User talk:Mattdaviesfsic/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mattdaviesfsic. 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 the current talk page.

December 2021 - December 2022

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of proposed railway stations in England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wisbech railway station. 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) 06:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you for the reminder to login Ianwall (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey, so a quick note to let you know that as reliable and mostly accurate as the Platform 5 books are they can in some cases be wrong.

An example of this is the build year for the British Rail Class 333 the Platform 5 book got it wrong, as can be seen here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Rail_Class_333#Build_date Maurice Oly (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I put a photo of the restored Station Building on the Goostrey Railway Station page, but then got your message. Despite my username, please be assured that I was merely contributing a photo that reflected the current status of the building. I did not comment on the new building as opposed to the old one, nor make any recommendations. I honestly just thought it nice to display an accurate photo of the new / restored building on Wiki.

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoostreyStation (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @GoostreyStation:, that's absolutely fine, it was just your username that rang some alarm bells! As you can see, I have not reverted the edit (in fairness I think it looks quite nice). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply and most kind words! The station was restored about two years ago, after £170k raised. When I got your message I was extremely worried, but am glad to read that all is ok. Best wishes. GoostreyStation (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting the image size. If you look at that editors recent Commons uploads you'll see some of the images have frames/borders around them (as was the case with this contribution). They're not encouraged as they distract from the image. Bear in mind there's nothing at all to stop you downloading a full resolution image, cropping it to remove the frame, then re-uploading it as a new version of the same file - so that's what I have just done. Keep an eye out - the photos are generally good but the frames are awful. 10mmsocket (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

An interesting editor actually. 100% a single purpose editor - only contributions are to add his own pictures to articles (and often to remove other's articles at the same time). I have long believed that the latter is a conflict of interest, i.e. if you add your own then you should take away other's. Worth keeping a watch on... 10mmsocket (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, certainly - thanks for letting me know @10mmsocket:. Will add some more pages to my watchlist in case he continues! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for the thanks. It was nice to see that among the talk page notifications. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:59, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Before slapping vandalism notices on IP talk pages, [1], take a look at the article history. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AndyTheGrump:, thanks for your message. The edit summary the IP user provided, "removed subjective propaganda" seemed (to me, anyway) that the edits were not with the best intentions. Perhaps a one-time vandalism warning was a bit harsh, but the content they took out of the article was very excessive, and I did not feel that it was enough to say "your edit was deemed unconstructive, so I reverted it". I see you have edited the lead section in question, and I am very happy with the wording of it now - better than just having the first sentence only that the user provided! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The IPs edit wasn't 'unconstructive'. It was removing material previously added by someone who seemed to think Wikipedia was a platform for promoting their own personal religious beliefs. Possibly if the IP had better knowledge of the inner workings of Wikipedia, they might have been able to figure out (like me) which previous version to restore, but everything they did appears to me to have been well-intentioned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

The IP removed this, "Baptists are the original Christians. They were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; Baptists never came from the Church of Rome, for they were never in it, but they have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves." That's so obviously completely wrong and unencyclopedic... Drmies (talk) 14:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, why the high level warning right off the bat? That's biting the newcomers, especially since it's a constructive editor. —Confession0791 ^talk 22:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Crossrail#Merger_of_"History_of_the_Crossrail_line"_into_this_article see my comment just now. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

uhh thing about the edit I heard it form a staff member so pls don't get mad that no websites and its only form the staff so idk fully but its very likely

ashore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.223.212 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @84.66.223.212:, Wikipedia relies on external (i.e., published) sources to verify these types of claims - something a member of staff said would not be verifiable. For more about this see WP:REF. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know what your intention was with Hull and Selby Railway and Selby Line, but your recent edits have left the latter in a complete mess. There are big red error messages at the bottom of the page which were not there before, also smaller (but still red) error messages throughout the references section. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

See my comments at the WikiProject talk page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

From section headed "NEW CENTRAL LONDON STATIONS" it says, & I quote: "Nine new Elizabeth line stations are being delivered as part of the Crossrail programme – Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, Canary Wharf, Custom House and Woolwich."

https://www.crossrail.co.uk/project/our-plan-to-complete-the-elizabeth-line/

Nine red circles indicate new stations: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1iBn

Please indicate where the tenth is located.--Dave F63 (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ten [2]

1. Abbey Wood
2. Bond Street
3. Canary Wharf
4. Custom House
5. Farringdon
6. Liverpool Street
7. Paddington
8. Tottenham Court Road
9. Whitechapel
10. Woolwich

Clear enough? 10mmsocket (talk) 20:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @10mmsocket: - @Dave F63:, if you read the XR page which you linked to on your edit, it specifically says in the section just before "Opening the railway":

"Nine of the ten new central section stations have now been commissioned and we are now focused on the completion of the works at Bond Street."

