User talk:Someone who likes train writing

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, Someone who likes train writing, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to Grand Canyon Railway seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RickyCourtney (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chicago Burlington and Quincy No. 4960 has been accepted

Chicago Burlington and Quincy No. 4960, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 07:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Great work on Chicago_Burlington_and_Quincy_No._4960

Sulfurboy (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Canyon Railway 4960, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boiler tube. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Canadian Pacific Railway No. 1293

added a link pointing to Ohio Central Railroad

Western Maryland Scenic Railroad

added a link pointing to Chicago, Madison and Northern Railroad

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Pacific Railway No. 1293, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ohio Central Railroad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft for UP 5511

Hey there, I just wanted to say that I’m grateful for the recent pages you wrote on steam locomotives recently. If you have the chance, it would be also great if you’re able to help us write about the UP 5511. With its recent acquisition by the RRHMA, I thought you would also be able to help us write about that locomotive, including its history and the planned restoration that will bring it back into service. There’s a draft for it now that can be found at Draft:Union Pacific 5511. Help us out if you can. Thanks a lot again for your work! Davidng913 (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I can write about the locomotive as much as I can, and be sure that it’s detailed enough to be public. I really appreciate the compliment regarding what I have written recently! Thank you. I’ll see what I can do about that 5511 page. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Union Pacific 5511 has been accepted

Union Pacific 5511, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Someone who likes train writing

Thank you for creating Canadian Pacific 972.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for this article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Sugar 148

Don't add a new information about No. 148 double-heading with No. 972 until you give it a very reliable source. I've removed it because YouTube is not a reliable source. You'll be free to add it back, once you've cited this information found on ONLY one of the train books or magazines.  Trains13 (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that and a link from Grassroots Railroad Sports, which contains people explaining plenty of bits of 148’s history, are the only sources I could ever find online about this semi-infamous doubleheader outside of Railpictures. If I ever find a source about it from a book or magazine, I’ll put that in the 148 page. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Railpictures.net if I were you. Because it's a railfan/fansite page and fansites are not reliable sources. See the Wikipedia's Potentially unreliable sources "Fansites" section here.  Trains13 (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Modifications lists in articles response

The number one consideration is to prevent an article from being removed with all of the unsourced information needed to remove and the section of many modifications has none of them. In my opinion, some of these bits of "modification" information should be part of the history section and the GSMR 1702 page needs to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. That's the reason why I've removed the modification section of the GSMR 1702 page in the first place. Trains13 (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I left citations at the very beginning of the list in 4960’s page, plus one near the end of it. Last I checked, most of them were from official GCRY employees. In order to bring the modification list back, must I duplicate the reliable sources throughout the page? Also, the reason why I made modification lists in the first place was because I was feeling inspired by the lists already in the Strasburg 475 and 90 pages. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Wikipedia talk:Notability#Notability of train stations may be of interest to you. It involves whether train stations are automatically included in the encyclopedia. Djflem (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Removing broader category when you add a more specific one

Hey i find myself going through Category:Preserved steam locomotives of the United States to remove that category, because a more specific category such as Category:Preserved steam locomotives of California applies, and in most or all cases was already added by you, as in this edit. It's not a big deal, and your edits definitely help either way, but i wish you had removed the broader US category in those edits. I think (do you agree?) that the current, usually "permanent" location of a preserved locomotive is the one location/state that is relevant, and all the state categories are subcategories of the US one already, so the US category in each article is duplicative. I am interpreting "of California" as "in California" and may request changeover of all "of"s to "in"s. "Of" seems vague and could mean any state in which the locomotive operated, rather than just the one state where it is. What do u think, and do u want to be invited to a CFD discussion for that? This cleaning up categories is part of my trying to develop list-article now in draft at Draft:Preserved locomotives in the United States. Cheers, --Doncram (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Noted. I for one probably should have deleted those Preserved United States category links when I made those subcategories in the first place, but of course it's not a big deal. I do appreciate the reminder. And good luck on finishing your draft, ;) Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Huntingdon and Broad Top Mountain Railroad and Coal Co. 38 has been accepted

