User Talk: Someone who likes train writing

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(90d)
| archive = User talk:Someone who likes train writing/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 400K
| archiveheader = {{Archive}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 4
}}{{Talk header|search=yes|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|bottom=no||}}

About Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago and North Western 1385 (attempt 1) ↗

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hi, and thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to change the title of :Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago and North Western 1385 (attempt 1) ↗ by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into :Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Chicago and North Western 1385 ↗. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move ↗", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history ↗, which is legally required for attribution ↗. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be ''moved'' to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits ↗, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab ↗ at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu ↗ for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect ↗ from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves ↗ to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge ↗. Thank you.  Armbrust The Homunculus 18:02, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 120px ↗
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You have a good eye for good photographs and I commend you for collecting amazing work which would be fantastic to include in Wikipedia.

I regret that copyright is so complex. I can talk through options with you. I appreciate you asking. If you have more information talk it through at the Wikimedia Commons Village Pump for copyright. I did answer you at commons:special:permalink/1208499002#Photo_slides_acquired_from_EBay_ineligible_for_Commons_usage? ↗ ''' Bluerasberry '''(talk) 20:39, 4 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

LS&I 20

Hey my friend, since you mentioned you collect trains books and magazines and use them to provide sources for locomotive articles, do you happen to have any LS&I books or magazines that mentions LS&I No. 20? Because I’m trying my best to write it in my own words without copying and pasting info from the other LS&I steam locomotive articles. ~2026-26849-57 ↗ (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

:The problem is that I could only use those sources for so much, and as far as surviving steam locomotives go, No. 20 has to be one of, if not ''the'' least documented of all the survivors (probably tied with SC-1 No. 35), because in all the sources I have in hand, No. 20 is only foot-noted in any of them. It basically only follows No. 18 over the course of the preservation era from 1985-onwards, except instead of being operationally restored, its just left in storage (and cannibalized ↗ for parts on the SLRG), and David Schauer's book from 2015 only passively sums up its history up to that point. I think its better off to redirect that draft and leave No. 20 with mentions on 18 and 19's pages.
:I will say this, though, I've been meaning to fix the pages for SC-1 No. 33 ↗ and Duluth and Northern Minnesota 14 ↗ for a while now, but for No. 33 in particular, I don't have enough reliable sources in hand to cover its post-M&HM history. So if you ''really'' want to continue this LS&I streak and look that page over… Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

::No problem, I completely understand. I’ll just redirect the draft instead, thank you for the reasoning. I won’t continue with anyone LS&I steam locomotive articles, since you mentioned the lack of available reliable sources that mentions No. 20. As you said, I completely understand and I won’t continue with more LS&I articles. ~2026-26849-57 ↗ (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
:::Hey now, I do appreciate what you've tried to do here, and there are some notable surviving locomotives left that might need their own pages (like Texas and Pacific 316 and ''maybe'' Hampton and Branchville 44), but I'm just saying not every surviving steam locomotive ever has a detailed enough history to warrant their own page. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

::::Thanks, also what do you mean about redirecting all the LS&I locomotive articles, because I worked so hard on them. I really hate to see them go. ~2026-26849-57 ↗ (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2026 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned ↗ comment added by ~2026-28738-16 ↗ (talk) 
::::I apologize for deleting your talk page post on Trainsandotherthings's talk page, I misunderstood what you were talking about because I originally thought you wanted the articles deleted permanently and it got me scared for a second. After I reed your post again, I now understand what you talking about. It was a miscommunication. ~2026-28738-16 ↗ (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Apology

Hey my friend, I wasn’t sure if you got my previous message the other day. But I’m just letting you know again that I’m sorry for deleting you talk page message on Trainsandotherthings’s talk page, I know its against the policy rules to delete someone’s talk page message and I should habe known better, it was because I unfortunately misunderstand what you meant, when you mentioned about redirecting the LS&I locomotive articles, I originally thought you were asking them to be deleted permanently. It got me worried for a second because I’ve worked so hard on creating those articles, but after I reed your post again, now I understand what you mean now. Merging them into one article just like the East Broad Top Railroad Mikado locomotives ↗ article, that doesn’t sound too bad to me, but I’ll let you and Trainsandotherthings discuss it privately and see how this goes foward. ~2026-29003-13 ↗ (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

:I've just been pondering if that should be the right call or not, since the first halves of these pages are very similar, due to their matching origins. '''But''' I think they could also all be left alone and co-exist with an "LS&I Consolidation locomotives" page on the basis that individual vehicle pages co-existing with class pages are very common on Wikipedia, not just with locomotives, but also with, say, Space Shuttles ↗, Battleships ↗, and even automobiles (depending on how notable some are). If you think the individual pages are fine just the way they are, don't be afraid to speak for your mind. Just don't abruptly delete talk page topics. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

