User talk:Mattdaviesfsic/Archive 18
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
April 2026
| This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mattdaviesfsic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 |
Robertsbridge Junction station
You have refused my amendment stating that the station was opened today-- you are wrong.! It has been widely publicised that it was going to be open today. I was there is person with many hundreds of people. It was officially opened by the local MP and Rail Minister Sir Peter Hendry. What more proof do you want.15:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC) Steamybrian2 (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
What more proof do you want
- a reference that states this? See WP:VNT... verifiability not truth. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 15:37, 18 April 2026 (UTC)- Considering you have been editing here for 17 years, I would have expected you to know this core policy by now, haha Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 15:39, 18 April 2026 (UTC)
Charfield railway station
Your ES is valid, but please remove or CN the anon's unsourced content as well. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, apologies, I didn't see the full scale of the unsourced additions - only the first bit of material concerning council funding. My apologies once again. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 18:29, 22 April 2026 (UTC)
About Percent encoding's requested move 2 years ago
From what I can see in the logs, there was quite a bit of drama revolved around this page's move to URL-encoding. While the move request you closed had 2 people opposing it, one of it was a weak oppose. That means that out of 3 people (including the request's initiator), one supported it, one strongly opposed it and one weakly opposed it. I am not saying that you did something wrong; Wikipedia's own guidelines say that there is no minimum limit for participation, but considering what hapoened before that discussion, I do believe that it should at the very least be relisted.
I am considering creating another move request, but since I wasn't involved in the previous one, I'd like to hear your opinion on whether or not the outcome was clear enough for the previous one to not require relisted and be closed after 7 days.
Thanks in advance. Oakchris1955 (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
- In that discussion, the outcome was then "no consensus" to be moved. I would advise, if you feel it should be moved, try to find some references which support WP:COMMONNAME that it should be moved to URL-encoding. It is not a topic I am knowledgeable of, I merely closed the RM, so unfortunately cannot help much! Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 16:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)
Grosmont
Hello; with this edit here, you removed the book citation from the Sources section when you did the WP:COATRACK removal. Unfortunately, there are still extant sources in the article that anchor to that citation. I have re-added the book citation only (I have not undone your edit) to cease a harv/sfn warning that has been produced. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for catching that Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 20:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)
New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive
| May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:24, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