Huntingdon and Broad Top Mountain Railroad and Coal Co. 38, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Norfolk and Western 578 has been accepted

Norfolk and Western 578, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Gusfriend (talk) 07:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Conway Scenic Railroad locomotive status

How goes it Someone Who Likes Train Wring? Look I’m not trying to tell you what to do, but is there by any chance if you could fix 7470’s status on the Conway Scenic Railroad article from "Out of Service; undergoing repairs" to "Operational"? Because it has since returned to service again ever since the cab has been fixed after the fire incident. Is it ok if you can fix it by any chance? I tried to fix it myself, but the page is protected from vandalism. 2603:3005:1504:F000:402B:99F1:3AEB:72B3 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC) 2603:3005:1504:F000:402B:99F1:3AEB:72B3 (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The status of the locomotive already says it's operational. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The Canadian National 7470 article is actually not what I meant by its status, I meant can you fix 7470’s status here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway_Scenic_Railroad#Locomotive_Roster on the Conway Scenic Railroad article itself. Because for months nobody hasn’t changed/fixed it to its current status now, because it now returned to steam after its fire incident a few months ago. Like I said, no pressure. Just whenever you get a change. 73.186.22.73 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Locomotive status reply

The Canadian National 7470 article is actually not what I meant by its status to be fixed, I meant can you fix 7470’s status here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway_Scenic_Railroad#Locomotive_Roster on the Conway Scenic Railroad article itself, from "Out of Service; undergoing repairs" to "Operational". Because for months nobody hasn’t changed/fixed it to its current status now, because it is now back under steam again after its fire incident a few months ago. Like I said, no pressure at all. Just fix it whenever you get a change. 73.186.22.73 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Chesapeake and Ohio 2716

Do not add duplicate links of the Kentucky Steam Heritage Corporation to the 2716 page. It was already linked in the infobox. Trains13 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I made one link in the brief description, because not very many people are even reading the KSHCO page, and I was only trying to shed some light. What's wrong with duplicate links anyway? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I did this to prevent the overlink crisis. Trains13 (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay….I had no idea duplicative links would be a problem that big. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canadian National 1392 has been accepted

Canadian National 1392, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Canadian National 1009 has been accepted

Canadian National 1009, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Western Coal and Coke 1 has been accepted

Western Coal and Coke 1, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chicago, Burlington and Quincy 4963 has been accepted

Chicago, Burlington and Quincy 4963, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

— Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 14:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Duluth and Northeastern 29 has been accepted

Duluth and Northeastern 29, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

a 1,472-day boiler inspection

re [1] OK, but perhaps you could reword it? As it stands, it reads like the inspection lasts for 1472 days. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Maine Central 501

Is there any chance you could edit the Conway Scenic Railroad article again, because I made an edit request on the talk page about Maine Central 501 undergoing its restoration now, but no one has responded yet. 2600:1000:B040:114:7981:F735:6D9B:A53D (talk) 23:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Source?

Hey thetracksidephotographer.com/2021/04/15/a-passion-for-steam-2/ Is this the source you used in building the GTW 5629 article? 23.169.64.51 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is. Why? Someone who likes train writing (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Just needed to be sure. Thanks. 23.169.64.51 (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

List of Proposed Pages Someone Left Me

Hey, sorry about what happened on my talk page earlier but I have been getting bombarded by requests nonstop. I know nothing about this list, and chances are, you might be able to handle this list a bit better than I am. Here's the entire list I was given:

• Draft:Hampton & Branchville 44
• Draft:St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway 5
• Draft:Sumter & Choctaw 103
• Draft:Cherokee Brick & Tile 1
• Draft:Nickel Plate Road 755
• Draft:Nickel Plate Road 757
• Draft:Hillcrest Lumber Company 10
• Draft:Dardanelle and Russellville Railroad 8
• Draft:Phenix Marble Company 1
• Draft:East Broad Top 12
• Draft:East Broad Top 14
• Draft:East Broad Top 15
• Draft:East Broad Top 16
• Draft:East Broad Top 17
• Draft:East Broad Top 18
• Draft:Wilmington and Western 58
• Draft:Wilmington and Western 98
• Draft:Virginia and Truckee 11 Reno
• Draft:Virginia and Truckee 21 J.W. Bowker
• Draft:Lowville and Beaver River Railroad 8
• Draft:Union Pacific 4420
• Draft:Southern Pacific 1233
• Draft:Southern Pacific 1269
• Draft:Canadian Pacific 2839
• Draft:Canadian Pacific 2860

As I now understand that you have a job in between, there is no pressure in completing everything listed. If you know someone else who can also help out, I would also appreciate if you can share this list as well. Thanks again for your help!

Davidng913 (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Davidng913 thanks for reaching out to me. When I find the time, I’ll see what I can do about some of them.

However, the thing about these pages is that most of the locomotives each of these drafts discuss are so obscure that not very many “reliable” sources (User:Trains13 (I’m sorry to tag you, but I thought you’d like to see this message as well for the heck of it) taught me that apparently reliable sources are the only way to make a good page with actually valid information) even mention these locomotives at all. I’ve learned this the hard way when I made pages for other obscure locomotives like Copper Range 29, Norfolk and Western 578, and Western Coal and Coke 1. Very little to no reliable sources even mention these three locomotives. Duluth and Northeastern 29 especially had zero valid sources about it.

Also, User:Xboxtravis7992 just made a single page that discusses all of the East Broad Top’s preserved 2-8-2 locomotives, so independent pages for each of those locomotives won’t be necessary in my opinion. I’ve recently ordered a book online about the Connecticut Valley Railroad, so I can continue editing my Susquehanna 142 draft, and maybe add more “valid info” to Valley Railroad 40. After that, I might see what I can do for the drafts that actually do have reliable sources. Canadian Pacific Numbers 2839 and 2860 are pretty well known about, so finding reliable sources about those would be fairly easy. For now, what I would also do is contact the user responsible for these drafts’ existence and ask em why they made them in the first place.

And another thing, User talk:23.169.64.51, please don’t go off manipulating other users to do something they probably don’t have time to do so. You seem to have improved in recent times, but if you want to really be taken seriously, make an official Wikipedia account with a real name instead of some anonymous number code.

Lastly, I have social media accounts on Discord, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Steam, but in all of those, endless drama happens. When I first joined Wikipedia, I thought no drama happens on this website ever, as it’s a pretty peaceful website where users are polite to each other and edit pages without fuss. I was proven to be dead wrong, especially when I was tagged by some anonymous troll today.

I’m sorry if this message is so excessive and you guys probably didn’t ask to hear most of this, but I just thought I’d also express my feelings on how creating and editing Wikipedia pages has been slightly harder for me lately and that on the internet, nowhere is safe. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 02:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Chicago and North Western 1385

Hi Someone who likes train writing. You adde short form references for "Railway Master Mechanic (1907)" and "American Engineer and Railroad Journal (1907)" to Chicago and North Western 1385, but there are no cites in the article (e.g. {{cite book}}) to confirm what these works are. Could you add the required cites or let me know the details so I can create them? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Where I got these 1907 titles from is actually a steamlocomotive.com website. I was just worried that steamlocomotive.com counts as an “unreliable source” on Wikipedia, so I looked for where the specifications came from, and I thought I found my answer just by finding these two titles. In actuality, these titles are more than likely withheld from the public eye, so they wouldn’t really be suitable citations, if they’re as anonymous as private messages on, say, Gmail or Facebook. Sorry about this. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw you remake the 1385 article from the ground up, and thank you so much for that! I’ve asked plenty of other people to do something like that to fall in line with the other articles, but I’d say you did just that. I’d say it deserves a GA Nominee. Now could you fix the other articles I just made, please? Larrysteamfan (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You seriously cannot be this naive! We’ve been over this! I didn’t remake 1385’s page for you, as I’ve been on a little spree to fix mistakes I have made overtime on Wikipedia. Whenever you make mistakes, you don’t even try to learn from them. You try to be so manipulative to have other people do the work for you. @NorfolkandWesternBoi, User:70.188.111.54, that last part goes for y’all, too. I know everyone gets occupied by something outside of the internet, but to be brutally honest, that’s no excuse to ask someone to do the work for you. I know I ask other people on Wikipedia sometimes, but unlike y’all, at least I don’t demand them to do tall orders. It’s good to ask for help, but not to manipulate others to do the work you could just easily do yourself. The whole point of logging onto Wikipedia is actually making a good contribution, not just tell people to do something they wouldn’t want to do. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I get it now, I'll try not to take up your help to much next time. But I'm now semi retired from Wikipedia, as I only create an article or even edit stuff when something catches my attention. DomtheN&WFan (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m really sorry, man. And I’m sorry to you, too, Trainsfan1331, if you feel harassed by my past messages. I now get what this is about, but I’m kind of with Dom on this one, as I’m also semi-retired. Though, I also know I can’t just leave all those remaining drafts in the dust. Somebody has to take care of them, so if you don’t wanna do it, I’ll do my best to make sure they’re all cited myself, and then I might retire completely once I’m done. I’m REALLY sorry, SWLTR, TSF1331, Dom, and everyone else I’ve harassed before who may or may not be reading this. Larrysteamfan (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Larrysteamfan Thank you. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thomas & friends

Can you expand the Duncan page you just made so he can have his own page? Please TomyTNF (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No, I have very little to no knowledge about the proper sources needed to make that happen. Heck, the only reason I even made that page was for a dumb April fools joke. Now leave that redirect alone, I’m sure the character doesn’t even need a Wikipedia page, anyway. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

But I want him to have a page. But suit yourself. TomyTNF (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

First of all, learn some grammar, and secondly, it doesn’t matter if you “want” it. As far as I’m concerned, there aren’t that many good sources to back the page up. If you want to try to prove otherwise, be my guest. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

WMSR Locomotives

Just for your information, I have changed my stance from support to oppose on the pages for 1309 and 734. Davidng913 (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Southern Pacific 2248

Can you try to create this article?: Southern Pacific 2248

That will be a great pleasure 110.175.51.198 (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

When I find the time to do so, yes. I have been collecting plenty of old magazines from the 80’s and 90’s, two of which have long articles about the Texas State Railroad. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, your a legend to wikipedia 110.175.51.198 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

List of articles to be done I have assigned to you (Part One)

For the majority of the articles listed here is for you to take care of as you're a legend to Wikipedia and since you are doing Southern Pacific 2248 soon as of the making of this message, here's a list for you to do in the future:

• Draft:Norfolk and Western 1240
• Draft:Norfolk and Western 2174
• Draft:Texas and Pacific 638
• Draft:East Broad Top 12
• Draft:Canadian National 1551
• Draft:Canadian Pacific 2860
• Draft:Canadian Pacific 2839
• Draft:Southern Pacific 1294
• Draft:Southern Pacific 1727
• Draft:Southern Pacific 1765
• Draft:Southern Pacific 2252
• Draft:Norfolk and Western Class Y6b

More of these will be coming soon in the future (as previously mentioned) 110.175.51.198 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I said this to another user before, and I’ll say it again. Most of these locomotives are not notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. I do believe SP 2248, CP 2839, 2860, CN 1551, and EBT 12 are notable enough, and I can find enough sources to back them all up in due time, but the rest are not significant enough. They have a better chance at getting mentioned in Wikipedia lists, or having their own Fandom Wiki pages. Yes, I have made multiple pages for many obscure steam locomotives for two years, but I was kind of living in denial, and I didn’t know how reliable sources work here on Wikipedia, yet. Thanks to a friend teaching me sense over a few edit warrings, I now know not every single preserved steam locomotive needs their own page, and not every nitty gritty detail needs to be listed, unless an official published source backs them up.

I can absolutely help you complete some of these drafts in due time, but I don’t think all of them are notable enough to make the cut. I’m sorry. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

WillJSimpson

Said user is giving you the infamous finger gesture! 😧: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Sugar_148&diff=prev&oldid=1190620179 611fan2001 (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh for the love of Pete… Thanks for the heads up. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Bad news, this user is being a total sicko! 611fan2001 (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is this user like this?! Was anyone even watching them, if they’re really under the influence?!

Well, it looks like they’re blocked, now, so at least we won’t have to deal with them for a while... Someone who likes train writing (talk) 02:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

He's now on the naughty list this month. 611fan2001 (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I hope you know I’ve had nothing to do with all that so-called sock puppetry nonsense, and I appreciate you sticking up for me.

Merry Christmas. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Someone who likes train writing. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public. You may instead email the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-enwikimedia.org with your username and appeal.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I have had nothing to do with this nonsensical sock puppetry. I don’t know what those other users were on when they contributed to this website the way they did, but I would absolutely never create alternative accounts here on Wikipedia, especially if it’s for vandalism. I knew vandalism was against the rules from the get-go, and I only signed up here edit pages with accurate information and grammar. I just learned how to properly add information with reliable sources earlier this year, too.

Just because those users may use similar grammar to what I use, doesn’t mean we’re the same person. They did stuff I would completely disagree with, especially WillJ’s editing under the influence. Please give me another chance to contribute to Wikipedia. I’ve had no control whatsoever over the bad editing that has happened on this website over the past few months. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Saying that you are not connected to those accounts simply isn't going to work. Have a look at Wikipedia:CheckUser for the type of evidence you would be arguing against. I strongly suggest you read the Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks before using the {{unblock}} template, the following sections are relevant to your block §Sockpuppetry blocks and §Checkuser blocks. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I have had absolutely no control over those accounts you listed. User:Larrysteamfan put out a lot of information on pages about obscure steam locomotives, like Polson Logging Co. 2, Mount Emily Lumber Co. 1, Columbia River Belt Line 7, and Wilmington and Western 98. They’re filled with info I never pay attention to, because most of the sources he used are mostly unreliable. I didn’t even know he made most of these pages until this block, especially that Illinois Central 2613 page. He also stated he was done contributing to this website weeks ago. Plus, this user corrected some info I didn’t know was incorrect to begin with. User:WillJSimpson acted abysmally to me and abused some random pages, and then he tried to void his block by creating a second account while trying to act nice. I don’t think he even tried to appeal to his first block. My point is, while these users use a very similar style of grammar as me, and while their timing may seem suspicious to you, I have absolutely no control over their accounts. They’re completely separate people behind completely separate screens from what I’m using. If they really are “sock puppet” accounts, I have no control over that. User:Panian513 and User:Izno, I’m sorry, but you two were accusing the wrong user. Just because they seem to have the same interests and grammar as I do, doesn’t mean we’re all the same person. I would never vandalize Wikipedia under any circumstances. I’m being as honest as I can.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Someone who likes train writing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you unblock me now, I will use my Wikipedia editing capabilities for a really good cause. I just learned how to use reliable sources this year, too. If there is an edit I feel needs to be made, I will use my main account for that. If I ever need a break from this website, I’ll just stay away from it instead of leaving a message stating I’m taking a break. I also would never use the internet under the influence, not that I ever plan on going under the influence, because I know I wouldn’t think straight. I’m currently a year too young for that, too. I don’t need a secondary account to edit a page, because I don’t see a reason why I need to pretend to be someone I’m not on this website. One of the main reasons why signed up for Wikipedia is because I thought this would be a peaceful website, compared to other sites on the internet, and I figured no drama happens here. Of course, drama like what WillJ created proved me wrong, but I still ignored that and pressed on. I want to continue editing Wikipedia pages to spread accurate information with reliable sources. I know vandalizing a page for laugh’s isn’t really funny. I am asking for a fair chance to prove I am mature enough to not cause any real trouble on this website. Don’t keep me blocked over something that wasn’t my fault.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Just an act

User:Larrysteamfan this is my email address. bricklover844@outlook.com. You and I should talk privately right now! Someone who likes train writing (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you're unfairly blocked... :( 611fan2001 (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It’s not your fault. This guy seriously threw me under the bus. Just as I was collecting more magazines and books with more info to add to pages, too. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Who am I kidding?! I lied to you! All this me talking to Larry and WillJ nonsense was all a setup. I threw myself under the bus! I made a huge comment at the bottom of this talk page that explains everything. You will hate me so much after this. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I see it would take forever for me to regain your trust again after all the crud I fed you. If you don’t ever want to forgive me or even talk to me again, I get it. I don’t know what the heck I was thinking when I deceived you. I felt like I actually did want to be your friend, believe me, and I thought of asking if you if you had a Discord account at one point. But instead, I foolishly tried to take advantage of the anger issues you once described in your account description, and it actually felt so so wrong every time I did it. When you tried to defend me after I got blocked, I could not let you continue defending me for nothing. I am truly genuinely sorry for what I did to you. I won’t ever ever lie to you or anyone on Wikipedia again, but I’m pretty sure you think I will do otherwise in the near future. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Someone who likes train writing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was wrongfully accused for sock puppetry-creating multiple accounts and abusing them to create disruptive and inappropriate edits. This was all really done by someone who apparently just so happens to have the same interests and grammar style as me, and he lives close to me, so we share the same IP address. I understand the admins are trying to protect Wikipedia pages from vandals and disruptions, and if I get unblocked, I wholeheartedly promise I will not do any disruptive damage to any page. If I get unblocked, I will only concentrate on adding correct information to pages with proper sources from magazines, books, and published news articles. I currently have a whole lot of info to add to certain steam locomotives with the sources I have, I just want to add them gradually, as I do have a life outside the internet. I would not do anything to make any disruptive edits. That is not what I signed up here on Wikipedia for. Me and the real culprit of the mass attack just spoke in person today, and while I really don’t forgive him, he says he is sorry and does want me to make constructive edits. He promises not to do any of his wrongful actions here again, but if he breaks his word and causes trouble anyway, I’ll talk to him.

Decline reason:

Checkusers can see more than just the IP address and in light of that your proposed explanation is very unlikely. If you did something silly, I recommend just owning up to it. An indefinite block isn't infinite and if you can convince an administrator that you are being honest and that you won't do it again, you'd have a good chance at being unblocked, especially considering your history of constructive contributions prior to this incident. But continuing with this WP:LITTLEBROTHER story is unlikely to be fruitful. Spicy (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone who likes train writing (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Yamla Could you please look over my request? It addresses the reason for my block. If you’re busy right now, I’m in no hurry. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Someone who likes train writing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked, because I was accused of sock puppetry, as there are multiple accounts that share the same internet details as my main account. If I get unblocked, I guarantee you that I will not let this happen again anyhow. I signed up here on Wikipedia to make constructive edits to pages, not to tell lies and disrupt people’s lives. I actually support Wikipedia’s needs, as I do now donate $5 to the foundation every month. I have multiple magazines and books that I want to use as reliable sources for information on other pages, such as Susquehanna 142 and Santa Fe 3751. I really don’t plan on disrupting any page or any user at any moment in the future. If I get unblocked, you can watch me and any other account under the same IP address for about a month or two from now, and I promise that you’ll see that I can behave on Wikipedia well, regardless if I’m ever under probation.

Decline reason:

I find your explanation unconvincing given the technical details, and I'm declining your request accordingly. I would encourage you to follow Spicy's advice above. --Blablubbs (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Someone who likes train writing (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The real truth about me

Okay, I have a very real confession to make… @611fan2001, @Jackdude101, @Trainsandotherthings, @NorfolkandWesternBoi, there’s something I need to tell you all. Those admins are right about me, me and Larrysteamfan are the same person, and I was the one who made all those other accounts! There, I said it! I am so sorry, I deceived you all! There is no person who shares everything in common with me in my neighborhood! I never even use Reddit or Twitter, and my real life name isn’t even Larry! I…am an insecure person, okay? I am a deceiver and a bully! I became the very thing I swore not to. Another careless person who doesn’t learn certain lessons and allows habits to resurface. I’m actually really friendly most of the time, but sometimes, I also kept making spur in the moment decisions to intentionally mess with someone on the internet. I was contemptible and thought I could get away with it! I am mostly friendly but I sometimes like to be silly and screw with someone. These are my true colors, but I have been slowly getting better about it overtime. I decided to edit Wikipedia with an anonymous account, because at the time, I wanted to make edits I didn’t want anyone to see was done by my main. This year, when I started using proper published reliable sources, I wanted to keep using that alt account to edit pages about some obscure steam locomotives, like Polson Logging Co. 2, St. Louis, Iron Mountain and Southern Railway 5, and Columbia River Belt Line 7 but at the cost of mostly using unreliable sources. As time went on, I grew to realize using unreliable sources anyhow hurts Wikipedia, so I eventually retired that account altogether, using fake reasons why that account was done. I’m so sorry NorfolkandWesternBoi, but I really never left Wikipedia. I’m still here, but I really knew very little to nothing about some of the page topics you asked me to expand, so I never finished those. I did in fact sign up for Wikipedia back in 2020 to edit pages with accurate information, but sometimes, for the past year or so, I also kept making spur in the moment decisions to create some random account and use it to annoy the heck out of another user by intentionally making disruptive edits or sending disruptive messages, which meant breaking the rules of Wikipedia. I tried to troll other Wikipedia users, because I either wanted to cheer myself up or thought it would’ve been funny. Again, I thought I could get away with it! I also had my main account talk to my alts every once in a while to cover my tracks a little bit. @JackDude202, me. @TomyTNF, me. I’m so sorry, JackDude101, you really are amazing at what you do, and I should never have been so disrespectful to you in such a belittling way. @SPS700, also me, just because I wanted to fix some mistakes I put out about Polson No. 2. @WillJSimpson and @WillJacobSimpson, I don’t even know why I made these accounts, but I recently used the first one, since I decided to go back and forth over one stupid note on the U.S. Sugar 148 page and decide whether it should have stayed a note or be part of the main article. In hindsight, that was kind of a moronic move for me. And then, although I haven’t done anything really stupid on Wikipedia in a few months before this, I thought it was a good idea to let my habits resurface momentarily, because I was feeling sad for some reason, and use the account to troll with pages again just for my own entertainment. Even going as far as pretending to be drunk, without actually being so. That’s what ultimately led to admins finding me out and blocking me and most of my alt’s on Christmas Eve. I…kind of deserved it, in all things considered. I was horrible to quite a few users, and the admins really did the right thing to protect Wikipedia. I panicked and tried to lie myself out of this situation to convince the admins to unblock me, but it hasn’t been working. The admins can see my technical data via checkuser. A couple have encouraged me to just tell the truth. 611fan2001 has been trying to defend me, and he told the Larry alt it wouldn’t be forgiven, because “it threw me under the bus”. He also called me his buddy. Reading that message broke me. I realized I could not drag this on any longer. 611fan, I’m so sorry, but I lied to you. I probably treated you the worst of all, because you faced some of my alts, and I for some reason thought to use them the same way some of those anonymous users used Wikipedia. I was way worse than how you probably were back in 2019. I don’t deserve to be 611fan’s friend. Real friends don’t lie to each other. I don’t deserve to be anyone’s friend. I doubt even after revealing the truth of what I had done on this peaceful website, 611fan or any of these users I’ve interacted before will ever trust me again. It’s still true that I have been collecting books and magazines about trains for the past several months with more info to add to pages, but I have been completely dishonest to users, in terms of my alt accounts. I kept pretending to be someone who doesn’t exist, but as time went on, managing multiple fake identities would get exhausting. So I kept promising myself I wouldn’t do this again, but I very slowly kept doing it anyway. This block, though, really is a wake-up call for me. If no one on Wikipedia wants to give me another chance after seeing this long message, I understand. I don’t deserve to be trusted. But I have slowly been maturing over this year, and I kept thinking using that WillJ account was going to be a one-time fluke before I stop abusing this website completely. I am kind of a pathetic loser. I don’t deserve trust, but I want trust. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 08:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Someone who likes train writing (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The admins were right about me, I did this to myself, but I insulted their intelligence. I am a very friendly but pretty insecure person. I edit Wikipedia pages as a hobby, and it is something I care so deeply about. If I get unblocked, all that stupid nonsense I pulled over the past year will never ever happen again. From now on, any and all edits I make at this particular IP address will be made by Someone who likes train writing. I highly respect the way Wikipedia needs to be treated.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=The admins were right about me, I did this to myself, but I insulted their intelligence. I am a very friendly but pretty insecure person. I edit Wikipedia pages as a hobby, and it is something I care so deeply about. If I get unblocked, all that stupid nonsense I pulled over the past year will never ever happen again. From now on, any and all edits I make at this particular IP address will be made by Someone who likes train writing. I highly respect the way Wikipedia needs to be treated. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=The admins were right about me, I did this to myself, but I insulted their intelligence. I am a very friendly but pretty insecure person. I edit Wikipedia pages as a hobby, and it is something I care so deeply about. If I get unblocked, all that stupid nonsense I pulled over the past year will never ever happen again. From now on, any and all edits I make at this particular IP address will be made by Someone who likes train writing. I highly respect the way Wikipedia needs to be treated. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=The admins were right about me, I did this to myself, but I insulted their intelligence. I am a very friendly but pretty insecure person. I edit Wikipedia pages as a hobby, and it is something I care so deeply about. If I get unblocked, all that stupid nonsense I pulled over the past year will never ever happen again. From now on, any and all edits I make at this particular IP address will be made by Someone who likes train writing. I highly respect the way Wikipedia needs to be treated. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Someone who likes train writing (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

