference... seeWP:TRUTH.Danners430 (talk)15:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh I see, I'm new to this haha. Why did you remove the ABDO edit though? That came fromhttps://www.modernrailways.com/article/swr-unveils-701Brobro2343 (talk)15:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It was still unsourced - all info must be sourced, so feel free to add the edit again - with the reference.Danners430 (talk)15:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It was sourced, look at Revision as of 14:17, 28 March 2024Brobro2343 (talk)15:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes - using the site discussed above... which isn't a valid reference.Danners430 (talk)15:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're getting mixed up, I'm talking about the ABDO part of the edit, not the acceleration. The acceleration used the website we've agreed on isn't valid, the ABDO had a reference of,https://www.modernrailways.com/article/swr-unveils-701, listed as [4]Brobro2343 (talk)15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see what I did - it was a named ref, so I missed it because it was small - that's my bad. I've re-added it, albeit without the dead wikilink.Danners430 (talk)16:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I updated the 57 fleet data to the latest information, I can't link to a source but I do work for Porterbrook who own a large portion of the fleet2A02:C7C:449F:2E00:F4CF:CBAF:DD63:110C (talk)14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't matter - if you can't link to a source, then it's nothing more thanoriginal research, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Danners430 (talk)14:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how to add source info, but this article tells you about the /3's transferring to GBRf, is this enough info?

www.everand.com/article/639821039/Gb-Railfreight-To-Take-On-Class-57-3sDJAZS (talk)14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That article says they are due to change operator, not that they have - seeWP:CRYSTAL.

I would suggest taking this to the article talk page now, as you have already broken the3 revert rule, for which you could be blocked.

As for how to write sources, seeHelp:Referencing for beginners.Danners430 (talk)14:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

As you removed the 69011 livery information, I note that I have readded it noting a video in which the unit appears. The livery appears by all accounts to match that of 69008 except for the number. I do not have access to UK magazines and don't know if we want to source the Youtube video, so a better source can be added later to make it all proper. The video does confirm the edit.CycloneGU (talk)23:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. If there isn't a reliable source that can be used, then the information doesn't belong on Wikipedia - seeWP:TRUTHDanners430 (talk)05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not say there is NOT a reliable source - just that I do not know what it would be. Also, how is a visual video of the train going by in its livery not a valid source? It very clearly shows the livery right there. There are multiple videos showing it in this livery. I mean, hypothetically, a reliable source could publish incorrect information and it sounds like you would prefer to use that incorrect information over what the eyes can see in such a circumstance.CycloneGU (talk)22:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

YouTube videos generally fall underuser generated content, which mean they are not reliable sources. As for your assertion of preferring incorrect information - I prefer to follow Wikipedia policy, one of which isverifiability not truth.Danners430 (talk)23:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, other pages of locomotives such as the Royal Scot class, Coronations, etc have captions like the one I edited into the 4073, so why remove it?Threepeater11 (talk)00:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a discussion ongoing atWikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways about this very topic - probably best to weigh in thereDanners430 (talk)05:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Morning. I noticed you undid my Removal of class 91 future proposed services from Euston to Stirling with grand union, when they have announced they are no longer chasing this option? Curious as to why. Cheers :)SpeedyWombat88 (talk)07:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

http://www.granduniontrains.co.uk/stirlingtolondon/

source :)SpeedyWombat88 (talk)07:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be removed in its entirety - it's still a notable part of history. Instead maybe consider moving it to a new section, such as aborted proposals, and note that source as evidence that it's no longer being pursued.

However, as per my message on your talk page, please don't just use a bare url.Danners430 (talk)07:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm wanted to say, that I'm changed the information of the article due to a opening of rail link to Leven railway station (Fife). Moreover, I'm sorry for my change the format of dates, as I'm did to previously mentioned article. I'm simply forgot, that UK is in Europe.I'm have hope that You accept my apology to previosly mentioned talk.BartkovskyMc (talk)18:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Please check your "Revision as of 12:07, 7 May 2024" on the East Midlands Railway article.

You said "Railforums is not a reliable source", presumably referring to the discussion forum established in 2005. For some reason, you thought it was that (railforums.co.uk),

even though the source was in fact Rail Forum (railforum.uk) - quote from its homepage:

"Established in 1993, the Rail Forum is a national industry body with strong regional connections.Based at the heart of one of the largest clusters of rail companies in the world our members span the whole industry from global corporations to micro SMEs, asset owners to manufacturers, digital solutions providers to passenger and freight operators.An inclusive, not for profit organisation, our member companies are drawn from all parts of the UK."

