User talk:D47817 - Knowledge

3244: 2828: 2995:] and others eg changed 2009 to 1995, removal of gallery, additional of companies house data with "descriptive titles" rather than the actual page title, and addition of content whilst also removing the some other well referenced content. - if it is the same person them you should be aware that generally only one account per person is allowed. Use of two at once is covered by 3841: 3517: 3447: 3384: 2912: 2706: 2639: 740:. Again, even if the edits are seemingly useful and well-intentioned, the replacement of 60 well-formatted citations with 35 unformatted ones is sub-optimal, and doesn't help Knowledge or our readers. Perhaps you would be able to try and reapply (some) of your changes and improvements without negating the overall value and credibility of the article. — 843: 2468: 1624:"In the financial year to April 1999 the company made a profit of £1.2million on a turnoved of £87.2 million, the following year it recorded loss of £0.7million on a turnover of £86.9million. In October 1999 GB Railways sold its 19.7% share in Great Southern Railway to Serco resulting in a on-off profit of £1.4 million." 1882:. It would be useful if you could review that and re-add anything that still needs doing. As noted above, if making smaller changes with clearer edit summary, it is easier for others to review and clean up any breakage without the risk of losing potentially valuable contributions at the same time. — 2323:

Overall I think I have added to the pages I have contributed by adding information, sorting into more readable formats, eliminating duplication, adding cites and doing a bit of house cleaning. Obviously this is for others to judge. If in the process I have added information and a valid cite and not

2305:

I reject the assertion I argue with "every point". Am the first to admit I have made errors and have heeded the advice of yourself and others. But I am quite happy to build a robust case when challenged on something I believe to be correct and back it up with a cite. If I can't back it up I will

2211:

Whether you not you consider it "overly important" is your opinion. This is much like the formatting of citations, signing of comments, fixing of disambiguation links, insertion of easter egg links, alternating of endashes/hyphens, … everytime you are doing something in a non-standard way, you are

2045:

then why was it founded? Companies are required to have an objective when they are formed. Had it not been for the privatisation of BR, it is unlikely the former BR managers and other industry professionals would have formed an alliance. GB also bid for other franchises including Gatwick Express

1488:

to do any of these things, but these hopefully provide a better experience for Knowledge's readers, and reduce the amount of time it takes for other editors to find, review or make such similar changes—you may be able to easily remember where these editing changes could be relevant from memory. In

1108:

because it removed too much information to do without discussing it in the talk page first. It's great wanting to streamline articles but taking out two and a half thousand characters' worth of material is something that should be discussed before being done. Some of the info was unique and some of

927:

before diving in and making further extensive changes. As noted above, I'd reverted some of the more larger changes that lost too much information. I'm hoping you'll be willing to work on helping to fix the remainder without. Please could you also consider replying here on your User talk: page.

2229:

if you could do things by-the-book, resist arguing with every point that is brought to your attention, and not create what is proving to be an ever-expanding maintenance headache. With a little more "thank you for the tip, I'll try to remember that", a little more care in using "Show changes" to

818:

in these case, some cover the takeover of Grand Central↔Arriva, and some cover the takeover of Arriva↔DB; therefore covering the whole sentence. If in doubt please leave references as they were—especially if fully-formed and placed there by other editors—; they are the foundation of what makes

1415:

Endashes (short) and Emdashes (long) are forms of punctuation that appear longer than a hyphen character, and on Knowledge these are in particular, used for date- and number-ranges, either with spaces around the, (in some specific situations) or without spaces around them (in other specific

2108:

Unlikely the management of First Hull Trains was taken over by First TransPennine Express, Department for Transport are insistent that franchised and open access operators have separate management. FHT is run out of Hull, FTPE out of Manchester. FHT appointed their current MD in February

2983:

Whilst I appreciate your additions to EWS article, your edit also removed some referenced content. - which means more work for me as I have to go through the work line by line to restore. it. It would be easier all round if you just added stuff and didn't removed referenced content.

