Hi! I saw you un-did an edit that User:Therequiembellishere made. I agree with you a 100% on the matter. I myself have involved with a dispute with the editor. It seems he made mass edits to European pages. The editor from what I see is from the United States, he/she should not be worried about European pages. Is there any way to do something about this editor? maybe a block? I look foward to hearing your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.53.69 ( talk) 20:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please see here. Lamberhurst ( talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Sorry the first did not substitute correctly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Can you please help me get a quart into a pint pot?
I have extended the "main" article Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway by creating another article - Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway Timeline - which a reader of the main article can access near its start. If you have a look you'll see what I mean.
The main article is pretty good, but the purpose of the timeline article is to spell out the railway's remarkably convoluted evolution.
I've done this because simply putting the timeline's text, and especially its route diagram, into the main article returns a "too large" error.
The process works, but I'm getting a Bot screaming at me about the timeline article's lack of sources and notability, most of which belongs to the combined articles.
I'm stuck for a way forward.
Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull ( talk) 18:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is a difficult one. We don't generally have these kinds of articles on here. You might want to see if you can rework the content into a "history" article, such as
History of Darjeeling Himalayan Railway.
Lamberhurst (
talk) 21:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. As a result I've put the hours in developing the article and would appreciate your comments on it and on Blaenau Ffestiniog Passenger Stations which I did before CCLRT; as you will see the Blaenau article is a similar beast. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull ( talk) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I saw you un-did an edit that User:Therequiembellishere made. I agree with you a 100% on the matter. I myself have involved with a dispute with the editor. It seems he made mass edits to European pages. The editor from what I see is from the United States, he/she should not be worried about European pages. Is there any way to do something about this editor? maybe a block? I look foward to hearing your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.53.69 ( talk) 20:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please see here. Lamberhurst ( talk) 21:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Sorry the first did not substitute correctly. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 17:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello
Can you please help me get a quart into a pint pot?
I have extended the "main" article Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway by creating another article - Cleethorpes Coast Light Railway Timeline - which a reader of the main article can access near its start. If you have a look you'll see what I mean.
The main article is pretty good, but the purpose of the timeline article is to spell out the railway's remarkably convoluted evolution.
I've done this because simply putting the timeline's text, and especially its route diagram, into the main article returns a "too large" error.
The process works, but I'm getting a Bot screaming at me about the timeline article's lack of sources and notability, most of which belongs to the combined articles.
I'm stuck for a way forward.
Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull ( talk) 18:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- This is a difficult one. We don't generally have these kinds of articles on here. You might want to see if you can rework the content into a "history" article, such as
History of Darjeeling Himalayan Railway.
Lamberhurst (
talk) 21:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advice. As a result I've put the hours in developing the article and would appreciate your comments on it and on Blaenau Ffestiniog Passenger Stations which I did before CCLRT; as you will see the Blaenau article is a similar beast. Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull ( talk) 15:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)