User talk:611fan2001

Hello, 611fan2001! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! GenQuest "Talk to Me" 14:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi 611fan2001! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Union Pacific 4014, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metrolink (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

I noticed your recent edit to NBR S class does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norfolk and Western 611, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roundhouse. 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) 06:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On Reading 2102 you tagged it for cleanup due to unreliable references. Could you put more details on the talk page? Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I tagged the page, is because I felt the page contains Fan sites that were cite as unreliable sources. Trains13 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Canadian National 6060, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). 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 Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian National 6060, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Sugar 148, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits today on the construction updates for the WDWRR. They were well-written, and the citations were formatted perfect; however, the author of both citations, blogmickey.com, is a clear example of self-published work with no apparent editorial oversight and hence is not suitable to be used in a featured article (see: WP:NOTRELIABLE). Unless you can find alternate sources that are reliable, this new info will unfortunately have to be deleted. Allowing sources like this to remain in the article could potentially lead to a quality review of the article that could remove its featured status, and I'd prefer to avoid that. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 23:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info; I've recently replaced the BlogMickey sources with the more reliable sources from WDW News Today. 611fan2001 (talk) 23:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Railway Ss classes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Artem.G (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great Smoky Mountains Railroad 1702, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you removed the modifications list I gave the GSMR 1702 page, but left the modifications lists in the pages for other locos, like R&N 425, GCRY 4960, SPLC 28, and N&W 475, alone? Also, I’ve been recently planning to add more detail to the history section of the 1702 page, since I want to make more existing steam loco wiki pages as detailed as possible, but first, I must know whether you think that idea is unnecessary or not. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number one consideration is to prevent an article from being removed with all of the unsourced information removed and the section of many modifications has none of them. In my opinion, some of these bits of "modification" information should be part of the history section and the GSMR 1702 should not treated as a railfan page. Trains13 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There are drafts for CP 1201, 2839, and 2860, and they all need to be taken care of. I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia pages, but I do know that a page for 1201 deserves to be made. I have added stuff to it, but I don't know the locomotive that well, which is why I was wondering if experts like you could finish it off. I also know enough to see that the pages for 2839 and 2860 aren't necessary, since a page for the Royal Hudsons already exists. Could you please do something about these? If you would, thank you, but if you won't, it's fine, I'll ask someone else. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can, but I don't have any motivations to build these pages. Trains13 (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about you at least help with any one of these ones. Draft:Hampton & Branchville 44 Draft:St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway 5 Draft:Sumter & Choctaw 103 Draft:Polson Logging Co. 2 Draft:Cherokee Brick & Tile 1 Draft:Nickel Plate Road 755 Draft:Nickel Plate Road 757 Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 10 Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 9 Draft:Dardanelle and Russellville Railroad 8 Draft:Phenix Marble Company 1 Draft:Leviathan (locomotive) Draft:East Broad Top 12 Draft:East Broad Top 14 Draft:East Broad Top 15 Draft:East Broad Top 16 Draft:East Broad Top 17 Draft:East Broad Top 18 Draft:Wilmington and Western 58 Draft:Wilmington and Western 98 Draft:Virginia and Truckee 11 Reno Draft:Virginia and Truckee 12 Genoa Draft:Virginia and Truckee 21 J.W. Bowker Draft:Lowville and Beaver River Railroad 8 Draft:Union Pacific 4420 Draft:Southern Pacific 1233 Draft:Southern Pacific 1269 You do not have to do all of them. Just the ones you feel like building. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's WAY.... too many steam locomotive pages to work on! I don't have time for them now, I have college work to do. Trains13 (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said you don’t HAVE to take care of all of ALL of them! Just SOME. Do you even read everything thrown at you?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.169.64.51 (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, dude, what the heck is your problem? /:( Trains13 (talk) 02:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.169.64.51 (talk) 03:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user called Doncram has been building up Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States and Draft:Preserved locomotives in Canada , but they both seem to be incomplete. If you have the time and interest, could you maybe help improve these drafts, anyhow? 47.223.120.112 (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both won't be necessary, because there were way too many locomotives to add to the page, and you did not cite any sources whatsoever.  Trains13 (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never added any sources that came from YouTube, Facebook, or Railpictures, but you say that all of the other sources I’ve added are unreliable anyway?! I’m sorry, but you’re fixing to make me rage quit. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the Great Smoky Mountain News source, it uses information from YouTube. It was made using Wordpress and Wordpress is not a reliable source. Trains13 (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well…at least let me ask this. How come you deleted the mod lists from 1702, 4960, and 29, but you’re keeping the lists on 425, 475, and 90, in which the latter three have zero sources? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any motivations to clean-up the 425, 475, and 90 pages. Trains13 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YOU need to understand that the Wikipedia wants the articles to be sourced with VERY reliable sources and the section of many modifications has no sources added whatsoever. These locomotives pages need to meet Wikipedia's target audience. Trains13 (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These heavily-modified locomotives, namely 4960, 29, 18, and 1702, have had so many modifications after they were built, I just thought that they were worthy of having lists of their own. After seeing how the 475 and 90 pages were made, it just seemed like a good idea at the time I started doing it myself. You have already made it clear to me and a few anonymous users that Wikipedia pages can only have sources that came from books, magazines, newspapers, and websites made by the owner of the subject. If I had learned anything from contributing Wikipedia for the past two and a half years, it’s that not every source you see privately or publicly will be accepted. I have been trying my best to keep the mods lists on 18, 29, and 4960 alive by keeping reliable sources in them, but if you believe a modification page is unnecessary whatsoever, I’ll get around to moving some of the more critical mods into the history paragraphs. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, some of these modification details should be part of the history sections and some that were on forums, YouTube, and Facebook should not be added as they were cited as unreliable. Highlighting these nitty-gritty details about the locomotive is NOT how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written. Trains13 (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll gladly take care of that, but I have already deleted forums and sources and from YouTube and Facebook from these a while ago. Also, you don’t need to remind me with any kind of attitude; I saw you originally reply with “I DON’T care”. Seriously, I may not be doing everything right while editing Wikipedia pages, but my main motivation since the very beginning was only to give pages to individually preserved steam locomotives that I like, and I don’t always perfect them myself, because I assume someone might do it for me. I made those lists, because I was only lightly copying what others were doing, and I didn’t even realize they were probably inexperienced themselves. I mean, it’s not like I’m committing any real-world crimes over this… Someone who likes train writing (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you're trying to add new info to various steam locomotives. That reminds me of myself when I was trying way too hard on the Walt Disney World Railroad (WDWRR) page back when I don't have an account at the time in 2015-2018. I've added some new info about the WDWRR's operations, locomotives, and whistles until the admins reverted my contributions many times, because I didn't cite them. After I received my own account in early 2019, I began to cause more counterproductive edits to the WDWRR page and being reported for that. I've apologized to the admins for the way I behaved, and I had to lay off the WDWRR page to rethink my behavior. Afterwards, I realize the WDWRR page was made to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and I decided to give the same treatments made to other well-known steam locomotives such as Union Pacific 4014 and Norfolk and Western 611. Trains13 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I can kind of see myself in that position... I might give this Manual of Style format a read to improve my skills after I complete two locomotive Drafts I'm working on right now. Until then, if you want to anyway, feel free to edit and/or improve any of the pages I have already created myself. Also, I hope the edits I made to your Alaska 557 draft aren't a problem... Someone who likes train writing (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry if I sounded a little too harsh on you. Trains13 (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive 1309 has had “Super Choo” written on her smokebox since July 18th, 2022. WM202 (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the “Maryland Thunder” nickname as it is only used by unofficial sources not associated with the railroad. WM202 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I swear to God, NO: https://www.facebook.com/page/345300237969/search/?q=maryland%20thunder Trains13 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this when “Super Choo” merch is released by the railroad and not “Maryland Thunder” merch. Maryland Thunder was a short lived name given by a newspaper that everyone rolled with until the shop crews decided on Super Choo. When the new merch is released I expect to be able to change the nickname to Super Choo as per the wishes of the railroad and its employees. WM202 (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but like I said, do not add a new information about 1309's new nickname until a reliable source has been given.  Trains13 (talk) 23:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the page Savannah and Atlanta 750, you used a source from the website "Medium". This is a blog site, much like wordpress, and has already been marked as not reliable in the [1] perennial sources table. I'm writing to let you know that you should replace it as soon as possible. Replacing the source with 'citation needed' is sufficient for now, until a suitable source is found. Gorden 2211 (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my fault, it was User:23.169.64.51. Trains13 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When adding new images to a featured article, and it's from Flickr, check to ensure whether commercial use and mods are allowed for the image. If they are not allowed, they can't be used. It's one of the many quirks I learned that you have to watch for when I raised this and a few other articles to featured status. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 13:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand of what you meant, thanks for the info.  Trains13 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this isn’t too much trouble, but I need a little bit of advise. I am currently working on a page for a steam locomotive called Huntingdon and Broad Top 38, and in that page, I have mentioned that the locomotive participated in the 1985 NRHS convention. However, the only good source I could find was from wordpress, and well, you once told me that wordpress is unreliable for Wikipedia. That's why I am debating on whether I should add that source anyway, or add this one, instead. https://www.online-estatesale.com/Listing/Details/553368 . Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, I know you can see this message. While I was banned from editing Wikipedia, I’ve been thinking. I haven’t been honest with you or anyone lately. I’ve pulled all those “disruptive” edits, because although I do add real life info to certain pages, I also just wanted to have fun trolling around every once in a while. I now realize that was completely unnecessary and uncalled for. Wikipedia is an informative encyclopedia, and not a trolling site like Reddit is. I am sorry for being so rude to ya, Trains13. And I would also like to take a moment to apologize to User:Trainsandotherthings, User:Someone who likes train writing, and User:Davidng913 for my bad behavior.

Thank you for taking a minute to read this. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay, man, and I've accepted your apology.  Trains13 (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad all is forgiven. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Union Pacific 4014 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Trains13 -- Trains13 (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're not supposed to create the GAN review page yourself. It should be created by the editor who is reviewing the article. That's why you just got a message saying that you are reviewing your own article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, my bad... Trains13 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you know how to block a user from editing Wikipedia pages? I ask, because user JimmyHook won't stop restoring the Modifications lists on the 4960, 29, and 18 articles, and it's already getting on my nerves. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this user, but I told him to stop being so self-absorbed of his own ideas. Don't worry he got blocked recently. Trains13 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I felt so offended by Jimmy calling me a goody two shoes. Trains13 (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry…. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know I never meant to drag you into that Jimmy incident where he would offend you with harmful words. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's okay, I didn't know about that Jimmy Hook guy, until you told me. Trains13 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Someone who likes train writing: Only administrators have the power to block users. Please inform an administrator if something like this ever happens again. Going back into Jimmy's history, I'm very happy I didn't encounter him prior to him being blocked. Davidng913 (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering if you know any relliable resources on Canadian Pacific 2839. I ask User:Someone who likes train writing and he said that you might know and resources. NorfolkandWesternBoi (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend reading this book, written by the late Jim Wrinn. One of its pages features No. 2839's excursion career on the Southern. Trains13 (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[2] He's been rightly indeffed, there's no need to gravedance. I know he was a total jerk to you, but just move on and be the bigger person. This is the kind of thing that could get you blocked for making personal attacks, regardless of how deserving the target is. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I get so offended by this guy calling me rude names. I've undid my message afterwards. Trains13 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't Percy the small engine have his own padge? I want him to Ethan169 (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "page". Because the page of the Percy character is deleted due to its information not being cited. Here's the manual instructions on how to recreate the Percy page. Trains13 (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can u also ad his thomas & friends movie appearances Ethan169 (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, dude, go learn some grammar. Trains13 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can i do it his movie appearance list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan169 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, because everything is not 100% sourced whatsoever, and needs to be removed to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Trains13 (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Percy The Small Engine has been reinstated as a redirect. --Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Union Pacific 4014 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Union Pacific 4014 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 04:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Union Pacific 4014 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Union Pacific 4014 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a professional steam enthusiast, working for the East Broad Top Foundation. I couldn’t help but notice there are plenty of Wikipedia drafts about each of the surviving EBT 3ft-gauge steam engines, and nobody seems to be making any real effort to turn any of them into informative, encyclopedic pages. I also noticed you completely corrected pages about other engines and even helped nominate the one about UP Big Boy 4014 as one of the good Wikipedia articles. That’s why I’m asking you if you could please construct all of the EBT engine drafts into proper articles whenever you catch the chance, that way people can learn more about each survivor without having to look at one of EBT’s own websites, and do so while looking at proper grammar. Here is a source from jstor.org that could hopefully help out. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43518100?searchText=East%20Broad%20Top%20locomotives&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DEast%2BBroad%2BTop%2Blocomotives&ab_segments=0%2FSYC-6646_basic_search%2Fltr&refreqid=fastly-default%3A48449f8bd83c8386760df604bcf96557 If this source isn’t enough, you can always try searching on Google books, as well. 2601:680:C401:DC90:C0F4:4689:E5A:33BA (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't ask me, I'm not the perfect type of user that knows everything about EBT fleet. :P Trains13 (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy question: is any Wikipedia user allowed to nominate pages as GA’s, now? I saw you do something like that for ACL 1504. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked the 1504 page that I recently copy-edit, I thought it will make a good candidate for the Good Articles section. Trains13 (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Norfolk and Western 475 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the anonymous California-based user started this. It added an info without citing a source whatsoever. Trains13 (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who started it. It doesn't matter who's right. It looks like y'all are starting to work things out, which is good, but it's important to remember that there are only limited exceptions to the three-revert rule. Sometimes admins look the other way when one party in an edit war is clearly adding unconstructive content, but this edit war also has reverts like this one, where you revert not just the original edit, but also the addition of a source, with the edit summary "Don't argue with me!" That's not okay. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Just to let you know, I've been starting to add quotes to history segments of steam engine articles. In your opinion, is that a bad thing, or is it good? 23.169.64.51 (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I'm with you on this, that’s a great idea! 👍🏻 Trains13 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme try again. Ary there any quotes that you know of that could be added to the Southern 1401 or 4501 articles? 23.169.64.51 (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added one quote from W. Graham Claytor, Jr. on the Southern Railway 4501 page. Trains13 (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Union Pacific 4014, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Union Pacific 4014 (pictured) has been the only Big Boy locomotive operating in the United States since 2019? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Union Pacific 4014. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Union Pacific 4014), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm happy with the end result. :) Trains13 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Southern Railway 1401 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Electricmaster -- Electricmaster (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least please tell me which sentences that you want me to copy-edit? Trains13 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was a mistake on the part of the bot; Electricmaster did not fail the nomination. I'm looking into the bot error now -- sorry about that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Southern Railway 1401 you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Southern Railway 1401 for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Electricmaster -- Electricmaster (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Southern Railway 1401 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Southern Railway 1401 for comments about the article, and Talk:Southern Railway 1401/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Electricmaster -- Electricmaster (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the WDWRR currently or formerly run by Main Street Operations? Couldn't confirm that myself with the source you attached (the one with the PDF), as neither the original nor archived link are working. Jackdude101 ^talk cont 15:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry the WDWRR is still operated by Main Street Operations. Here's some proof: https://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2022/12/carrying-on-a-legacy-the-walt-disney-world-railroad-returns/ and https://attractionsmagazine.com/walt-disney-world-railroad-is-now-officially-open-for-all-to-enjoy/ :) Trains13 (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the "s" from the "http" code in order to get the archived PDF link working again. Trains13 (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Southern Railway 1401, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Southern Railway 1401 was one of eight locomotives that hauled the funeral train of U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Southern Railway 1401. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Southern Railway 1401), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Atlantic Coast Line 1504 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Atlantic Coast Line 1504 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Atlantic Coast Line 1504 and Talk:Atlantic Coast Line 1504/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Atlantic Coast Line 1504 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Atlantic Coast Line 1504 for comments about the article, and Talk:Atlantic Coast Line 1504/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why do you keep nominating Wikipedia articles on steam engines with these GA nominees? I mean, I don’t at all have a problem with that, as I have been trying to nominate the articles on #1385, #261, and #2, albeit without success so far, but I’m just curious as to why you have been doing so. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 03:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the locomotive pages that you've nominated, have NOT met the Wikipedia quality standards. Their information needs to be updated, rectified, or need sources added. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, but I was also asking why YOU keep on nominating those other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.169.64.51 (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you, I thought UP 4014, ACL 1504, and S0U 1401 made good candidates for the Good articles section, since they’re fully sourced with good information. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to know what you’re doing, why don’t you change up just one of the articles I’ve named above just so you can show me what’s holding them back from being considered ‘good’? Btw, it’s me, 23.whatever. I was just talked into making a “proper” Wikipedia account. Larrysteamfan (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck do you mean of wanting me to change up one of the steam locomotive articles? Trainsfan1331 (talk) 22:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean try to edit one of the articles (or pages, whatever) to give it the same “quality standards” as the ones you have been heavily editing, to show me what I did wrong while I edited this crap. A lot of people, even in the real world, seem to complain to me that I ‘don’t edit Wiki properly’. For example, what the heck did I do wrong with Polson Logging Co. 2? What’s wrong with that article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larrysteamfan (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you split the sentences in order to make readers understand. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 04:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Norfolk and Western 611 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Trains2050 -- Trains2050 (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Norfolk and Western 611 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Norfolk and Western 611 for comments about the article, and Talk:Norfolk and Western 611/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Trains2050 -- Trains2050 (talk) 08:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] You’re not one of those folks who believe it was the railroad’s fault that locomotive was screwed over, are you? Don’t take this the wrong way. I’ve just been wanting to be sure after you made this edit. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I've actually found out that it was actually Richard Jensen's fault, because he stubbornly refused to let Metra move his No. 5629 locomotive out of their Blue Island yard. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is relieving to know. There are still plenty of people who believe in false stories. We need more people like you. Also, I really hate to ask this, but there was one other thing I meant to ask you; I've recently almost completely remade C&NW 1385's page from scratch, but I wasn't sure if I was allowed to remove that "needs more citations" banner up top, nor was I sure if it still needs to be there. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may not know everything 1385, but I think you can remove the "more citation" template away from the page since you've cited everything. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you remember what I did for 1385's page, I did almost the exact same thing for GCRY 4960's page. You don't have to edit it, if you don't want to, but all I'm asking is if you think I can remove the "more citation" template from it, after ensuring all the sources are reliable. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fine, if you do that. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just couldn’t help but notice that User:Beconrase has been trying to rename Western Maryland locomotives 734 and 1309. I actually respect what his intentions are but I also think you should help him out if he wants to do this for other train pages like say U.S. Sugar 148. WillJSimpson (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I kept it as “U.S. Sugar 148”, since it was currently owned and operated by U.S. Sugar corporation. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I’m telling you something like this, but I remade the page on GTW 5629. It only has nine sources now, but I tried to done down the use of those Passion for Steam references.

I couldn’t help but notice you’ve been constantly editing the 5629 section of that USRA light pacific page, so if you would like to modify the main 5629 page, and do so your way, go right ahead. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to tell you this, but Passion for Steam is not a reliable source, because it was self-created using Wordpress. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! This is why I contacted the creator of this article, to ask what his original sources for this were, but his response was that he only got them from interviews from people who have been deceased, as well as old newspaper articles and court records. I am gonna have a hard time finding which newspaper and court records he was talking about. I guess not long ago, I also got my own book copies of Steam’s Camelot: Southern Excursions (which mentions 5629 once) and America’s Greatest Circus train (which talks about 5629 for a little bit), so I should add those sources, too. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I got my copy of Ron Ziel's Mainline Steam Revival book and pages 78-81 even mentioned about No. 5629's fate, but not the whole story. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t sure if this would matter to you, considering how you made that draft a while ago, but someone created a new page about CN 5288. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved some of the sources to the already create article page and put a redirect on the draft. Trainsfan1331 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to copy-edit any changes I recently made to N&W 475's page? I added an article from the Sept 1995 issue of R&R Magazine for use as a major source. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tug Fork train wreck, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm really impressed that I've added a new article about Norfolk and Western 611's wreck in 1956. :) 611fan2001 (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the title to the "Cedar train wreck when I realized that the 611's wreck occurred in Cedar, West Virginia. 611fan2001 (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Powhatan Arrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Atlantic Coast Line. 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) 06:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Southern Pacific 4404

Can you try to set this up and make it be accepted along with 4426 because I have tried twice with 4426 and it has declined for me.

