Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24

Hello, I must ask, why did you remove my latest edit to Grenada station? It shows the evolution of the station; one of them shows the first station before getting the 2nd floor addition and the first depot in 1894.

IC 9612 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is not enough room in the prose for more than one image, since there is only one paragraph in the history section. Having 5 images in that section was causing formatting issues. If the prose is significantly expanded, more images can eventually be added in. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 09:15, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are only two ways the template is used and you are using neither. Stick to conventiopon with your edits. 161.29.202.46 (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@161.29.202.46: You keep saying "convention" but refuse to explain. What "convention" exists against using {{commonscat inline}}? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go and have a look at all the well edited articles! 161.29.202.46 (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your vagueness makes it impossible to discern what you mean. At this point, it's indistinguishable from trolling. Numerous high-quality articles including many GAs and FAs use that template. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You fool. Yes thwey use that template but not in thew manner that you are using it. Also, I don't believe you. Post some links. The inline version is ALWAYS used with a bullet point. Are you blind and as thick as two short planks! 161.29.202.46 (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:LAYOUTEL does not agree with your claims or edits:

• It lists two situations for using inline templates: "Inline" templates are used when box-type templates are not desirable, either because they result in a long sequence of right-aligned boxes hanging off the bottom of the article, or because there are no external links except sister project ones. In many articles, specially shorter ones with infoboxes, the right-aligned boxes problem will occur for viewers in desktop mode. That is why I used the inline template in Central West End station, Stadium–Armory station, and other articles.
• Regarding this edit, that MOS section explicitly allows having the commonscat either in the last unelated section, or as the only item in an external links section. I chose the latter because of the right-aligned boxes issue (in this case, images).
• It does not specify whether or not the template is to be used with a bullet point. The example does use a bullet point, but it's ambiguous whether that is simply because the example is already part of a list item. The template documentation does not specify either. Lacking explicit guidance, there's no compelling reason to make edits just to change it - and none of your edits have been to add the bullet point anyway. If you feel strongly about it, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout would be the place to start a discussion.

Please cease with your personal attacks and accusations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Delray Beach station has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TheNuggeteer -- TheNuggeteer (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article South Station Bus Terminal has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKang123 -- ZKang123 (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article North Wilmington station has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Epicgenius -- Epicgenius (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Fall River/New Bedford Line has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I’m not trying to give you a hard time, but why do you deleting the collection? I looked at the article talk page reasoning about it and the user was doing exactly what you said to do. He didn’t put in the Wheel arrangement and etc, he was trying to make it look more accurate like you said and yet you keep removing it, he even provided a reliable source to the rolling stock too, because all heritage railroads sites always lists their entire engines, rolling stock and etc and it counts as a reliable source. I don’t know what more you want from it, but it’s really getting out of hand. All of the other heratige railroad articles have the entire equipment roster section in them with reliable sources, you don’t have a problem with those one, why this one? Please, I’m not asking for trouble, I just want to calmly and respectfully understand why you keep removing it. If you want it to look more accurate, why can’t you fix it yourself? No offense, because the user put so much hard work into it. Take all the time to need to respond. 73.61.87.179 (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It's really strange that you're referring to yourself in the third person, Dinoboyaz. How many times must you be blocked before you accept that you're just not compatible with this website? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly wasn't expecting my single off-hand comment at this guy to blow up in this fashion. Sorry about that. I'm pretty confident in the connection, though. Dinoboyaz also edit warred over rosters before getting blocked and there's a certain brand of easily stirred temper tantrums and disruptive behavior that matches eerily well to this series of IPs. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Kingston Line has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your good article nomination of the article Natick Center station has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bgsu98 -- Bgsu98 (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pi.1415926535. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at picking up the baton for this DYK review, but wanted to check-in with you before sinking too much time into it. Your comments about LLM use, in particular, gave me pause. Anything I should know before proceeding? Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: You're welcome to try, especially if you have more patience than I do. Between the language barrier, the LLM use (why would an LLM be able to format a DYK???) and the seeming unwillingness to read the DYK guidelines, I'm not optimistic that this is a good candidate for DYK. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the steer. I'm capable of levels of patience (and tolerance) that would fry most people's circuits, but I don't like wasting my time either. I'll take another look, although your frank take on it doesn't leave me with much hope that this one is worth the effort. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently deleted all the info and changed Elk Dale, Missouri and Center Point, Missouri into redirects. This is understandable and with the current article length and likely lack of other sources, these articles having their own articles is unnecessary. However, the standard that I have discovered/developed is to redirect (former) settlements, that do not meet the requirements to a standalone article, to the township level of US counties. Additionally, retaining the article information in the Geography or History section of the township article is preferable. I adjusted these two articles to redirect to their respective townships and to retain their respective information in these articles.

Here are some examples I am basing this off of: Carmack, Missouri, Lewisville, Missouri, and Bluff City, Missouri SamuelNelsonGISP (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SamuelNelsonGISP: Thanks for the note. I came across these stubs when going through Category:United States articles missing geocoordinate data. Personally, I'm not convinced that there's a need to merge this sort of stub. Very often, they're conflating the verifiable existence of a rural post office (or farm, railroad siding, etc) with the not-verifiable existence of an actual populated place. If I can't verify the existence of the location as an actual populated place with a few minutes of research, I generally redirect without a merge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:05, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do me a favor and take this guy to ANI? I'm not in the mood to deal with this any further but it's super egregious. Cards84664 01:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cards84664: I will if they make any further LLM-generated edits. They haven't made any edits since just after my warning. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 and @Cards84664, it may be worth bringing this up at WP:AINB (the AI cleanup noticeboard) as well. Although it looks like Cards has reverted all the suspected LLM-generated edits, a third pair of eyes wouldn't hurt. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I also reverted their past edits at Canary Wharf and Thameslink; them being UK-based articles was a bit of a blind-spot it appears. Hopefully I didn't accidentally remove any good info in those two places, an additional pair of eyes to proofread my edits there would definitely help me feel a lot better. Aside from that, I reverted another edit at New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, where they just added links to their newly-created LLM articles. It also appears that they created Template:Cite correspondence, which I really don't see the point behind and so far has only three dubious transclusions on other articles; I feel like it should probably also be deleted. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also checked their global logs just in case, and I found out that they also uploaded a few files to Commons. I'm really skeptical if the files in question really are their own works. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@OrdinaryScarlett, thanks for the heads up. I've nominated Template:Cite correspondence to TfD, since we actually already have Template:Cite letter. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is LLM use and COI by User:Thetransitguru. Cards84664 07:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... for your help in getting San Lorenzo (restaurant) over the line at DYK. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: You're welcome! It's always fun seeing far-flung parts of the encyclopedia when I do DYK and GA reviews. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it really is what makes our wanderings so joyous. All articles connect, somehow. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Mall station article was reverted with no reason stated for the revert. Would you please note that it is common Wikipedia practice to define the age of buildings, as defined in Age in articles. Railway station articles in particular specify the age of the station. There are hundreds of such articles. Would you please explain what Wikipedia guideline or policy justifies this revert. Alternatively, would you please consider undoing the revert. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "common Wikipedia practice". That section is something you put in without any proof. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Having the age of stations - a piece of trivia that is not a key fact - is a violation of this principle. If you continue adding them (which I and others have previously asked you to stop doing) with misleading edit summaries, I will continue to revert them as disruptive edits. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to strictly follow that, you are going to have to change hundreds (possibly thousands) of railway station articles at locations all over the globe, which have been added by several Wikipedia editors over the years. Good luck doing that. Wouldn't it be better to accept the fact that Wikipedia includes the age of railway stations as a de facto standard in the station article's infobox?

We all agree that an infobox should be succinct, and that it should contain all relevant information for a user to determine if they should read the entire article. If the age of stations should not be a Wikipedia de facto standard, then why do the templates "Start date and age" and "End date and age" exist, along with several other templates that calculate the age of something? Truthanado (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your claims are not supported by the available evidence. There are just under 57,000 usages of {{infobox station}}. Looking through the first 50,000 uses of {{start date and age}}, just under 5% (2,494) have "station" in the name, some of which are false positives such as radio stations. With 179k total usages of the template, that 5% rate implies about 9k usages on station articles. You've made about 3,800 edits to articles with "station" in the name, the majority of which appear to include adding the template. That means than less than one-sixth of station articles have {{start date and age}}, and that about 10% of station articles had it added by someone other than you. That is in no way a de facto standard. If you want it to be standard, then get consensus at the relevant Wikiproject.

Age calculations are undoubtedly useful in certain scenarios, such as ongoing events and the age of people. The length of time since a singular event – such as the opening of a train station – is not a "key fact" about that station. The "key fact" is the date itself. Can you point to any centralized discussions that have resulted in consensus to add age calculations for things other than ongoing events?

Your commonly-used edit summary of c/e, date in infobox is misleading. Many of the edits you perform with that edit summary do not contain any copyediting, such as your most recent edit. "Date in infobox" also implies that you are adding a date, rather than your actual action of changing the formatting of existing dates. Something like format date with start date and age would be a better edit summary to use. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pi.1415926535. I noticed you recently requested some speedy deletions with a custom rationale. The reasons you give aren't valid reasons to speedily delete a page, but the fact that you're the sole author is. The next time you want a page you created deleted, please put {{Db-g7}} on the page, instead of a custom rationale. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess enjoyer: Thanks for the reminder - I totally forgot that G7 would be valid. (I'm more used to speedy deletions on Commons, where the equivalent criterion is only valid for 7 days after upload.) These were a group of odd edge cases - redirects where the list entries they pointed to have been (correctly) removed from the target page - so I wasn't sure what to tag them as. If I find any that aren't G7 eligible, what should I tag them as? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On it's own, that isn't a valid reason to speedy delete a redirect. I would nominate them at RFD. Chess enjoyer (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]