I appreciate that we as people make mistakes, but this one could've been avoided if you had actually checked the page that was given as the source.Anamyd (talk)02:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, that's a mistake - however, like you say, mistakes happen, there's no need to get angry about it.

I would restore the content, but can't as you've made edits since.Danners430 (talk)09:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't getting angry about it. Well that's me told.Anamyd (talk)16:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

All good - I made a second mistake here… replying to talk page messages before my first coffee! Apologies for any offence caused, it wasn’t my intention, and apologies again for my mistake with the source.Danners430 (talk)16:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No beef.Anamyd (talk)18:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Why on earth would you think that, with two living Princesses called Alice, the LMS would name two of their Coronation locomotives after one of them and ignore the other? As all sources show, in reality both Alices got one each.86.183.134.1 (talk)20:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Redrose sourced the change - you did not. It's as simple as that. I also don't have access to the vast library that Redrose has.Danners430 (talk)21:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Use some basic logic. I didn't have the source to hand but it made absolutely zero sense for one Princess Alice to have two locomotives and the other none.86.183.134.1 (talk)15:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

SeeWP:VERIFIABLE. Have a nice life.Danners430 (talk)16:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Danners430. Re your edit on the SVR Rolling stock page "That's not how cite web works". Noted thanks, and I'm happy not to use "Cite Web" for that type of reference. However I see that you've replaced it with{{cite journal}} which I note refers to "academic and scientific papers published in bona fide journals", and suggests that for articles in magazines and newsletters one should use{{cite magazine}}. Branch Lines is a monthly newsletter, therefore shouldn't we use that instead? Thanks for the other updates on that page, by the way. Cheers.Robin84F (talk)17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I definitely made a mistake in my definition of a journal then - definitely better to switch to magazine, cheers for raising that!Danners430 (talk)17:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated it accordingly and I know what to use next time! On a different but related topic, I'm planning on making my proposed changes to the main SVR article as I posted on WikiProject UK Railways and in the absence of any adverse comment there. As stage 1, I've drafted a new version of the map showing only the heritage railway inmy sandbox; if you have a chance I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have before I start. Cheers.Robin84F (talk)19:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Danners430. Regarding your edit on theBritish Rail Class 20 page, you reverted edits regarding 20901/20905 on the basis that these were operated by HNRC. This is not correct, they were sold by HNRC to BB in January 2024 and now have no operational or commercial link to HNRC. I have provided evidence in the references, but as I also managed the purchase on behalf of Balfour Beatty I am confident this is the case. Thank you, and all the best.Scott Bradley (talk)09:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Those sources certainly work - just please don't usebare URLs like those when citing sources.Danners430 (talk)12:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Talking to someone like that is not nice. It would've made more sense for you to give me the reason you removed the reference with the link to the photo proof.2A00:23EE:1418:7DA3:2153:362F:AF59:5515 (talk)22:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, here you go -WP:TWITTERDanners430 (talk)22:08, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Don't try to interfere my editing on the E2 tank engine page, I'm trying to copy-edit more new information on it.Trainsfan13 (talk)21:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Have a read ofWP:OWN… this is a collaborative project, so don't accuse anyone of "interfering".Danners430 (talk)21:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I might also add, it's pretty obvious you've ignored the note I left on your talk page as you are still not using edit summaries… the stats show 18% of edits have summaries - that's definitely not good.Danners430 (talk)21:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven’t got time to add summary notes because it's complicated to explain!Trainsfan13 (talk)23:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not a reason. Please seethe policy on the use of edit summaries - it takes but two seconds to add a summary along the lines of "copy-edit" or "re-writing section", and everyone knows roughly what you're doing. I noted that some of the recent edits to the article in question have summaries - that's all that's neededDanners430 (talk)04:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Class 47830 is no longer with freightliner, it is now with Locomotive Services Limited. Apologies for any vandalism caused.82.20.8.217 (talk)20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

class 47 (47830) is now with LSL and not with freightliner. I do apologise for any inconvenience caused. Please research any railway websites for additional proof.82.20.8.217 (talk)22:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Great. Where’s your source.Danners430 (talk)22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)