I hope this answers your question. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:31, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Just to let you know I noted you have made mass changes to the rail link by (correctly) changing the name of TFL Rail to Elizabeth line, but have retained the rail link in TFL Rail blue, not the Crossrail colours Sootysuerickie (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Sootysuerickie:, thanks for letting me know. Would you be able to link to the right colours so I could change this? I think you are referring to my edits on the GWML, is that correct? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, just located it at Template:LCR_color. Thanks for alerting me! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:16, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mattdaviesfsic, I see you've reverted my edit at Reston railway station. The Transpennine Express timetable clearly shows their Sunday service to Reston [3] and this is confirmed by the National Rail timetable. I don't know why there's no service on 29th May, maybe it's the ongoing industrial action on Sundays. Regards, Tammbeck^talk 19:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Tammbeck:, thanks for letting me know. Yes it seems I didn't do my research properly! Feel free to revert what I just added in that case! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Will do!Tammbeck^talk 19:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Surrey Canal railway station. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Vpab15 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

There was already a dicussion to rename the page to "Surrey Canal railway station", but it didn't get consensus. See Talk:New_Bermondsey_railway_station#Requested_move_13_April_2022. If you want to propose a new requet move, please follow the steps at WP:RM#CM Vpab15 (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Vpab15:, the redirect was denied because, if you had checked the SCRS page history, it was already in existence with that title, so the copy/paste manoeuvre was the only option. It does appear foolish to have the page title as New Bermondsey when the first line states the station will be called Surrey Canal, but I shall raise that as a renaming proposal shortly. Thanks for bringing the discussion to my attention, as well. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

If a redirect has history that prevents a move, and you do not have the WP:PAGEMOVER right, a WP:RM is the only option. Copypaste moves are never preferable to legitimate methods, they don't just cause attribution problems but result in disjoint histories, mislinks and confused bots and scripts. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello you reverted my edit in error. London Terminals tickets are only valid to Blackfriars from the south this is clearly stated on the existing citation in the article. I will be restoring this now. http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46587.aspx DewsburyMad (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it appears so. I should probably have checked! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

In answer to your question, my addition of {{photoreq}} to Talk:Brent Cross West railway station was before the addition of the new lead image (probably in response to my request tag), which has now greatly improved the article. Cnbrb (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Cnbrb:, I think I noticed that a bit after I removed the request, yes! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Good Evening, I was considering a possible edit to the table within the Redhill services table. As Some GWR services terminate at Redhill, to vastly improve accuracy, would it be worth adding in or Terminus to the Table under the GWR heading? I would do this myself but I am not sure how to change it so I can create it as italics and write 'or Terminus' as well as the font colour changes to Red when I complete the editing of the table. Your help would be greatly appreciated. What are your views? views? AvidWriter123 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi @AvidWriter123:, thanks for letting me know. I have made that change for you, but I wouldn't worry about the tables too much as they can be quite fiddly if you're new to them! Do let me know if you spot any others which could do with correcting though. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi again! I have just realised that in the service table on Redhill station GWR seems to be hyperlinked to the Isambard Kingdom Brunel (old) GWR not the current First Group reincarnation if that makes sense.:) AvidWriter123 (talk) 10:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - just fixed it. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added a {{r from misspelling}} 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Thameslink § Removal of distinction. This is mostly in relation to a recent edit you made "fixing" FlyingScotsman's update, but I feel like there's more to this. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi i noticed you reverted my edits in the class 50 wiki. They were about 50026 and 50021. All i did was update the out-dated facts. Can you clarify why this was done as i dont see any factual in-accuracy’s with my info. Thanks in advance. 2A04:4A43:4BCF:E191:2418:503D:A13F:8A1E (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you're User:Indomitable.50026 talking about the edits you made this afternoon, these edits would need to be added with a reliable source. See also WP:TRUTH. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah i am 50026.indomitable im not logged in for some reason here. Thanks for your reply. Im still confused do i need to link sources somewhere because i know my edits are true as i work on both 50026 and 50021. there is evidence in the form of our facebook group and many videos on youtube. I know the info showing on wikapedia is old now and i wanted to change it so its not misleading. I do however see why you deleted as its the rules. Thanks again Your help is greatly appreciated 2A04:4A43:4BCF:E191:2418:503D:A13F:8A1E (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I was just reading your message on the other user's talk page and planning to revert myself when you did it for me. As a rule I would be sceptical of describing RTT as a definitive source, as you did in your reversion summary, because it blindly repeats its industry data sources and has been known to show allocations incorrectly in the past (applying the garbage in, garbage out principle). However, in this case at the very least, I lean towards agreeing with you that it is acceptable enough to use in overturning a statement that was itself unsourced. XAM2175 ^(T) 18:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mattdaviesfsic. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of proposed railway stations in Scotland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You undid my edit on the class 508 page, it is well known which units have been sent to scrap, I was also correcting basic mathematics... I undid your edit, providing a source in the reason for change and someone has instanlty undone it. It doesn't need an inline source so i don't know where to go from here as I'm just tring to provide common knowledge to others but I'm not going to mess around constantly undoing other people unfailry undoing my very correct edits... Liaj22 (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, any changes to the "Fleet details" section of any unit's article needs to be supported by a reliable source. WP works on a policy of verifiability not truth. See also Help:Referencing for beginners. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