806:; but deleting should not be the first course of action. A fully-formed citation with the date, author, publication, article name and page still allows the reader to source those articles in paper-form, from a library, or by contacting the publisher. Other guidance can be found in 2598:

Hi, I would be grateful if you would not delete any single spaces that you might come across between parameters within template cites. It doesn't make any difference to what the reader sees, but having the space there makes it easier to navigate the text while editing. Thanks --

2306:

let it lie. In the absence of anything written, I may cite a You Tube, Flickr etc file in Talk, but I avoid quoting these as formal cites. No matter how much evidence there is, some users accept this, some don't. I have even pushed the case for changes you have suggested.

3247:

I;ve had it - I'm reporting you to WP:ANI on constant semi-unconstructive edits, and ignoring repeated requests to not do counterproductive things. and possible sockpuppetrty - your insistence on replacing citations as the previous editor is the reason for the sockpuppet

1633:

Please take these comments on board -there are good reasons why all these things should be avoided Well done spotting the missing and partially incorrect info about the Northern franchise - I have added that with a reference, plus the info about the 80% share in Hull

3731:. I would state that even if you did take them there, that these redirects may be retained though, as I don't personally view your argument to be a strong one; that is, however, my opinion, and you are free to nominate whatever you want (within reason, of course!). 870:

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you.

2098:

Notes lack consistency, either needs to state the groups that won the franchises (National Express Group, Arriva and Serco-Abellio) or the TOCs (National Express East Anglia, Arriva Trains Wales and Northern Rail) not a combination of the two. Lack of

2570:): they are not indications that a problem exists, but information for bots and scripts as to which way they should adjust dates, etc. when an inconsistency is detected. If you dislike their position at the top, you may put them in the last section, 422:

article, because these (intentionally or otherwise) reduced the number of citations/references from 34 originally down to just 8, with half of these unformatted. Removing large numbers of references reduces the credibility and ability of readers to

522:

Lead reduced from 4 paragraphs as all is covered in greater detail further below. The page seems to be one of those that has evolved over time with information duplicated. I have tried to consolidate it without losing any of the information.

3262:

What you are doing is not ok - I requested you not do certain things several times, all of which were reasonable requests. I've had to spend far too much time cleaning up after uneeded changes (and other retrograde edits) to the said article.

1848:. You're welcome to try some of the changes again, because please do not remove or manage citation formatting with an edit summary that says "format cites", when it's doing the opposite. Please could be more careful in future. — 1391:

templates aswell, rather than just pasting in URLs. As things are calmer, now, I thought I'd share a few of the things I'm working on when I spot them, in order to get articles back closer to where they may have been originally.

3141:

Also - article titles shouldn't be "invented" as you keep doing for the companies house data - if the web page has a usualable title it should be used - what you are adding is an abstract of the content in place of the title

1109:

that which was duplicated was so to make it easier for casual readers to understand. The article may well need some trimming but your approach was just a little too extreme to do without reaching a consensus first! Regards.

623:

separate edits so that it's clear what's happening, and also concentrating on ensuring that references are not removed, but instead rewording the text to take account of both any previous situation, aswell as the present?

3159:

Also - we don't have a month for the formal DB acquisition referenced - you added November - but it is not sourced - we only have the announcement and EU commision report date - neither of which are the actual takeover

446:

There is an awful amount of non-relevant info, eg track record of the partners that is covered on other pages, no intention to delete references just dead ones where applicable, but if you want to reverse it so be it.

1438:

paper citations. As noted above, thank you for starting to format citation references. In a few cases where this hasn't been done, I've open the URL and where possible added some of the missing datails to the

1132:

regarding assumptions based on partial information. Specifically the image of the Arriva Trains Wales is an image of a single locomotive - it doesn't confirm that several locomotives were repainted or when..

2288:

Hi Sladen, my point was that ref name formats seem to be non-standard, plenty of examples of non-descriptive examples like 'Ref1' are around. I take your point about putting in an global friendly format.

