User talk:PeterSkuce

Infobox image changes require consensus
Hi Peter, welcome to Wikipedia! I just wanted to let you know that you must reach a consensus with other editors if you want to change the main infobox photograph on the article's talk page. You can do this by simply starting a discussion and saying why you think the image should be changed. However, what I would suggest for now is to place the images in the section written about the 377/6, as thats the best place for it at the moment. I would support your change, but other editors might not, so that's why a consensus is required! Cheers. Class 455 ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  17:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi ( talk |stand clear of the doors! I have done what you have informed me and left an message explaining that I would like to update the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_377 page. Regards Peter Skuce.
 * Just seen it and supported. Could I please ask that you also link the images on the discussion so that other users can see the images before making a discussion. FYI, if you want to grab a user's attention, you can insert the following code, for example if you wanted my attention, type in. Much appreciated!  Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  17:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Greater Anglia
Please do not link articles to Greater Anglia. This has been a persistent problem for many weeks, which means that I and others have had to repeatedly fix up the mess that is being made.

Please also read WP:UNDUE - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not appropriate to add detailed lists of the modifications that were made for different train operating companies. These lists that you have been adding have all of the appearance of a publicity puff for a company that specialises in such modifications. We also do not need large numbers of photos showing the insides of the carriages. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I thought that editors on Wikipedia have to cite references and supply evidence with regards to alterations/changes to train services and train interior refreshes/refurbishments? I do not understand what I am doing is wrong and where I am going wrong by using a T.O.C. press release as a reference for train refurbishment.
 * PeterSkuce (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's part of the problem - a press release is a WP:PRIMARY source. But consider WP:UNDUE, which I mentioned earlier - if we mention modifications that were made for one TOC, we would need also to show modifications made for all other TOCs. In doing so we must also respect WP:RECENT, and describe all modifications made since construction - which for the Mark 3 fleet is now in the region of forty years ago. It's just not feasible. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bure Valley Railway
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Bure Valley Railway does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  00:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Bure Valley Railway, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter. A few days ago another editor asked you not to change main infobox photographs without first obtaining consensus (see above). Notwithstanding that conversation, you did it again at the Bure Valley Railway article. With respect, your choice of picture was not as good as the original, and I have reverted it. The photograph you selected is largely a picture of the sky, with a tiny little train in one corner. A number of your other photograph substitutions tonight also seemed to decrease the quality of image - if making changes of this sort, please explain why, to other editors. Using the edit summary to communicate is very important.

Also, please note the comment above regarding the preview button, as you made a long series of edits to this article tonight, of which a huge number were just experiments with moving one photograph around the page.

Also, I have reverted your change to the locomotive table, in which you replaced current livery information (BVR 6) with old (out of date) information from before the locomotive's recent major overhaul.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry however apart from one photo, the main headline photo, I disagree with your comments. I do feel that my images are of better, higher quality. There was no need to either remove my photos of the locomotives or completely remove the gallery.


 * PeterSkuce (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I have reverted similar edits on another article (Kent and East Sussex Railway). With no edit summaries, it is hard to guess why you think such changes are improvements. Dicklyon (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Please can you give me a chance to carry out the improvement work on the article - the photographs I am uploading are of better quality and taken more recently. PeterSkuce (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC) I have added photographs of the trains which should better reflect a day out at the railway PeterSkuce (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop stuffing articles with your photos. Of, only two do not have you as the credited uploader. Wikipedia is not an image repository, and galleries should satisfy WP:IG; all of these images are in c:Commons:Bluebell Railway, or its subcategories, and there is a template in the article which gives access to all of these, and more. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, let's be completely honest and fair here, I did not delete/remove any of the other photographs on that page. I also added photographs of three out of four stations on the railway PeterSkuce (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to make yourself aware of the Three Revert Rule
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at British Rail Class 319. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Class 455 ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  12:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC) I have uploaded photographs of Thameslink Railway refurbished Class 319 and changed the British Rail Class 319 page to include these photographs. I hope that this clarifies the situation and is a vast improvement to that page. PeterSkuce (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding your own photos to articles when they do not improve it.
(pinging Class455 who has been involved on the British Rail Class 455 article)

Dear Peter,

Whilst it is great that you are donating your photos to Wikipedia, I have spent some time reverting some of the changes you made because they clearly do not improve on the existing photo and some are evidently worse. It is clear that your main intention is to publicise your own photos: a particularly egregious example can be found at British Rail Class 168 where you changed the infobox image to File:168112 Birmingham Moor Street.jpg which is clearly worse than the existing one.

Secondly, you have also tried to "stuff" articles full of your photos- whilst those added to galleries may enhance the reading experience, sandwiching text between a wide infobox and a photo on the left does not. Please read Image dos and don'ts, a condensed version of Wikipedia's manual of style on images, which states "don't overload articles with images".

I notice that you have reverted editors that have undone your changes. Please read WP:BRD, which states that when you make a bold change, if you are reverted, you should discuss and seek talk page consensus- e.g. "I think my image is better, let's have a vote" and wait for the results. If you revert and edit war to ensure your photo remains on the page, especially when multiple editors (as above) have told your changes are not appropriate you may find yourself being placed with editing restrictions.

In short, please think carefully before adding images to ensure they are better than the one they replace, and if you are reverted, discuss and wait for a result on the talk page. Rest assured that if your pictures are of a good quality, other editors will find and use them where appropriate.

Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017


Hello Peter. Please pause. Please focus on adding new images where there are gaps. Please try to resist the temptation to replace (useful/contextual) images that are already there, with personal photos of lower quality and which convey less overall context. For example these edits made on the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway article. Thank you, please ping me if help and advice is required. —Sladen (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)




 * Ditto, for these replacements made on the National Tramway Museum, which exchange contextual images showing visitors participating in the museum with empty darkly-lit images without context. —Sladen (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Warnings
, previous requests and warnings made regarding mass image replacement and "stuffing" of ones own images, did not seem to have resulted in a change of behaviour—and we can see that Special:Diff/807244385 shows a revert-of-a-revert. Reviewing the edit logs shows that this is not the first time either, with having had to handle this situation too. Lets ping some others who have previously left warnings aswell (///), and see if we can come with up some suggestions for next steps? —Sladen (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's see if this will work......

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

If not, then I guess ANI would be the next port of call, because we've warned Peter quite a few times but he doesn't appear to want to know. - Please stop adding mass images on articles without consensus or you may find yourself being hauled to ANI and blocked. Thank you. Class 455 ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  22:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I'm running out of patience with Peter. I'd like to think my message in March was very clear (not to mention the numerous messages from others), but since then he's continued to stuff his own images into articles, either through replacing existing (superior) images or by cramming them into any space available within the article, both of which clearly violate policy. I would welcome any next steps that need to be taken, what they are I'm not quite sure, but for starters Peter- once someone's reverted your image addition, rather than revert them, take the issue to the talk page (which of course be happening anyway). jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, not to mention the fact that Peter's still marking his edits as minor, even they're clearly not. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi All, I noted that both Kirklees Light Railway page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirklees_Light_Railway, the National Tramway Museum page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Tramway_Museum and Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romney,_Hythe_and_Dymchurch_Railway required some better, enhanced and improved photographs than those already featured. I fail to understand how my photographs can be judged to be of less or poor quality than those that I were replacing. Please could someone take some time out to explain to me in detail where I am going wrong on a certain photo or page. I have Autism and do need things to be clear and concise. Are some of you jealous of my concise, clear and sharp photographs, is that it or is it entirely genuine that some of my photographs are of poor quality than the ones that I were replacing? I note that the photographs I upload are crystal sharp, are in great detail and do not suffer from camera shake. I look forward to reading some of your responses. PeterSkuce (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for mentioning that you have autism, which helps the community to understand your behaviour. Nonetheless, that behaviour must be challenged and stopped. If you have autism then you must be aware that it is highly likely that you are experiencing these images differently from the rest of the community. You repeatedly talk of your images as being crisper and sharper than others, but nobody else sees that in them. What we do see, in many cases, is far less artistic merit in your images. This is why you are repeatedly asked to stop your patterns of behaviour on Wikipedia. You may very well have focus-sensitive perception, and that may lead you to believe that this picture (for example) is good, but to most people it is a very bad picture, having almost no context, poor composition, low artistic value, and almost zero use of perspective. In short, you see clear focus, but everyone else sees an image that is visually two-dimensional, and in thumbnail view appears to be just a bland sheet of blue. It is a bad photograph, which you used to replace a far superior one. If you were disagreeing with one other person, then it might just be down to artistic differences of view, but in fact you are constantly disagreeing with the rest of the Wikipedia community, and it is time to stop. Again, your autism may be an explanation for some of your repeated behaviours, but that explanation does not make it acceptable. One of the underlying principles of Wikipedia is consensus. When you are repeatedly told by multiple other users that you are in the wrong, you cannot just push ahead with your plans, and ignore/revert/rerevert your way through articles. This is why so many people are getting cross with you and talking about having you blocked from editing.  Timothy Titus Talk To TT  01:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this feedback. Image quality does not usually hinge on sharpness and clarity, but more on composition, content, context.  If other editors object to a photo that you have added, and revert it, just let it go.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Further regarding image quality, remember that the images are being displayed in context at a few inches wide at best for most people, even those using desktop computers. An image may be 20,000 pixels wide, but the thumbnail will only be 300 pixels. This makes sharpness one of the least useful indicators of quality when choosing a photo for an article. The primary should always be educational use: does the image show something relevant, in context, and in a way which allows people to easily understand what it is? Dead side-on images aren't very useful for this, a 3/4 view is more useful as you get an idea of the 3D shape better. After educational use, then come things like exposure (if the sky is #FFFFFF it's overexposed, if the shadows are #000000 it's underexposed), artistic merit, etc. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Peter, in this edit your summary says you added photos. But you also removed (replaced) at least one. So I rolled that back. Please be more careful and truthful about what you are doing. Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I would like to inform everyone of my plans for November updates:


 * Bickington Steam Railway at Trago Mills, Newton Abbot - it has to be mentioned that this article does suffer from a lack of clear photos
 * Dartmouth Steam Railway/Paignton and Dartmouth Railway
 * Greater Anglia Class 317
 * London Overground Class 315
 * TfL Rail Class 315

I hope that people agree with my thoughts that the Bickington Steam Railway page does need updating, so this will take priority. PeterSkuce (talk) 10:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * , for the Bickington Steam Railway article, please propose the edits/pictures on the Talk:Bickington Steam Railway page, and then ping people. —Sladen (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you and please be advised that I was informed by the manager of the railway that following statement 'Over a section of this line, the railway climbs one of the steepest inclines for any non rack railway in the UK.' is factually incorrect and not true, as it is the Leadhills and Wanlockhead Railway that is the location of Britain's highest narrow gauge adhesion railway, reaching 1,498 feet above sea level - I refer you to their official website here: https://www.leadhillsrailway.co.uk/

Thank you again. PeterSkuce (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

June 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Please use talk rather than edit war to replace your preferred version as you did also on Bickington Steam Railway.SovalValtos (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter. Sorry about the confrontational tone of some editors here, they can be very unfriendly.  If you want to create galleries, a good place to do so would be in Wikimedia Commons.  You can create galleries there, and they have no quality control procedures so you can do whatever you want.  As a general point, on Wikipedia, photographs on preserved railways should show something of the railway in its environment, or volunteers working, a 3/4 view of an individual locomotive running around a train isn't ideal.  That many preserved railway articles have images like this shouldn't be an excuse for you to add more of the same - these need to be replaced with more appropriate images if/when we have these (which in many cases we unfortunately don't).  Tony May (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I did recently post an image that someone else took of No. 71000 'Oliver Cromwell' hauling a passenger train along Quorn Straight into the Info Box for Great Central Railway (Heritage). I also created a gallery which included three photographs that someone else took and then four photographs of my own on the Great Central Railway Heritage page. I could not believe that this would could harm, offend and upset some people. Previously there were no photographs featuring a steam locomotive hauling a passenger train along the double track section between Loughborough Central and Rothley on Wikipedia and I honestly thought that I was doing everyone a favour by adding these four photographs that I did not take and four photographs that I did take. I was also surprised that I received a thank you on the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Wikipedia page, however other editors got upset by it. I am confused as it does not make sense. PeterSkuce (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Peter, I think users here are against galleries in general. There needs to be an appropriate balance between text and pictures - that means a lot more text than pictures.  Now, if something is mentioned in the text (e.g. GCR's double track), and we have a picture of it, then including a relevant photo is great - but only one photo and put it next to the relevant text.  Pictures also need to be relevant to the main subject.  And ideally they should be of good technical quality.  So, don't try to force too many pictures into the article, and make sure that they are relevant. Tony May (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)