User talk:Warszawa Marshal

December 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of rolling stock preserved on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that you have made an edit summary or a comment that did not appear to be appropriate, civil, or otherwise constructive, and it may have been removed. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0, you may be blocked from editing. Danners430 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0. Danners430 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at LMS Stanier Class 5 4-6-0 shows that you are currently 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. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Danners430 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it is not how I think it should be, it is the actual truth, you for some reason just can't accept you were wrong and live in your own bubble. Warszawa Marshal (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is a legitimate video of the locomotive running after overhaul and even seeing the locomotive run for yourself not legitimate proof? Warszawa Marshal (talk) 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You need to support your edits with reliable sources. You have not done so. You have asserted that there exists a video, but merely saying a source exists somewhere is not sufficient; you need to actually cite it. Even if you did, though, YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources, as was explained to you here. Per WP:NOR:

Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors...Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Determining that a given video does indeed depict the relevant locomotive and that it was taken at the time claimed would be an act of interpretation, and a violation of that policy. Find a reliable secondary source instead, and no one will have any problem with you editing the article.

Finally, even if you were sourcing your edits and certainly in the right about the factual information, you would still be edit warring. The policy says:

An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense.

So please stop doing that. Please also be civil to other editors at all times, in edit summaries and on talk pages. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]