3222:? What is the point of that edit ?- it's not an improvement, and you've added nothing - in the name of god stop pissing around with work that doesn't need improving. great way to piss other people off. 914:

For railways; we have the 1,600-millimetre Irish railway network on the Island of Ireland; and we have the 1,435-millimetre British railway network—ultimately connected to the continental system via the

1140:

I think I have misread it.., I'll mark that as possibly wrong and see if I can correct it - specifically though -what is needed is a source that states explicitly the facts, not collation from a set of

2212:

contributing to the inconsistency and lowering the quality of Knowledge for readers. You are creating unnecessary work. Other editors then end up spending additional time cleaning up afterwards.

943:

I echo what Sladen has said. You've obviously got good intentions, but it seems that you are trying to run before you can walk. It takes time to learn what Knowledge is about, and when to be

2489: 362: 755:

Aside from dead ones, there were 8 cites (6-13) from newspapers regarding the takeover by Arriva all saying exactly the sane thing, I cut it down to 2 the Arriva announcement and the BBC.

1728:

Remember that you need to write in a factual, and historical (encyclopaedic) style. I would concur that this requires being careful with the phrasing for the time in which they happened.

890:

Hello D47817. Thank you for your continuing enthusiasm in editing large numbers of railway related articles. From looking at the sleeper-related edits, could I draw your attention to:

358: 3721: 1469:

of the article, in addition to the page number and issue. It's much quicker to do at the time, than to do later. From my experience of sourcing paper citations for articles such as

1383:

I think things are starting to settle down, and from the last few edits I've reviewed, the quality of your edits has improved significantly. Thank you for starting to cite using the

923:

Please could you consider slowing down, making smaller changes with careful entries in the summary box, and perhaps focusing on helping to clean up some of the 200+ edits that you've

2512: 1044:

is the equivalent). If in doubt, and a hyphen has been placed there by another editor, please leave it. Please let me know if you need any more assistance, or clarification. —

1995:

Look - you don't move references from the body of the article to the lead. There is nothing gained from linking to the G13 Pty website as it doesn't verify anything additional.

3180:

reply - Cite format may be trivial - but constantly undoing my edits is not. Your other edits were not improvements and appear to be reversions to incorrect forms - see above.

1714:. Please do so, particularly if the apparent shorter name could refer to something else; often you will need to rephrase how you write to allow for better cleartext linking. 290: 3727:

Would just like to notify you that I have performed a non-admin closure on this. The reason for this is that redirects need to go to a special place for discussion; namely,

1783: 314: 266: 1521: 574:

it should be proportionate in length to the article, accessible, and give a quick high-level introduction to the subject, the detail for which is in the article itself.

286: 2883:

Hi. Your move was well-intentioned, but it should have been discussed. The names you have chosen do not make grammatical sense in English. I have opened a discussion at

2148:. Two digit year-last numeric-only date formatting is not used on Knowledge because of the confusion it causes between US editors and those in the rest of the world. — 1779: 507:

from four paragraphs to a single sentence. Was this intentional? Would you be able to perhaps integrate some of the previous high-level context back into the lede? —

310: 262: 3274: 1517: 242: 3807:

pages. This disrupts the tools that we use to address actually ambiguous topics. A page can not be both a set index and a disambiguation page, and a page that lists

1862:

Fair point, will leave the ball in your court as to whether the six citation, two number style and one grammar errors that have been reinstated need to be corrected.

1237: 238: 1178:

Because the DVTs hadn't been delivered and there was a requirement for 6 locos, EWS liveried examples were quite common while the services were top and tailed.

1321: 897:. Small numbers (below ten or twenty) should be spelt out in prose, whereas larger numbers should be written as numbers. Your edits have been swapping these. 3019:

Answer about the 37s and 47s on the talk page - .. (please just leave the messages there - easier than trying to have a conversation accross user talk pages)

1879:

The article was left it a day out of politeness, to allow for any useful parts to be reinstated. That didn't happen so I changed what I spotted this morning

1233: 138: 1317: 166: 1293: 134: 3128: 3088: 1933: 162: 3773: 3695: 3646: 3601: 3352: 3307: 2390: 1917: 1793: 1531: 1289: 1221: 122: 1929: 1265: 218: 2380: 1345: 1160:(railway herald issue 132 16 May 2008) front cover it can be seen that W&SR used EWS liveried 67s - this could be the source of the confusion. 1261: 338: 214: 2884: 1599: 2376: 1341: 194: 3769: 3691: 3642: 3597: 3348: 3303: 2386: 1913: 1789: 1527: 1217: 118: 1744:

Please, could you confirm that you've taken on this guidance, and that from other editors above. If you can't, please could you once again

334: 354: 62: 1957: 190: 3882: 1823:

Hello, when adding a "cite news" or "cite journal" reference, please would you include the title (headline) of the article. Thanks, --

431:

of the article up to date, but ideally in a way that does not remove the existing references. Once again, thank you for your edits. —

3728: 1953: 1128:

Pictures can be good sources - but writing articles on the basis of a collection of images from flickr is not a good idea. See also

2078: 919:. Thusly "United Kingdom" does not necessarily make sense in the case of trains, and the distinct is careful used by many editors. 861: 1906:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

1210:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

867: 866: 860: 111:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

2503: 2383:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1786:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1524:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3766:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3688:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3639:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3594:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3345:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3300:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2246:

s with all the possible parameters filled out in full, your edits could so easily become infinitely more useful and valuable.

1910:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1214:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 115:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 2499: 47: 3285: 2551: 1627: 1194: 928:

Once again, thank you for getting involved and your enthusiasm, your edits are well-intended, and frequently, useful. —

771: 655: 570:

summary is often used on its own, in compilations or Search engine snippets. An empty lead is pointless; Ideally, per

539: 463: 282: 52: 26: 3878: 2988: 1771: 1129: 698: 306: 258: 2189:

As is only a ref name wouldn't consider the format overly important, different story if in the main reference itself.

1651:- I would have thought it better to have the link referring to the pages actual name, although obviously it does link 1615:

in 2000 because it was not called that then - First Hull Trains did not come into existance until later - anachronism

3342: 1509: 177: 173: 145: 1739:

you citations in order to be able to do this, but it would be great if you could get into the habit of doing this.

1576:

http://www.greatsouthernrail.com.au/site/about_us/our_company.jsp Great Southern Rail company history</ref: -->

3849: 3293: 2844: 1470: 1405:. At the same time bumping the legal name down into the footnotes, and adding a formatted citation link to the 3677: 2832: 2064:"Anglia", Anglia Railways and Anglia Railways Trains Services Limited, all in one sentence is messy, think the 1907: 1211: 234: 112: 56: 3092: 3053: 3758:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3676:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3631:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3586:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3337:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3284:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

2367:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1770:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1508:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

3864: 3860: 3856: 3541:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

3471:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

3408:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2936:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2840: 2730:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2662:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2445: 2426: 1428:. Because these are used so often but may be hard to type, there are buttons to insert them just above the 1328: 419: 396: 225: 2618:

Hello, I had formatted those citations correctly. Why did you remove some of the information from them? --

3297: 3253: 3227: 3185: 3165: 3147: 3024: 3004: 2559: 2485: 1229: 369: 149: 33: 22: 676:. If you'd like to learn more about the full citation format which Knowledge uses, these are covered on 3743: 3587: 3530: 1313: 321: 273: 201: 77: 69: 2089:"was the parent company of a number of train operating companys", should read train operating companies 1686:

franchise has always been Anglia Railways, back from 1994, don't know why the need for inverted commas

680:. Hope it helps, and thank you for helping to tweak + restore the existing edits. Happy editing. — 2502:, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to 3804: 3572: 3506: 3436: 2996: 2969: 2817: 2690: 2341:

Wiki is a broad church and sometimes we will agree, and sometimes we will have to agree to disagree.

1591: 1580: 1182: 1114: 851: 759: 721: 643: 575: 527: 451: 130: 73: 1619: 3811:

such as different entities running the same service over time is not a proper disambiguation page.