But I provided a reliable source the second time? The information is outdated, but i cant be bothered to try and help now. Enjoy inccorect and outdated information... Liaj22 (talk) 19:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

UK Rail Log is WP:UGC and also get's it's information from Wikipedia. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

well i give up. If you lot wont to allow outdated information, go for it. Look at how many times it been editied to include the recently scrapped fleet numbers, its clearly verifiable information. Clearly doesnt get its information from wikipedia since that page is around a year out of date now... Liaj22 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I didn't believe the parts you edited need a source as I was just changing the basic mathematics by couting how many units were in each section. For example, under 508/2's "other" there are clearly 3 units listed but the number of units is being shown as 2, again under 508/1's "Merseyrail" there are only 23 units currently listed as operation? I dont know how you expect me to provide a source for being able to count the number of units that are being displayed on the page already? TransportKnowledge (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you want to add about 508140 being scrapped (as you put in your edit summary), then you'll need to provide a valid reliable source for this (see Help:Referencing for beginners for more information on this). Alternatively, if I misunderstood the edit, do let me know, it happens quite often! Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

508140 is already on the page as being listed as a scrapped unit. I was only removing it from the list of those currently in operation, as to remove confusion, since a unit cannot be both in service and scrapped. TransportKnowledge (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, apologies! I've reverted my edit now - thanks for letting me know and sorry once again for the oversight! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

No worries, thank you for the quick responses :) TransportKnowledge (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI: "oversight" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia (WP:SUPPRESS) so it's probably not the word you want to use in this circumstance ;) XAM2175 ^(T) 13:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fuguato is not a word, but fugato is, and actually closer to the music than fugue. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Apologies, I don't tend to dabble in music-related articles so wouldn't know! Thanks anyhow. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I'd go so far as describing the addition you reverted here as being vandalism. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:10, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but it's certainly not true! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Nevertheless, consider WP:VANDAL:

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. ... Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits that are vandalism. If it is clear that an editor is intending to improve Wikipedia, their edits are not vandalism, even if they violate some core policy of Wikipedia. Mislabeling good faith edits "vandalism" can be harmful, as it makes users less likely to respond to corrective advice or to engage collaboratively during a disagreement. For that reason, avoid using the term "vandalism" unless it is clear the user means to harm Wikipedia ...

XAM2175 ^(T) 23:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

If you don't like me doing COpy moved then do the move to East West Main Line yourself properly. No consensus was obtained to do the move in the first place. There was no discussion in Talk.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You seem oblivious to the history of the page in the last couple of days. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways for the discussion, and an experienced editor like you ought to know better than to copy & paste content to another page. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Since I mentioned you there I am obliged to notify you of the discussion:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kitchen Knife. Thank you. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your recent edits. As Andover railway station is an ambiguous title, it should redirect to the disambiguation page, not Andover railway station (England). Please see WP:DAB. 162 etc. (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy to agree on this one, actually. Thanks Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense, but be aware there'll be some cleanup needed and the station link {{stnlnk}} template will need its input parameters tweaking. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I had disambiguated the links when the article was first moved, but was reverted. @Geof Sheppard: would appreciate if you self-reverted these, thank you. 162 etc. (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Mattdaviesfsic is a relatively new editor that has been doing, as his talk page points out, "the work that all too often goes unappreciated". Well, that is exactly what this award was designed to do: give a deserving editor a pat on the back for a job well done. Matt is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways focusing on Southeast UK railway station articles.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Mattdaviesfsic

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 27, 2022

Does "the work that all too often goes unappreciated" which is exactly what this award was designed to do: give a deserving editor a pat on the back for a job well done. Matt is a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways.

