User talk:80.192.53.153

Use of citation templates and bare URLs
Hi there, please make sure to use the correct citation template such as Template:cite web or Template:cite magazine when writing references. Bare URLs with partially paraphrased titles such as those used at British Rail Class 40 and List of rolling stock preserved on the Severn Valley Railway are subject to link rot, whereas full citations assist readers greatly even if the webpage is removed in the future. Danners430 (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @80.192.53.153, I notice that you're still adding a lot of bare magazine references - please ensure you use the correct templtes. Danners430 (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I notice as well that you appear to be using citation titles which are made up, such as "timetable for one of the 2016 trains", "Timetable for one of the 2023 trains" or "Seeing out boiler ticket at East Lancashire Railway" (although as I do not subscribe to Trackside, I cannot verify this). As per the documentation for citations, titles should be the title of the article/page being cited, not a description of the page. Danners430 (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @80.192.53.153 I notice you're still making the same edits to West Coast Railways - please use meaningful citation titles, not made up ones. Danners430 (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And again at SR West Country and Battle of Britain classes - made up titles, nearly completely bare URL… getting hard to assume good faith here… Danners430 (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And again at Tyseley Locomotive Works. Please stop. Danners430 (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, West Coast Railways, 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) 18:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at GWR 6400 Class, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Open SPI
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * In response to your message regarding sockupppet investigation on my IP address the links that have been included we're genuine references from magazines including off RailAdvent but im not the best when it comes to adding additional required information. I do include where the information comes from alongside the name of the article either in a magazine or off RailAdvent and I always make sure that the correct reference information is added regarding page numbers, the magazine it's from alongside what site it's off. I just sometimes forget to add a title to the editing work that has been done. 80.192.53.153 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Erm… a sock puppet investigation has nothing to do with what you've been adding as edits - it's because it's believed that you are another editor who is editing while logged out.
 * Note that I shall not be posting any further comments on the issue here, as it's better kept to the SPI page. Danners430 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Moylesy98. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

You would have a far better chance to post and request an unblock under the Moylesy98 account. That is, after a long period of no sockpuppet accounts and full disclosure of ban evasion attempts. Even if it is true that this IP address has nothing to do with the Moylesy98 account -- which I seriously doubt -- the evidence of them being connected is so extensive and specific that no reasonable editor with experience is likely to think otherwise. There is no block exception for "very good contributions." The whole idea of a block is that the behavior of an editor is so untrustworthy that the community rather avoid the bad contributions even at the risk of losing out on good contributions. You current approach of "I'm not that editor and my contributions are good," is very unlikely to be a successful one. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)