User talk:Moylesy98

Welcome!

Hello, Moylesy98! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Winter^eu (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lakeside and Haverthwaite Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LMS Stanier Class 8F 8151, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carlisle and Edge Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2015 (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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084

Hello, Moylesy98,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084 should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BR Standard 4 2-6-0 76084 .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Blythwood (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BR Standard Class 9F, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Island Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Coast Railways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barrow Hill. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas

added links pointing to Preston and Edge Hill

GWR 4073 Class 4079 Pendennis Castle

added a link pointing to Westbury

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

LMS Royal Scot Class 6115 Scots Guardsman

added a link pointing to Carlisle

West Coast Railways

added a link pointing to Scarborough

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

West Coast Railway Company

Do you have a reference for this? Mjroots (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no bare urls. You've been around long enough to have learnt how to cite a webpage using {{cite web}}. In case you haven't, see WP:REFBEGIN. Mjroots (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Hello, I'm Redrose64. I noticed that you made a change to 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries

Hi, please don't add image galleries, as you did here - see WP:IG. All of these images are in c:Category:LMS Royal Scot Class 6100 Royal Scot, which is accessible through the {{commonscat}} that is present on the page, and through which they - and several more images - may be found. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photos in the gallery for the Royal Scot page of her attacking Shap, Ravenglass, and on the cumbrian coast including the photo of her at Crewe are all my own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 24 April 2016

I'm not questioning who took the photos (they are hosted on Commons, so if there is an issue with ownership, it is a matter for Commons, not Wikipedia); what I am saying is that your gallery goes against WP:IG. Also, please see WP:NOTREPOSITORY. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LMS Royal Scot Class 6100 Royal Scot, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

GWR 2884 Class

added a link pointing to South Devon Railway

LMS Stanier Class 8F 8151

added a link pointing to Eccles

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited LMS Stanier Class 8F 8151, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in LMS Jubilee Class 5699 Galatea, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please see WP:SHE in particular. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to GWR 4073 Class 7027 Thornbury Castle. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please note that Wikipedia is not a blog. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information that I added was the truth as it's what happened to her after she was overhauled and with regard to her debut railtour in February 2016 I witnessed that event, is this proof enough for you so please stop deleting this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not enough. Verifiability is a core content policy, as is no original research. By adding your own observations, you are going against both of these; and in concentrating on recent events - timed to the minute in some cases - you are also in breach of WP:UNDUE, which is part of the third core content policy, that of neutral point of view. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the information there is proof that Royal Scot worked her inaugural railtour on Sat 6 February as the main photograph used for the article shows her after returning to Crewe with that exact railtour and being one of my own shots that photo is NOT to be deleted from the royal scot article. There is also details of her test runs on the icons of steam website so if I include the link for this please don't go deleting this again. http://www.iconsofsteam.com/locos/royal-scot/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you have no right to say "... that photo is NOT to be deleted from the royal scot article". You do not "own" the article. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:20, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2016 (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)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!SovalValtos (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of Thomas & Friends railway engines, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 23:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Moylesy98. 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]

December 2016

Hello, I'm Redrose64. I noticed that you made a change to 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Coast Railways, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort William. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Devon Railway. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. In particular, please see WP:GNL: ships may be referred to as "her" or "she", but not locomotives. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for blogging or promotion. So please do not try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your family, band, product, or company. The subjects of our articles have to meet certain notability requirements and be written from a neutral point of view. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time, even if it's on your user page. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Please also observe WP:V and WP:UNDUE, both of which are policy. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Preservation changes

This area has more than its share of pipe dreamers and gun jumpers. Would you please source your edits as this is the only difference between genuine changes and wishful thinking. Thank you. Britmax (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When there's a major work in progress...

Wikipedia has a template for that, which is placed at the top of an article. Leaving overt messages about an editor's intent within article space isn't permitted. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to GWR 4900 Class. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SovalValtos (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at GWR 4073 Class 7029 Clun Castle. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is WP:NORUSH to include up-to-the-second information in articles. Facebook and Twitter are only useable in limited circumstances. Journals such as Heritage Railway and Steam Railway are going to cover the steaming on Clun Castle and are much better sources to use. Just slow down a bit. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on GWR 2900 Class 2999 Lady of Legend

Material you included in the above article appears to have been copied from the copyright web page http://www.thesaintproject.co.uk/Pages/AtlanticOption.html. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or if you think I made a mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Moylesy98. 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]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited LNER Class K4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlisle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Facebook is not a reliable source, because it is self-published. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited GWR 4073 Class 5043 Earl of Mount Edgcumbe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Carlisle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at East Lancashire Railway, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Did add a reliable source to 6201's movement to Carnforth and 45690 is at the ELR presently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources it might help you avoid having your edits reverted in future.SovalValtos (talk) 12:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reliable source to 6201's owning group about her move north now stop editing the info back to what it was as it is f*cking genuine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moylesy98 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to East Lancashire Railway. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not your own personal blog. All information added to articles must be verifiable, and include no original research. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 76084. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here more than long enough by now to know what a WP:RS is. There is WP:NORUSH to get absolute, up-to-the-minute information onto Wikipedia, even if it is true. Wait for it to be reported by reliable sources and then quote those sources. I can see you getting blocked before long, not all admins are as patient as I am, nor as lenient. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please support the changes you make, such as your adding notes to List of rolling stock preserved on the West Somerset Railway with this edit [2] with the source(s) which can be used for verification. If it is something you cannot or do not wish to do perhaps consider directing your energy to another channel. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Vintage Trains. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SovalValtos (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.

Blocked 3 days for adding unreferenced material, edit warring and exhausting my patience. Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2018 (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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Iv been posting links to information including that of 71000 meaning it's genuine info and not made up. Alongside this references have been given to other pages too

Decline reason:

This and this introduce uncited information, even though you know it's your responsibility to provide the citation. You've engaged in edit warring on BR Standard Class 7 to put your inappropriate information on that page. The block looks appropriate. Yamla (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2018 (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.

On the article LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 5407 in this [3] edit you removed the citation request for there being an overhaul in 2010 without providing a citation. Please could you provide your reason, which you did not do in your edit summary, saying instead that you had "Updated info"?

In this [4] edit you reverted the edit removing a gallery for which the edit summary gave the reason that its inclusion was against WP:Image use policy. On replacement of the gallery no title for the gallery was included and no theme was apparent. Please could you revert your replacement of the gallery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SovalValtos (talk • contribs) 06:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Mjroots (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ENGAGE, it would be appreciated if you contributed to the discussion at ANI. It might not feel like it, but I am trying to help you here, and prevent you from ending up indefinitely blocked, which is what is likely to happen if you carry on editing in the same way that you have done in the past. So please come to ANI, respond to the points raised and the proposed remedy. Mjroots (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thread concerned is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Moylesy98. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing

I note you've started to add references to additions, thank you. A bare url is better than nothing, but they really need to be formatted. {{cite web}} is used for websites. At a minimum, four parameters are neeed - url, title, publisher and accessdate. Other parameters may be added as appropriate. So use <ref name=>{{cite web |url= |title= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref> as a starter, filling in the fields and giving the reference a name. Further info at WP:REFB. Mjroots (talk) 06:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Redrose64. I noticed that you made one or more changes to 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T 1312) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T 1312, Moylesy98!

Wikipedia editor Cwmhiraeth just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Besides citing no sources, this article appears to be unfinished.

To reply, leave a comment on Cwmhiraeth's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been asked before to use reliable sources. Blogs and photos are not such.SovalValtos (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC) SovalValtos (talk) 20:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at GWR 7800 Class. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SR Merchant Navy Class 35018 British India Line, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Scarborough and Appleby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BR Standard Class 5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello, I'm SovalValtos. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Llangollen Railway rolling stock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bury (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GWR_6800_Class&type=revision&diff=694219684&oldid=694217961

Please don't add new build engines - which haven't even been finished yet - to lists of historical engines. Your understanding of this basic principle of history is appreciated. Tony May (talk) 13:57, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please do not again attempt to replace, without explanation or the use of talk, unsourced material [5] using a WP:RSSELF that has been removed with an edit summary giving the reason for its removal, such as [6].SovalValtos (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in LMS Patriot Class 5551 The Unknown Warrior. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on West Coast Railways. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Moylesy98. 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]

December 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on GWR 6959 Class. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SovalValtos (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SR West Country class 21C146 Braunton moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, SR West Country class 21C146 Braunton, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:48, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: SR West Country class 21C146 Braunton has been accepted

SR West Country class 21C146 Braunton, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can 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.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 20:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at West Coast Railways, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of Great Central Railway locomotives and rolling stock, you may be blocked from editing. You have been advised many times to use WP:GNL Enough is enough SovalValtos (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4767

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on West Coast Railways. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SovalValtos (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on West Coast Railways; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded links

Please revert your addition of embedded links [7] in West Coast Railways.SovalValtos (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your most recent addition of misplaced external links. Please read WP:external links. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at West Coast Railways. SovalValtos (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please comply with WP:GNL SovalValtos (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4767

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Though you have made some helpful edits to our locomotive articles, people sometimes disagree and you are expected to negotiate when that happens. (You almost never post on talk pages). Removing redlinks simply for the reason they are redlinks is against our policies. That kind of thing needs a discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to justify your continued edit warring by unexplained removal of a redlink to a WP:Notable topic in West Coast Railways.SovalValtos (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Double chimney

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Double chimney, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have deleted this page because, from your comments at the talk page, it appeared you just created a blank page and were waiting for someone else to come along and create the article. If you actually want to create a page with this title, I can restore it and put it in your user space. where you can work on it at your leisure. If you want me to do this, just ask. But I suggest you wait until you are actually ready to create the article - knowing what you want to say, and having some references to back it up. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timing analysis: Double chimney: Revision history shows that Double chimney was created [again] at 04:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC) by Andy Dingley. So, an editor nominated a [no-content] "test" page for deletion via the AdministWikiocracy; about 2 hours later an administrator deleted it; and then about 3 hours after that, the same editor created the same page with content. Possibly suddenly inspired to create the now-absent page; possibly just to establish "credit" for "actually" creating the page with [ready] content that could have just been edited in. I've seen the latter before - an editor explicitly asked an administrator to delete a weak page so that they could "create" it - and I was further shocked that the administrator actually humored the request! It takes all kinds. It's sad that the history of deleted articles is lost (unless captured by Deletionpedia or the like). But some tracks are left, at scattered user-talk pages and centrally at AfD. I'd like to see a bot analysis of how many pages have been nominated for deletion and then created anew by the same editor who nominated them. Some editors might have done it multiple times. I wonder who holds the record. (Some internal and external tools research or track creations and edit counts that are otherwise too hard to find in the millions of edit logs.) -A876 (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have this right? You'd prefer to delete what's there now and restore Moylesy's "Under Construction" page, as if this was Geocities twenty years ago?

Do you have anything useful to add, or else I'd question just WTF you are doing here. BTW - editing other user's user subspace usually needs a damned good reason and a belief that you're welcome there. You are not. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy

In this edit [8] on the West Coast Railways article I removed unsourced material about owners per WP:V. You have replaced them with this edit [9] without providing a source, including in your edit summary "There is no page in existance for David Smith and no references over the web. The locos without names are owned by David Smith of WCR", which seems to be an admission that it is your WP:OR. Please clarify your justification for the replacement, or remove the unsourced material.SovalValtos (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moylesy98, are you listening to anything that is being said? In this revert you made at West Coast Railways you admit in the edit summary that you have no source that these engines belong to David Smith, but you want to insert that claim anyway. ("There is no page in existance for David Smith and no references over the web. The locos without names are owned by David Smith of WCR.") If you continue to go against WP:Verifiability an administrator may feel they have no choice about giving you a long term block. Remember that offline references (newspapers, books) can be used to prove David Smith's ownership if you have them but they must be cited in the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at West Coast Railways. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit [10] you have said "With regard to other locos said to be owned by a private owner is a little bit difficult to reference seeing as no pages exist." Nevertheless you have blithely insisted on replacing unsourced material concerning ownership. Have you ever tried to read WP:V and understand what the policy requires of you if you want to edit Wikipedia? One way or another, I hope this is the last time anyone has to post on your talk page concerning this subject.SovalValtos (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for continued edit warring, as you did at West Coast Railways. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Your responses suggest you are still not willing to follow our policy on WP:Reliable sources. You've been reverting others when they take out the ownership claims that don't have a source. 'Private Owner' is not an actual person, and you are not even providing a source that there is a private owner. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019 2

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at West Coast Railways, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SovalValtos (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More continued edit warring on the same article. EdJohnston, any suggestions? And what do you make of this? Were they trying to impersonate another editor, or was this some strange accident? Drmies (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Drmies. I don't think that Moylesy98's post at AIV, trying to complain about SovalValtos, was an attempt to impersonate. It's just another example of him never managing to sign his name on talk pages. But overall, I think we are getting into long-block territory due to the refusal to learn. EdJohnston (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely Blocked

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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Iv been falsely blocked by someone who cant learn to accept genuine information from genuine sources, including an article relating to 45212 as a genuine link regarding the engines return to the KWVR was added and once again people have falsely blocked me. I therefore ask that this block is lifted as iv done nothing wrong and was just passing on genuine info from other sources. The block therefore wasnt neccesary and has been falsely placed on myself. This user who placed the block has also got no relation to the article that was being worked on so therefore has falsely blocked my account.Moylesy98 (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It would be completely proper and desirable for someone uninvolved in the article or dispute to block you; if the blocking admin was involved, it would be a violation of WP:INVOLVED. Looking at your edits, you did indeed edit war. Your unblock request does not address this, and attempts to shift the blame, so I am declining it. Please read WP:GAB to learn about how to make a proper unblock request, ,and if you make another it should be focused on your own behavior and not that of others. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2019 (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.

Moylesy98, you have been persistently and wilfully violating our core content policies of no original research; neutral point-of-view and verifiability. You have also been using Wikipedia as if it were your own personal blog, adding what amounts to indiscriminate information; and you are ignoring our guidelines on gender-neutral language. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm SovalValtos. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to SR Merchant Navy Class 35018 British India Line have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 14:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to LNER Thompson Class B1 61306. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. SovalValtos (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at SR Merchant Navy Class 35018 British India Line, you may be blocked from editing. Please use talk. Please do not edit war. Please do not add spam links to your own you tube. SovalValtos (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Ther is a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents which may concern you.Charles (talk) 09:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to your YouTube in articles

is spamming. Please stop doing this. Please understand that if you persist, you may be blocked from editing without further warning. This comment is not acceptable. Please learn to discuss in an acceptable manner. These matters and more are under discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Uncivil_and_threatening_comments_by_User:Moylesy98. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent message to SovalValtos

Please take a moment and read the response that I left to your message to SovalValtos by clicking here, and let me know if you have any questions regarding Wikipedia's policies on civility. This kind of behavior is not acceptable and will result in administrative action should it continue. Thank you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 76084. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. This is another reminder to see WP:GNL; ships may be referred to as "her" or "she", but not locomotives. SovalValtos (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Andy Dingley. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, GWR_4073_Class, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GWR_4073_Class&curid=255611&diff=884087230&oldid=876401946

That's still unsourced. You can't claim that an old link (now dead) is supporting this changed content. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

its it's

Please check your proposed edits for the correct use of its and it's. When you make edits such as [11] you are making unnecessary work for others. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 11:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not persist in using its or it's incorrectly as you have done again in this edit [12] and despite being advised that you were wrong you have replaced twice [13] and [14]. If there is some reason that makes it difficult for you to write in English you could request an edit at the article's talk, giving the source for you desired change.SovalValtos (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

|

It's not a good idea

We have two articles; LMS Royal Scot Class and LMS Rebuilt Royal Scot Class, there is no need to get them mixed up. Nor is it a good idea to deliberately put back bad photos when we have a good one. Also it's = it is, its = singular neuter possessive.