Recognized for

improving SouthEast UK railway station articles

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 15:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Buster7, I'm touched Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

It has been noticed that you have taken to removing vast swathes of information from various miniature railway pages on the basis of lack of citation.

This information is often difficult to impossible to cite, but verifiable (if only by visiting in person)

Please consider whether in this case your edits are in the spirit of wikipedia. (Thinking specifically wikipedia is not compulsory) 2A00:23C7:2222:8E01:D8E6:890F:7D31:B6D2 (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The information you are talking about would fall under the umbrella of original research, so should not be on WP in the first place, indeed the very lack of citations means that it could very well be wrong anyway! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is any harm done to anyone by small pages, of interest to a niche community, who keep the information up to date and correct, having non-cited or primary source info?

By all means tag the pages to note the lack of citations, but outright deleting swathes of information curated over years is destructive and punitive.

What is the benefit to leaving stubs behind in your quest for 'improvement' when your demands for citation are not met?

In a lot of cases, the wikipedia pages (which have existed for ages without causing harm to anyone) are the only repository for this community-correlated information and I struggle to understand why your quest for policy following should trump the interests of the people who read and maintain the pages. 2A00:23C7:2222:8E01:B950:29E0:65D:53E4 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

My reply above stands with reference to WP:OR. If individuals want to maintain such a list the website can be used for that purpose, not Wikipedia. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that Matt has also done this to Bure Valley Railway's page. I would encourage Matt to read relevant section of note in WP:CITETRUTH, "If a statement is not a quotation, is not an extraordinary claim, is not controversial or challenged or likely to be challenged, and is not a negative statement about a living person, a source is not required."

In any case, names of engines and number of coaches on a railway are not controversial nor are they extraordinary claims. Almost all of the information and the table deleted could have been cited in seconds by going to the railway's own website, which I think is a valid source in this case, as per WP:ABOUTSELF.

This behaviour is tantamount to vandalism (edit, 02:11 UTC : I retract this statement - I do not mean "vandalism", I mean "disruptive editing" WP:DIS ) in my opinion. Your intentions for removing original research are noble, but I feel strongly that the site would benefit more from your efforts if you were to make an attempt to verify/cite information you think is controversial/in dispute instead of deleting it immediately, and even then considering whether a citation is strictly required in each case. Zazzfasd (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:CITETRUTH is an essay. WP:OR is policy. And removal of improperly-sourced promotional content is not remotely disruptive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

And read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Editing a post after it has been replied to [4] makes following a discussion difficult, and is strongly discouraged. You are wasting your time arguing here anyway. Find sources, and then discuss on the relevant article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to this sentence in WP:OR:

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Anyone with access to a railway can visit and see the nameplate of a locomotive, and does not need further specialised knowledge to infer the name of the locomotive from their reading of the nameplate. Zazzfasd (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

'Visiting a railway' is original research. And that is my final reply here, since this isn't a remotely appropriate place to be discussing this. Mattdaviesfsic is under no obligation whatsoever to respond to ill-informed accusations of vandalism and/or disruptive editing, and is fully entitled to simply delete such posts. Which is what I'd do if someone carried on like this on my talk page. Stop posting here and participate in discussions in the appropriate place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Zazzfasd:

1. You are misinterpreting WP:OR. Less than two lines above your quote is the line "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care..." which very clearly excludes primary sources that are not published, such as the physical railway itself.
2. This is reinforced by WP:V: verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. Note again the qualifier re previous publication.
3. @AndyTheGrump is correct to refer you to the talk page rules. WP:REDACT is the specific point.
4. Andy is also correct to note that there are better places for this discussion. If not the talkpage of a relevant article, there is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways.

