User talk:Danners430

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user has publicly declared that he has a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles:

Class 57 References[edit]

Hi, I updated the 57 fleet data to the latest information, I can't link to a source but I do work for Porterbrook who own a large portion of the fleet 2A02:C7C:449F:2E00:F4CF:CBAF:DD63:110C (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't matter - if you can't link to a source, then it's nothing more than original research, and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Danners430 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't know how to add source info, but this article tells you about the /3's transferring to GBRf, is this enough info?
www.everand.com/article/639821039/Gb-Railfreight-To-Take-On-Class-57-3s DJAZS (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That article says they are due to change operator, not that they have - see WP:CRYSTAL.
I would suggest taking this to the article talk page now, as you have already broken the 3 revert rule, for which you could be blocked.
As for how to write sources, see Help:Referencing for beginners. Danners430 (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

69011[edit]

As you removed the 69011 livery information, I note that I have readded it noting a video in which the unit appears. The livery appears by all accounts to match that of 69008 except for the number. I do not have access to UK magazines and don't know if we want to source the Youtube video, so a better source can be added later to make it all proper. The video does confirm the edit. CycloneGU (talk) 23:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube is not a reliable source. If there isn't a reliable source that can be used, then the information doesn't belong on Wikipedia - see WP:TRUTH Danners430 (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say there is NOT a reliable source - just that I do not know what it would be. Also, how is a visual video of the train going by in its livery not a valid source? It very clearly shows the livery right there. There are multiple videos showing it in this livery. I mean, hypothetically, a reliable source could publish incorrect information and it sounds like you would prefer to use that incorrect information over what the eyes can see in such a circumstance. CycloneGU (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube videos generally fall under user generated content, which mean they are not reliable sources. As for your assertion of preferring incorrect information - I prefer to follow Wikipedia policy, one of which is verifiability not truth. Danners430 (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4073 Class Caption[edit]

Hi, other pages of locomotives such as the Royal Scot class, Coronations, etc have captions like the one I edited into the 4073, so why remove it? Threepeater11 (talk) 00:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways about this very topic - probably best to weigh in there Danners430 (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Class 91 Grand Union[edit]

Morning. I noticed you undid my Removal of class 91 future proposed services from Euston to Stirling with grand union, when they have announced they are no longer chasing this option? Curious as to why. Cheers :) SpeedyWombat88 (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.granduniontrains.co.uk/stirlingtolondon/
source :) SpeedyWombat88 (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be removed in its entirety - it's still a notable part of history. Instead maybe consider moving it to a new section, such as aborted proposals, and note that source as evidence that it's no longer being pursued.
However, as per my message on your talk page, please don't just use a bare url. Danners430 (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]