And also, punctuation. Tony May (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with the photo of 46115 in Carlisle, as it's [=it is, got this one right, well done!] a more recent photograph of the engine at work on railtours compared to that shot youve [you need an apostrophe in this contraction] added from 2009. And that photo of 46115 which your [you mean "you're"= "you are"] claiming is terrible is infact [two words] one of my own photographs, so id [capital letter and another apostrophe needed] advise ya [you] dont [another apostrophe needed] slag me off for my photo work. Photos have to be kept updated every few years [says who?] with more recent shots and its [no you needed "it's"= it is] the same story with the jubilees as a shot of Leander in crimson is out of date as the engine no longer wears that livery. Unless theres [apostrophe needed] a more recent photo of 46115 do not change it to an old one as the more recent shot must remain as was, also stop deleting info on classmembers [that's two words, not one].

The photo is a nice snapshot and your grammar is worse than your photography, but it's not technically the best photo. Tony May (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've mentioned it, I've had a look at some of your photos for you. If you pay attention to good composition and exposure techniques, you have the potential to become a better photographer. By and large your main problem is (1) composition - putting the subject in the middle of the frame (see rule of thirds and (2) composition - allowing stuff (trees, walls, etc) to get between you and the subject.

Composition wtf?
shutter speed too slow! You need 1/500 at least.
horrible shadow across the subject which is in the middle of the frame
overexposed mess
Composition - subject in the middle of the frame
Distracting snowstorm
Overexposed sky, odd composition
A mess of nonsense in front of your subject.
It's mostly a tree!
subject in the middle

It would help if you didn't clutter Wikimedia commons with images which are not up to appropriate standards.Tony May (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

|||==My photographs== Iv been putting my back out for years taking those photographs and without some of those there wouldnt be any photos on certain articles, with the shot of 5972 that couldnt be helped as the sun was facing to east hence the shadow across the engine. The shot of the scot attacking Shap was taken over 4-5 years ago and id not had the camera that long when it was taken so dont slag me off for that. The nameplate of Glasgow Highlander was taken when we had an amber weather warning so couldnt be helped and there are no other shots in existance on wiki which show 45407 in that identity. The nameplate shot of BIL is better than nothing as again there are no other nameplate photos of the engine up.

If you think you have better photos why dont you upload some of yours to Wiki then, I doubt you have though. But keep your disgusting thoughts about my work to yourself as it isnt welcomed here.

Again - punctuation and apostrophes. Is the apostrophe button not actually working on your computer?

I'm not "slagging you off" - I'm pointing out technical deficiencies in your photography skills, which you might improve upon if you listen to advice and show even a modicum of self-criticality. The same goes for your English.

Yes, I have experience of railway photography. Enough to know about things like composition, shutter speed, ISO, etc. As does Phil, whose photo I've used.

This is Wikipedia. It is not called "Wiki".

Finally, Please stop edit warring, I'll just have to really be a dick to you and you'll get blocked for edit warring for the umpteenth time. Tony May (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of... nothing in particular.
Yes, take photos of the crowds, though this is not really of them nor of the engine, which is placed too centrally. Also, sky overexposure.
subject in the middle, overexposure...
Overexposed sky, and top of firebox.
Taken from the side in shadow;
meh
Subject in the middle of the frame, exposure problems from bright sky, subject in shadow.
The sky is overexposed in this one but it is illustrative and should be used in the article.
Much much better composition, though the shutter speed is too slow and the image isn't sharp, probably from camera shake and movement, and there's no sun.

Exposure (again)

You see this?

Can't you see that you're shooting at mid-day into the sun, leading to both (1) a massive overexposed sky in the right top of the picture and (2) shadows on the underframe. Don't take photos into the sun, particularly with a digital camera.

My aim is to get the best photo that is (1) illustrative and (2) technically competent into the photo. Sometimes there's a compromise between the two.

Your aim appears to get your photos into the articles, despite their lacking any technical competence whatsoever.

Oh and Dave, please remember to sign your name with four squiggles. Tony May (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Slagging off"

Again - I'm not "slagging you off" - that's a personal attack from you on me. I'm trying to get good, useful photos into the articles. If you were to take any such photos, I'm sure we'd be happy to include them. However, if there are better photos, they will be relegated out of the article. I think I've demonstrated my point above. Ideally I would delete the poor ones from the Commons as well. It is straightforward to get composition and exposure right; such as the small selection below:

Phil knows what he's doing - give him credit for that. I'd much prefer you learnt and developed into a competent photographer, like Phil.Tony May (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Settle–Carlisle line, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please also check grammar SovalValtos (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on West Coast Railways. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Charles (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo do you think is better?

OK Dave,

Please understand it's nothing personal. If we didn't have any better images, we could use yours. I think that's fair to you, isn't it? You can't just put your photograph in the article like you WP:OWN it, and you

Here's your chance. Can you explain to me which of these is the best (i.e. most illustrative) and why? Some of these are great, some are just so-so OK. Please try to use some use technical such as "composition", "lighting" and "exposure" in your answer:

Perhaps you would like to have a look at some elementary photography videos on Youtube?

Tony May (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Authorship of the photographs is irrelevant. I'm only concerned about good quality images. I fear you are revealing your own desire to see your own photographs. But we've yet to establish that you know anything about photography (I'm actually pretty convinced you know ansobulutely nothing). Oh, and it is Conway Valley Line - this is the name, in English, in the original Act of Parliament that authorised its construction. Tony May (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once yet again Dave...

Please stop trying to insert your own poor quality photographs into articles where better quality photographs are available.

These are not your articles to insert your technically poor photos into. You complain I'm "making you look like a shit photographer" (your words). - Firstly I don't need to make you look like a "shit photographer" - you're managing that all by yourself on Flickr. Secondly, not putting your bad photos in Wikipedia is going to hide your photography anyway, so no-one will realise your lack of ability.

I have selected photos based on illustrative and technical merit. These come from a selection of photographers on Flickr who have made their contributions available under licence. There are not that many active photographers who licence their image however, but the main ones are Phil Sangwell, Andrew, Hugh Llewellyn, and a few others. I care not who.

Please don't warn me about "having to take action" - you're the one who keeps getting blocked for edit warring - please discuss on the talk page where necessary. Please make reference to the illustrative value of your desired images. Tony May (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that comment was a bit strong, but then I looked at the Flickr content. I've got photos like that; I don't publish them.

As to this though, I was just about to revert it but Tony beat me to it. I don't see why a preserved line (and I can't even tell) is a problem, but not being three-quarter view, having a platform in the way and being poorly lit certainly is – especially for an article on the loco, rather than some broader scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy Dingley - it was a bit strong, and I really don't want to hurt Dave's feelings, and I do understand that this is a bit of a sensitive subject for him. I'm not picking on Dave - he's not the first person to point a phone in the general direction of a train, auto settings, click, job done. I've seen experienced and otherwise talented photographers adept at other genres take really bad railway photos. But not upsetting someone isn't a criteria for photograph selection. Additionally, I have removed other poor photographs. It's just that Dave's photos are a particular problem because he keeps inserting them into articles, and then reacts angrily when they are replaced.Tony May (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"STOP REMOVING MY F*CKING IMAGES"

Dave,

Edit warring isn't helpful.
Being rude isn't helpful
Both will get you blocked.
Again.

Please provide justifications on the talk page why you think "my images" should be included. And I promise I'll listen to content-based arguments and what others have to say. Tony May (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring and discuss

The talk pages are there for a reason. Tony May (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The photos I had for 76084 and Galatea were much better quality than any other stuff that was on wikipedia as it was all either blury or out of focus. The shot of 76084 was also a more recent photograph from 2016 unlike the shot of it at the ELR which is much older. Some articles like the one for the patriot dont have any other photos showing the engine in its present state, the saint hasnt even got a photo up and the reason why iv not uploaded one is because I havent seen that or the newbuild county no 1014. The grange meanwhile doesnt have a recent photo other than one at Llan in 2015. Leander meanwhile there's no decent images of her in BR black other than one from behind the engine at Carlisle as they are all in LMS identity.

