User talk:Dinoboyaz

Corris Railway

Please see note in the talk section before reverting the edit. RGCorris (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Flockton Flyer

Hello. With respect to your recent edits to this article, which I have reverted, please note that whether locomotive 6412 may, or may not, make return visits to the WSR is not relevant to this article. It is common amongst preserved railways for locomotives to visit other lines, and Wikipedia is not a stock movement list, it is an encyclopaedia.

Also, with the greatest of respect to you, your edit summary comment "there is no such thing as 'encyclopaedic' language" is simply incorrect. There certainly is language appropriate for an encyclopaedia. I suggest you spend some time reading the WP:MOS for some pointers. As one example, your edit began with a contraction, whereas this project's MOS states: "Uncontracted forms such as do not or it is are the default in encyclopedic style; don't and it's are too informal."

Your "chatty" style, which is very appropriate for a blog, is also not appropriate in an encyclopaedia. I suggest you read WP:TONE for more advice.

Finally, if the Flockton Flyer article is to be changed, it would be because the locomotive's ownership had reverted to the WSR. If that happens, we will take our lead from the West Somerset Railway article, and more particularly from the List of rolling stock preserved on the West Somerset Railway. Thank you. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 08:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Dinoboyaz. You have new messages at Talk:Union Pacific 844.
Message added 05:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenglass & Eskdale Railway

Hi. With regards to R&ER locomotives, here's a photo of the Irt and the Mite in engineering workshops in Workington, having their overhauls completed - https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/945727_485490144852297_1200715737_n.jpg (Photo supplied by the R&ER P-way Foreman, on a Facebook group for the railway that I administrate).

Since the fire in the workshops at Ravenglass over Easter, the railway has been operating with Northern Rock and Wroxham Broad covering most turns, and Perkins taking charge of the "overnight" train and the 0930 ex-Ravenglass. Douglas Ferreira and Lady Wakefield are both offsite having new power units installed at TMA Engineering in Birmingham. I believe the plan is for Shelagh of Eskdale to receive the same treatment when Lady Wakefield is completed. I understand that Douglas Ferreira should be due back at Ravenglass fairly soon, though the work on Lady Wakefield will take much longer. There is the possibility of a steam locomotive from the Romney, Hythe & Dymchurch Railway coming to Ravenglass for the summer, as the two steam locos currently operational will not be enough to cope with the intense advertised level of service required.

Hope this is of interest! Eliot Andersen, R&ER volunteer driver and guard. Skarloey (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to Stitch (Lilo & Stitch)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Technopat (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were only made becuSe for some reason, the second reference link was extending beyond th eagle and it bothered me. Dinoboyaz (talk)

LNWR working replica Bloomer at Tyseley

Hello. You suggest (on the 98.165.136.76 talk page) that Tyseley should be asked about this project started in 1986. I have done so, as have others, asking if there is a properly set up and dedicated fund, or (as they are too busy with other work) if the engine, which was 90% complete twenty-three years ago - since when there has been no apparent progress - could be finished elsewhere. The replies were unhelpful and most discouraging. (See the National Preservation Forum, in 2012 and for several years before.)

On Tyseley's website it is not listed among current projects; the website page dealing with it has not been changed for a long time.Hyjack7 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LNER Class W1

The web page http://www.pegnsean.net/~railwayseries/database.htm#DATDE is also a self-published source. The sole mention is

... but not so many indulge in malicious gossip: The "galloping sausage" was a nickname for Gresley's "Hush-Hush" No 10000. (SIF - Richard Marsden)

to which I immediately ask: what is SIF, and who is Richard Marsden? At the top of the page we find that SIF stands for Sodor Island Forums, again, this is a self-published source.

The use of a term by the Rev. W. Awdry in one of his books is not evidence that the same term was used in real life. He wrote fiction - and so his stories, delightful though they are, do not constitute verifiable fact. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then consider this: would Awdry have written it in if it WASN'T a nickname? Dinoboyaz (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he would; maybe not. We don't know. We do know that he wrote a story titled The Flying Kipper, but the website merely passes over that title with no suggestion as to origin; so Awdry probably did make that one up. The only use of the term "Galloping Sausage" by Awdry is on p. 42 of Duck and the Diesel Engine, in the context of an rude remark, with no suggestion as to the meaning of that remark.

