User talk:Anamyd

Hi Anamyd. I noticed your edit on British Rail Class 170 had the summary previous sourced turned out to be wrong and not actually what I saw happen. I just wanted to caution you that Wikipedia frowns upon original research: we prefer verifiabile, reliable sources. If you believe something is wrong then you need to be able to back it up with more than just "I saw it". Of course we also don't want incorrect information! Anyway, thankyou for your edits, it's good to see people supporting articles relating to transport! -mattbuck (Talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've learned from this now. Anamyd (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello again Anamyd, we seem to have got into a dispute over British Rail Class 142. Please be aware that the standard of Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I understand that you believe the information contained in this article to be incorrect, and that you find RAIL to not be an authoritative source. But RAIL is generally a good source for rail industry information, and if you believe it is incorrect it is upon you to provide evidence for your claims. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

RAIL magazines are the ones I have, but they can sometimes publish incorrect information, such as a false claim that Class 769 first entered service in May 2021 (with Northern) when it actual fact Class 769 first entered service in November 2020 (with Transport for Wales). I tried contacting Nigel Harris about it several times on Twitter (as it was then) and by email, asking for a correction to be published, but I never heard back from him for some reason. Anamyd (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

You have on a number of occasions now made edits that have changed "British Rail Class nnn" to "Class nnn" in articles that you consider to post-date BR, as in this diff, and you have on a number of occasions been told in response that the change is inconsistent with established style. Please start a discussion either on the talk page of the relevant article, or ideally at the WikiProject UK Railways page, to seek consensus before continuing. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I stopped changing them. I understand that the class names in the article names have to have "British Rail" in them because of an article naming agreement, but I don't understand why the class names in the lead sentence and the info box heading also have to have "British Rail" in them - that seems very unnecessary to me, because it's already included once, in the article name, so why does it have to be included three times? Anamyd (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDLEAD and MOS:INFOBOXNAME are why. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Anamyd (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Anamyd (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you ever going to start using edit summaries, or are other editors going to have to continue guessing what you are doing? You seem quite content flying around leaving messages on other editors' talk pages, but ignore your own... Danners430 (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I do sometimes use edit summaries, but I'll try and remember to always use them from now on. I'm sorry for causing you and other editors to guess. I've even turned on the prompt setting as you suggested (thanks for that). I'm also sorry for problems with contact, and unsourced edits. Anamyd (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, British railway rolling stock, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Not all correct and up-to-date information has a source, and myself and others have tried explaining this to you and at least one other person. It's nonsense to have out-of-date information just because it's "unsourced". Please stop reverting my edits just because of that - they are in fact my edits. Anamyd (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Look - verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. It’s non-negotiable. If you have a problem with that, then I’m sorry then you’re in the wrong project. As for following you around, these pages are on my watchlist which I check regularly - I don’t care who makes the edits, if they’re against policy eg. unsourced, then they almost always get reverted. It’s not because it’s you. Danners430 (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)