The photograph of Kolhapur in Southport which you or someone else has nominated for deletion was taken by my father and iv had permission to use it, also this was took well before digital cameras were even invented so how do you expect them to be of a quality like what we have got now. The photo of 46100 at night was a decent shot yet that has too been replaced and you have left the LMS crimson photo of her which isnt even a direct shot or a decent quality image. The photo of 48151 was a decent shot but you have removed it from the article so its only now on the WCR page. Iv only got a handful of photographs in articles left now thanks to you and others, just leave a number of mine as the article photo for god sake as you are taking the piss replacing them with photos from someone else which you have then uploaded. Moylesy98 (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think image quality was inferior before digital it shows how much you know. You need to work with other editors instead of battling them, or you are likely to end up blocked.Charles (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well quite User:Charlesdrakew - I think one of the big problems here is that Dave doesn't understand photography. Obviously technology has improved with time, but it's essential that the photographer understands how to use his technology to produce art.

Thanks for your response Dave. It is better than edit warring. I agree that there are other photos on Wikipedia that are of dubious quality, both technically and illustratively. I also accept the rarity of older images behoves use to accept ones that are technically imperfect. I have tried to make the point to you repeatedly before that this isn't personal. I think a better place to discuss this would be on the talk pages of the respective articles. It's a bit difficult to keep track of all of them. In some cases your images might be suitable for inclusion, at least until better ones become available. Tony May (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These: [15] [16] are just simple edit-warring. There are too many discussions about you open already, so I'm not starting another one, but this sort of behaviour will end in a block for you. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - Not signing your posts makes it very difficult for other editors to know who has posted in a discussion and thus hard for them to follow the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Moylesy98 reported by User:David Biddulph (Result: ). Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Blocked for 2 weeks. This is not the first time you've been blocked for edit warring. Should further blocks be needed, they will be much longer. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you're blocked, you can't comment on that SPI. However I will be happy to copy across any reasonable comments you want to make here, per WP:EVADE.

If this was your sockpuppet, then I suggest that you revert its edits, admit to it, and agree not to do that again forthwith (and I would hope the matter can then be dropped quietly as a mistake). If it's not you, then please say so (we know that this does sometimes happen, as it's a good way to blacken the name of another editor). However WP:CHECKUSER often fails to identify socks, but rarely gives a false positive. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm glad to see that this wasn't your sockpuppet. Thanks for not going there. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to BR Standard Class 4 2-6-0 76084, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please use the talk page rather than edit warring. Please read WP:GALLERY Please do not insert what you have described as your own "F*CKING IMAGES" against consensus SovalValtos (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've just returned after a block for edit-warring, and your first reaction is an immediate reversion of just those same changes. See LMS Royal Scot Class 6100 Royal Scot for just one example, but Contribs today shows a bunch more.

These are exactly the changes which had you blocked. You have made no reason for repeating them. Comments like, "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy" and "Reinstatement following removal by a spammer" are obvious and ridiculous attacks on another editor, rather than any justification for the change. If this goes back to WP:ANEW then it will be another immediate, and longer, block. What are you going to do instead? Options such as, "Adding better photos to articles, per the guidelines for them already discussed on various talk: and project pages, regardless of who took the photo." would be welcome. But "I want my photos there, even if they're either not good or not appropriate (for reasons we've already discussed) and anyone who disagrees is a spammer" – that's just leading to a long block. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem specifically is that most of the photos you have taken, which you shouldn't think of them as your any more since they've effectively been donated to the WMF, aren't better than alternatives. Tony May (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "donated to the WMF" is accurate. Moylesy98 remains the copyright holder, they have simply agreed to licence the images under a free licence. The terms of this licence requires attribution and this attribution ultimately points to Moylesy98 as the creator (and copyright holder). As the copyright holder, Moylesy98 remains free to licence these images separately. This would include allowing commercial use or derivatives without having to abide by the terms of the CC licence. The WMF actually has no real involvement here. In the event someone were to violate the terms of Moylesy98's licence, there's a fair chance any attempt by the WMF to independently sue for the violation of the licence would fail since they are simply the repository for the content and not the "owner" in any meaningful way. This issue is ultimately not greatly relevant to the dispute, except that while edit warring to preserve your preferred version is bad, many in the community tend to view it even more poorly when it's being done (and by Moylesy98's admission this is the case) because the editor wants their own work to be shown. While it's far worse when there's a clear commercial motive for it, ultimately even spam even without a commercial motive is generally viewed poorly. It also means Moylesy98 should take a step back, even if the WMF now owning the work was accurate, it's clear that they as the creator have an understandable WP:COI in preferring this work which means it's difficult for them to be objective. Nil Einne (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on LMS Royal Scot Class 6100 Royal Scot; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a very long block.

LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4871

Other than it's your photo and you like to get your own photos included, how can you possibly justify edit-warring to replace the left-hand photo with the right-hand one? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties

I am aware that you have been editing now for five years but still see that using English and communicating may be problematic for you. Hoping that as you matured from a young editor things would become easier for you WP:CIA you have been given latitude albeit interspersed by blocks. Is there anything you might want to say about WP:CIR, particularly are there areas where other editors could help??SovalValtos (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of issue raised at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Moylesy98. --Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you are blocked, you may use this talk page to make any comments and they will be copied over to ANI. It is important that you participate, as that is your best chance to get unblocked. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits; since being unblocked (for the fourth time this year) you have immediately restarted the same disruptive edits as those that got you blocked in the first place. Clearly you are not here to edit collaboratively, and therefore this block is indefinite.

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 ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 1 April 2019 (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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was only wanting some of my photos to be featured in articles as until a certain user came about people were happy with my images being used in the article but they believe my images are poor and are using another persons images from flickr instead of uploading their own. They obviously want my images removed from every single article on the site when I want to have at least one in an article and they are claiming im in the wrong and are removing them.

Decline reason:

Per User:Andy Dingley's explanation below Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:04, 2 April 2019 (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.

I can't do anything about your block. However to address some of the points you raise (they don't affect this immediate block directly, but they do deserve to be addressed.)

I was only wanting some of my photos to be featured in articles

That (within WP's policies) is not a good or valid reason. We're not against it, but we choose on the basis of what's best for the article, not self-promotion.

as until a certain user came about

Making this personal will not help your case. Also I really don't know which editor you mean. TonyMay is the most recent you seem to have annoyed, but Redrose64 goes back a long way with very similar issues and I'm not happy either.

people were happy with my images being used in the article

Absence of a clear complaint is not an expression of support. I'd not looked in detail before, but once my attention was drawn to it, I'm agreeing with TonyMay. Many of these images have either real problems, don't add anything, or would be better with another image we have available.

but they believe my images are poor

There are many of your images here which are either poor, or if not "aesthetically poor" certainly aren't helping an encyclopedic goal as much as other, available photographs could.

and are using another persons images from flickr instead of uploading their own.

That is entirely permissible, by the licensing on Flickr (or wherever). There is no requirement for WP editors to only add their own, or to upload any of their own.

They obviously want my images removed from every single article on the site

No-one is advocating this. Just images that are not the best for the article, of these we have access to.

when I want to have at least one in an article

That is not a policy which WP recognises. If you want self-publication, get a blog.

and they are claiming im in the wrong and are removing them.

See WP:CONSENSUS for just one issue about how we work. There are some objective reasons (given above) as to why we shouldn't use yours, and the consensus of others here is certainly to not use them.

Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can take administrative action here, but I won't. Pretty sure I've said this before. The only criterion an image is judged on is quality. It doesn't matter who took the photo. It's great that you take photos and upload them to Commons. If an image of yours is added to an article by another editor, consider it a bonus. Adding an image to an article is fine per WP:BRD, but once challenged, the D part kicks in.

