Jump to content

User talk:Maurice Oly

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Class455 (talk | contribs) at 21:16, 12 September 2022 (→‎Edit warring on British Rail Class 455: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Maurice Oly, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Maurice Oly! 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 Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Class 323

Hello, it seems you are interested in improving the images on the page British Rail Class 323. As looking a the edit history there seems to be some conflict between a few editors on this topic I have created a discussion on the talk page which you might be interested in. Thanks! Python megapixel (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Thanks for this as there does need to be a single set of agreed photos on that page, though all I’ve ever done is change some words. Maurice Oly (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Twitter

No need to apologise, you were right to flag it up. Keep being vigilant! – PeeJay 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TfW stock build dates

Please do not keep changing those; I already explained that they should not be like that if the two years are in different decades.51.9.184.207 (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@51.9.184.207: I can’t see where you have talked about this before, however since we see that the year date should be formatted differently I have raised this issue in talk https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Railways.

Please go to the talk section there if you wish to give your input on the matter of formatting tables in terms of rolling stock year build date.

Please note that whatever is decided on the uk project railways talk page will effect the transport for wales page. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Class 332 Page

What exactly would you consider a valid source for 7 units going for scrap? because whatever people seem to come up with no-one is ever happy about it. MJ9674 (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJ9674: I would consider a verifiable source as what is defined as a verifiable source here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

My guess is people are not happy with what is chosen as a source because of the policy above, it sucks because finding any reliable sources on the 332s is really hard but policy is policy. Maurice Oly (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Maurice Oly: Yeah, i'm not exactly happy about it either, but i'm more referring to people reverting my perfectly reasonable and accurate edits because they aren't verified through wikipedia's incredibly thin lines of verifiability. the whole verifiability not truth nonsense perfectly sums it up. How the hell does the worlds largest online encyclopaedia get away with pursuing bloody verifiability over actual truth? But anyway, personally I just use common sense, I would never edit wikipedia if what i was editing wasn't true. unfortunately wikipedia isn't a fan of truth. MJ9674 (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class 442 blacklisted source

I have re-added it and also put down a request for whitelisting at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#boardingarea.com If the request is granted then I will change the link in the citation to link properly. Slender (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Family / Trainset

Hi, regarding this edit - are you aware of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Trainset - what does it mean - revisited? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class 465

Ok, BREL/ABB class 465s did not use GTO VVVF. They used an old fashioned gearbox, this is most notable due to the rattle and loud noises they made as a pose to the other electric networkers being quiet(er). Sadly nobody has officially documented this and I'm slightly annoyed that you took it down without considering the facts behind the additions I made. Thankfully you got the rest of it right, just not the BREL/ABB 465 section. Networke465 (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Maurice Oly (talk) 11:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating warnings

This edit was out of order. The user had the right to remove the messages, but you did not have the right to replace them after such removal, see WP:BLANKING. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Rail Class 317, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater Anglia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references

Please don't simply remove references that don't support the information that was cited. Ideally, you should replace it with a reference that does support the information (see WP:V); but failing that, these are the options:

  1. If the linked web page no longer exists, use {{dead link|date=September 2021}}; otherwise
  2. Mark the reference with {{failed verification|date=September 2021}} or similar
  3. Replace the reference with {{citation needed|date=September 2021}}
  4. Remove both reference and the content that precedes it

There is more at WP:NOCITE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited British Rail Class 360, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater Anglia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class 701

Thanks for spotting that the BBC article was an old one. The BBC have just tweeted a link to it (https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1450806370731794438) and I (and other readers) hadn't spotted that it was an old article. I should have guessed, as the mention of 16% loading didn't seem very credible. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class 317

Hello, I just wanted to inform you that the reversal of my edit has led to there being conflicting information in the article. I made it to make it so the statistics in the main infobox are equivalent to those in the table slightly further down and I understand about references and sources but I still feel you made the wrong descision. N1TH Music (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@N1TH Music: I can understand that the fact there are two different figures in the infobox and the fleet details table may look odd, but these things happen when trains are scrapped.

Tbh Rail has not covered scrapping of the 317s since Richard Clinnick left, and other railway mags don’t always mention the total number of units scrapped they just cover the individual units which have been scrapped in brief sections.

I can understand why you see what I did was wrong but any and all changes must be backed up by sources. So my revert of your edit was the right decision. Maurice Oly (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BR class 158 Salisbury rail crash

I didn't add the twitter ref, you replaced the atrocious grammar! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tic-Tac-Dough

A helpful resource is MOS:TVNOW which states "References to the show, and its characters and locations, should always be in the present tense, as the show will still exist even after it is no longer airing new episodes." Thanks. AldezD (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response invitation

Hi Maurice Oly, thank you very much for your request at WP:PERM/R. There is currently an open question delaying the review; your answer would be welcome. Thank you very much in advance and best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coingleton railway station

Obviously as a major contributor you think the article is in good order. Rather than just blanket reversing can you please discuss your concerns. The version you reinstated has numerous errors. Tessajead (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tessajead: My issues are.

Stop using RTT it is unreliable, stop removing the photo It is relavent.

Stop changing the infomation on Virgin Cross Country without proof.

Some stuff such as the ISBN and line can stay however Maurice Oly (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the Virgin Cross Country text has always been uncited, I shall delete entirely. Please don't reinstate without a WP:RS. Tessajead (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hi, I apologise for the unsourced, calculated figures regarding the total length of British trains. This won't happen again. zsteve21 (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nicholas Winterton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 321 article - revert

Hi Maurice, I see you reverted my edit on the above article earlier (see [[1]]) - I just had a couple of comments from it:

  • I edited the section to ask for more citations (I see now I added (and then formatted wrongly) the wrong template, as well as putting it in the wrong place - triple oops!), based on a recent edit by QuackDave (?) about the PRM requirements, now lapsed. I have reason to believe this was a good faith edit, so I put a template there (as I do - see my user page!) to ask for more ref's.
  • I would agree the table is sourced - but not entirely, and it's not that up-to-date, as above.
  • Also, I would like to have the "Liveries" heading to separate that off from the full details in the table, because I have OCD. wheeze laugh

I don't like making comments like this (I'm getting diagnosed with autism later this month hopefully, so I have problems with tone online and so on), but I just hoped it would be good to discuss this rather than edit-war (ugh!). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mossley Halt railway station (January 3)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at List of North Staffordshire Railway halts instead.
The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at List of North Staffordshire Railway halts. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The information that is in this draft that is not in the list can be added into the Remarks column of the list without the need for a separate article.
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 when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 707

Hi, please note that the fields in the Class 707 infobox are already sourced to the Siemens datasheet, as shown at the foot of the infobox. Accordingly I have re-added the UIC axle classification, and deleted the reference from the acceleration as it duplicates the existing reference to the datasheet. XAM2175 (T) 19:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tightlock Multiple working

You reverted my edits on this basis: Multiple working is decided by Wikipedia as “ On the UK rail network, multiple working is where two or more traction units (locomotives, diesel multiple-units or electric multiple-units) are coupled together in such a way that they are all under the control of one driver (multiple-unit train control).”

This definition actually supports my removal, since coupling for the purpose of rescuing a stranded set is not the same as full multiple-unit control. The Northern driver's manual used to source the claim illustrates this:

Brake continuity NOT available between the two trains but brake continuity available WITHIN each train (323 assisted by 313-323)

...
2- Leave both drum switches in the “uncoupled” position – do not press the couple button.
...

5- Maximum speed must not exceed 5 mph.

Clearly this cannot be considered multiple working because there is neither electrical connection nor brake continuity between the units - otherwise we'd be defining every locomotive and unit with matching physical couplers as being capable of multiple working simply because they can be mechanically attached to eachother. On these grounds I am restoring my removal of the "rescue only" MU working with Class 323 units. XAM2175 (T) 23:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from XtraJovial

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:British Rail Class 456 § Withdrawal details. XtraJovial (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 456

Hi, can I respectfully ask why you refuse to allow the Class 456 page to show that the trains have been withdrawn? SWR have confirmed it, a couple of newspapers have reported it, and indeed there are no diagrams for 456 or any shown in the system. Photographic evidence shows one of the 456s leaving SWR territory today! :) Sootysuerickie (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sootysuerickie: I won’t allow the page to show that the Class 456 has been withdrawn because there are no reliable sources post withdrawal date of the units saying the trains have been withdrawn.

