User talk:Pdiddyjr/Archive 3

FREEZE! You have just entered the Prime Wikipedian's talkpage! Watch what you put and read the randomness.

Box of Archives
This is just the beginning... "disruptive" edits, oversight, school corporal punishment and much more...

Need for sources
Hello, Your edits to various UK railway articles are fine, but please note that you should cite your sources. You might like to study WP:CITE. Unsourced information may be removed. Thanks, -- Alarics (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't threaten blocks and bans
Your edit summary here really was not the best way to go about handling an editing dispute. Try and stay calm, and assume good faith. People reverting you aren't automatically starting edit wars. To assume that they are and to threaten them with blocking and banning is inconsiderate. To think that any sober administrator would agree with you on this matter is tremendously amusing. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I see from your archives that this is not the first time. Please make it your last time. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
Your recent editing history at West of England Main Line shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability (sources!)
Hey Pdiddyjr, I had a quick look through your contribs, and Alarics does have a point about sources. Of course, when you tell us (for example) that you had a private conversation (over cake and hot chocolate) with someone who probably knows the facts of the matter, then we can guess that your edit is probably correct. But, Wikipedia really does demand more than that; anyone who might wonder if that edit is correct, needs to be able to check the source that the edit is based on. Now, we can assume that your headmaster doesn't have cake and hot chocolate with just anyone, so that's not good enough.

This is what we call Verifiability - it's not only a Wikipedia policy, but also one of the five pillars. So it's very important. When adding information to an article, we need to make sure that people are able to check the information themselves, not just trust us that what we are adding is right. So for that, we need references.

There are a few other edits where you have given an edit summary (edit summaries are good!) and explained where you got the information from (that's good!), but the information was actually from your personal experience or from you seeing a YouTube video or from a conversation with someone or from your making a conclusion from some other information. Examples      Now, again every one one of these changes you made are probably right and true (and probably no-one reverted you, because of that), but the lack of sources means those changes don't meet Wikipedia's standards.

As I mentioned on my talkpage, you did a great job with finding the book name and ISBN for your edit here, and this is exactly the sort of reference that is needed when adding information to articles. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

To reiterate this again just because you say something is true isn't enough, it needs reliable sources added to make it verifiable. there probably are two SWT Class 158 on loan to EMT but you need to say where you got this information from. As Demiurge1000 said a lot of your edits are probably right but they don't met Wikipedia standards. NtheP (talk) 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

About Alarics
I hope that neither you nor Alarics will think me presumptuous when I mention that I found it slightly amusing that you and Alarics share two main interests in topic areas to edit! So, I will say (to repeat what has been said above) that you should not really be telling him off as though he is in danger of being blocked. Alarics has been around Wikipedia for years and years and years, so it is a better idea to ask his opinion (maybe start a new section on his talkpage, or ask on the talk/discussion page of the article) rather than to tell him what to do.

I am sure that he will be very happy to explain why certain things should be included and certain things not included, and since you share interests you can work well together. Which is great, because these articles do need improvements. That's a much better idea than getting into disputes with each other. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Mad Miscellany
Unfortunately Google doesn't have a preview of the actual contents of this book. I'm going to see if my library has it, or can get it. Alternatively, do you still have access to a copy of it? Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

SWT train lengthening
If they were doing it as you say and simply re-forming the class 458s into 5-car trains, with the class 460s being a separate exercise, the most number of 5-car trains that could be formed from the present fleet of 30 x 4-car class 458s would be 20, total 100 vehicles (40 with cab and 60 without), which would leave 20 driving vehicles unused. (That is, unless you are going to rebuild some driving vehicles with a cab into non-cab vehicles.) That is not what is happening. They are breaking up the class 460 fleet at the same time and incorporating some vehicles from each class into a new combined and more-or-less homogenous fleet of 36 x 5-car trains. They can do this because the two classes are mechanically very similar. The Darth Vader ends of the class 460s will be removed. Four class 460 driving vehicles will become redundant. It is all explained in Rail Magazine. I have set out the figures in detail at. -- Alarics (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Aww, you're full of baloney. Pdiddyjr (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * That's not very helpful. If you think Alarics is wrong, you should explain why you think so. You should also take some time to read Civility. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, in the absence of any further comment I will go ahead and write it up on the basis of the sources I found. -- Alarics (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5
Hi. When you recently edited Glossary of United Kingdom railway terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southeastern (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverting and consensus
I am seriously concerned by this edit summary in which you say "Reverting my edits, unless you're me, requires broad consenus". No it does not - see WP:BRD. You might also want to look at WP:OWN; once you have contributed material to Wikipedia it belongs to the community as a whole who can do with it whatever they see fit. You are in danger of being seen as edit warring over this, please desist.  Spinning Spark  06:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion - mentoring
Hi again Pdiddyjr. I think you will make a great Wikipedia editor because you have a lot of enthusiasm. However, I think sometimes there will be problems when you take your enthusiasm a bit too far. Would you be open to the idea of some sort of Wikipedia mentoring arrangement? I have a special mentoring course based on lessons designed by User:Worm That Turned and some other people.

Basically it is a series of short lessons to read, and then questions to answer about them, and we would also have a discussion about the answers. It also has no deadlines, so you can read each lesson (or answer the questions) whenever you have time for it. A lot of people have found it really useful in learning to edit Wikipedia in the best way possible. If you'd like to give it a try, just let me know here or on my talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your reply on my talk page, that's good news. It should be a lot of fun!


 * I've created you your very own Adoption/Mentoring page at User:Demiurge1000/Mentoring/Pdiddyjr - please watchlist this as there will be plenty going on, both on the page itself and on its talk page. For now, I have put up the first lesson in the mentoring course. When you have some time, read it through and let me know if you have any questions on it. This is the starting point!


 * Incidentally, I am sometimes away for a few days at a time, or too busy to reply to things properly right away (even if I seem still to be editing elsewhere on Wikipedia!) Likewise, you only need to reply to mentoring things when you have time - there's lots of other things to do in life :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First Great Western
FGW's head office is in Swindon but it bases it's customer service in Plymouth, as do East Coast Trains - would you say they are based in Plymouth? FGW have offices in several places but the head office where the executive team is based is Swindon. Just because you do not see Swindon given as the contact address on posters etc does not change that. NtheP (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

London Waterloo station
Please note that putting an edit summary of "THIS IS ALL TRUE" does not satisfy the policy on verifiability. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That's it???!!!Pdiddyjr (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's it - click the link and read the policy. It's important. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012
Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to Same-sex marriage. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write practically anything you want. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

A joke? A JOKE? No, it was serious! I saw it in a Northern Irish newspaper. It said how people say homosexuals are jealous because they can't get married while Prince William and Kate Middleton could. By the way, it's just called "The Newspaper".