Please take the opportunity to respond to the issue raised at ANI. Mjroots (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, user:Mjroots eabout "it's great that you take photos and upload them to commons." The problem with Commons is they have absolutely zero quality control. They will literally take any unillustrative, poorly composed, overexposed, or underexposed mess. Meanwhile, Wikipedia articles have a link "go to look at photos on commons" - but a good deal of the photos there are complete and utter garbage. They have a "quality images" programme, but bizarrely only apply that to Commons-user-created photos, arbitrarily excluding others. So it's not great for users such as Dave to upload awful photographs to Commons, which they do because they lack awareness, because by association it negatively affects Wikipedia articles, but that's mainly Commons problem, which they refuse to deal with. Meanwhile, Wikipedia does have quality control, which means that rubbish that gets uploaded to the commons should be ignored. Tony May (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony May: You say They have a "quality images" programme, but bizarrely only apply that to Commons-user-created photos, arbitrarily excluding others. What is a "Commons-user-created photo"? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Quality Images" at Commons need to be the work of Commons users (i.e. the work of the uploader, rather than random images created by other people that are imported from an external source such as Flickr). Black Kite (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a great deal of danger that many of Dave's pictures would be accepted as "quality images", although they meet one of the criteria by being created by a Commons user, but I'd rather he didn't, simply because he has no understanding of photography, and any quality is merely accidental. Commons attitude to images strongly resembles compulsive hoarding, with all of the negative consequences. Tony May (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony May I do not see the relevance of your hobbyhorse concerning commons inclusion policy for what is at issue here. I would rather not see negative criticism of other's photography and I value quality for Wikipedia even if arrived at accidentally. I see potential value in his images and am grateful for the uploads.SovalValtos (talk) 06:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony May: If your calling my images crap where are your own images if you think your so much better. You say it should only be for those who are commons users all you have done is upload other peoples images rather than your own. Saying you'd rather I didnt upload is deffiately a good sign that you are a cyber bully, you should be facing a blocking by other users rather than me.Moylesy98 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SovalValtos: This Tony May lad is coming off as a cyber bully and should be the one that facing a permanent block rather than me as he is acting in an unacceptable manner. He is criticising me for my images while many other people have praised me for my work and they were happy for my images to be used until he came along. Yet he thinks its ok to use other peoples images off Flickr when he clearly said the work needs to belong to the original creator rather than off Flickr which he clearly stated, and all he has been doing is uploading other peoples work off Flickr in a bid to get my images taken off an article. He even criticised me for the old photos my dad took showing Kolhapur and Bahamas in Southport, we didnt have digital cameras back then so what do you expect quality wise for images around the 70's and 80's.Moylesy98 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots and Talk: As you can probably see it has got out of hand and Tony May is criticising me for uploading all of my images to wiki, he claimed images need to be from the original owner yet not off sites like Flickr, he however is uploading other peoples images from the site in a desperate attempt to get my images removed from articles, iv only got a handful left thanks to him. He even kicked off at me for uploading old 70's/80's photographs that were taken by my father (who has given me permission to use), he claimed they are poor images (what do you expect for stuff from that time as we didnt have digital photography then like we do now). He is coming off as a cyber bully towards me and is the one that should be facing an indefinate block rather than me as he is constantly removing all of my images and he even said he would rather I didnt upload any images to wiki at all. The reason articles like 2999 Lady of Legend and 1014 County of Glamorgan havent got an image of my own is because I havent yet seen either engine.

He should be the one facing an indefinate block rather than me as when iv done editing iv been providing reliable references yet he thinks it's ok to revert it back to how it was before the edit and source was put in. He said I quote: I don't think there is a great deal of danger that many of Dave's pictures would be accepted as "quality images", although they meet one of the criteria by being created by a Commons user, but I'd rather he didn't, simply because he has no understanding of photography, and any quality is merely accidental.Moylesy98 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

No-one is saying that they don't want your images here. There are lots of images, some are OK, some are less so, several are on an article where we have a choice between images, and then we pick the best and most appropriate one, not pick one by who took it. This is not about you. If you keep pushing your images though (and you have been) and there are other images which are better, then you're going to keep getting your images removed. But still, they're not being removed because they're yours.
People who upload to Flickr (and similar) choose the licence when they upload. If they give a free licence, then it's OK for others (Me, you, TonyMay, anyone on WP) to copy those images off to Commons or Wikipedia and use them. That's what "free licence" means. There is nothing about such images not being usable, or needing to be uploaded by their photographer (there's one trivial bit on Commons where you can only get your own images rated as "quality images"). You need to understand that before we'll get any progress. If you're incapable of understanding that, or keep failing to, then I would oppose any unblock as the rest of us just don't need the hassle.
You're not blocked because of image choice. You won't get unblocked by saying "I chose the right images". You're blocked because you kept immediately edit-warring against other people and you wore our patience out. You won't get unblocked unless and until you say "OK, I'm going to read the rules and follow them." Claiming "But I was right!" will not work. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just add that the suggestion that good photographic quality only started with the advent of digital photography is utter nonsense. Film cameras were, and still are, capable of superb results. What kind of cameras do you think were used by Ansel Adams, Don McCullin, Steve McCurry, Martin Parr and countless other greats back then? How do you think National Geographic got all its superb images in the 70's, 80's and earlier? If your father's photograph is not good quality (I don't know, I haven't looked at it), that's *not* because it isn't digital. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward?

Moylesy98, To try to help you here, I'll offer my take on the example shown further up this page, that of LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4871. You were in an edit war to try to replace the existing photo with your own, complaining of "Deliberate removal of image owing to jealousy." Your assessment is wrong, and let me explain why. Your photo is good, I like it. It's a nicely atmospheric night-time shot, with the backlit smoke/steam adding to the mood. But the purpose of a photo in an encyclopedia is to show readers what the subject looks like, and you really can't get any idea of what that loco actually looks like from your photo. It's a silhouette, in the dark, and provides the reader with almost no visual information about the loco. It's a good photo as a photo, but it's inadequate as an illustration for an encyclopedia.

Let's look at another one, LMS Royal Scot Class 6100 Royal Scot. The current article lead photo is taken in daylight, shows the loco from a reasonable angle, and readers can clearly see what it looks like, together with the tender and a couple of carriages. Your photo is again taken in the dark, and only shows the front of the loco. The reader can't see much of what it actually looks like, and can't make out the tender or carriages at all. Again, it's a nice photo, but a poor illustration.

Photography is my main hobby and I have some of my photos in Wikipedia articles. But they were shots I went out specifically to take as illustrations for Wikipedia articles and not intended to be artistic photos. If you can understand this, and can make an unblock request that shows you understand it and will stop trying to force your photos into articles against consensus, I think we could work towards an unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2019 (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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wanna keep articles up to date with references aswell as keep the images looking more recent rather than being extremely out of date

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:26, 3 April 2019 (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.

For LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4871 (see images above) you replaced a good image with a terrible image that was also a year and half older. So "keep the images looking more recent rather than being extremely out of date" is not only irrelevant (by WP policy - it just doesn't pay much heed to such a thing) it's also quite untrue, compared to the edits you have been doing.

The idea of you improving articles "with references" is also quite different to what your editing history shows.