3732: 3591: 3338: 2864: 2791:

to {{rws|Ryde Pier Head}} || 2 trains per hour || {{rws|Lake}}, {{rws|Sandown}}, {{rws|Brading}}, {

2675:

http://www.nwrail.org.uk/nw1402b.htm Class 68 - a new face on the line] ''North Wales coast Railway

2584: 2017: 1639: 1598:

Also avoid removing information from the body of the article and only have it present in the - see

1590:

also not Create links like this: ] - this is called an easter egg link and should be avoided - see

1584: 1165: 1146: 847: 500: 158: 85: 3485:

sites/default/files/downloads/scotrail_facts_figures_def.pdf Facts & Figures] Abellio ScotRail

2764:, {{rws|Woking}}, {{rws|Guildford}}, {{rws|Farncombe}}, {{rws|Godalming}}, {{rws|Milford}}, {{rws| 2895: 2782:(pick-up only), {{rws|Surbiton}}, {{rws|West Byfleet}}, {{rws|Woking}}, {{rws|Brookwood}}, {{rws| 2440: 2421: 1285: 803: 619:

of the references, leaving a completely empty references section. It it perhaps be worth trying

38: 29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 2956:

http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/05/23-firstgroup-chosen-for-new-thameslink.html Govia chosen

2230:

check for massive accidental deletions, and a little more care in understanding the concepts of

2079:

http://www.grandavenue.plus.com/MyWeb/Passenger_files/Delivering%20Better%20Train%20Services.pdf

1157: 903:. In text, units should be spelled out in propose, unless they are excessively repeated. So, 84:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 3789: 3711: 3662: 3617: 3368: 3323: 3249: 3223: 3181: 3161: 3143: 3100: 3061: 3020: 3000: 2836: 2719: 2651: 2623: 2604: 2474: 2406: 2168: 2118:

GB Railfreight better described as a freight operator rather than on open access rail company.

2077:

Would have thought GB Railway's corporate brochure that you have removed was a worthy source:

1981: 1925: 1828: 1809: 1612: 1547: 1369: 1105: 1098: 954: 876: 799: 677: 386: 97: 2767:}, {{rws|Syon Lane}}, {{rws|Isleworth}}, {{rws|Hounslow}}, {{rws|Whitton}}, {{rws}Twickenham} 1453:, it isn't possible to add the missing data as there is no easy way to view it. It would be 3888: 3821: 3460: 3423:"GBRf aims to be first for freight" '']'' issue 603 22 October 2008 pages 38-42</ref: --> 2758:| {{rws|London Waterloo}} to {{rws|Haslemere}} || 1 train per hour || {rws|Clapham Junction} 2420:

abstractive test is not likely to be readily understood by a significant number of readers.

2267: 2176: 2153: 1887: 1853: 1753: 1731:

If you want to highlight a particular tiny part of a citation to other editors, you can use

1494: 1421: 1417: 1081: 1049: 1039: 1018: 982: 974: 970: 933: 894: 824: 745: 730: 711: 685: 629: 605: 583: 512: 492:

Hello D47817, I've had a look at some of your other recent large-scale changes. This change

485: 436: 405: 297: 1567:

in order to deinterlace the replies and make it readable. See the history for the original

3898: 3632: 3568: 3564: 3521: 3502: 3498: 3451: 3432: 3428: 3388: 3116: 3074: 2965: 2961: 2916: 2813: 2809: 2710: 2686: 2643: 2065: 2006: 1940: 1474: 1412:

I've started restoring endashes, and emdashes where they may have been accidently changed.

1406: 1352: 1304: 1300: 1257: 1110: 900: 496: 476: 428: 210: 3204:

The contract with Royal Mail was lost in 2003 (switching to road transport), due to cost.

2776:| {{rws|London Waterloo}} to {{rws|Alton}} || 2 trains per hour || {rws|Clapham Junction} 2043:

to bid for rail franchises in the United Kingdom during the Privatisation of British Rail

2000:

to bid for rail franchises in the United Kingdom during the Privatisation of British Rail

3685: 3397: 2848: 2577: 2368: 2231: 2013: 1722: 1635: 1575:

Please dont't: Create links like this: ], or create references like this : <ref: -->

1425: 1337: 1161: 1142: 944: 916: 807: 596: 571: 567: 559: 504: 3555:

Highlander' back to the UK|publisher=GB Railfreight|date=19 August 2014}}</ref: -->

3877:. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may 3874: 3780: