User talk:Danners430/Archive 2

The actual plan is the 11th of November 2024, but that was in a railforums post by a TfW employee railforums user, which I believe is unsourceable, so I had to put October 2024, which is what TfW states on their website, hence "stated". 2A00:23EE:14B0:54D2:2924:A0BA:798B:6817 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's the statement TfW have made, then that is their public plan. Danners430 (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I wondered if you had anything to contribute to the current discussion on Southcote Junction, which might have wider implications for other railway related articles. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:REMOVED, removals of block notices are perfectly fine. This restoration was unnecessary, and fails the spirit of WP:DENY. Let them scream into the void. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought block notices shouldn't be removed - that's my misunderstanding, my apologies for that Danners430 (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, TfW have told me that they should be providing one on 18 November 2024. Anamyd (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Great - then we’ll have a reliable source and it can be added to the article.

For future info, it’s worth mentioning that it’s generally considered good practice to continue a conversation in the place it was started - in this case on your talk page where I left you a message. It just means all the discussion is kept in one place and not spread across multiple discussion boards. Danners430 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't talk to people like that, it's not nice. Anamyd (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Er… really? Coming from the person that has multiple level four warnings about unsourced content, and refuses to use edit summaries… er no. Danners430 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: removing local maps on Newcastle suburb articles. Schestos (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I was merely reverting the removal of sourced content by an IP that has been warned multiple times for possible vandalism Danners430 (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to explain why sources and the content being sourced is being removed? Danners430 (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Danners430 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by [redacted]. The reason given for [redacted]'s block is: "

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is being used only for vandalism. Furthermore, your username is a blatant violation of our username policy, meaning that it is profane, threatens, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that your intention is not to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

Accept reason:

Who is this filthy racist creep on your IP? Someone needs to humiliate him appropriately. Autoblock cleared. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Note - I have removed the blocked party's username, as I simply do not wish such profane language on my talk page. Danners430 (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jpgordon sadly it’s a work IP address, which almost makes it worse - thank you for your help Danners430 (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

I have again amended the Standard 4 2-6-0 page. 76017 is now based at the K&ESR and will likely remain so in 2025, a reference is provided and images on social media show that it is not based at Carnforth. 76084 is now also withdrawn from overhaul 86.23.78.52 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And once again it has been partially reverted because you did not provide a citation in the article to confirm the move to the K&ESR. Sources do not go in edit summaries, they go in inline citations.

Additionally, you changed the URL on the source for the withdrawal of 76084 - but you did not change that title, author or publisher attributes of the citation, leading to it being misleading. If you are going to make changes, please do them properly. Danners430 (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Such nonsense... Anamyd (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you here to have a discussion, or make random statements? Danners430 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Because you seem to ignore all attempts by other users to communicate with you (see comments about the use of edit summaries and reliable sources)... Danners430 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

They are still making unsourced changes to the BR Class 220 article. How does one go about getting them blocked? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

sigh not sure to be honest… it’s not vandalism, so not AIV… I can only think of ANI tbh Danners430 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Mind you, if he’s gone beyond 3RR, then perhaps the edit warring noticeboard? Danners430 (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, their most recent edit to Class 807 was enough to tip over into possible vandalism, so I’ve reported to WP:AIV. Danners430 (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the message Danners! It's not your fault at all. It's actually my fault, because I haven't put any realible resources on the previous edit. But I do have sources now, but there both on Facebook Group and I don't know of that counts or not. Links will be listed down below if you want to see it for yourself. But it is confirmed that both 377121 and 377122 are now working with Southeastern (still with Southern Livery). 387128 en 387129 are now working with Southern (Still with GN livery). https://www.facebook.com/groups/2634297086831165?multi_permalinks=3837120106548851 https://www.facebook.com/groups/2634297086831165?multi_permalinks=3826316747629187

Thank you Metrolover420 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Facebook posts are not reliable sources - they are both user-generated content and self-published sources. Unless it’s an official Facebook page, such as one belonging to the company(ies) involved, it wouldn’t be used on Wikipedia. Danners430 (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Danners430 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Gerwin Nigbert". The reason given for Gerwin Nigbert's block is: "Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopaedia".

• Blocking administrator: ‪JBW‬ (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: I have disabled autoblock, so I hope you will be OK, but please ping me if you still can't edit. JBW (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks - I've put a {{shared-ip}} template on the IP talk page... it looks like the entire 205.239.42.000 range is run by DXC, who provide proxy service for my company... is there a way to get them marked to prevent autoblocks, or something else? I'm not sure TBH! Danners430 (talk) 13:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know any way of doing it. JBW (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Danners,

Good morning, I noticed that you reversed most of the deletion of my edits by a certain IP user, I would like to say thanks!

The reason he left me was a little bit confusing, as he mentioned the “consensus” and being not very friendly threatening me for banning my account from editing.

What do you think? Yuezhi Huang (talk) 12:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Ignore it. Users making threats like that will only serve them poorly. It is on the user who claims there is consensus to provide evidence of said consensus - all they have to do is link the discussion that took place, and both of us would stop (although I'd be in support of opening a new discussion if such consensus did exist). As of right now, they're simply mass reverting perfectly good edits with no good reason as far as anyone can see. Danners430 (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to have someone on this side cause what he has done was very confusing. Do I have somebody to talk to in case the worst thing happens? Like an administrator or a coordinatior? Yuezhi Huang (talk) 12:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

They physically can't block you, don't worry - only administrators can. If things get out of hand, take a look at the guidelines at WP:DR - and in the worst case, WP:ANI. Danners430 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I’m new to the community and glad to hear something from an experienced contributor! Have a good one! Yuezhi Huang (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, as stated we do not add aircraft images in infoboxes. This has been practiced here for the last 10 plus years. Feel free to talk about it at the Aviation portal if you want to question that practice. There is a reason why out of several thousand airline articles only a hand full (without any exaggeration) will have a picture there - the reason being we don’t do it. For the sake of consistency you cannot start doing so (albeit with mostly very low quality images) on a hand full of articles. Blaming someone for vandalism without being familiar with the editing standards of certain subtopics and therefore damaging well maintained articles is neither fair nor acceptable - especially if the new user that started doing so himself edited several articles without providing mandatory sources or citations which clearly can be considered vandalism. Best regards. 2A02:3033:26B:D6B6:C01A:9A6B:C082:EFF8 (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

You are the only one claiming there is consensus - therefor it’s up to you to provide the link to that consensus - as of right now, I cannot find it. Stop edit warring and provide the consensus - and if it doesn’t exist, then start a discussion in the relevant project talk page to get a consensus. Danners430 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing saying images besides the logo are not permitted in airline articles. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Archive 22#Aircraft images in airline infoboxes CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 17:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I put that 175009 had moved to GW last night but it got removed - my issue is I haven't got any references to cite, purely due to none existing (only a few Facebook photos and videos which I don't own the rights to, and unsure if I can use them). What's the best way around this? Wait until a news source comes around (which I can't see likely for the time being)? Cheers! ConnorC2711 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, wait until a new source is available is the correct course of action - Wikipedia isn’t a news site, it’s an encyclopaedia based on verifiable information. There’s no deadline for information to be added. Danners430 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Aaaah perfect - will do that then! Cheers for the prompt reply ConnorC2711 (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Connors edit was correct. Please do not revert this. No information on this page is properly sourced therefore if this data is not allowed then the whole page should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrocks424 (talk • contribs) 00:50 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It has been reverted. Your claim that "no information on this page is properly sourced" is patently false - and if it were true, the correct course of action would be to either delete the article or improve the referencing - not introduce even more unsourced information. Feel free to add the information when it is properly sourced, and not before, as per Wikipedia policy. Danners430 (talk) 08:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Your removal can now only really be classed as vandalism. If you look at the table you removed on the Class 175 article, you’ll notice each and every line has a reference to a magazine article or news article. So kindly explain how there are no sources. Danners430 (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, having been to university and spending hours learning about actual referencing and sourcing, I don't believe that magazines are relevant sources. Magazines are written using people's opinions and often don't state fact. The reference at the bottom of the page links to another page on Wiki, not the actual article that confirms stock movement and positions. Even if you were to follow these sources through, many of the items you are trying to tell me is a publicly available source isn't. These 'Magazines' are often stuck behind a pay wall. Members reading this should not have to pay to verify a source. I, along with many others, would argue that your reversion are 'vandalism' and do not allow users to see accurate and upto date information. Jrocks424 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Then take your concerns to the reliable sources noticeboard and start a discussion to have magazines depreciated as reliable sources. As it stands, they are classed as reliable sources on Wikipedia - and it would take consensus for that to be changed. Danners430 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

As for “accurate and up to date information” - have a good read of WP:TRUTH and WP:NOTNEWS. Danners430 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, random question - are you in any way related to Connor above or the user Jake CC45? I don’t mean in a personal manner, that’s not something that belongs on Wikipedia - it’s just surprising that you seem to have all started editing at the same time in the same areas all at once… Danners430 (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You seem very quick to jump to conclusion. I have no idea who these people are, do you? What I do know is I have a much deeper understanding of what is accurate and what is not when it comes to certain subjects. I dont need people questioning my understanding on things. I monitor pages on this site all of the time and get involved when I see innocent and accurate edits being removed for no apparent reason. Let's be Frank here, half the stuff on this entire website is inaccurate, false and sourced entirely incorrectly, however I have better things to be doing than constantly reading every article on this website. When it comes to railways, a lot of information is kept private and in reality is 'unsourceable'. In this case, I genuinely believe that there are many sources to prove that the certain piece of stock this has all blown up over has been transferred from one place to another. Find train pathing on RTT, find photos on groups on Facebook. There isnt going to be or hasnt ever been an article to document every single movement of every single train - that would be stupid. However, when accurate information is placed on this website which is publically available, albeit not in your eyes, that information shouldnt be touched. Jrocks424 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You really have no concept of Wikipedia policy and longstanding consensus, do you…

• Realtime trains - see WP:REALTIMETRAINS
• Facebook - unless it’s a post by a recognised reliable source (see WP:RS), then it’s user generated content.

