Revision as of 00:08, 13 August 2017 editAnthonyt31201 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,008 edits →South Coast Rail: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:56, 9 September 2017 edit undoPi.1415926535 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers49,338 edits →AN/I notice: new sectionNext edit → | ||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
Again, South Coast Rail and it's stations is PLANNED. Construction has not commenced. You repeatedly change this in articles, and it is annoying. Your lack of edit summaries, poor grammar and unsourced edits make the South Coast Rail articles look like a mess. ] (]) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC) | Again, South Coast Rail and it's stations is PLANNED. Construction has not commenced. You repeatedly change this in articles, and it is annoying. Your lack of edit summaries, poor grammar and unsourced edits make the South Coast Rail articles look like a mess. ] (]) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC) | ||
== AN/I notice == | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 04:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:56, 9 September 2017
Montello
The |line=
parameter in {{infobox station}} is to specify the physical railway line - in this case, the Fall River Railroad - and not the service (MBTA Commuter Rail, South Coast Rail, etc). Please stop adding the South Coast Rail templates everywhere. South Coast Rail is a proposed project (and one that's been proposed since the 1980s with zero actual results), and all signs point to the two-phase proposal being a political disaster that's going exactly nowhere. There's not a lot of need to preemptively add claims about it when it's a decade or more out for many stations.
I would like to apologize on one thing - you were correct about the 2022/2030 schedule. However, you needed to provide a reliable source to back that up; without the source, it looked like you were just adding random numbers. Verifiability of all claims is an extremely important part of Misplaced Pages; it what makes us a useful reference source and not just a rumor mill. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please stop making the same change to Bridgewater. I am very frustrated with your refusal to listen to what I am saying - it is exceptionally rude, especially since you cannot even be bother to add an edit summary to explain what you are doing. The line parameter is NOT for the service (Middleborough/Lakeville Line, South Coast Rail, etc). It is for the physical railroad line, which is not the same thing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Please use edit summaries.
I have noticed that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Misplaced Pages. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! Morphenniel (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Edits that lack citations and cannot be verified
Please stop making changes to Misplaced Pages that cannot be verified. WP:VERIFY
As, example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=South_Chatham_Railroad_Station&type=revision&diff=790003282&oldid=789929867
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wellfleet_Railroad_Station&diff=prev&oldid=790003074
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Orleans_Train_Station&diff=prev&oldid=790002504
You are wasting the time of many editors on Misplaced Pages who must spend extra time reviewing and often reverting the changes that you are making. Please have a look at WP:ORIGINAL and WP:REF.
Information that you add to an article needs to be supported with one of more citations.FFM784 (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Sock Puppet Investigation
You have been reported . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morphenniel (talk • contribs) 09:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry
This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Scott19982. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. GAB 19:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
|
Improper use of line parameter and lack of edit summaries
This is your final warning before I ask for you to be blocked. Two of your editing habits are unacceptable, cause disruption, and must change. As multiple users have explained to you over and over, the "line" parameter is for the physical railway line, not the named service. Yet you persist in removing the physical line name and adding the service. Why have you ignored what people have explained to you?
In the same vein, why do you refuse to leave edit summaries? If you cannot be bothered to explain what your edit is, it casts doubt on what you are trying to do. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Clicquot railway station moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Clicquot railway station, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Random Edits
I have noticed you often make small, incorrect and unverified edits to many MBTA-related pages, which causes people to have to go back and fix them. Please stop editing without verified sources and use proper grammar. Adding an edit summary to edits would be nice, too. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Re: SCR
Template editing is not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Mitch32 05:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
South Coast Rail
Again, South Coast Rail and it's stations is PLANNED. Construction has not commenced. You repeatedly change this in articles, and it is annoying. Your lack of edit summaries, poor grammar and unsourced edits make the South Coast Rail articles look like a mess.Anthonyt31201 (talk) 00:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
South Coast Rail
Again, South Coast Rail and it's stations is PLANNED. Construction has not commenced. You repeatedly change this in articles, and it is annoying. Your lack of edit summaries, poor grammar and unsourced edits make the South Coast Rail articles look like a mess. Anthonyt31201 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
AN/I notice
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)