If you can provide a reliable source dated post the withdrawal date of the units or afterwards that states the Class 456 has been withdrawn then I will let the edit pass. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It does seem as though you have a slightly dominating hold over the British Rail Class XXX pages and I simply wanted to enquire as I noticed you revert most user edits. I’m sure there’s a good reason for each time you do so. :) Sootysuerickie (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sootysuerickie: The reason I revert a lot of edits on the British Rail Class XXX pages is mostly due addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. I mostly keep an eye on ones that I know are going to be withdrawn from service, scrapped or cascaded to another operator, as these are the ones at risk of addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content. From time to time my reasons for undoing edits might be different however this is very rare. Maurice Oly (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent infobox edits

Hi,

I have modified or reversed some changes you've made recently to the Class 332 infobox, as follows:

  • Changing between counts of units and vehicles in the built/preserved/scrapped fields. The article is about the units as whole, so I don't view it as incorrect to say that no complete unit has been preserved if only some of its vehicles have so far escaped being scrapped.
  • Use of the word "sets". In my mind this introduces an inconsistency, whereas "units" is unambiguously related to the electric/diesel/etc "multiple unit" description.
  • Changing fields from UBL templates to manual line breaks. This is discouraged in WP:LINEBREAK: The <br /> or <br> tags are used for a single forced line break. For content that is semantically a list, such as in infoboxes, actual list markup is preferred.
  • Changing en dashes to hypens. This is counter to the Manual of Style in MOS:RANGES, which holds that an unspaced en dash is correct for simple range, and a spaced en dash (using the SND template) is correct for range constructions where spaces are present on one or both sides.
  • Changing the Service parameter to use full month names. I accept that this is purely stylistic, but I believe to be correct per MOS:DATEFORMAT (Acceptable ... where brevity is helpful) and preferable because it keeps the range from wrapping over two lines.
  • Changing the depot back to a bare link for "Old Oak Common TMD". I accept that this is also stylistic, but again I believe it preferable to use the "Old Oak Common (London)" construction because it is more clearly provides the basic location of the depot to readers who are unfamiliar with it, or those who are skimming the infobox. The actual link remained in place. I additionally consider this to be a question of consistency, because it also applies to other depots noted in other articles that apply very local-level locality names, such as North Pole, Stewarts Lane, and the like.
  • I have also reversed the reversion you made to that restored to the introduction the wording "The British Rail Class 332 was a type of electric multiple unit passenger train built by CAF with traction equipment supplied by Siemens Transportation Systems between 1997 and 1998." I consider this to be suboptimal because the introduction of the Siemens traction fact in that position awkwardly splits the verb "built" from the year range with which it's associated.
  • I have, on the other hand, left in place the change you made to the image caption, based on a re-reading of MOS:CAPTION.

Additionally, in the Class 333 article, I have also reversed your re-introduction of forced line breaks, but with a compromise on the descriptive terms.

Thank you. XAM2175 (T) 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 333 intro

Could you please explain why you favour the wording you've restored here: Special:Diff/1069554102? You've done so in two articles now, and at neither time have you left any edit summary at all. It's poor grammar to word it the way you have because the Siemens portion actively splits the "built by CAF" from the "between 2000 and 2003", which are the two primary parts of the sentence.

Further, also as previously discussed, there's no need to specify "sets" in the infobox because doing so is stylistically inconsistent. It's the default specification, so it's only necessary to disambiguate when a giving expressing a count of vehicles. XAM2175 (T) 20:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XAM2175: I will gladly explain, the reason I re-worded the sentence was because to me that way round made more sense.
As for sets, I do believe it should be there, as 16 on it’s own is vague, that could be seen as 16 cars and not 16 sets. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying. With respect though, I can't agree with either point. Regarding the intro, the present wording is both clearer and less potentially ambiguous (consider the fact that your wording could be read as meaning that only the traction equipment was supplied in those years). Regarding qualifying the infobox counts; I don't see any potential ambiguity as both the article and the infobox are clearly written about the units. If we give specifications applicable to specific types or numbers of vehicle they're always clearly noted, so it's redundant to append "sets" or the like to simple counts. XAM2175 (T) 18:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox parameter spacing

