User talk:Wotton railway station

September 2016[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Camden Town tube station, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I did not vandalise that page - I updated it. This is why I don't normally edit Wikipedia - the trolls around here. Just FYI, I am remaking the legimimate change. Wotton railway station (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps vandalism was too strong a word- but the edit seemed to do more harm than good. You should probably go to the article talk page to explain your changes and why they are needed. 331dot (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading what is written, which now addresses the current plans rather than addressing things that ain't gonna happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotton railway station (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updating the page is fine, but there is no reason to remove what was there before, as it documents how plans have developed and changed over time. 331dot (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was planty of reason to remove old out of date politicking about planning applications that noone cares about now. If you'd left it alone there wouldn't be a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotton railway station (talk • contribs) 23:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent vandalism, as you did at Camden Town tube station. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. I was editing, and now you've gone back to the text that was out of date. Typical admin - instead of addressing the issues, block block block. And the "guide for appealing blocks" is useless because it doesn't address when you've been blocked trigger happy admin severely lacking in clues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotton railway station (talk • contribs) 23:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of insulting admins maybe you should remember that this is an encyclopedia that documents knowledge, including historical information. What you call "out of date politicking" may be interesting historical information to someone else. The point is, though, that you should explain the reasons you want to make a change and achieve consensus for it. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't see any discussion. I make the changes as suggested. Then I'm falsely accused of vandalism (false) and then blocked because the changes were good. Again, it's Camden people complaining about planning application that they didn't like which was rejected in 2005. Read the linked articles that I linked. THe "consensus" position currently is wrong but hey I know, we'll be excessively rude and block block block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotton railway station (talk • contribs) 23:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were advised (above) to "go to the article talk page to explain your changes". The article talk page is Talk:Camden Town tube station, but I see no edits of yours there. Instead, you continued to make exactly the same edits as before - five times in all, including your original edit. This can be considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes spoke for themselves. They still do. This would have caused you far less hassle if you'd have just left it alone in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotton railway station (talk • contribs) 22:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The changes most certainly do not speak for themselves. What they say to me is that you removed five paragraphs of a sourced six-paragraph section and also the ref for the remaining paragraph, replacing all of thsi with your own inadequately-sourced version. You did this not once but five times, without once discussing it on the article's talk page. Your second edit has the summary "Reverting unexplained removal of content. foxtrot oscar.", which is both hypocritical and insulting. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they really do. AS I've said umpteeen times now, the other content was both (1) massively out of date and (2) unbalanced. The new text is clearly both more succinct and better sourced. In this case, more verbiage isn't the answer. As for the other point, if you'd have just left it alone I could be making other productive changes now instead you waste your time and mine because of your lack of understanding. Wotton railway station (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also extremely insulting to be falsely accused of vandalism when I had do no such thing. I think if anyone wants to complain about insults you'd better look in your mirror first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotton railway station (talk • contribs) 12:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016[edit]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Camden Town tube station, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take your stupid warnings elsewhere. I was updating the page. Get over yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotton railway station (talk • contribs) 17:25, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Camden Town tube station. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of attacking other users and edit warring, why not provide logical arguments as to the nature of your position and why historical information should be removed? 331dot (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a belated addition to the conversation, but I looked at the diffs in this dispute and noticed that you are removing unsourced information about cancelled improvements to the station that are over-detailed and need a trim. That sounds like a pretty good intention to improve the article (see WP:RECENTISM); I think you went a bit overboard and deleted far too much text, including citations to TfL which I think was a mistake. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle; trim the cancelled improvements down to a few sentences, keeping the sources.

You should not have been warned, let alone blocked, for vandalism (see User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism), and while Redrose64 might have been justified for blocking you for edit warring, he was probably not the best admin to do that (see WP:INVOLVED). Having said that, as an admin myself, I have been in Redrose's shoes and it is very easy to reach for the admin tools when you are annoyed with someone (eg: see Talk:Dartford Crossing), so I would go easy on him as he does do a lot of good work around the place. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]