::Thanks, I know that was wrong. I will say that merging them into one article like the East Broad Top locomotives doesn’t sound like a bad idea, but I’ll let you and Trainsandotherthings decide. ~2026-29003-13 ↗ (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Grand Canyon Railway 4960 ↗

{| cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="margin:1em auto; border: 1px solid #CC9; background-color: #cfc"
|-
|75px|center| ↗
|<div style="text-align: center;">'''Your Featured picture candidate ↗ has been promoted'''</div> Your nomination for featured picture ↗ status, ''':File:Grand Canyon National Park seeks public comment on the Grand Canyon Railway wooden ballast bridge.jpg ↗''', gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates ↗. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:36, 17 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

Response

Just got your message. I'm just letting you know that I'm not sure what you mean by me on following the rules, I seriously don't know what I did wrong. If it's about the whole jumping to user page to user page thing you mentioned on my talk page, I swear that whole thing isn't my fault I swear it. Because I use the Wikipedia app and every once and a while when I go back into my app, it automatically logs me out of my account, I'm not sure if that's a glitch in the app or what, I'm not 100% sure. That I apologize for, or maybe because I tap log out by mistake. There are times I think about wanting to create an account, but I like using a temporary account because just because I like to keep my name private and anonymous. Because there were times I had bad experiences on other websites in the past were I was bullied numerous times by users who don't even know me, that's why I like to keep my name anonymous so I won't get bullied. But whenever I did I sincerely apologize, as I mentioned, the app will occasionally log me out automatically. I seriously hope you're not angry with me. ~2026-31299-59 ↗ (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

:I was just frustrated that your user number keeps changing, and all I meant was that I think it's best that you create a proper Wikipedia account with a proper username with all of your talk page messages kept on track, as if an admin gets on your case for whatever reason, deleting a message they left for you may break the rules. I'm just saying, if you want to continue contributing to this website, creating an account is simply the right thing to do here.
:Also, this only started when I asked if you could look over the page on Canadian Pacific 2839 ↗ and see if you could expand it in your own way at all. I’ve seen you do that sort of thing for some other pages, like Soo Line 1003 ↗. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks, I just wanted to make sure you weren't mad. Also, sorry if I went into full detail about why I didn't want to create an account. But it is the truth, I just like using a temporary accounts better because it keeps everyone's information private. There are times I can't deal with social media due to the way it was treated on other websites I was apart of in the past. But I completely understand now what you mean, I'm sorry for deleting your message on my talk page, I removed it because I was worried for a minute that you were upset with me, as you already mentioned, you weren't. My anxiety makes me do that, some messages users leave me make me think they are upset with me, which sometimes they are not. I'm ok now thanks to your explanation.
::P.S. As for the Canadian Pacific 2839 ↗ and Canadian Pacific 2850 ↗ articles, I'll see what I can do and I'll do my best. Because I'm not always on the site all the time, I only edit on occasion. But I will still see what I can do to update them. ~2026-31299-59 ↗ (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Question

I also forgot to ask, are you and Trainsandotherthings still planning to merged all of the LS&I locomotive articles into one like the East Broad Top locomotives? I'm a little hesitant to see that happen because in my point if view, they kinda look fine the way they are with their own articles. This is just my opinion, I kinda think merging them into one list article is kind of a waste it time. No offense, but that's just my opinion. ~2026-31299-59 ↗ (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

:Well he has not gotten back to me yet so I don't know. But frankly, as of now, I think the pages seem alright as they are. I appreciate you creating them, but I just thought I'd try to make things better organized here on Wikipedia. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks, I appreciate the kind words, I understand you wanted to organize them better for the site. I just send him a reply message to your converted you had with him about it last week. But like I said, I'm telling you guys what to do, it's just my personal opinion. We will wait and see what Trainsandotherthings decides about it. ~2026-31299-59 ↗ (talk) 15:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Important ?

Is there any errors in my steam excursion maps? As I need them as accurate as possible for obvious reasons. Thanks!

-Tristateguy.nj TriStateGuy (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

:I could not tell you how accurate every excursion map for every excursion star ever is, as I only know so much. No. 610, I know because I researched hard on the locomotive a couple years ago, and I have Jim Wrinn's SOU/NS steam program book to confirm where it went. I will say this though. I do have a 2007 ''Trains ↗'' issue that comes with a literal map showing which states MILW 261 went up to that point, and I have a CB&Q book that details where Nos. 4960 and 5632 went for their steam program, so if you're gonna make a map for any of those, let me know. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

June 2026 Good Article Backlog Drive

{| class="barnstar" style="border:1px solid gray; background:#fdffe7;"
|-
|rowspan="2" style="padding-right:5px;" | 100px ↗

|style="font-size:1.65em; padding:0; height: 1.1em;" | The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
|-
|style="border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This award is given in recognition to Someone who likes train writing for accumulating at least 7 points during the 2026 June GA backlog elimination drive. Thank you for your efforts! -- Reconrabbit (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
|}