Please don't remove the alignment spacing in infobox parameters, like you did in the Class 456 article with this edit. Doing so makes it harder to read the wiki markup. Thanks. XAM2175 (T) 23:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in, this just caught my eye as it's a problem I've experienced on another wiki. Sometimes the Visual editor deletes spaces by itself, I'm thinking this may be what happened here. Best wishes NemesisAT (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm, if I edit the infobox in Visual mode and switch to source, the spaces disappear. So I don't think this one is Maurice's fault. Unfortunately I still haven't worked out how to fix this problem. NemesisAT (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so with that edit I must have switched between visual and source editing modes as this issue always happens when I do that. Not sure what causes it though. Maurice Oly (talk) 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, sorry. I've never used the Visual Editor. I'll have to see if it's a been raised before, and log it as a bug if not. XAM2175 (T) 12:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can fix it with the TemplateData (metadata for VisualEditor located in the template documentation), but I'm not sure how. On my own wiki I ended up using AutoWikiBrowser to restore the spaces. NemesisAT (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Visual Editor is still at the beta stage. It's got a bug list from here to eternity. I turned it off many years ago. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find it easier than source editing for longer articles. I really think it makes wiki editing more accesible. It's a shame about the bugs. NemesisAT (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mossley Halt railway station has been accepted

Mossley Halt railway station, 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.

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!

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 460

I have reverted both of your edits here as follows:

  1. Multiple working is the ability for a driver in one locomotive or unit to control another one or more units or locomotives. As we discussed when this came up with the Class 323 article, the ability for units to physically couple to another doesn't imply the ability to work in multiple. The sources (and photographs of the couplings) support 460s being able to be rescued by other appropriately-equipped units/locos, but not to control or be controlled by them.
  2. It's necessary to explain in the infobox what happened to the fleet seeing as it's not in service and (technically) it hasn't been scrapped – after all the vehicles of the fleet do still exist, but in a different form. The "number preserved" parameter is the best way for it, in my mind.

XAM2175 (T) 18:51, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daneside Theatre (March 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by RPSkokie was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
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 when they have been resolved.
RPSkokie (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daneside Theatre (March 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese 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 remove references from the official website of the theatre. See WP:RS and introduce references accordingly. The references were the subject has received significant coverage are essential.
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 when they have been resolved.
Hitro talk 08:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Daneside Theatre (March 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Congleton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daily Record.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brunswick Wharf (March 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sionk was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 when they have been resolved.
Sionk (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quote mark style

Hi, why are you making edits like this? You seem to be going against MOS:CQ. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: I was using the quote mark style in the sources, and I felt that was the way to write the quote mark in the titles for the cites. I was unaware of any polices regarding what quote mark to use as this had never been mentioned to me before. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Brunswick Wharf has been accepted

Brunswick Wharf, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

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:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Tick Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thank you. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref name "not needed"

It's not necessary to remove reference names, as you did in this edit, even if the reference isn't currently being re-used. XAM2175 (T) 15:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Daneside Theatre has been accepted

The Daneside Theatre, 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 317

Hi Maurice, a few things about the Class 317 article (don't want to start an edit war!):

  • First, I only updated the numbers used by GA in the paragraph - because that and the table didn't match up! If all the 317/6s have been scrapped, GA can't still be using them can they?!
  • The Class 317/1 sub-class is used much more (in general terms) than the 317/3 sub-class. The 317/1 is used as headings at the start of the page anyway - a glaring inconsistency!
  • The former operations on the West Anglia route is just stupid anyway, mostly because... THEY STILL OPERATE THERE!

So that's my reasoning for my edits (mostly just glaring inconsistencies)... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattdaviesfsic:Ok I will admit I made some mistakes,

  • First off I had no idea that the 317s were /1 and not /3 I had no idea BR numbered the 317s the way they did.
  • Second the 317/6 have been scrapped as backed up by reliable sources. The latest Issue of Rail Express gives the units still in operation with Greater Anglia and no 317/6 is in the list.[1]
  • I admit the west anglia route being in former operations is dumb and wrong and should be removed. Maurice Oly (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you removed my edits on the class 317 wikipedia.
The class 317/7s have all gone for scrap apart from 317719, although I'm not sure on the status of their scrap apart from 317723. 317723 has been fully scrapped as I own a part from it. London overground 3177 (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@London overground 3177: I find it great that you were able to get a part from 317723 given how hard it is to get parts of trains going for scrap these days. However I won’t let your edits through without a reliable source.
  1. ^ Russel, David (May 2022). "Class 317 Fleet status - March 2022". Rail Express. No. 312. p. 26.

Class 315 unit numbers

Hi Maurice. In the Class 315 article you repeatedly cite Rail Express magazine in the form "Units". Rail Express. No. 309. February 2022. p. 27. Is "Units" the full and complete title of the list in the magazine? Cheers. XAM2175 (T) 20:12, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I'm guessing from the cite in the Class 317 section above that it should be something closer to "Class 315 Fleet Status - February 2022". XAM2175 (T) 20:16, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the section is called "Units" not "Class 315 fleet status". Hence why it I put the title as "Units" Maurice Oly (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any higher-level title? Otherwise the reference suggests there's an article in the magazine entitled "Units" and nothing else. XAM2175 (T) 21:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no higher level title, "Units" is what is at the top of the page. Maurice Oly (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have that issue, but I do have the current one. "Units" isn't an article title, it's a section of the magazine containing one actual article and several smaller items. Here is how I would cite some of those:
  • Russell, David (May 2022). Simmons, Mark (ed.). "More '317s' removed from service". Units. Rail Express. No. 312. Horncastle: Morton's Media Group (published 14 April 2022). p. 26. ISSN 1362-234X.
  • Russell, David (May 2022). Simmons, Mark (ed.). "Class 319s withdrawn". Units. Rail Express. No. 312. Horncastle: Morton's Media Group (published 14 April 2022). p. 26. ISSN 1362-234X.
  • Russell, David (May 2022). Simmons, Mark (ed.). "Class 156 'Super Sprinter'". Units. Rail Express. No. 312. Horncastle: Morton's Media Group (published 14 April 2022). p. 26. ISSN 1362-234X.
  • Russell, David (May 2022). Simmons, Mark (ed.). "Depot Talk". Units. Rail Express. No. 312. Horncastle: Morton's Media Group (published 14 April 2022). p. 29. ISSN 1362-234X.
You can omit any or all of the parameters after |page=. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oswald Laurence (April 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curb Safe Charmer were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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 add further references that show that Laurence's life has been written about in depth by multiple reliable, independent publications. Also, per WP:IMDB, IMDB is not considered a reliable source.
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 when they have been resolved.
Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding spaces

Just asking, Maurice. Is there a point in adding extra spaces - eg the 800+ extra characters in this edit? I cannot see that difference it improves to the appearance of the article page.

Also please help us by providing the required edit summaries (see above on this page), so that other editors know what you are aiming at. Davidships (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Davidships All those spaces are caused by a bug with Visual Editor, I use Visual Editor for most of my editing so this happens a lot.

Sorry about not putting in an edit summary, I really need to remember to do that. Maurice Oly (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Davidships (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me confused

So uhh you thanked me but you replaced it and uhh we all don’t pay for services online Ashj12 (talk) 11:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t meen to thank you, my bad. I do have some good news for you though in that I have found some more sources to back up more 315s that have gone for scrap. Maurice Oly (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jodi Forrest (June 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
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.
Gusfriend (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

387 Page

Hi,

Why did you remove my edit? The c2c 387s left for GTR today - there are photographs and RTT workings which prove this. Clinnick’s tweet is just a source so that it won’t be removed for being unsourced.

Thanks ML170 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clinnick’s Twitter account is not considered reliable due to not being a verified account. WP:V is policy Maurice Oly (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His tweets have been used as sources before, and as I said, the units are no longer with c2c. The move happened today for them to be transferredz ML170 (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His tweets have been used as sources before, and as I said, the units are no longer with c2c. The move happened today for them to be transferred. ML170 (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His tweets may have been used before but I’m sure they were removed very quickly due to his account not being verified. Your just going to have to wait for a reliable source to be found, as no changes will get through without a reliable source. Maurice Oly (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BR Class 317.

Not being funny but I can find lot's of source before the Unit's saying they were going to be retired on the 16th of July 2022. I even got a photo of them working on there last day. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Class 315 operated by Elizabeth line

Hello Maurice, I know you love the old picture on the info box but don't you think that it needs to be updated because it says 'TfL Rail' on the picture so can I update the 315 exterior info box please.

Also I'm sorry that you are angry at me for editing the class 315, I just wanted to make sure that all the information is correct, I've replaced the blue to purple to compensate with the current operator and as for your request to put the ONE picture I am going to put it in the former section.

I have recently added the livery diagrams to show what they look like as researchers would see this essentially.

I hope you are happy about this, looking forward to hearing from you. All the best Flame_1324 Flame 1324 (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Oswald Laurence (July 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Hi.

I’m sorry, but the sourcing here isn’t helping the subject meet our General Notability Guidelines. There are four sources: one is a primary source that doesn’t contribute to notability (BFI), the others are about one specific WP:1EVENT about Oswald Laurence. We need more in-depth work about his career and work beyond just having his voice returned to the tubes.

We need *significant* in-depth coverage (that is independent of the subject - meaning no promotional pieces, government websites, event websites, social media, press releases, paid coverage) in notable major media outlets or by notable publishers about Oswald Laurence. Examples: magazine and newspaper reviews and features about Oswald Laurence specifically; books or peer-reviewed white papers written ABOUT Oswald Laurence; television and radio features ABOUT Oswald Laurence.

This can even include books, papers, media coverage about Grace Bacon's work in a significant way, not a passing mention.

So also see WP:RS for additional guidance on what reliable secondary sources.

I hope you will consider improving existing Wikipedia content about other subjects of interest!

If you have any questions please ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!
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.
Missvain (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Congleton Pantomime (July 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Hi.

I’m sorry, but the sourcing here isn’t helping the subject meet our General Notability Guidelines nor WP:NORG. All the sourcing presented here are primary sources, like Congleton Pantomime’s website, or passing mentions and press releases in news sources.

We need *significant* in-depth coverage (that is independent of the subject - meaning no promotional pieces, government websites, event websites, social media, press releases, paid coverage) in notable major media outlets or by notable publishers about Congleton Pantomime. Examples: magazine and newspaper reviews and features about Congleton Pantomime specifically; books or peer-reviewed white papers written ABOUT Congleton Pantomime; television and radio features ABOUT Congleton Pantomime.

Frankly, if the subject isn’t passing WP:NCORP they may not be eligible for an encyclopedic article.

Also see WP:RS for additional guidance on what reliable secondary sources are.

If those are available, please improve this submission. If not, then it might not be the right time (WP:TOOSOON) for Congleton Pantomime to have a Wikipedia article.

I hope you will consider improving existing Wikipedia content about other subjects of interest!

If you have any questions please ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!
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.
Missvain (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Congleton Musical Theatre (July 26)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Missvain were:
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.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Hi.

I’m sorry, but the sourcing here isn’t helping the subject meet our General Notability Guidelines nor WP:NORG. All the sourcing here is primary, except two passing mentions in the Warrington Guardian and perhaps the Cognelton Chronicle (that is offline so I don’t know).

We need *significant* in-depth coverage (that is independent of the subject - meaning no promotional pieces, government websites, event websites, social media, press releases, paid coverage) in notable major media outlets or by notable publishers about Congleton Musical Theatre. Examples: magazine and newspaper reviews and features about Congleton Musical Theatre specifically; books or peer-reviewed white papers written ABOUT Congleton Musical Theatre; television and radio features ABOUT Congleton Musical Theatre.

Frankly, if the subject isn’t passing WP:NORG they may not be eligible for an encyclopedic article.

Also see WP:RS for additional guidance on what reliable secondary sources are.

If those are available, please improve this submission. If not, then it might not be the right time (WP:TOOSOON) for Congleton Musical Theatre to have a Wikipedia article.

I hope you will consider improving existing Wikipedia content about other subjects of interest!

If you have any questions please ask them at WP:TEAHOUSE.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia!
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.
Missvain (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited King's School, Macclesfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prestbury.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reference name "not needed"

Maurice, as I said back in April, there's zero need to remove a reference name even if it's not being used elsewhere in the article, as you did in this edit. It's not like leaving it in uses up precious storage space, or slows the servers down, so why go out of your way to do it? XAM2175 (T) 18:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on British Rail Class 455

I know your edits were made in good faith, hence why I've not left you a warning but please stop edit warring on said article. Your edits have now been reverted as firstly, I have now been able to find an up-to-date source on which 455's have been scrapped. Secondly, what you had produced was factually incorrect and just looked incredibly messy. I have hopefully settled it now, but you are now close to violating the three revert rule, so please don't revert again unless you fancy a trip to WP:AN3. Thank you. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Maurice_Oly&oldid=1109967660"