User talk:RobelyBasis

Welcome!

Hi RobelyBasis! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 22:48, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Hello, I'm Johnny Au. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Line 1 Yonge–University‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 00:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Valley station (Brightline West) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Victor Valley station (Brightline West), is not suitable 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. Inexpiable (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Valley station (Brightline West) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Victor Valley station (Brightline West), is not suitable 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. Inexpiable (talk) 07:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Draft:Victor Valley station (Brightline West), 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. Inexpiable (talk) 07:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Victor Valley station (Brightline West) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Victor Valley station (Brightline West). Thanks! Inexpiable (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Victor Valley station (Brightline West) has been accepted

Victor Valley station (Brightline West), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Siemens Charger. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Waterbury Branch, 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. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hi RobelyBasis! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at CT Rail that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

G'day, this is Edgar Searle. I noticed that you added content in this edit to M8 (railcar), but did not provide a reliable source for verification. It has therefore been removed and archived in the page history for now, but to re-add it you must include a citation first - you can also check out referencing for beginners. Sorry for any inconveniences caused. Edgar Searle (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A week later, there's still been some conflict. Go ahead and reread WP:RS and WP:V before you even think about reverting again. Edgar Searle (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A video showing the exact act I am describing isn't reliable?? What am I missing here? RobelyBasis (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This really confuses me here, do you not believe it, can't accept it, what's the deal here? The movement clearly happened. As shown here again, https://prnt.sc/BhcAT6VRgeIw RobelyBasis (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User-created content such as Yotube videos and railfan photos are not considered reliable sources, per the guidelines already linked above. I do not doubt that the move took place, but a source that meets our reliable source guidelines is needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

This edit is a textbook example of disruptive editing. I suggest you rethink your approach to editing if you wish to remain an editor in good standing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article. This is your final warning. Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy and you are required to follow it by providing a reliable source for all information you add (or remove). Youtube videos are generally not reliable sources, as they are self-published sources without editorial control. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How on EARTH is this not reliable? Did he edit the locomotives into the video and make it a simulation??? It literally shows them being returned. ConnDOT isn't going to come out and say they returned them. Find proof they are not returned and you have argument dumbass. RobelyBasis (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair block

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).

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

Request reason:

The subject I edited will not be confirmed with MBTA nor CDOT as that is private information and I have used relevant information clearly showing relevancy closest to anything official. All my edits are made in good faith and I would like to make edits in other articles with relevant information to give the reader the most up to date information about a subject.RobelyBasis (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't seem to understand WP:V. Yamla (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2023 (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.

You are not permitted to remove declined unblock requests for your currently-active block. You are free to remove all other content, including this message. --Yamla (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm a lifelong Connecticut resident myself, not a foamer type but I've spent my time on (mostly) the MTA. If you can show you understand verifiability and want someone to collaborate with on finding sources I'd be happy to do that, but not if you're going to adopt a belligerent battleground mentality. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this, I would like to collaborate on sources if possible. I have read over policy and realized that YouTube videos aren’t reliable. I understood this in my last edit of CTRail about the Siemens chargers where I listed the Siemens mobility website directly and now will use that same principle in all my edits. I understand that original sources are the only ones allowed and I ask that with me understanding and taking a new approach to things, my van be revoked. RobelyBasis (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're getting somewhere with this. I'd suggest another unblock request which states your understanding of verifiability, and which also demonstrates that you understand civility. If you can do that, goodness knows train articles need fairly constant updating and it would be good to have another editor doing that. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I have recently been blocked on Wikipedia for disruptive editing and unreliable sources and I am requesting to have that overturned. I try to make all my edits and good faith and from now on will be following Wikipedias policies. I have read over and now understand wikipedias civilityand conduct policies and will use those policies in all future edits. I also understand that all edits need to be verified with sources and veribility cannot be disputed with. RobelyBasis (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I think that in this case the best thing to do is unblock you and give you a chance to demonstrate your understanding of these issues. Courtesy ping to The Blade of the Northern Lights. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing administrator, I trust your discretion either way; you don't have to consult me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who’s the reviewing administrator? RobelyBasis (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can take up to a few days for another administrator to review an unblock request, as that tends to get backed up. Don't take it as anything personal or suggesting there's something wrong with your request. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]