WHAT?! How could you deceive me like that? 😞 611fan2001 (talk) 11:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

This is very disappointing, as I had come to respect your contributions. That said, I appreciate you being honest, and in light of your positive contributions, I believe you could very well eventually be unblocked granted you agree to no more tricks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Believe me, I really don’t agree with any of the tricks I’ve pulled before, and I won’t ever do that again, if the admins unblock me. I think it will take awhile for anyone on Wikipedia to trust me again. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Callanecc, what are your thoughts on an unblock with a one-account restriction? Don't get me wrong - I'm not impressed with how long it took to get to this point, and I think the response above displays somewhat of a lack of maturity - but on the other hand, they have a history of good content contributions and I assume that they've learned their lesson from this debacle, so I'm willing to give them a second chance. Of course, any more socking or nonsense would lead to a reinstatement of the indefinite block. Spicy (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, if I seemed a bit immature there. Telling the truth in front of all those users just wasn’t easy for me, especially since I ended up breaking 611fan2001’s trust, and now I don’t think he wants to talk to me again. Anyway, yes I have learned my lesson. I promised myself not to use alt accounts again months ago, but I recently did it again anyway, because I wanted to get a good laugh out of myself. I don’t know what I was thinking. But I really mean it this time when I say I’ll never use alt accounts on Wikipedia again. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

@Spicy: I'm okay with a one-account restriction but would also want a restriction from doing any logged out editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Callanecc yes, I assumed that was implied :) Someone who likes train writing, do you agree to these restrictions? To be absolutely clear this means you would not be able to edit as an IP or to use any other account, even if it would otherwise be considered a legitimate use of alternate accounts. Spicy (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I legitimately agree. All I want is to make good contributions to Wikipedia. I would still feel the restrain, but I brought this upon myself… If you’re just doing whatever is absolutely necessary to protect Wikipedia, I understand. If it means I can still edit anyhow, I would be grateful. Someone who likes train writing (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)