Support indef. You will not or cannot recognise what's required. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what up-to-date has to do with it when we're talking of photos of old steam locomotives. Unless it's actually changed in some significant way (which most of them haven't as they tend to be preserved as original as possible), what does it matter when a photo was taken? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and considering the photo you tried to insert in LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4871: Even without the dates, please explain how you could possibly think a photo taken at night in which you can barely even see the loco can possibly, by any stretch of the imagination, be a better encyclopedia illustration than a very clear, accurately exposed, and well composed photo taken in good daylight?
Your current unblock request, as it stands, is certain to be declined. To stand any chance of being unblocked, you need to show that you understand the concerns about your contributions and will address them - not just ignore the concerns and push on with the same problems repeatedly. If you keep making unblock requests without even attempting to address the problem, you are likely to lose access to this talk page too. So please respond to what people are actually saying here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter when a photo was taken? talk. Well it matters somewhat, but WP:RECENTISM should not be one of the main criteria, and usually older is better. But I agree from behaviour that Dave's main plan was to get "his fornicating images" into articles, rather than any legitimate higher aim. Tony May (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I can see how for historical subjects like steam locos, older photos might be better (for example, as being more illustrative of them at their prime, or illustrating historic events, I guess). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serving a block

A block is not the end. As I understand it you can still upload images to commons, and even if I am wrong you can still be taking photos for the future. I have particularly liked your camera work showing work in progress in depots. The greater the detail the more the interest. You might need a tripod for slow shutter speeds. Shots of experts (I almost said un-GNL craftsmen!) at work whether lining paintwork or scraping a bearing would be valuable. You may still well want to photograph the finished locos in action, but that sort of arty work is more common. If you have access to workshops the opportunity should be grasped. Time passes quickly as shown by the usefulness of your Dad's pics. Wikipedia would be the loser without more of your images, if not by some of the edits you have made in the past. Best wishes.SovalValtos (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owing to the suspension of being able to update and even by updating an article with a new photo and others reverting it to a crapper and older photo.:(

I suggest you swiftly remove the reference to stealing you made above or else there may be little chance of being unblocked.SovalValtos (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been sorted out but the photos that replaced mine werent uploaded by the copyright holder.Moylesy98 (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told time and time again that they don't need to be uploaded by the copyright holder, they just need to have been published somewhere under a suitable license. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering your accusations of "reverting it to a crapper and older photo" when your photos in all of the examples leading to this block are clearly the inferior ones, can you please answer a question I asked above?...

Q: Considering the photo you tried to insert in LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 4871, can you please explain why you think your photo taken at night in which you can barely even see the loco is a better encyclopedia illustration than a very clear, accurately exposed, and well composed photo taken in good daylight?

If you think yours is better, all you have to do is explain why. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serial edit conflicts. Just a reminder that User:Tony May has been told by an admin "if "Dave" (Moylesey98?) placed the image which you object to in the article, then you are not to remove it" [17].SovalValtos (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Might you consider agreeing not to insert your images in articles and instead propose them on the article's talk page? If you were to ping me I would be happy to help make a decision as I think you might be biased! Unfortunately there may be more for you to cope with in editing about your hobby which could involve restraint by you.SovalValtos (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC) As said some articles didnt have any photos on them and I assumed people would like the article to have one up. The patriot for example had no photo on it until I added a photo of it as a bare set of frames with a BR green liveried cab on them (the state of the engine at that point), I chose to add a new one showing it in an almost finished state as again no other images for it had been uploaded.Moylesy98 (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock If you're still saying that the photos that replaced mine werent uploaded by the copyright holder., then I can't see how you can work appropriately and collaboratively here, per WP:COMPETENCE. You've had it explained repeatedly that this just isn't a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was only wanting to give articles a refreshed look as some either didnt have a single photo on them (the newbuilds 1014, 2999, 6880 & 45551 being multiple examples as until I shared images the patriot and grange there wouldnt have been images for them in the article. With the county and saint though I havent seen them yet hence there being no photos of them by myself, there arent other photos of them on the site either so are blank. With others the images were severely out of date and with others like Leander that didnt have an image of it in black (only LMS identity). I will now no longer be sharing my images on the site.Moylesy98 (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely fine to upload photos to illustrate an article where there are none (45551 for example has some good photos that you took). The problem is when you're replacing good photographs with ones of your own that are of lesser quality. Black Kite (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2999 would be a good place for a new image. I've just added one there myself, it's not great, because even though there's now an image on there of it in steam it's still far from great at showing what a Saint looks like and so I added one of it dressed as Redgauntlet. If you get a decent photo of her, we would welcome that.

But the problem right now is your recent comment. I (for just one) am not prepared to work with you if you're going to describe other editors as 'stealing' and when you still don't understand the legitimate re-use of freely licensed content. I don't know why you can't understand this, or why you have to abuse other editors in the process, but I'd rather have you blocked forever than come back without understanding. You have to understand issues like that – it's one of the few requirements we place on editors.

We do, BTW, prioritise this above the completeness of articles, even their accuracy. Because otherwise we can't work at all. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to be able to keep an article update with genuine information and references where necessary aswell as share images too. I will make sure not to start an edit war in future

Decline reason:

For you to be unblocked, we need to be certain that there won't be any repeat of the behaviour that got you blocked in the first place. This is really the last chance saloon that you're drinking in. Should you continue to edit war over images, you'll find it nigh on impossible to get unblocked again. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am marking this closed as it is a stale request. Black Kite has responded, and there is no consensus to unblock after over six weeks. Uninvited Company 22:07, 22 May 2019 (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.

I suggest this appeal be declined, without prejudice to another try that really answers the complaints. For example, see the above suggestion by User:SovalValtos: "Might you consider agreeing not to insert your images in articles and instead propose them on the article's talk page? If you were to ping me I would be happy to help make a decision as I think you might be biased!" Other admins may want to add further conditions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that works for me. I would oppose unblock without some sort of condition like that, after Moylesy98's continuing WP:IDHT shown in the section above this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Blocking admin) Since Moylesy98 still doesn't seem to understand why they were blocked, I would oppose any unblock without (a) some image restriction such as that proposed by SovalValtos above, and (b) some sort of xRR restriction. Black Kite (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles had old photos rather than more recent photographs, some articles like the newbuilds until I uploaded an image of them didnt have any photographs available for use in the article as at the time no others had been uploaded for use. 1014 and 2999 havent had an image uploaded by myself as I havent seen either engine yet where as with 6880 and the patriot I had done and no other image had been shared. 5551's had a new one to replace the frames photo as it's in a more complete state now. The grange I havent seen in it's current state hence its still got an old photo of her in 2015 rather than a more completed engine.Moylesy98 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, there's merit in adding photos where there aren't any, but that's going off at a tangent and you're still not listening when it comes to issues that got you blocked. You say "Some articles had old photos rather than more recent photographs" - but you have been repeatedly told that that is not necessarily a problem, and a good older photo is certainly better than a bad newer one. But you won't listen, you just keep repeating the same things. And only a couple of hours ago, you were accusing another editor of stealing photos when it has been repeatedly explained to you that he wasn't and that what he was doing was fine.

It's a pretty universal requirement for an unblock that you actually address your behaviour that resulted in the block, and convince the community that it won't happen again. But you are stubbornly refusing to do that, and you are compounding the problem by continuing to make personal attacks on another editor. I say address your own problematic behaviour or stay blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to address the behaviour fault but I dont take continuous criticism from people well as iv had people say my content is always a mess and shouldnt be here at all.Moylesy98 (talk) 00:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable, but all you have to do is explain what *you* were doing wrong and what you will do differently if unblocked. Forget what anyone else has said or done - just address that one thing. It's pretty much an essential for a successful unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is being taken into account but the 24/7 criticism of my photos needs to stop, newbuild loco pages (e.g: 2007 Prince of Wales, 4709, B17's, 82045, etc dont have images at all). Im just trying to add an image to articles as some locos dont have any images on the site at all and the present image 2999 has got isnt a permanent solution shot as a better photo needs to be took of the engine. The saint is also finished so needs moving to the built section of the Steam locomotives of the 21st century page.Moylesy98 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is in no way addressing what you were doing wrong, is it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As was said I was trying to keep an article upto date and fresh with new info and photos. But as had been said if someone thought an image needed to be replaced it wasnt to be unless brought up and it was took off the article almost instantly. I just wanted to get my work noticed aswell as fill a gap that might be in an article where there wasnt an image in use on it.Moylesy98 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that is still not addressing *what was wrong* with what you were doing, is it? And it's not saying a word about what you will do differently if unblocked. I have nothing further to say to you, and I will just note that I strongly oppose any unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I was in the wrong I aplogise.Moylesy98 (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stop blaming other editors for what you're doing. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose unblock per WP:COMPETENCE.SovalValtos (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify again: What Dave says he was doing was "keeping articles up-to-date". What the evidence says Dave was doing was vainly putting his own photographs into articles regardless of their quality, which, not understanding photography, he was unable to assess the quality thereof. [edit: So he was putting his photographs ahead of better ones]. That's understandable to a degree, but it is not really acceptable. Since there is a difference between what the evidence says and what Dave says, I suggest we follow the evidence. There needs to be a formal admission of this, rather than a sweary edit summary which did admit this before we can move forward. Tony May (talk) 05:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came here via the ANI report. I would be amenable to unblocking Moylesy98 iff they agree to take an indefinite topic ban from images, broadly construed (ie: don't upload them, don't change them in articles), and an indefinite one revert rule restriction; a breach of either will be met with an immediate indefinite reblock with no appeal. Addressing the point of "I just wanted to get my work noticed", then you need to go to Instagram, Flickr or Google Photos - on Wikipedia, you have no more rights to change content than anyone else. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ritchie333's restriction; unblock only if editor agrees to broadly construed topic ban on image upload/changes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could go with that - maybe allow appeal after 12 months? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against this.

