Hello, Edgar Searle! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Jim1138 (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Sutherland railway station, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved your edit of the technical details from Metro North West Line to Sydney Metro Northwest as the former article is about the rail service and the latter is about the infrastructure. Be mindful that an edit without any citation and source can be undone, and you should always supply some sources to back your own edits up in the future. I managed to find some sources to back them up and kept your edit in Sydney Metro Northwest. Marcnut1996 (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Minor barnstar
Thank you for taking care of the rolling stock pages in recent weeks, in addition to removing unsourced information on scrapped/preserved trainsets. Keep it up! Seloloving (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi... your references for the traction tech used in various SkyTrain vehicles are extremely sketchy. I would advise you stop adding claims going forward unless you dig up way higher quality sources than comments on a blog post. People will continue to remove additions that aren't backed up by anything but your say-so. Please re-read WP:RS and WP:V. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Barcakes. An edit that you recently made to Frame rate seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please describe your changes with edit summary.Barcakes (talk) 11:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BART uses at least five different signaling systems on different track segments - the original 1970s system, the Daly City Yard extension in the 1980s, the three 1990s extensions, the SFO extension, and SVBX (which I vaguely recall having two separate systems). Cityflo 550 is just one of those systems. We should list all of them Bay Area Rapid Transit#Infrastructure, but probably not on the individual line articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nagoya Municipal Subway fleet numbers
Hey, I've seen you changed the fleet numbers in the Nagoya Municipal Subway N1000 series and Nagoya Municipal Subway N3000 series articles. In the N3000 series article, the fleet numbers are sourced to two offline sources (seemingly in the N31nn format); where did you get your fleet numbers from, and have you checked the offline sources? Also, in both Japanese Wikipedia articles they seem to use fleet numbers with the N11nn and N31nn format. Regards, Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had explicitly said so in the edit summary: "since the third digit varies depending on the car position, it should be replaced with a 0 for each set number". Edgar Searle (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I noticed that you reverted an image addition by someone at British Rail Class 555 with the edit summary "Only images with not only the front but also the full side please"; where exactly did you read that train infobox images had to show the front and the side as well? I've read MOS:LEADIMAGE and WP:TWP/MOS and neither of the two appear to state that images have to show the front and the side of the train. XtraJovial (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take this one for example (I know it's not the Class 555, but it's just an example). It can't be used as a lead image because the platform obscures the body of the train and isn't at a good-enough angle. Edgar Searle (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your revert comment of You are supposed to use the measurements ACCORDING TO THE SOURCE. What does that have to do with using convert templates? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{convert}} has the ability to handle that - see section 9.2 of the documentation. For the first template that you removed, for example, {{convert|40.89|m|ftin|order=flip|abbr=on}} generates 134 ft 2 in (40.89 m). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but if a future article were to be created specifically on the 604, then PowerPC 604 would go to it, and PowerPC 600#PowerPC 604 would have to be changed. Yeah, I know what you're thinking: Who's going to write a whole article just on the 604? I agree, in principal, that it's a silly notion. But I like to leave the option open for future editors. (See {{R with possibilities}}). I'm not describing it well, but I think there's a good discussion of it here:WP:NOTBROKEN). —GoldRingChip21:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
September 2022
Hello, I'm Fyrael. I noticed that you recently removed content from Nanjing Metro without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Steelkamp (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'm sorry, but I'm often in a rush when I edit wiki pages, therefore it's very hard to summarise what I've changed within that precise amount of time. Edgar Searle (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A month later, you're still not doing edit summaries for the majority of your edits. Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Steelkamp (talk) 07:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason behind lack of edit summaries is I'm often in a rush when I edit wiki pages and it is therefore very hard to summarise what I've changed within that precise amount of time. Edgar Searle (talk) 07:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, maybe don't be in such a rush. Other people may have no idea what you're trying to do with an edit if there is no edit summary. Help:Edit summary says "It is a good practice to provide a meaningful summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit." Steelkamp (talk) 08:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read up on WP:PRESERVE. It says "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research." Most of the information you removed does have a reliable source out there, just not on Wikipedia at this time. In that case, all you should do is tag it with citation needed. Steelkamp (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Edgar Searle, it’s now coming to the end of December and almost all of your recent edits still do not contain edit summaries. Please try to include a summary wherever possible to help everyone involved in maintaining Wikipedia. Danners430 (talk) 15:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of line colours in Class 700 and 717 articles
Please note that in both of your removals the comment immediately following the colour setting explained that the chosen colour does comply with WP:COLOR, aka MOS:CONTRAST. The comments:
Adapted from [line colour], has x contrast ratio and complies with WCAG AAA
Some readers of Wikipedia are partially or fully color-blind or visually impaired. Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level, and AAA level when feasible.
You are welcome to verify this for yourself using the WebAIM Contrast Checker, which is conveniently linked to in the same part of the MOS.
There is also no non-compliance on the other relevant points;
Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information.
Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers.
Because the colour is not being used as the sole means of conveying information, and because there is no linking in the coloured areas.
Thank you. XAM2175(T)23:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Unfortunately, the ref used is blacklisted. However, it's an easy research. Insolation recordings point towards Westinghouse AEG being the manufacturer of the traction motors used on the P2000 rolling stock. Lars Smiley (talk) 10:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's about the traction motors, not about the inverters (the actual thing that generates the waveform). Please go ahead and check again - GTO is what you're looking for, not traction motor. Edgar Searle (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Toronto Rocket
Not important but on it I was editing the revision before you edited it, and I didn't notice that it said blank in yours but said something in the other. In the change log it doesn't standout. oops. (btw line 3 and 4 were edited after yours so I had to use the present, if you think I skipped the edits on those) Humulator (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
December 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Siemens Modular Metro, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Edgar Searle, I notice that you are still not using edit summaries for almost all of your edits, despite repeated requests to do so. Edit summaries take seconds to add, and assist everyone on Wikipedia. I’m unsure why you still refuse to use them. Danners430 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Danners430 + XAM2175: As I have literally said before, the reason behind lack of edit summaries is I'm often in a rush when I edit wiki pages and it is therefore very hard to summarise what I've changed within that precise amount of time. Edgar Searle (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being in a rush isn’t a particularly good reason - does that also mean you rush your edits? Sorry if I sound rude, but it really does take literal seconds to add an edit summary. Perhaps take your time a bit more so others are able to interpret what you’ve done without having to dig through diffs. Almost every other editor can do it. Danners430 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NOBR
Per advice I've received previously, WP:NOBR should be read with specific attention to Do not separate list items with line breaks (<br />). This means that HTML line breaks are permitted when not used to separate list items; and by association it is in fact improper to use templates like {{ubl}} to create line breaks outside lists as it will be incorrectly interpreted as a list by screen readers and other accessibility tools. Thanks. XAM2175(T)19:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of us do appreciate your adding something in the edit summary, User:Edgar Searle, even if it's just a brief personal code. Edit summaries are enormously helpful to admins and other editors, who might find themselves trying quickly to sort wheat from chaff during discussion. I like to think of wikipedians as moving together on this gigantic pitch. It's often true some of us tend to cluster around the ball and just whack at it again and again, but the best of us keep our heads up, eyes open, constantly moving, making space while communicating to our teammates. Sticking one's elbows out is a useful strategy and is helpful for editors working together on the same page. Again, thanks for helping. BusterD (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kawasaki M8
Hi, because of this movement not being covered by major news outlets, there are no links to prove this testing took place. If you would like to get in touch with me so I could prove with some photos taken, that'd be much appreciated, thanks. Please don't remove things unless you can verify they are false. RobelyBasis (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm XtraJovial. I noticed that you added content to New Flyer Xcelsior along with a citation, however the source you provided did not support the content. 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, taking care that the source directly supports the material. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The source you provided is for the E40LF and E60LF trolleybuses, which are not Xcelsior models. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