The point is this: the source that you have provided for the term "Galloping Sausage" is a fansite, which has sourced its information from another fansite; but we do not know where that other fansite obtained its information, so we have no indication of its authenticity.

The first ref that you provided used the term only in its title. It does not use it in text, nor does it explain its origin. It doesn't even mention Awdry, contrary to your edit summary.

In both cases, your sources fail the last paragraph of WP:NOR#Reliable sources for several reasons: the association of 10000 with the term is not verifiable; it's only a passing comment; you draw conclusions not evident in the references. Have respected authors with considerable knowledge of 1930s railway events (such as Cecil J. Allen, O. S. Nock or W. B. Yeadon) used this term? Has it been used by respectable railway publishers (such as Ian Allan, David and Charles or the RCTS), or by reliable literature of the period (such as The Railway Magazine)? I haven't found anything. It's not even used by the generally reliable LNER Encyclopedia. These are the reliable sources that we need for such a claim. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the second source actually came from Sodor: Reading Between the Lines by Christopher Awdry. Dinoboyaz (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Steam

Hi, Dinoboyaz. Look, I am not trying to be a prick, but let me explain to you what unconstructive editing means. It is an edit that is not technically incorrect, but does not benefit the encyclopedia. some people use the phrase "non-productive". Removing a link that is dead or broken only complicates fixing it. I think, but I am not certain, that the reason the link will not work is because it is "paywalled" Trains online is a subscription only site. I will attempt to contact the editor that originally placed the ref in the article and try to see if he can fix it or cite it from the paper copy of the magazine. Even if it is not paywalled, it still is not a good idea to remove dead links, as the dead link can usually be used to find an archival link from one of the many services that archive web pages. A much more productive approach is when you find a link like that to tag it using the {{dead link}} template so the information is still there for someone to go about fixing it.

Wikipedia is unbelievably complicated, and probably needlessly so. But it is what it is. You have made roughly 160 edits. I have made roughly 20,000. That does not make me better than you or superior in any way. It just seems common sense that when someone has done something more than 100 times the number of times you have, they will probably know a little more about it than you. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is assume good faith. I assume that you removed the link in good faith because you thought since it didn't work, that was the right thing to do. Please, in the future, would you assume good faith that if someone reverts your edit they have a reason? Thanks, and happy editing! If I can ever be of help, drop me a note. I am a train fan too...can you tell what my favorite railroad is by my handle? Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at 21st Century Steam. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. I do not understand what you mean. I can read the ref just fine on my computer. The proper course of action here is for you to talk about it, not just keep blindly reverting it. I don't know what browser you are using, but the page displays just fine on my computer using Google chrome. Be advised that reverting it again will put you over WP:3RR and you could be blocked for it. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because it was on the computer, but on the iPad, it extends past the page. Dinoboyaz (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, WP:AGF!!!!!!!!!!! Now I have to go find someone else to put it back, because I am not going to break 3RR. Fix the settings on your Ipad; there is nothing wrong with the page. I am giving you a break because you are new. If I reported you to a noticeboard, you would most likely be blocked. Your unconstructive editing has now caused me to have to waste a bunch of time cleaning up after you. In the future, please do not ever remove a reference unless it can be proven to contain false information. And please try to listen when people try to help you. I explained three edits ago that you shouldn't remove a ref because the link isn't currently working, yet you went on and did it two more times. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort; we are all supposed to work together to improve the encyclopedia. Instead of assuming you are right and everyone else is wrong, try to just understand that we are all trying to reach the same goal--improving the encyclopedia. Do you think I have nothing better to do than sit here and replace what you took off, even after you say that you get why you shouldn't? argggggh. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Railway 115 Class ‎

Hi, I've reverted your formatting change to the Commons category link there.

We don't generally format these. It's a template – if we want particular formatting, then we should make the template do it for everything, otherwise we'd have a huge number to fiddle with one by one. We don't generally use HTML / CSS to do formatting though MediaWiki either.