XAM2175 ^(T) 12:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunswick Green Doesnt Exist 10mmsocket (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Do me a favour and keep an eye on Wirral line and Birkenhead Dock Branch. I'm removing some UGC sources - Youtube & Flickr links - and would appreciate some backup if the natives get restless. Thanks in advance. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for letting me know. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm thinking removal of UGC references is something to focus on for a while... 10mmsocket (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarrail (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Re this, yes, I am the same IP - a former editor who returns occasionally. My name, when I had an account, was SchroCat. The tube crash was one of those I took through FAC a long time ago, and I pop back to check on whether any problematic changes have been made. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 15:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

So you're now trying to WP:OWN the article? Is this why you're so protective over it? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

See WP:AGF and don’t assume that everything people do is nefarious. No, I am not trying to own anything, which is why I referred to “problematic changes”. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I mean, thanks for clarifying your identity but why not just have an account which you use occasionally? Not only would that hide your IP but at least establish (or re-establish) some sort of credibility for yourself, no? Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I’ve decided not to - it’s as simple as that (and there is no policy that says anyone has to). I don’t care about my IP being known, and it’s interesting to see the reaction some editors have to IPs. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:1930:3AE6:7605:784 (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to say it here, your behaviour has been appalling. You've made no attempt to engage properly with any of the editors, and when you have, you've cited WP:FAOWN which, talking of significant changes, is irrelevant. Stop wasting everyone's time over tiny grammatical errors (which, let us remember you - and only you - disagree with), and if you want to edit WP, at least do so productively. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid you are not being honest here. I opened a thread on the talk page (I was editing it while you were opening yours) and I have given rationales for the edits I made. I is just not true to claim that I have made no attempt to engage with others. I am not wasting time over tiny errors: I am ensuring an FA is not taken backwards by continual poor edits that ensure it is no longer one "of the best articles Wikipedia has to offer". If you think stopping an article from going backwards isn't productive, I cannot help you. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:6562:A1FC:F7F2:51BF (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

It looked to me like we had a consensus to move it to Hunky (ethnic slur). That was one of the options I had mentioned as a possibility when submitting the RM. Perhaps I should have explicitly stated that I was OK with that after it was suggested by another editor. I think no one supports the current title. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, as this wasn't overly clear from the discussion I left it at No Con. Feel free to propose again with that and ping Amakuru in the discussion, although I wouldn't be able to close such a discussion. Hope that helps and thanks for getting in touch. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wishing you either a recovery from depression or the ability to work through it. McClenon mobile (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciate it. Definitely getting better but, you know.... life! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Your recent edit to Riddlesdown Collegiate appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. He's not individually notable, the incident is notable. Meters (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you seek to gain from removing such vast swathes of information from the various railway pages you have preyed on. Locomotive information is useful for people like me who wish to find out which locomotives are on the railway whether they are operational or not, what livery they are in etc. You claim that they are 'unsourced' or 'original research' but in reality the only source you really need is the railway's own website, which in most cases has an accurate list of all current stock. Please reconsider your actions, many thanks. GW1450 (talk) 16:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why you removed my edit for adding the Class 755 on the East Coast Main Line. Can you explain clearly why you removed it? ("no" is not a clear explanation for the removal, since Greater Anglia trains run from Ipswich on the GEML to Peterborough on the ECML, it should be included. Plus under train operating companies, Greater Anglia is included. Plus this is my first time here so I don't know how to find a source) 94.197.221.36 (talk) 10:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, the tracks that the 755s run on into Peterborough barely touches the ECML for any considerable length, so it's barely worth including. They use platforms 5/6 at Peterborough, where most ECML trains use platforms 1-4 (I believe). If you really disagree, you can leave a note on the talk page, but I doubt there would be much support anyhow. Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It was Maurice Oly who changed the Class 465 infobox number without changing the main table. I've left a message asking him to check. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Do me the honour of some reciprocal assistance and keep an eye out... 10mmsocket (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for letting me know. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for closing the move discussion. How do you get the move done? I think it needs an admin's attention now. 10mmsocket (talk) 09:21, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was move protected by Redrose in 2019 I think - I've put it up at the RM board for an admin to carry out. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool thanks 10mmsocket (talk) 09:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

See User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 23#Merseyrail for some of the context. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, regarding your WP:COLAS edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways where you altered e.g. ***:: to *****, please see Wikipedia:Colons and asterisks#Best practices which states the simple rule is that you're fine as long as you copy the style of the preceding indent and then you are free to add your own type of indent to your reply. The second example there shows that in action. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)