User talk:QuarioQuario54321

Write messages below.

]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Nomination of

MacBook Air (M1)

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacBook Air (M1) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. Woodroar (talk) 18:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QuarioQuario54321, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. 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 complete 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. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to

Please start adding reliable sources for every content addition you make. You have already had 2 previous warnings on your talk page to do so. SK2242 (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi QuarioQuario54321, When you edit things/information on articles. Remember that you must provide a valid reliable sources and please do not provide an outright libelous information to articles. If you edited a information and didn’t provide a reliable sources will be speedily reverted. If you want to learn about reliable sources, please see WP:RS.

Sincerely, DFW FAA Brianvators (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @QuarioQuario54321, I just wanted to warn you that your user page being used as promotion is inappropriate, and so is your signature calling for people to subscribe. If you don’t want to see this notice on your page soon, you should change it pronto. Just a heads up! — HTGS (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve already removed his YouTube Channel link on his user page to prevent spam. DFW FAA Brianvators (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CRRC Massachusetts and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CRRC Massachusetts, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QuarioQuario54321! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Rusalkii (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Rusalkii was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:CRRC MA HR4000
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:CRRC MA HR4000, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Rusalkii (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SL C1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ASJ.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by FeralOink were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The draft is sourced from a single publication, and it is not sufficiently notable to be its own article on Wikipedia. Given that CRRC MA HR4000 is a product made by CRRC, and there is already a CRRC

Wikipedia article, consider merging some of this draft's content into that article. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:CRRC MA HR4000
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:CRRC MA HR4000, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

FeralOink (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siemens P2000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GTO.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. No offense, but could you be a little bit more meaningful when writing your edit summaries? I stumbled across some of your edits with summaries that seemed to have no relation to the edits themselves (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]). Further things to consider when writing an edit summary are listed at Help:Edit summary. Thank you. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to want to get stuff out as quickly as possible QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove {{

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited DBAG Class 481, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombardier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gusfriend was:

This submission is not adequately supported by

Referencing for beginners and Citing sources

.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The Source is a blog and not a reliable source. The references need to be news reports and the like.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to
  Draft:CRRC MA HR4000
  and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to
  Draft:CRRC MA HR4000, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7
  }}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Gusfriend (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CRRC Massachusetts and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:CRRC Massachusetts, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

S0091 (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Nankai 6000 series. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Fukuoka Subway 3000 series, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop incorporating material from foreign-language versions of articles without verifying the material with the references provided. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1500 V DC multiple units has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at 735 series, you may be blocked from editing. Edit in question - Special:Diff/1122309876. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 04:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also - please start using better edit summaries. I've stumbled on a few of your edits that have vague edit summaries, many of which are indecipherable, irrelevant to your changes, or at worst, disparaging (1, 2, 3, 4). Another editor has expressed concerns regarding your edit summaries before. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I expect context and always want to get stuff our as quickly as possible QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@QuarioQuario54321: I agree with the concerns above. I also want to politely ask you again to use more precise edit summaries (= don't include stuff not relevant to the edit made), although I aknowledge that your edit summaries do have improved over the past months. Regarding as quickly as possible: there is no rush; it is perfectly fine if you take your time to make sure that an edit is correct (and cite sources when you introduce new content). Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This This is yet another supremely unhelpful edit summary. Please do better. XAM2175 ^(T) 13:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@XAM2175 I assume you're referring to this edit instead. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Examples: Special:Diff/1124469789, Special:Diff/1124506941, Special:Diff/1124508460, and Special:Diff/1124509787. XAM2175 ^(T) 21:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted them on

MOS:LARGENUM grounds several times now and evidently they've completely ignored it if they're still going. XAM2175 ^(T) 10:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It is too confusing I cannot understand it QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted another of your edits for this problem,

MOS:LARGENUM

policy is as follows:

The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended.

This means that when you come to an article that has a structure like ER200 did,

• carlength = 26,000 mm
• width = 3,130 mm
• height = 4,200 mm

you need to keep the same number of significant figures across all the attributes in the list:

• carlength = 26.000 m, not 26 m
• width = 3.130 m, not 3.13 m
• height = 4.200 m, not 4.2 m

Please respond showing that you understand this, otherwise it will become increasingly difficult to assume you're not deliberately ignoring it. XAM2175 ^(T) 17:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find it generally too confusing but I normally don’t find that many decimals used at a time. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very simple suggestion - and I'm not being rude or facetious saying this - if you find it confusing then stop doing it. Leave it to others to handle the {{convert}} parts in articles. Concentrate on doing what you're good at and confident at to further the quality of rail related articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am seemingly the only person doing it though QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I quite often adjust

MOS:NUM problems in articles. Again, there are many other ways you can make a positive contribution so why not focus on those? It's much better to get along with others than continually wind them up as you are doing right now. Don't go down the road of having sanctions such as topic bans or blocks imposed, it rarely ends happily. 10mmsocket (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The policy exists because the number of decimal places has meaning: they describe the precision of the measurement, and so adding or removing them affects how readers understand the article. It doesn't matter that some articles didn't have them to begin with.

Your efforts to add conversions where articles do not have them is appreciated; all we're asking you to do is to follow the Manual of Style and not adjust the number of decimal places used by the original measurements in the article. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please note that when converting ranges of numbers (like "100 to 150") you need to split the range apart in the {{convert}} template, like this {{convert|200|to|250|km/h|abbr=on}} rather than this {{convert|200 to 250|km/h|4=0|abbr=on}}. Please check that the conversion has worked as you planned before saving, as I just had to fix seven instances of this in the High-speed rail in Europe article. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not appear to exist when using the visual editor though. But it does work as planned in my experience. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise – there was an error with one in particular, but you're correct that it does appear to actually work. The documentation for the template continues to suggest that you need to split the terms. XAM2175 ^(T) 15:17, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not excuse modifying pre-existing conversions to use non-standard formatting. Please don't do that again. I suggest you review the documentation for the Convert template if you haven't already. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most other train articles drop all the zeros at the end regardless of the sig figs and set them manually or use a fraction in the inches. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're still flagrantly disregarding the Manual of Style – you appear to have made zero effort to comprehend the guideline – but if this is going to be a recurring issue, should sanctions be sought against you? XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's still too confusing and most of the time it seems conformity with unofficial de facto standards is done instead of going with the de jure standards QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, the part you're getting wrong is quite simple – all you need to do is not delete zeroes after the decimal. That's it. If you see an article has "26,500 mm", you can change it to 26.500 m, but not 26.5 m. The fact that "it seems conformity with unofficial de facto standards is done instead of going with the de jure standards" doesn't matter, because following the Manual of Style isn't optional and the other people who are not following it are also wrong.

If you still can't understand the policy after this I'm afraid all I can suggest is that you stop working with conversions. This would be disappointing because many of your edits have been helpful, but if you keep editing without understanding the policies one of us here will have to report you to the administrators. XAM2175 ^(T) 20:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just another reminder that your continued disregard for the Manual of Style, despite three warnings within the past week and multiple reverts, is disruptive and may lead to sanctions being sought against you, such as blocks or topic bans. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at British Rail Class 600. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 02:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And at this Class 799 diff, which included losing 3 cm when changing 19.830 m to 19.80 m. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one I can tell you was a mistake I didn't catch QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you realise that you shouldn't have changed it at all? XAM2175 ^(T) 16:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate them. They are stupid. However, I mostly ignore them as that's what Wikipedia does too. It's lovely to know that the knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing double spacers, who mostly put double spaces in by habit because that's how they were taught, are completely wasting their time because Wikipedia has been programmed to undermine them. Bottom line - I'm sure you can find better things to fix! 10mmsocket (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Inner West Light Rail, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You again changed the spellings of Airport link line (Shanghai Suburban Railway) in this edit to use a different version of English without prior discussion. This may not have been intentional, but please make sure you're preserving pre-existing varieties of English. Thanks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Lianggang Express line. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you're heeding these messages. If you continue changing English varieties in articles without prior discussion after this, I'm not sure if I can continue assuming good faith or no clue (i.e. sanctions may be sought against you). You've been encouraged on several occasions to review the documentation for the {{

English variety style guide. In spite of this, you appear to have shown minimal (if any) indication, besides when you're repeatedly issued warnings, that you either understand the policies or, even when you don't, that you will at least try to do better and take accountability for the numerous stylistic issues you introduced, knowingly or not. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It was a very subtle change and since it's not centered on the English speaker world does it even matter? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Per

MOS:RETAIN:

When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or the change reduces ambiguity), there is no valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another.

XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:ENGVAR. I looked at the two edits made at Lianggang Express line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and while I see a typographical error when adding conversion templates, I don't see a change in US-English vs. British-English. At the time you issued your warning, this was the only edit Quario had made to that article. What am I missing? —Locke Cole • t • c 00:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Ahh, metre vs. meter. I feel like there are better ways to communicate that than to use a template like this. You're not dealing with a vandal, clearly... —Locke Cole • t • c 00:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted - thanks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to the casual viewer they might not even notice so does it really matter with this subtle change? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does, meter vs. metre is an

MOS:UNITNAMES: In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use. It's tempting to just use "km", but MOS clearly wants the first instance spelt out completely. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As I said, and as subtle as they may be, you should refer to

MOS:VAR, the latter of which states: If you believe an alternative style would be more appropriate for a particular article, discuss this at the article's talk page (emphasis mine). In the three articles I've linked to in this and the above section, the English variety has clearly been established, even with the absence of a "Use X English" template, so unless there is consensus to change the English variety in an article, please preserve the pre-existing variety. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have again changed the English variety in this edit without prior discussion. Please stop doing that. If you have issues with the spelling variety used in an article, you should discuss first instead of doubling down on your disruptive editing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was so small I didn’t even notice and most people won’t care really QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:RETAIN completely refutes your argument. The point is that you should not be changing English varieties in articles without prior discussion, no matter how "small" the change you made is. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It does kind of make you wish templates could create and access global variables (like a template that sets the style of English used once at the top, and then the various convert templates could respect it unless overridden with a parameter that explicitly sets it). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for preserving the existing precision when making this edit. XAM2175 ^(T) 23:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to NSW TrainLink D set, where you changed "short" to "narrow" did not fix an error; it created one. If you had checked the source, you would have seen it clearly says Ms Doyle said platforms at Blue Mountain stations such as Linden and Warrimoo would also be too short for the new trains, which would be up to 205 metres long.^[1]
Please pay more attention when making edits like this. XAM2175 ^(T) 16:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is QuarioQuario54321 continually disregarding MOS guidelines, despite warnings. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Siemens SD-100 and SD-160, you may be blocked from editing. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I forgot to cite it QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit summary is disrespectful and completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven project where contributors are only required to give as much of their time and effort to Wikipedia as they desire. Do not demand more from other editors; they do not owe anyone their time and effort here. Most of them aren't paid to edit here either and have other priorities, like work and family. Please be more respectful of others' time. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Can you change the name of

Yours sincerely, 31.200.18.125 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um what? Why me? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am an IP user, I cannot rename the article and I assumed that you might do it. The French "TLR" and English "LRT" names will not be included in the name of the Gatineau tramway network, which is projected to be 100% a tramway network and not a light metro separate from the street traffic. 31.200.18.125 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And why did you choose me out of all people? Making an account is not hard QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been very offended when I asked you for a request. I have come across users who were even flaterred when I asked them for a request, but never before an angry reaction (I think unfairly) like this. That is why I withdraw the request. 31.200.18.125 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't you just make an account? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware this IP has made the exact same request to multiple editors and admins -

WP:FORUMSHOP 10mmsocket (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I'm not convinced that a you tube video is a reliable source, however slickly made. There's no actual references and it is, b definitin, user-generated content. Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth
  (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent
  of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

The sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per

WP:ORGCRIT. I suggest creating a redirect to CRRC Group

instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:CRRC Massachusetts and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Destination dispatch, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

You have also been adding youtube videos to

talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in London Underground 1992 Stock. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, QuarioQuario54321. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Your edits to