There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regice2020 (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what a waste of everyone's time that turned out to be. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have been casually reading/editing a few rail articles and saw the talk section, which I appreciate, where you stated "The photo of the King's Mill viaduct is very pretty but not relevant to the Mansfield Railway".

I would have to disagree; it was placed at Mansfield Railway#Prior railways - the first subsection - adjacent to relevant prose and gave a visual representation of what was created as a pre-steam arrangement, so 'easing' the reader into the history (also complying with MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE).

Agreed, it was/is at the linked article - but - MOS:FORCELINK states "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links...". I am presently involved in something where an editor many years ago added 21 images inappropriately without adequate captions and inappropriately linked, so I still have the tab open. There's more, but keeping it simple here.

The image was not doing any harm, and what's left now is a wall of text. In summary, IMO your change was retrograde. I would welcome any substantial counter argument you can offer - you can respond here. Thanks.-- 82.13.47.210 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]