User talk:Chris j wood

A tag has been placed on Category:Tram stops in France by commune indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

This was created some years ago and is no longer needed. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Thanks for rescuing the archived citations for this article. But could you tell me your reasoning as to why you've removed referenced content concerning the Leasowe, Egremont & Royal Daffodil II? Surely a lot of it was relevant to the history of their post-Mersey careers? Are you planning on creating separate new articles imminently, with the more specific detail which you removed? 2A02:C7C:EC08:5300:3CA6:FC92:DBDB:14D0 (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:C7C:EC08:5300:3CA6:FC92:DBDB:14D0: Responded on your talk page, as I'm not sure the re template works with IP addresses. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't, see WP:PINGIP. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. My apologies, I completely overlooked the blue link to the new article you've created for Royal Daffodil II - great work! Saw the red links for Leasowe and Egremont and assumed, wrongly, content had been edited for them as well - sorry. 2A02:C7C:EC08:5300:7D66:B682:10F7:E6C4 (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Campagne station (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because

• it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or

• it is a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" whose target is neither a disambiguation page nor page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Not sure if it was once useful, or if I was planning to go in one direction and changed my mind without properly clearing up. It certainly isn't useful now. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Please stop creating articles for the sake of it. You seem to create an article that has pages in other languages and you don’t even bother to add citations, this isn’t contributing to Wikipedia, it’s merely creating caos. Do you believe an article like General Torres railway station is anything but bad and messy? It’s better to not create the article and someone later put some effort and time to do some that’s worth something. Don’t do this again please. V.B.Speranza (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

It is called a stub article. And I did not create it for the sake of it, but because I needed to disambiguate General Torres station and to provide a context for General Torres station (Porto Metro). And no I don't believe that it is bad and messy. It is a pretty standard stub article that is written in good english and concisely and clearly identifies the subject of the article, provides links to its context (the municipality of Vila Nova de Gaia and the Linha do Norte) and serves as an encouragement for others (or even myself on a different day) to add more to it. It now has cites for its contents (an example of the above encouragement). The links to the articles in other languages are also clearly visible.

Also, and I'm sorry to have to say this, the norm for communicating with other Wikipedia editors is to be a little bit more polite than your message here. This is not Facebook or Twitter. I do not particularly appreciate being told that I am doing things for the sake of it or that it is bad and messy. Thank you -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

While I understand the purpose behind creating a stub, as you said to provide a basic framework and context for a subject, I still feel that in this case the article was hastily assembled without proper sourcing or comprehensive information. In my view, an article that consists of only a few phrases, minimal context, and unsourced material does little more than contribute to clutter on here.

My concern is that creating such “stubs” can lead to a proliferation of low-quality articles that require a cleanup later, and this might discourage more thorough contributions, it’s lazy and I don’t see any other word to describe it. I believe it’s more beneficial to invest the necessary time and effort upfront to produce an article that meets Wikipedia’s standards, rather than leaving it in a state that might mislead or frustrate readers and editors alike and try to sweep it under the rug with the stub category.

I appreciate your point about maintaining polite communication, and I aim to express my perspective respectfully and I apologize if I hurt your feelings in any way. However, I remain convinced that for topics like the General Torres railway station, that I used solely as an example, especially when disambiguation is involved, we should strive for quality and reliability rather than simply having a placeholder article that’s later described as “encouragement” for future work.

Just like you I created 2 articles because I wanted to make a disambiguation, Urrós (disambiguation), but I still put effort on the articles. Compare those with what you did or the MANY Portuguese railway stations I did. I would like to hear your feedback after you do so, if you want of course. V.B.Speranza (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @V.B.Speranza: There is nothing inherently wrong with stub articles, see Wikipedia:Stub. If you don't like stubs, expand them into full articles. Also, Chris j wood has been on Wikipedia since June 2004 (that's five years more than myself), so I would consider them to be very experienced, and will have known for some time when it is appropriate to create a stub article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Redrose64 The page was clearly made in a rush and had no sources and just a couple phrases, that isn’t a stub, the article had been slightly modified since but if it hadn’t I would’ve nominated it for deletion and in that state I have no doubts it would’ve been deleted. V.B.Speranza (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @V.B.Speranza There's no call for coming on to another editor's page to berate them because they created an article you consider inadequate. Your original message is incredibly rude and a borderline personal attack. It's hard to see how any good can come of immediately putting another editor on the defensive like that. Nominating the article for deletion or merging would actually have been constructive because it would have focused attention on the article. Mackensen (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I didn’t insult the user for God's sake. My criticism was solely aimed at the way the article was created and then abandoned, which clearly indicates that there was no plan to revisit it. My point was direct, perhaps too much leading to the feeling that it was a personal attack, but my intention was never to insult anyone. It is incredibly frustrating when someone reworks an article that essentially forces us to redo everything, which is much more work than simply not creating it in the first place and later dedicating proper effort to it. I reiterate that my remarks were directed at the articles and its creation process, not at the user, and that should not be used as a scapegoat for their actions. Creating an article just because you want to create a disambiguation page is not an excuse to do an article of that quality, and as someone mentioned before, it’s even more unusual coming from a user registered since 2004. V.B.Speranza (talk) 19:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@V.B.Speranza I didn't abandon the article, and there are no issues with its quality. I think you are mistaking quantity for quality, the article is perfectly well written and linked to its context. It is so simple it scarcely needs cites, but I have now added them anyway. Redrose has outed me and my history on WP, but even when I came onboard there was such a thing as a stub article. I wasn't involved in those early discussion, but I have always understood that the whole reason for a stub article was to provide a peg on which others can hang more content.

I simply don't understand your point about a need to redo everything. What needs redo-ing?. Is the station not where I say it is?. Is it not on the line I say it is?. If I've got that wrong, I apologise, but I'm pretty sure I havn't. In truth the article contains the bare minimum of information (that is why it is a stub) and there is precious little to redo, just the need to add more information. You seem to think that having no information on a subject is in someway better than having that bare minimum, which I simply don't grok.

If Wikipedia is anything, it is a collaborative tool. The best articles are ones that have been repetitively reworked by multiple authors bringing their own perspective. Whilst there is nothing wrong with articles with a single author, they are not ideal. Stubs are (IMHO) a way to achieve that, whilst you seem to think that their presence in some way puts people off from contributing. If that were the case, I don't think WP would got as far as it has, but I could be wrong. Perhaps somebody has done some research?.

In the absence of such research, I think what I did with General Torres railway station was perfectly valid and helpful to the WP project, and in the same circumstances, I won't hesitate to do the same again. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Chris j wood I believe our views on what Wikipedia should be are fundamentally different, and I don’t see any merit in continuing this discussion since we’ve reached an impasse. I initially reached out to prompt you to reflect on whether the article met the necessary standards, if it did, you wouldn’t feel the need to do something similar again, but it’s clear you believe your work was sufficient, which I just disagree with. Please proceed as you wish in the future, I will adhere to the established procedures, I wish you the best, and I’m once again sorry if my inicial words were in any way offensive, V.B.Speranza (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do you insist on changing the name of this building? Do you have a reference for it being called Bagnor Mill or are you just assuming because it is in Bagnor that must be its name? Mills often change their name for a miriad of reasons. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

It is called Bagnor Mill in the linked article, whose first two sentences are:

The Watermill Theatre is a producing theatre in Bagnor, Berkshire. It opened in 1967 in Bagnor Mill, a converted watermill on the River Lambourn.

That is pretty explicit that the name of the mill is Bagnor Mill, and that Watermill Theatre is (unsurprisingly) the name of the the theatre. Although I created the linked article as a stub 21 years ago, the name Bagnor Mill is not mine and was added by User:MIDI in 2021. That addition also included a cite to a map on the National Library of Scotland website that does show that name. So I have no reason to doubt the name, but to be honest that is not really the point.

From the point of view of this list article, all it really needs to do is reflect what the linked article says. And it says the mill is called Bagnor Mill. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

It was called Bagnor Mill, mill's can change their names quite often. It is now called the Watermill Theatre, I see no problem with using its current name in the list. That is the one that most people will recognise. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

But that is not what the linked article says. It doesn't use a past tense for the mill name, and describes it as a converted watermill, which I read as meaning converted to be used by a theatre. So the mill building is still called Bagnor Mill and its occupants are the Watermill Theatre. I've further modified the list article to reflect that. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

You have now come up with the worst of all possible options, just leave it in your previous version. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Verkehrsbetriebe Zürich (logo).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it has been replaced with a clearer version. No objection to deletion. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cascades Shopping Centre 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/Cascades Shopping Centre 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 until the discussion has finished.

Aŭstriano (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Responded keep with reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cascades Shopping Centre. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

The article Route summit has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Found no in-depth content.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, absolutely no memory of creating this page, a mere 21 years ago. I must have been a real newbie back then, and to be honest a lot of the policies that are now second nature were not even written in 2004. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I absolutely agree. Delete it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chris, we seemed to have got tangled while editing Culham Court, I was in the process of reinserting the HE ref plus adding the infobox when you spotted the mistaken deletion. I think it is all sorted now. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

No problems. Like the infobox, btw. chris_j_wood (talk) 13:07, 24 August 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 _{tweaks made} 17:29, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A169 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pickering, North Yorkshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ward.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 October 10 § Defunct/disused/former railway stations on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 November 18 § Category:Borders of Grisons on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Reading+Museum+and+Art+Gallery has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 3 § Reading+Museum+and+Art+Gallery until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hallo Chris,

bitte setzt diese Vorlage bei meinen Bildern nicht ein. Bei mir ist das entsprechende Datum nie das Bearbeitungs- oder Hochladedatum, sondern immer der Aufnahmetag. Das muss mir niemand beweisen. Ich empfinde diese Vorlage als beleidigende Bevormundung. Es gibt zehntausende Bilder bei Commons, wo die Hochlader beide Zeiten nicht auseinanderhalten konnten. Warum werden die nicht gegängelt? –Falk2 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Zusatz: Ich bitte Dich, auch die Reihenfolge der Kategorien nicht nach Deinem Gutdünken zu verändern. Bei meinen Bildern gibt es eine einheitliche Struktur: Kamergehäuse, persönlich zeitlich, persönlich örtlich, allgeimn örtlich, dann zeitlich. Das hat mit HotCat zu tun. Stehen die persönlichen Kategorien am Schluss, dann verschwinden sie schnell irgendwo in der Mitte. Auf Belehrungen reagieren viele Fotografen allergisch. Bei einem Bild gibt es nur einen Urheber. Das ist der, der die Kamera in der Hand hatte. –Falk2 (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I think you have missed the point that Wikimedia Commons, like all the other Wikimedia projects, is a collaborative project. You do indeed own the copyright in your photographs (which incidentally I havn't changed in any way), and those parts of the text (including categorisation) that you have contributed. But the expectation is that others will improve these over time (that is the nature of collaboration). And that is precisely what I have been doing; at no time have I edited any of your Commons texts or categories just to add Taken on or to change the order of categories; in all cases I have been improving the categorisation by adding relevant categories, or changing existing categories for more specific sub-categories that may not even have existed when you uploaded your photos. Although it may look like I'm targeting your images, I'm actually going through all the images below Commons:Category:Lausanne-Echallens-Bercher line irrespective of creator.

With regard to your objection to the use of Taken on, I didn't agree with your point, but it was easier to do as you requested. Indeed where I have re-edited the categories on photographs where I had already made that change, I reverted the date field out of courtesy to your request. For the record, I always use the template on my own images, and there are a number of other templates that can reasonably be used there (Taken in, According to Exif data, Original upload date, Upload date, Between). I understand your point that in an ideal world the date field should always be the date taken, and I'm sure it is for all your photographs as it is for all of mine, but we do not live in an ideal world. As you say there are tens of thousands of images where the uploaders couldn't distinguish between taken and uploaded; there are also other (usually older) images where the exact taken date is unknown. We should not forget the readers of Wiki who need guidance as to what the date means; it is not reasonable to expect them to know different rules for different creators. If that seems 'condescending' to you, I apologise, it is not intended, but it is a real world consequence of where we now find ourselves.

With regard to category order, I only change this where I am changing the actual categories, and I always change them to alphabetic order of category name. I do this because when I am adding or amending a category, I don't otherwise know where to add the new categories. I'm obviously not party to the reasoning on ordering of previous editors, so a new ordering seems to be the best way forward. As a rider to that, I do know one or two editors who put a comment in explaining their ordering, and if I see that I will do my best to fit in with it. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Bite lass die Reihenfolge der Kategorien so, wie sie vorher waren und fang nicht wieder mit der Vorlage »taken on« an.

Niemand hat etwas gegen Verbesserungen und Ergänzungen, aber schon im Regelwerk wird darum gebeten, die Systematik, die viele Fotografen bei ihren Bildern nutzen, nicht umzuwerfen. Ich hoffe, dass Übersetzungsprogramme das sinnerhaltend übertragen können. Die Änderung der Reihenfolge nach eigenen Vorstellungen empfinden viele als Erziehungsmaßnahme und Bevormundung. Eben das ist ausgesprochen verletzend. Wir brauchen weder Oberlehrer noch Feldwebel. Du wärst doch auch sauer, wenn Du wie ein Schuljunge abgekanzelt würdest. Das muss in beiden Richtungen gelten. –Falk2 (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and Commons since it started, and you are the first person to object to my changing categories to alpha order. So I'm a bit surprised to learn that many people perceive me changing the order to be a form of lecturing and patronizing. However, I am attempting to respect your wishes. Obviously removing and adding categories might be seen as changing the order, but there isn't much I can do about that. If you think I have put the new categories in the wrong place, please free to move them. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Commons I don't know about, but for English Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 114#Create a BOT to alphabetize and organize categories automatically; also MOS:CATORDER which includes Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Thanks for pointing that out. I did try and look for such policy on Commons, but couldn't find anything, which is odd given that categories are probably more significant there than on Wikipedia. I didn't think of looking on Wikipedia, despite the fact that (for reasons I'm unsure of) we are having this conversation here. The actual text under MOS:CATORDER is:

Eponymous categories should appear first. Beyond that, the order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first.

I don't think eponymous categories applies to categories on a commons image, but the rest is probably a good guide. Trouble is, it isn't always obvious what the most essential or significant categories are. Also the concept of hidden categories ensures that the more administrative categories are rendered last (or not at all, depending on preferences) anyway. I guess I am being a bit lazy in going straight for alpha order, but as always there is a play-off between width and depth of coverage. That is especially true of commons, where we have millions of incompletely categorised images. I already have a wish list of stuff to do that I'm very unlikely to live long enough to complete, and anything that slows me down just means more won't get done. Hard choices, and any thoughts welcome.

In the case Falk2's images, these are already very well categorised, I only really came across them because they were on the same subject as other less well categorised images, and my minor additions were a knock-on from that. I've agreed to, as far as I can, honour his preferred order, now that he has explained what that is (above). -- chris_j_wood (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Danke.

Es gibt auf deutsch ein Sprichwort:

Der Esel nennt sich immer zuerst

Kann sein, dass sich das nicht sinnvoll übersetzen lässt.

Deshalb hatte ich lange die persönlichen Kategorien unten eingesetzt. Das wurde durch HotCat-Nutzer verdorben. Es blieb nichts anderes übrig, als sie nach oben zu verschieben. Nur passte auch das einigen nicht. Jedem alles recht machen, funktioniert sowieso nicht. Hier geht es einfach darum, nichts kaputt zu machen und niemanden erziehen zu wollen. Noch mehr Regeln brauchen wir dafür nicht. Augenmaß reicht völlig. –Falk2 (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

I've found a post of mine at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 19#List “hierarchy”(?) of categories which describes my approach to ordering categories on an article. This was in December 2024, but I still follow the same approach. I could extend it to Commons, as in "Who/what is it?"; "Where is it?"; "When was it?" - are there categories combining two or more of these; finishing with minor matters like the website it was uploaded from, or the type of camera. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm WikipediholicRat. An edit that you recently made to Windermere House seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is not allowed on Wikipedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or ask your questions at the Teahouse, a friendly place for new users. Thanks. WikipediholicRat (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. None of my edits are generated by AI, it is all written by me. All are adequately backed up by reliable sources, most (if not all) of which are too old to have been themselves generated by AI. I have no idea what made you think that I was using an LLM (I'm guessing some kind of a tool), and nothing in your message above gives me a clue.

Thank you for the reference to the Teahouse, but with 104,000 edits over the last 22 years, I think I might feel a little out of place there.

As I can see no indication of which of my edits triggered whatever triggered, and as I'm in no doubt that my 15 edits have improved what was a very scrappy and poorly sourced article, I'm going to rerevert all your reversions. If you wish to discuss this further, please start by telling me which text it is that is causing the issue. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

There was a ?utm_source=chatgpt.com in one of your edits. It seems one of the sources you used used ChatGPT. Perhaps you followed a link from some slop blog in your research? Regardless, I was wrong and I apologize. WikipediholicRat (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

That is because I asked ChatGPT to find me a source for an unsourced claim for the date when the the Toronto, Simcoe and Muskoka Junction Railway reached Gravenhurst. It duly gave me a link to a perfectly respectable (and I'm pretty sure human written) page from the Toronto Railway Historical Association. I rewrote that bit of the article by reference to the TRHA page, and copied the link from my browser. I hadn't realised that ChatGPT was now following Google's bad example and adding tracking parameters to the links it gives you. It have got rid of that tracker, just as I have been doing for years with Google.

So, actually thank you. Your intervention has made me realise something I didn't know. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, those are screened through an edit filter. While I personally wouldn't do that, it is allowed. Remember to check that each source exists and says what you think it does per WP:RSML though! WikipediholicRat (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fobney Lock, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Clinker and Coke were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There's no clear cut way to determine what's a minor edit, but when marked as such, it's less likely to be recognized by others. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2026 (UTC)