User talk:Enginemen

December 2022

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]

March 2023

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.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

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]

November 2023

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]

SCR Phase 2

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]

Boston Subdivision

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]

Atta, again

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]

MBTA Bilevel Cars moved to draftspace

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]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MBTA Bilevel Cars (April 27)

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

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at MBTA Bilevel Cars instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion.

If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

This draft is either essentially the same as the article with the same name, or a subset of the article with the same name. The draft will be replaced by a redirect from draft space to the article.

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:MBTA Bilevel Cars 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Enginemen! Having an article draft 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: MBTA bilevel cars has been accepted

MBTA bilevel cars, 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~Kvng (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]