If we do need to change or format a Commons link (usually to hide a disambiguation link in the name), then the {{Commons category}} template takes two parameters: the first is the name at Commons and stays unchanged, the second gets any formatting needed. Normally they're identical, so we just specify it once and the template takes care. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it must be corrected: it hat gallery is now referred to as "115", not "155". Dinoboyaz (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the typo you were after. Thanks for fixing it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Titans Go!

Hi, I am Walter White fan. I would like to disagree about how you edit Teen Titans go because all you edit was old. I add new information so can you please put the other information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter White Fan (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the information you added was not related to Go!. Besides, there's already an article for Teen Titans: Trouble in Tokyo. Dinoboyaz (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Inquisition

That was a scripting error created by the addition of a link within a template tag. The answer is to fix the error, not to remove the {{citation needed}} tag. All good - fixed now and thanks for the thanks. Keep up the good work! St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. But I only deleted it because I didn't know how to fix it: it didn't look like it coudl be fixed to me. Dinoboyaz (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dinoboyaz. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dinoboyaz. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup

blogs are frowned upon as WP:RS and some areas a fiercer than others in enforcing if you can find a good ref great !! JarrahTree 23:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just To Let You Know

Just to let you know, the paper about Macropomoides palaestina is a fake, considering as how, among other things, the author uses a picture from Wikipedia instead of a picture of the holotype. So don't put it back in, please.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dinoboyaz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dinoboyaz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (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) 02:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I'm Redrose64. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LMS Royal Scot Class 6100 Royal Scot. 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. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, you may be blocked from editing. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re this edit. Let me make it perfectly clear to you. Consensus is against your point of view. Drop the stick or I will indeff you for disruptive editing. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archives and removing content from talk pages

There is a difference between archiving content from talk pages and removing content from talk pages. The section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways was archived by Lowercase sigmabot III - an automated account that exists solely to archive talk pages in accordance with rules set on that page - the discussion is still visible at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 49. Archiving, either manual or automated, is not contrary to Wikipedia policy, in fact it is encouraged to make talk pages more easily readable by keeping the page lengths controllable. Removing or restoring content from users talk pages is guided by WP:OWNTALK (and also WP:REMOVED).

So, please don't restore material from an archive, even if the intention is to revisit the discussion. If needed link to the archived discussion instead. Nthep (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinoboyaz, in the rare cases when it is appropriate to restore an archived thread, you should restore the entire thread, not selected portions of it. In this edit, you failed to restore posts that had been made by myself at 12:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC) and by Mjroots (talk · contribs) at 15:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC). As such, you went against WP:TPO. I will also draw your attention to the comments by myself, Djm-leighpark (talk · contribs) and Mjroots in the section above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dinoboyaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There’s no need to source them when they’ve been part of the article for a while! Nobody had issues with unsourced material on there until now! Dinoboyaz (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One unblock request open at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dinoboyaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There’s no need to source them when they’ve been part of the article for a while! Nobody has issues with unsourced material until now! Dinoboyaz (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per WP:BURDEN, content that has been challenged must be sourced. When someone removes content, it has been challenged. Next time, please cite a source when you add content. If you don't like how sources are required on Wikipedia, you can always edit another wiki, such as Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

October 2021

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- ferret (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a two week block for block evasion and sockpuppetry. Please do not evade your block further. -- ferret (talk) 18:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you win. But I’m adding those sources back once the block is over: you asked for sources, so you’ll get sources. Dinoboyaz (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to consider instead discussing the changes and the sourcing you propose on the talk page, as the content has been repeatedly challenged as either unsourced or entirely primary sourced. Read WP:PRIMARY for more information on the issues around primary sourcing. We are not a mirror for the subject's webpage. Edit warring or continued disruption in this area will potentially result in an indefinite block. -- ferret (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be where you’re wrong: I’ve not seen any challenges to those sources I found. Besides, some come from the official websites or pages, you can’t challenge those.Dinoboyaz (talk) 21:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suit yourself, it's your block to earn. -- ferret (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Any source can be challenged, and when it is, the expectation is that you discuss the concerns on the article talk page or another appropriate venue such as WP:RSN. You are coming off very combative for someone who is very much in the wrong here. If it is obvious that you either have no intention of following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or are incapable of doing so, you will likely find yourself blocked indefinitely in short order.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:10, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How am I in the wrong? I was told to add sources and that’s what I intend to do. If anyone's in the wrong, it’s you: you’re threatening to ban me permanently for doing as I’m told, which makes no sense. Admins ban people for disobeying rules, not following them. You may not see it that way, but I do: I have autism. I see things differently. It doesn’t matter if sources can be challenged: all that matters is their reliability. I already explained how I know the ones I found can't be challenged, so please quit going at me for finding sources like you told me to do! Dinoboyaz (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t block me for doing what you told me to do: you said to add sources, that’s what I'll do and I know they’re reliable too.Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are different kinds of sources with different degrees of suitability. I've attempted to direct you towards the guidelines concerning this. If you refuse to read or follow them, that is your call. -- ferret (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some of my sources can be challenged, like RRPicturearchieves, but not those from the official websites or their accompanying social media: they’re actually done by people who work on those lines, maybe even the owner(s) of them. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. -- ferret (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and that’s how I know most of mine are reliable: the railroads would have no reason to put false information on their pages.Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dinoboyaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You’ve just proven yourself to be a hypocrite: I am allowed to remove stuff from my own talk page, you cannot threaten to make my block indefinite for that. If you must permanently-block me for obeying your rules, then you have a problem. I suggest reconsidering. Dinoboyaz (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

WP:TPO specifically says Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page, so no, you are not allowed to remove stuff in that way. Regardless, this isn't really an unblock appeal, so declined. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dinoboyaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was told I was blocked indefinitely for block evasion. This is nonsense: I only did it once and never stopped, and even if I had kept it up, you have nothing that can prove it. Therefore, I’m legally not responsible for any further block evasion. Dinoboyaz (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We won't consider nonsense unblock requests. Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an unblock request. I strongly suggest you drop the pseudo-legality arguments. Yamla (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Stop

You are not permitted to edit or remove declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Don't do that again. You are welcome to make a new unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Dinoboyaz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I admit to having made all three of those accounts and am reading the sourcing policies right now. I truly am sorry and wish to change for the better. Please help and guide me. Dinoboyaz (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's clear from the user's messages that they do not understand policies nor have any intention of following them. As the user insists policies don't apply to them and they'll continue to evade, this appeal rings hollow. Earliest Standard Offer chance at this time is June 21, 2022. -- ferret (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Dead account

I’ve decided: this account is dead. I’ll be starting over with a new account once my IP address is unblocked. Dinoboyaz (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've already had it explained to you that creating a new account is block evasion. YOU, the person, are blocked. Every account you make is block evasion, and reduces the chance you'll be unblocked. At this point, there's no chance you'll be unblocked prior to 6 months. Read WP:Standard offer and find something else to do until June 20, 2020. -- ferret (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What you said makes no sense for two reasons: first of all, 2020 was last year. Secondly, I am blocked INDEFINITELY: the account will never be unblocked, no matter what you say. Also, you can't tell me what to do: America is the land of the free. We are allowed to make our own choices. It is not your job to tell me to do something else. Since this account is officially dead, there are no standards and there won’t be any evasion. I suggest you rephrase what you said. Dinoboyaz (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The date was a typo. June 20, 2022. An indefinite block simply means it will not expire on it's own. We can unblock it at anytime. That time will not be before June 20, 2022. As for America and the land of the free and such, that has no bearing on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Free speech. If you evade your block again, you will be under a community ban and will have to have your block reviewed by the community prior to unblock. This will make your unblock appeal more difficult, so I strongly advise you listen and stop insisting our policies don't apply to you. -- ferret (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the policies didn’t apply to me, I said they made no sense! And edits need to be made sometimes: grimmer edits, that sort of thing! I can’t stand idly by and let those edits stay that way! And you might as well keep the account blocked forever: if I’m to start over, it will be on a new account. Dinoboyaz (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, then if they made no sense, why does no one else think so. Personally, policies are policies, and you can leave Wikipedia if you really hate the policies Ilovejames 5🚂:) 09:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.