If there is no source to state that something has happened, then have you considered that perhaps it doesn’t belong on Wikipedia? As it happens, there are sources on the Class 175 article. They are sources which are considered reliable. If you dispute this reliability, then take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

Wikipedia is not an academic institution - it is a community project governed by consensus. If you see something wrong, seek that consensus. Danners430 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand either. You have stated 'it is a community project'. Correct. Stop ruining what people are trying to add to a community. I will add again, information from certain industries are not always readily available for public knowledge. What has been edited is public knowledge. You cannot deny that, it's simple plain fact. You can see the paths (if you understand what a path is). You can see the videos on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and more places. This is accurate information, don't change it as you will be giving out false gen to the readers of this page. Jrocks424 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:UGC then come back. And for the last time - Wikipedia is about verifiable facts, not the latest cutting edge information. Danners430 (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

'Verifiable facts' - yeah right. I've lost count of the amount of times you have contradicted yourself. For the last time - Sources on that page are unverifiable for the average person, linking to another wiki page and not to an actual article is unacceptable. Jrocks424 (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Show me the reference that uses a wikilink. Danners430 (talk) 12:45, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Avonside Engine Company, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Avonside Engine Company, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi Danners 430. I am concerned that you reverted my edit re pressure gauges in the carriages of these underground trains. I cannot find any direct citation to them from the manufacturer (Bombardier), but I can assure you that they exist on every coach. As a professional engineer it is evident that the guage readings are directly proportional to the brake pressure applied to the wheels in real time. I have a photograph of the gauge in situe, but I do not have a direct citation from the manufacturer. I can vouch for it being the truth though. Can I ask you to reinstate this truth in the hope that others or yourself might help in finding a third party citation for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canol (talk • contribs) 17:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Canol, I too am a professional engineer, and have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statement made. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it is a collection of verifiable facts. Please take a look at WP:TRUTH. Danners430 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I’ve read that and it’s covered by stating (citation needed) it’s mentioned towards the end of WP:TRUTH. Will you reinstate please, the statement is true, improves the page, complies with WP:TRUTH and enlists the help of others to provide a citation. Canol (talk) Canol (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Canol: Also, you inserted your unsourced text immediately prior to a reference that does not support what you added. Now, I have seen such gauges in Underground train cars - they're usually to be found in the protective panelling of under-seat equipment - but (unlike, say, a speedometer) the gauge does not convey any information to those who observe the needle move but do not know its purpose. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about the brake pressure gauges on the carriage wall of all type S7 and S8 stock, not the older type carriages where gauges were mounted below seats.I would hope to reinstate this with a note asking for citations. There are a number of unfounded statements in this article where there is no citation, at least I can vouch for the validity of mine. The truth stands scrutiny cited or not. Canol (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I would hope to reinstate this with a note asking for citations. - no, you will be reverted again, and see WP:BURDEN. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I’ve read WP:TRUTH and it stated towards the end that it is acceptable to state “citation needed” after the post. Indeed Wikipedia is peppered with “citation needed” as it complies with Wiki rules. Canol (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I've read WP:TRUTH too. I can't find what you claim. Exactly which paragraph does it appear in? You may provide the first four or five words of the paragraph, so that we may also find it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Just type “Citation needed” on Wikipedia search. I’ve given this enough time so if you don’t want to reinstate a truthful statement who’s author is looking for help in getting a citation so be it. Goodnight. Canol (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

At WP:TRUTH, the word "citation" occurs exactly once, in the bullet point beginning "Verifiability: In Wikipedia's sense, material is verifiable ..."; and the word "needed" occurs just twice, the first time in the paragraph beginning "In many cases, if something appears in a reliable source ..." and the second in the paragraph beginning "By "natural science" is here meant a science such as geology ...". At no point do the two words occur together. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Citation needed Canol (talk) 03:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Avonside Engine Company, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Avonside Engine Company, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Avonside Engine Company, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Why were recent revisions undone with regards to the SiC-MOSFET and traction motors? The sources provided specifically stated that the SiC-MOSFET system is only going to be for the Auxiliary Power Supply and not the actual traction system itself. Also, an additional source provided specifically states the actual Permanent Magnet motor model that is being used for the new Siemens trains. With all do respect, undoing the revisions recently made are actually causing the article to be outdated. Babyox4420 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I’m unsure what you’re talking about - can you link to the diffs? Danners430 (talk) 05:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, the route from Abu Dhabi to Milan Malpensa was only bookable, but never operational. So it does not make sense to let that route in the table.

Secondly, the number "0,739" does not exist in English language. According to the stated reference, the net profit was 739 million euro.

Third, what is your reason for changing the destination map from "as of April 2025" to "as of March 2025"? You did not give any explanation for that in your edit summary. WikiPate (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit wholesale, not selectively - the content you removed was well sourced. Where’s your source that says “it was only bookable but never operational”? Danners430 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

You reverted 2 separate edits of me. And you didn't give an explanation why you revered this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wizz_Air&diff=prev&oldid=1285872895 No well sourced content was removed here.

The source is https://gulfbusiness.com/wizz-air-launches-daily-flight-from-auh-to-milan/ or https://www.wizzair.com/en-gb/information-and-services/about-us/news/2024/09/04/wizz-air-to-base-airbus-a321xlr-in-milan-with-direct-route-to-abu-dhabi-at-unbeatable-fares which say that the route was about to start 2 June 2025.

In connection with the booking mask of https://www.wizzair.com/, which says that the route is not bookable anymore.

The website of Travel and Tour World also covered the cancellation. WikiPate (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Could be a mistake on my part when viewing multiple diffs at once then - there’s no harm in restoring it. As for the first source, it simply says a route is to start in June - a month away from now. I’m not seeing a reliable source that explicitly says the route has been cancelled. Danners430 (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The media usually reports about new routes and rarely about route cancellations. If a route cannot be selected anymore in the booking mask of the airline, the route is cancelled. Still one media source has it covered: https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/wizz-air-cancels-milan-abu-dhabi-service-after-struggling-to-secure-passenger-demand-focusing-future-expansion-on-more-profitable-high-demand-routes/ WikiPate (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

There we go, perfect. My suggestion is to move the route to the cancelled or former routes section (if there is one) - and if not delete it with that in the edit summary. The point is, if there isn’t a source like that, and you’re removing content that DOES have a source, then your edit fails WP:BURDEN. Danners430 (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

okay. As the route was cancelled and never operational, I will remove the route with that reference in the edit summary. Cancelled routes which were actually operational are already in that table (Rome Fiumicino – Abu Dhabi) WikiPate (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

All of the other steam locomotives in the list have their wheel arrangements listed -- why do you think the one I added is "not necessary". I'm an American, serious railfan, but unfamiliar with British locomotive classes. "9F" tells me nothing, "2-10-0" tells me this is a large locomotive, etc. .     Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:11, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, it does fit with the existing format. Personally I do think it should be revised to remove the wheel arrangement, as that can be looked up on the individual class pages - but that’s a discussion for the article talk page so others can provide input. My main concern was the format it was in, with the wheel arrangement in the wikilink - that isn’t like the other locos in the list, so while I’ve added it back in, I’ve kept it out the wikilink. Danners430 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted my change on the planning approval of the mezzanine proposal for the station. The approval is reflected on the same link. It shows a decision date and the approval document is there. Stv59 (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Then perhaps it's worth updating the access date parameter? Right now it's a source from 2023 sourcing something from 2024… Danners430 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Actually looking at that source, what in the source says it has been approved? I don't see anything Danners430 (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Earth to @Stv59? Danners430 (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Well if you’re not going to respond then I can only go with what I read - that being that the source doesn’t say it has been approved. Danners430 (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Hey Danners430,

"Prior Approval Required - Grant" is the term used by the council for a granted application. The decision letter can be found in the Documents tab. Stv59 (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Then why are we linking to an overview page instead of using the decision letter as the cited source? Danners430 (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Linking to PDFs like the letter is risky since they may transfer the document to another server one day (very WP:LINKROT prone), thus my decision to link to the overview page, which also has the application status anyway. Stv59 (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you watch the video in full? If you did not then you have no basis to call it unnecessary. In fact it goes into much more detail than this text of this article. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If we listed every YouTube video about every accident on every article then the lists would be longer than the article itself. Why is this video any different? I’m sorry, but in my opinion it’s superfluous. Feel free to start a talk page discussion if you disagree. Danners430 (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Did you watch the video? If you didn't then you cannot ask 'why is it different' without telling me that my assessment that it does supply additional information is to be discounted without evidence. Thanks a lot bud.

"If we listed every YouTube video about every accident on every article then the lists would be longer than the article itself."

I am certain that this would never be true, and I cannot fathom how this can be stated with a straight face. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Look. I have no intention of watching the video - I simply disagree with its inclusion in the article. As I said above, if you think it should be included start a discussion on the article talk page. Danners430 (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)