User talk:Danners430

This is Danners430's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles: Strathspey Railway (preserved) Long time volunteer. Aim to restrict editing to sourced material only.

Please don't make pointless invisible edits for that sole reason, especially not when they make future editing of the wikitext much more difficult. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are far from pointless. The entire point of formatting citations inline instead of with newlines is to make diffs easier to read. Heck, I've been chastised by other editors for writing citations like that. Danners430 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking behind other editors and mangling sources as soon as they're added is borderline HOUNDING. I don't expect much better from you, I've yet to see anything other than deletionism and pettiness from any of your edits, but it's not on. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now we're going to personal attacks, are we? I really don't want to go to ANI, but you're beginning to be tiresom... those pages are on my watchlist - that is the point of a watchlist, it has nothing to do with hounding. Danners430 (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously ? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here we go again. I haven't touched what you altered - I simply did to that article what I've been doing to multiple different articles throughout the UK Rail project. I'm not singling you out, nor stalking you, I'm simply tidying up the number of references in the reflist. If you look through my edit history, you'll find multiple other pages where I've done the same thing, yet you seem to completely ignore them? Danners430 (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will however apologise for the edit summary I left on that page - that was me pre-coffee, and was uncalled for. Danners430 (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep harping on about WP:CITEVAR - to quote that section of that guideline:

  "If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it". Which is exactly what I'm doing - the majority of the citations are inline, so I have made them uniform by making them all inline where possible.

  "Generally considered helpful - the following are standard practice: • Replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more verifiable information to the reader, and helps maintain text-source integrity" - again, what I have been doing. As it stands (after your revert), the inline citations (SFN etc. templates) is nothing more than an author surname, year and date - the reader has to go hunting into the general references section to find the citation they want, whereas the R template which I changed it to replaces that with a full inline citation.

  "• Making citations added by other editors match the existing style (if any). Do not revert someone else's contribution merely because the citation style doesn't match. If you know how to fix it, then fix it." - again, exactly what I have been doing - making the style of citations consistent.

  Where exactly is your problem here? Danners430 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have made no substantive edits to this article. On the other hand, I wrote the majority of it. Including adding all those references. But you keep coming back to it, immediately after whenver I've edited it, and making a contra-CITEVAR change to the internal wikitext. A change which makes the tidy and readable source code for these references into a compressed single line form, just to make it harder to maintain in the future. Then you go running off to an admin and describing me as a 'bully'.

You also did this where you took an article with at least some attempt to separate citations and references and then mashed that into one section. With the gall to describe what you did as 'cleanup'! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already apologised for calling you a bully - see directly above my last comment. I don't see where I have called you a bully anywhere else, so please enlighten me?

As for asking for a second opinion - specifically from the person who originally told me about the single-line citation format (because they reverted me when I did exactly what you have been doing)... would you rather I just went to ANI instead of asking politely? Danners430 (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody who’s so ready to revert perfectly valid edits, you’re very reluctant to communicate when I’ve been replying… so I don’t think it’s worth continuing without getting further opinion. Danners430 (talk) 11:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danners430. Re your edit on the SVR Rolling stock page "That's not how cite web works". Noted thanks, and I'm happy not to use "Cite Web" for that type of reference. However I see that you've replaced it with {{cite journal}} which I note refers to "academic and scientific papers published in bona fide journals", and suggests that for articles in magazines and newsletters one should use {{cite magazine}}. Branch Lines is a monthly newsletter, therefore shouldn't we use that instead? Thanks for the other updates on that page, by the way. Cheers. Robin84F (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely made a mistake in my definition of a journal then - definitely better to switch to magazine, cheers for raising that! Danners430 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've updated it accordingly and I know what to use next time! On a different but related topic, I'm planning on making my proposed changes to the main SVR article as I posted on WikiProject UK Railways and in the absence of any adverse comment there. As stage 1, I've drafted a new version of the map showing only the heritage railway in my sandbox; if you have a chance I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have before I start. Cheers. Robin84F (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danners430. Regarding your edit on the British Rail Class 20 page, you reverted edits regarding 20901/20905 on the basis that these were operated by HNRC. This is not correct, they were sold by HNRC to BB in January 2024 and now have no operational or commercial link to HNRC. I have provided evidence in the references, but as I also managed the purchase on behalf of Balfour Beatty I am confident this is the case. Thank you, and all the best. Scott Bradley (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources certainly work - just please don't use bare URLs like those when citing sources. Danners430 (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]