That would be wonderful if you could try to set it up with your editing skills

Thanks. 118.208.118.228 (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm not a frequent editor of Southern Pacific related pages. 611fan2001 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

are you an editor for diesel locomotives or is it just steam locomotives that you rebuild? 118.208.118.228 (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually redone steam locomotive pages that I've seen in person or from childhood home video especially the 611. 611fan2001 (talk) 21:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was accepted via AFC above but I just wanted to send my appreciating on it as well since it's a nicely written article and interesting since we hadn't had an article, apparently!, about the last major passenger train wreck in the US. It also happens to be the first article I marked as reviewed via Wikipedia:New pages patrol. :) Skynxnex (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just now finished completely remaking LS&I No. 18’s page. Would you like to help me copy-edit it? I got a sense you have a soft spot for this locomotive, since I noticed you edited it a few times before. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Steamtown National Historic Site. 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. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. It’s me again. Some anonymous user just listed me a bunch of steam engine drafts that are mostly un-noteworthy and improperly sourced, and he’s asked me to edit them all.

Included in that list are Draft:Norfolk and Western 1240, Draft:Norfolk and Western 2174, and Draft:Norfolk and Western Class Y6b. I don’t know if you’re that big of an expert with most N&W steam locomotives, but could you judge whether or not these particular drafts are notable enough to be their own pages or not? Or at least if you know if they have enough published sources to back them up? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think I will do it right now, because I’m now busy with my life around me. 611fan2001 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get it. I’m pretty busy with my life, as well, and there some other existing pages I’ve been meaning to change with the magazine sources I have. I do wish you luck with whatever is going on with you outside this website. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 611fan2001. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Great Dismal Swamp train wreck, 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) 14:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was trying to get motivated on publishing an obscured train wreck page unfold. But with college getting in the way, I don't know if I can finish this page up. 611fan2001 (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know I’ve been an idiot and a screw up for the majority of last year, and I’ve been such a repugnant to you, in particular, and for that, I’m really sorry. For the remainder of this year, I’m only going to make meaningful contributions to pages about steam locomotives, and sometimes, railroads in general. I know you may not want to forgive me after all the crud I’ve fed you, but I’m still going to ask you this once; what would it take for you to trust me again?

You don’t have to answer that question, if you don’t want to. I just want to leave this message here to let you know that I’m changing my ways for good. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Johannes Maximilian was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Please fix your inline citations; "Wrinn (2000)" is not a proper citation. The text looks like it's been copied from Norfolk_and_Western_611; please fix, and address the copyright situation. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Great Dismal Swamp train wreck and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added the Wrinn book source, and edited the text to avoid copyright with another page. 611fan2001 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Dismal Swamp train derailment, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I’m sorry about the disastrous edits on the Walt Disney World Railroad page. I’m still confused as to the sources about the locomotives as I try to figure out which are official and which aren’t. I’ll leave the sources to you at this time. But I will admit that I’m still curious as to why we can’t include the Steam Giants pages for Roger and Roy if Walter and Lilly can use theirs. Just saying… Davidng913 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to add the SteamGiants pages about the WDWRR's Nos. 3 and 4 locomotives, because it's too complicated to add so much info to the note box. 611fan2001 (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Each locomotive has more than enough citations at this point. Right now I'm still trying to figure out if Roger received a new boiler or not, and if Roy is going to get one. I think I overheard in another conversation that all locomotives are getting new boilers as part of their overhauls, along with the other associated upgrades. Davidng913 (talk) 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the WDWRR's No. 3 locomotive received a new boiler from Strasburg, but we'll have to wait for a reliable source of it for the time being. 611fan2001 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And my assumption is that Roy will receive a new boiler as well. I was told that all of the locomotives are essentially getting new boilers and equipment to last them for the next few decades. Davidng913 (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you neglected to provide an edit summary when you reverted my reversion of your change, please explain how "was misaimed" is better wording than simply "missed"? Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Prince Charming misaimed his sword between Shrek's stomach and left arm, instead of Shrek's stomach. Afterward, Shrek revealed that amazement and tells Charming "You need to work on your aim." 611fan2001 (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your rationale. I still think for basic plot purposes "missed" is sufficient regardless of your preferred wording being more technically correct, but I won't revert your reinsertion. DonIago (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]