User talk:Petershipton

Susan Boyle
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Waterloo International railway station
Hi. I've removed your recent addition to this article. The problem with it is that it is unsourced, yet makes some very specific claims and criticisms that cannot be verified. You will of course realise that Wikipedia is not somewhere to raise your own personal analysis and concerns. To be specific;

Thanks. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Despite a chronic shortage of platforms at the station" - where was this information obtained?
 * "which often results in trains being allocated a platform just minutes before departure," - where was this information obtained?
 * "Network Rail has no plans to use the other four former international platforms for domestic use." - where was this information obtained?
 * "As a result, the platforms have not been used since November 2007." - How do we know this is a result of the above?
 * "Network Rail claims that it would cost too much to bring the unused platforms into service." - where was this information obtained?  Using the word 'claim' in this fashion is also something that should be avoided.
 * "Instead the company spent around £20 million installing one hundred and seventy automatic barriers on all main line platforms, which came into operation in January 2009 ." - This is a entirely different matter. Who has raised it in conjunction with the topic of platforms?
 * "This is the longest line of ticket barriers in the UK." - Where was this fact obtained?
 * Thank you for citing some of this. However you re-added claims that I identified as uncited above.  So I have removed again.  To be specific;

Thanks.
 * "Despite a chronic shortage of platforms at the station" - where was this information obtained? Is it just your opinion?
 * "which often results in trains being allocated a platform just minutes before departure," - where was this information obtained? Is it just your opinion?
 * "As a result, the platforms have not been used since November 2007." - Where is it shown that one is the result of the other?
 * "Network Rail claims that it would cost too much to bring the unused platforms into service." - where was this information obtained?  Using the word 'claim' in this fashion is also something that should be avoided.
 * "Instead the company spent..." - Where is it indicated that the money spent here was an alternative to the money spent on platforms? Where is a connection established?

-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 10:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. One or more of the external links you added in this edit to the page Susan Boyle do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. You may wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Zhang He (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AniMate draw  18:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Last warning, though you should probably be blocked for making your fourth reversion. No more reversions, or you could be blocked. Instead of edit warring, why not discuss this and make your case on the talk page of the article. AniMate draw  01:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a courtesy note to inform you that you have been reported at WP:AN3. Whether or not you are blocked this time, I hope that you will take heed of others' views and feelings when you edit. Not only did I find your edit unnecessary, it seems that many others were of that view. What I find particularly objectionable is that you marked these edits as 'minor', and the edit summary was less than descriptive of your change. You know full well your change would be considered controversial, yet you come back every two weeks as if to make a point. I can only advise you to put up or shut up. Attempts to change things by stealth or by force are not the way to go. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given AM's warning above, and your lack of reverts since then, I'm giving you a warning rather than blocking. But please read WP:3RR and use the talk pages William M. Connolley (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)