en:WP has no control over whether Moylesy uploads images or not. As he's uploading them to Commons, then that's up to Commons, nothing to do with en:WP. He is quite welcome to do this, always has been, and is not blocked from doing so, even now.
His uploads aren't the problem, it's adding his own images to articles, replacing better (per our somewhat objective, if not absolute, standards). That's about changes in en:WP articlespace, and about the vanity-publishing aspect.
There is a past issue with the triviality of some information added (per WP:UNDUE) and its poor sourcing. This seems to stem from a difference in viewpoint between WP as an encyclopedia (covering long-term explanations of notable, mostly timeless stuff) and a railway news / magazine site (timely updates are more important).
Mostly though, the current issue is about a lack of understanding and an inability to work cooperatively with other editors (to which 1RR might be a useful restriction). This is behavioural, not narrowly topic-definable. I have no wish to exclude him from images (that's clearly what he's most interested in) and if he happens to get better photos of a subject like Lady of Legend than we have at present (there are many subjects we're obviously short of), then I would welcome those. But he has to stop sniping at others' behaviour, particularly regarding his clear misunderstandings about legitimate use of free content.

Overall, I see this as mostly behavioural (so either block indef or unblock if he can demonstrate enough understanding), and a narrow topic-based restriction wouldn't work. As to images, then he'd also find it unduly onerous. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Andy understands the subtleties here a bit better. Though, it would be quite easy, even for Dave, to take a photo better than

. Tony May (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 - The uploading of images to Commons is not a problem, and even if it were, it would be for Commons to deal with. There is no need to impose an editing restriction on uploading images. It's a pity my suggestion at ANI of an editing restriction preventing the addition, changing or removal of images was not discussed because everyone was arguing over the merits of the block. If Moylesy98 was to voluntarily agree to such a restriction then I would be minded to unblock. Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots - You cant force someone to not upload images to wikipedia as again it's not your decision but commons. Moylesy98 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. That's not what he said. He suggested "an editing restriction preventing the addition, changing or removal of images" to articles (in other words that you wouldn't add, remove, or change images on Wikipedia articles without checking if they are OK with someone else). I'd agree with that, as well. Black Kite (talk) 15:18, 11 April 2019 (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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will no longer be uploading further photos to the site but I want to be able to keep pages and information upto date. As before I want to be able to add on new information with references aswell as keep pages updated and remove poorly sourced info and bad quality images from pages

Decline reason:

Closed a duplicate unblock request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 26 April 2019 (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.

Ignoring the lack of puncutation, I think this is a subtle case of WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. We've had the "I just wanted to keep the articles up-to-date" line before, but this contradicts the evidence. It seems that for Dave "keeping the articles up to date" is code for putting his own photographs into as many articles as possible, regardless of there being better photos in most cases, and then edit warring when these are fixed. So following the code, this isn't good enough. "I won't upload any more images" is OK - but what about the existing ones that are poor and useless (but which commons refuse to delete)? Will he try to put these into articles ahead of better images as he did before? From the wording, possibly. In other words, this is just repetition of what failed to convince before. What is needed is an admission of what he was really doing and a more specific pledge not to continue to do that in the future. Tony May (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling you would be happy that I wont upload further images User:Tony May as that's nearly all iv had from you and im not prepared to have insults hurled at me for my work any furtherThe reason iv said I will no longer be uploading is owing to the continuous negative comments iv had off people saying my work is crap, un-usable in all articles and saying I shouldnt even bother uploading images to the site, not forgeting the report for using my fathers own images. If it hadnt been for my photos some articles like the patriot, grange, leander, etc wouldnt have had any images on wiki for their articles. Poorer quality images have replaced mine and iv got only 1 or 2 articles left where an image of mine is in use. You have to understand that you have come across as a bully to others by pressuring them to stop doing something they enjoy, you have now won that battle and im now no longer uploading any images to wikipedia.

I want to be able to keep articles upto date but you think im constantly spamming pages, some articles like the patriot have got YT links referencing certain events like the plaque unveiling yet any others that are of my own creating or called spam but others are not. That is deffiately the sign of a bully. Moylesy98 (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request

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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will no longer be uploading further photos to the site but I want to be able to keep pages and information upto date. As before I want to be able to add on new information with references aswell as keep pages updated and remove poorly sourced info and bad quality images from pages

Decline reason:

This doesn't come close to accounting for your disruptive editing. Yamla (talk) 13:58, 18 May 2019 (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.

Dave, this is just repetition of the above. Here is some text that will (probably) get you unblocked. Just remove the <nowiki> tags Think about it. You're free to use it, but understand it and be bound by the consequences. Tony May (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock | reason= '''Understanding of background issues''' I am new to learning photography so I don't really know how to use a camera very well, and I'm not very good at assessing image quality. I don't really understand technical terms like "exposure" or "composition" or "shutter speed". I admit I liked to put my own images in articles - I think most people would. '''Demonstration of understanding of policy''' * I understand now that Wikipedia has to use the most illustrative images, regardless of source. Those could be images I've taken, but if there are better ones that illustrate the same point, I understand the that images I've taken should not be used. '''Apologies''' * I am sorry for edit warring and for causing drama. '''Future actions''' * I know I am not banned from Commons, where I can upload photos of whatever I want, regardless of quality. On Wikipedia, however, I promise I will discuss proposed image changes on the talk page of articles before making those changes. * I will not edit war if anyone disagrees with me, but discuss on the talk page. }}

Tony May Attempting to put words into someone's mouth is unlikely to be helpful. Why should he say 'images I've taken should not be used' when he has contributed valuable images? WP:5P4 should be observed for blocked editors.SovalValtos (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful quoting me; SovalValtos. I said (in full): "I understand now that Wikipedia has to use the most illustrative images, regardless of source. Those could be images I've taken, but if there are better ones that illustrate the same point, I understand the that images I've taken should not be used." I think we're quite happy using Dave's images if they're the best we have available. Tony May (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Tony May I should have used the full quote. Sorry. Nonetheless please observe WP:5P4; it is not just 'being nice enough about it'.SovalValtos (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this. I'm pretty sure I may be seeing a WP:HOUND of Moylesy98 by Tony May and think I need to see a minimum of a voluntary two-way no-fault WP:IBAN between Tony May and Moylesy98. I am right up to my neck in WP refunds, drv's AfDs, merges and other discussions at this point in time (see my contribution history) but as far as I remember I did request Tony May to try to avoid interacting with Moylesy98. (Djm-leighpark) 10:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moylesy98: I can understand you are getting upset and frustrated with the block. Would you like me to try to find a way to try to get you unblocked though you may have to follow a lot of extra rules. It will not be easy at all. You will need to do what I say and not attempt to do anything behind my back. You need to understand that usually I would choose the same image as say Tony May to place in an article so you may find that I reject most of the images you suggest for publication in Wikipedia. There are very many people people taking and publishing photographs of preserved steam locomotives so it is hard to get the best photographs of these and even if you do someone may publish a better one next week. If you agree to this it will difficult (and I do not know exactly how it will work) .... and there will also be big annoying delays waiting for me to answer and most of the time I will not give the answer you are hoping for. But hopefully I can try to keep you out of trouble. Either of us would have the option of stopping this arrangement if it is not working for us at any time. And I may have to give up on it myself if it does not work. Would you like to try this ? You don't have to answer straight away. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark: I do want to be able to edit again and I am trying to keep myself in the clear but im not happy with people constantly critisizing and harassing me for the photographs I take. I dont have adobe photoshop so cant professionaly edit my photos, it's either like it or lump it as a result. With some articles like 45690 Leander for example until I put a photo of her in BR black up of when she was at Barrow Hill there wasnt one for the article as all others are of her in LMS identity (yes there is a second photo on wiki but it shows the engine from the rear so is effectively unsuitable for use as the main article photo). It's exactly the same story with 45699 and also 7029. With 2999 Lady of Legend & 1014 County of Glamorgan the reason I havent added a photo of mine to the article is cause I havent got any of my own photos of either as I havent yet seen either engine yet.

It's the same story with the P2 builds (mainly 2007 Prince of Wales) as I havent seen it so cant share a photo as havent got one. With the critizism iv been getting from Tony May with my photos here's examples of the comments iv had back: This is a photo of... nothing in particular (5972 Olton Hall in Hellifield), Yes take photos of the crowds though this is not really of them nor of the engine (5972 in York), this is an overexposed mess (Bahamas on turntable at Tyseley & British India Line's nameplate), distracting snowstorm (45157's Glasgow Highlander nameplate, id like to add that shot was taken during a snowstorm so couldnt be helped), mostly a tree (45212 in Keighley), poor quality and then there's the stuff said about the film photos my dad took where it's said they are poor quality and badly shot (that's 80's camera's for you so it cant be helped).Moylesy98 (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some of the conversations. We would need to work one photo at a time and maybe at a rate of one a week, if that. Your photo would be compared to others. In most occasions it would likely not be chosen. I would be prepared to help with cropping if that would help, but I would only crop where there is a chance of the picture being chosen. I might also prepare an essay indicating the features of a photo that we are looking for. i will not be saying your photo is crap .... but I may be saying we are preferring another photo because perhaps part of the locomotive is cannot be seen or because the light reflections are bad. Would you like to try to work that way? It will not be easy. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley: I dont have a second account. I cant even verify this owing to being blocked so cant comment back on the issue. Iv even requested twice to ask for this to be lifted but both have been completely ignored. Moylesy98 (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No-one has suggested that you have a second account. But were you editing without logging in? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moylesy98. I am assuming you are able to read the Sock puppetry notice, understand it, follow the appropriate link and respond in the appropriate manner at the correct link. If you are not able to do this it may be we have exhausted every way of trying to help and we are at WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS of WP:CIR. Given you can manipulate tables and what appears to be your facebook page is done competently with some award winning images you appear to have some competence. Archived sock puppet investigations from the link seem to have concluded someone and been playing disruptive games and good faith has assumed this was not you. However you have a history of disruption, albeit possibly not help by being baited into arguments. It is becoming hard to see why an indefinite ban should not be maintained for a significant while and I would advise someone in your position to wait 6 months and perhaps even a year before appealing. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I've blocked 2A00:23C5:FC81:3E00::/64 anon-only; whether it is Moylesy98 editing logged-out or someone playing silly games, a block is clearly indicated. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite The way your acting it's like you think im constantly posting unreliable info even with a genuine link, iv requested twice recently for a review on my block but your continuously ignoring my requests (accidentaly on purpous). One I requested was put on hold and nothing has been done regarding it and it's exactly the same story with the second one iv asked for but hasnt been put on hold, your acting like you never want to see me editing posts again even if something wasnt done by me.Moylesy98 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reply to your unblock requests as I'm the one who blocked you. It would need to be another administrator who did that. However, you've been informed above by a number of editors what you need to do to be unblocked, and you haven't yet made an attempt to do that. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You Moylesy98 have received a helpful offer [18] of assistance from Djm-leighpark. I cannot see any other editor being more generous. With your record of lacking skills of editing such as those of grammar and spelling, this seems to be the best route for you to explore.SovalValtos (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SovalValtos I had said I was interested in the offer that Djm-leighpark had offered but nothing has been done yet. Black Kite should know that I cant comment on pages other than my own if they are asking for a response back from a person so I cant post a response at all.Moylesy98 (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you post something here and ping the person whose attention you want (as you have in the above comment), that will work fine. Obviously you can't post anywhere else. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{deindent}} @Moylesy98. I sometimes try to be a good samaritan to someone in need, though I may be pretentious in saying that. But so many people are faking their need and I cannot tell who is faking a need and who is genuine. Is the beggar genuine or and they simply getting money for their addiction? Is the charity for adopt-a-sparrow genuine or would it mostly use my donation to give bonuses to the marketeers for responding to their advertising? The pure thinking of my youth has become replaced by the cynicism of my old age to the detriment of people in genuine need (not that I am a good donor). Back here I see you continuing to miss the obvious ... why did you not simply replied to my message at 17:23, 26 April 2019 underneath on your user page ? (Its pretty obvious its likely on my watchlist). In short I cannot tell which of the following groups the person I am attempting to interact with is in:

Continually fails to show WP:COMPETENCE. This seems incompatible with someone who can manage wiki tables and a good Facebook and Flickr.
Is actually competent but is disruptively making out they are not. I really hope this is not the case.
Has a victim mentality (the linked article is not great) ... everyone is against me ... unless I am getting what I want.
Something else.

Whichever it is, and I have little if any way of being certain, it seems increasingly unlikely to me you would be able to work with other people improving this Wiki given your good faith response to this Sockpuppet incident which amounted to essentially blaming in my opinion the wrong person/people. I've been round a load of essays here for advice but the general advice would seem to be (reluctantly) indef ban as last resort. And I am lost for other answers. Perhaps in a year who knows? in the meanwhile Facebook and Flickr will lightly suit better and I wish you every success on those and note what appears to be good work there. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Borrows and Sons

Thanks for your images on this article. It's a really obscure subject, they're useful to have. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I want to keep articles upto date with new information, this includes latest news regarding the Conwy Valley line following it's reopening this month and the special that was run. Numerous other articles need to be slightly refreshed also but changes to photographs will be checked first before they are done.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2019 (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.

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).

Moylesy98 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I wish to be able to update articles and I am aware that my block was put in place owing to an incident between myself and another user aswell as the claim that there was no genuine information but not all sites offered posts for this. Links will be provided where they are available and should any major changes need to be made it will be brought up in the talk section.

Decline reason:

It's very clear now that you are either unwilling or unable to craft an unblock request that actually addresses the issues, so I have removed your talkpage access. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:17, 14 August 2019 (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.

Contributing to Commons

Please consider starting to contribute your images to commons again. Particularly useful would be detail, workshop and interior views. Careful captions would help. I think you would be allowed to mention here that you had uploaded them.SovalValtos (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tony May and persistent criticism and belittling of other editors on British railways.

If you have any comments, please post them here and I will be happy to copy them across for you, subject to WP:EVADE. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of LMS_Ivatt_Class_2_2-6-2T_41241 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article LMS_Ivatt_Class_2_2-6-2T_41241 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS_Ivatt_Class_2_2-6-2T_41241 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BR Standard Class 6 72010 Hengist moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, BR Standard Class 6 72010 Hengist, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. noq (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't recently created so I've moved it back to mainspace. That said its not really fir for mainspace and unless improved and awaiting the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LMS Ivatt Class 2 2-6-2T 41241 would seem the best use of everyone's resources. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]