Enginemen

  Hello, I'm Silikonz-alt. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to GP40MC—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Silikonz (alt)💬 17:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Mohamed Atta, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

 

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Your addition didn't work, please use the "preview" button before saving to make sure your additions actually do what you think they did. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your recent change to this same article. The ten days of age seem meaningless frippery, and removing the mention of pan-islamism seems unhelpful. Please discuss on the article's talk page before re-introducing these changes. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mohammed Atta, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You cannot state something like "largest building ever destroyed" without a citation. See WP:OR Tarl N. (discuss) 16:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the source of the claim that I made there comes from the article Collapse of the World Trade Center, at the end of the fourth paragraph, where it states the following, "The 110-story towers are the tallest freestanding structures ever to be destroyed, and the death toll from the attack on the North Tower represents the deadliest terrorist act in world history." This time I will link the article that is linked in the quote that I provided.

- Thanks Enginemen (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You cannot use Wikipedia as a source, see WP:RS. Looking at that list, the entry for WTC does not have a citation, it simply has a video showing the collapse. So in essence, while you cannot think of a larger building destroyed, that is not sufficient for an encyclopedic statement that it is the largest building destroyed. Please self-revert your change. Tarl N. (discuss) 16:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I removed your additions glorifying Atta with a "military service". Military requires a state sponsor - non state actors (in particular terrorists) are not military. May I suggest you stop editing that article? Tarl N. (discuss) 20:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

By this flawed logic, the Ramzi Bin Al Shibh article is "glorifying" him by including the exact same thing, which is actually the reason I made this addition. Military service is not a glorification, having served in any army and/or militant group does not indicate any good virtue, and in many cases can show the opposite. Enginemen (talk) 21:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:OTHERTHINGS. You could fix that article. A person can only qualify as military when serving in a military for a state. Being a terrorist does not qualify as military. Period. If you disagree, there are a variety of avenues to ask for resolution, see WP:DR. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

While I still stand by my edits regarding the "destruction of the tallest freestanding tower" and my edits in the "Military career" section (which was not intended to make him look legally legitimate as a militant, but rather to just show the amount of time he actually spent with Al Qaeda) I will not revert them as I do not wish to start a conflict or edit war, and they are not really necessary anyway. I will consider fixing the infobox in Bin Al Shibh's article.

- Thank You Enginemen (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for removing the "military person" module; I missed that. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit wary about adding the SCR Phase 2 service to stations north of Canton Center. It's not entirely clear what the stopping pattern will be - current official maps bizarrely show Readville but not Hyde Park, and the 2011 DEIR showed some trains skipping Ruggles. (I also have vague recollections of a document that indicated some trains might have to skip some intermediates due to tricky meets on the single track, but I can't find it offhand.) I don't think it's a big issue not to show it - it's an unfunded project that's minimum 7 years away, and it would be an extension of the Stoughton service already shown in the infobox rather than a truly new service. Your thoughts? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for your concern. I was also unsure of the planned stopping pattern on the Northeast Corridor, so I decided to go by the current Stoughton slots (no stops at Readville and Forest Hills; occasional stops at Hyde Park), some trains may skip Ruggles, but others would be making that stop, for that reason, it makes sense to include it there. As for the status of the project itself, I am of the opinion that unless there are some major changes somehow curbing the Army Corps' current requirements for the project being built, that it is going to be very difficult to ever get it done, to put it nicely, though for the sake of the project's main article, I decided to mention SCR phase II to the infoboxes of the planned stations that did not already feature it. I can undo these edits if you wish,

Thanks. Enginemen (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth (I don't know which article you are talking about), please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. Generally, the policy is to not document anything which has not happened yet. We should document announcements of what will happens, as announcements, rather than as predictions or certainties. We want to avoid guesswork appearing here with "wikivoice" (sounding like the encyclopedia is documenting a reality). Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the insight. We were not discussing one article, but rather multiple articles, South Station, Back Bay, Ruggles, Hyde Park, Route 128, and Canton Junction to be exact, the discussion at hand here is about how I added a proposed new rail line to the infoboxes of these stations under a "Proposed services" section, and whether or not this was a good idea.

- Thanks Enginemen (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

While CSX still calls the full Wilbraham–Boston segment "Boston Subdivision", the MBTA calls the portion that it owns (Worcester–Boston) "Worcester Main Line". Since the MBTA owns and operates its section, we should use the MBTA name. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your latest edit. Any discussion should take place at Talk:Mohamed Atta#Ringleader vs. Planner and commander. Your edits have consistently attempted to whitewash him into conducting some kind of military operation, as opposed to a criminal committing mass murder. It's pretty offensive. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Isn't a ringleader the same thing as a commander? I can't see how this whitewashes him, especially considering everything else that describes what he did in the article which would make any attempt to "whitewash" him futile without severe vandalization of the article. He is also described as a "commander" in the main Al-Qaeda article (September 11 attacks section, second paragraph, second line). In any case, the main point was to add "planner" to the section. I apologize if you found this edit offensive, and I will not revert your reversion, I will however ask if I can add back the "Planner", as he was heavily involved in the planning of the attack. Enginemen (talk) 13:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please carry this discussion out on the article's talk page, linked above. I'll copy the above to that page and reply there. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please click on the preferences tab. It shows Special:Preferences. If you click on the appearance tab of preferences, it allows you to change how large images are displayed. It is often best to leave image sizes as their defaults in infoboxes and with thumbnails, so that users' preferences can control the size they are displayed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to MBTA Bilevel Cars. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 17:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank You. Enginemen (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Enginemen, I don't think we need a separate article on these cars. The existing information at MBTA Commuter Rail#Coach fleet is sufficient. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply