User talk:Redrose64/complaints

Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --> - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 August 2009

Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Southern Railway multiple unit numbering and classification, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtpbank (talk • contribs) 08:07, 26 August 2009

I have provided my reference; but would like to know why my edit was singled out for reversion when the entire article was unreferenced. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Brawn GP

Hey. I removed your comment from the WP:F1 page as it is a chatroom topic, not concerned with the editing of articles here. But in answer to your question: no, Mercedes are already there, being 2 for 2 in 1954 and 1955. Whether they can keep that up in 2010 is another matter... ;-) Pyrope 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend it to be seen as a "chatroom topic"; personally I never use chatroom sites. It was intended to be a topic which could stimulate interest, be followed up by those with access to relevant books, and thus be sourced and so be legitamately added to relevant articles. To my mind, within the scope of WikiProject Formula One there are pages containing items which are less notable. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I see where you were coming from now. Sorry about being a bit quick off the mark, but WP:F1 does tend to attract quite a few off-topic additions. Phrasing it more as an editorial query rather than a general comment would have helped avoid confusion. Pyrope 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hanslope Ref List

Mate, I just cut 'n' paste what I see when I click the button at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php When I get the warning message on the page I have edited that the carefully crafted ref I have inserted will not be displayed I cut 'n' paste what is suggested there - I can't see why that should be a problem. Don't like it? Take it up with this cove.

A word of caution: I usually calibrate my usually not insubstantial donations to Wp fund raisers on whether or not I am currently being given the shits (even mildly) by anal retentives and deletionists. Silent Billy (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nimbus V and Alycidon

I ahve not noticed any reference to British railway locomotives that were named after these particular racehorses and if reliable references are provided then the additions are acceptable. There were also several racehorses named Nimbus, too.Cgoodwin (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Redrose64 - You are correct and I have reverted the edits by Cgoodwin. Handicapper (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I can find simply dozens of books which give the locomotive names as "Alycidon" and "Nimbus" (and six other racehorse names for that particular class), but I was going potty trying to find books that referred to both the locomotives and these particular horses, with context such as "the locomotive was named after the 1949 winner of the Derby and the 2000 Guineas". --Redrose64 (talk) 12:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a start: [1] Handicapper (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This gives names for the locomotives, yes - but as I say, I can find plenty of books giving Deltic loco names. What is really needed is something that ties the name to the specific horse - without that, we are equally justified in saying that D9020/55 020 was named after a cloud formation. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually had an extensive website a few years ago with the details but it has gone down. I think contacting some of these very enthusiastic "train" lovers would get the facts. (There is an e-mail address here at the Deltic Preservation society for asking questions. However, when there are six or seven locomotives in Britain with a horse's name that were launched within the years following the horse's success, then it can only be a horse because if one examines each name, I think you will see there are none in any other category with a name of such high profile that would warrant a company naming a locomotive after it. Handicapper (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I, like you, know full well that the only likely source of the names of these locos is the racehorses. Unfortunately, the racing fraternity in general are unaware of the traditions of the railway companies, so to say something like "locomotive D9020 was named after this horse", and the only cited sources are

• a railway book showing this name against this number and class without actually mentioning racehorses
• a different book stating that such-a-railway often used racehorses as the inspiration for its loco names, but without actually mentioning the loco under discussion

then to link the two together counts as WP:SYNTHESIS, which is tantamount to WP:OR and therefore disallowed.

However, with the help of Abingdon & District Model Railway Club, I have now found a website, which although not necessarily WP:RELIABLE, does give statements along the lines of "D9020/55020: NIMBUS The last of the 'racehorses' to be delivered, D9020 was named at Doncaster on February 12th 1962 after the horse which won the 1949 Derby and 2000 Guineas races". That's good enough for me as a railfan; let's hope that the horseracing-orientated users agree. Luckily, on Pinza, there was already a link to a different site which gives suitable information, so I'm using that as a second ref on Nimbus V and the others. One ref might get knocked off again: two should stick better. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

My objection on this issue was that Cgoodwin just deleted the statement rather than insert a tag. There is a reason for his conduct, but he's not worth wasting time on. 17:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Handicapper (talk • contribs)

All eight have now been updated and doubly referenced. Let's see how long my changes last. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Redrose64, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Redrose64/Sandbox6. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.
• Shut off the bot here.
• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Clapham Junction rail crash

I cannot seee anything npov about "due to safety concerns. The carriage superstructures detached from their underframes on impact and disintegrated in the collision". That's my recollection of why these carriages were withdrawn / what the Hidden report said about the crash. (Meanwhile, fwiw, I think the picture is crap and does nothing for the article.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The full sentences as they stood were "The aging Mark 1 carriages were being phased out at the time of privatisation due to safety concerns. The carriage superstructures detached from their underframes on impact and disintegrated in the collision."

Regarding the first sentence - the mention of privatisation is irrelevant, since this happened some years after Clapham. The Mark 1s were being phased out, but this was a policy which had been going on for a long time before privatisation - in fact since the mid 1970s, and was not due to safety concerns - quite simply, they were life-expired: they had a planned service life of 40 years for the underframe, and 20 years for the body, which in many cases had been reached.

Regarding the second sentence - I have a copy of the Hidden report, and Appendix G (pp. 191-199) covers the damage to the rolling stock. This was substantial; but at no point does it suggest that "the carriage superstructures detached from their underframes on impact and disintegrated in the collision". It mentions bogies being separated from the underframe (para. 1.iii, para. 10, para. 32); and the leading third of the first coach of the second train did indeed disintegrate (para 1.iv, para. 8); but the implication of the sentence as written was that all the coach bodies separated, and all of them disintegrated, which is simply untrue. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

northstar

I'm sorry but they need to be removed as the musician info dosent make sense with them divided like that- also her other albums are not similarly divided- besides the albums are now available on cd and download without that divide. I work for Universal and Sandy Dennys estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenslade32 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

fine then reinstate it. the other entries were not created by me, but in the main do not have a side A/B divide: you'll have to go through all her releases and amend them. I was not involved in the creation of these original records, so there is no conflict as far as I can see: I have merely corrected factualy incorrect entries- of which there have been many on wikipedia with incorrect dates of release, tracklisting, songcredits etc. The entries for Denny are now at least accurate and convey the neccassary information on the releases. This is the whole point of Wikipedia- that people can find correct information on things like this. Greenslade32 (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you idiot?

When i say that , It's not true, that there are busiest in Paris(RER) and Munich(S-Bahn) i mean that. 60 train per hour per platform. it's a fact and you can see it on the time tables of the systems. the reference dont worth nothing, i can also write something and add as reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.156 (talk) 11:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

i) Please see WP:NPA.

ii) The reference was not mine; it was added on 3 January 2009 by another editor with the comment "Added the fact that platform 6 is the busiest in europe.". It was removed on 26 April 2010 with the comment "It's not true, there are busiest in Paris(RER) and Munich(S-Bahn), i dont know why NetworkRail wrote that..".

When referenced content is removed, some of us examine the references to see whether they were valid; accordingly, I then checked what it stated, and since the source agreed with the statement, I restored it as being verifiable content, with the comment "True or not, it is in the cited ref: verifiability, not truth".

The text in question, which you have since removed again, states

Platform 6 is the busiest railway platform in Europe, due to the necessity of routing all trains heading to Charing Cross and Blackfriars through it.

and the relevant text in the reference (which you may view here, see page 7) reads

the limited number of through platforms at London Bridge, especially on the Charing Cross line where all stopping London bound trains have to be timetabled through Platform 6, the busiest railway platform in Europe

It is therefore verifiable. Whether it is true or not is an entirely different matter: if you have reliable sources making similar or better claims for Paris or Munich, please provide them instead of simply stating that the London Bridge station article is wrong. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Filton Xc service

Hi. I added the XC service that way round as that is technically the correct order - it comes in from Cardiff, stops at FIT, continues to BRI, then goes back through FIT without stopping and on to BPW, BHM and MAN. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there no corresponding reverse journey? If not, maybe the row should have a note "one-way service; towards Manchester only" or similar. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a reverse, so possibly it should be restated as Manchester - Cardiff service, but then for consistency you'd have to alter the direction on all other stations. Having BRI as following allows consistency with other stations on the journey - SWML considers east as next, and for cross country route it's north, so this is the one bit of track where it's running against the grain. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• poke* -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

LNER

I don't know why I need to tell you things which as an experienced editor you should already know. References cannot be to articles within wikipedia. References must be to external sources. Hence I removed the self-reference and added The Railway Magazine as a "see also" item. IF you need further guidance, please refer to the Manual of Style. Bhtpbank (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Colnbrook Estate Halt

You have just put this to be south of the A4 but http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/c/colnbrook_estate_halt/index.shtml shows it north of the A4 (and Colnbrook railway station south of that road). The text in that reference claims a visit to the site in May 1968 and has a photo of a crumbling station name board taken that month. Has the A4 been rerouted? Or is someone confused?--SilasW (talk) 18:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw that page; but I always prefer printed sources to online. I based the position on my printed copy of OS one-inch seventh series sheet 160, edition B, "Crown Copyright 1963, Fully revised 1961, Major roads revised 1962" which has four stations in a mile; from south to north they are at grid reference TQ035754 (ie Poyle Halt), TQ036761 (ie Poyle Estate Halt), TQ036767 (ie Colnbrook), TQ038770 (ie Colnbrook Estate Halt). The last of these is definitely below the A4 Colnbrook Bypass. Since, according to Butt 1995 p. 66, the station was opened on 1 May 1961 (not 1991 which is what Wikipedia says), this map is a contemporary source.

The A4 was rerouted, but this occurred several years beforehand; its previous route is now best described as (from West to East) London Road/High Street/Bridge Street/Park Street/Bath Road. This rerouting was prior to 1945 (the date of my oldest OS map for the area), thus before the station was built.

The photo on disused-stations doesn't show enough of the surrounding area to place the station relative to the A4.

A photo in Mitchell & Smith shows the A4 in the background, but I can't tell if the photographer is looking north or south. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1) I too have found that online can err. 2) Sorry for hitting 9 for 6 and not noticing it.--SilasW (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But then what date is the map shown on Disused-stations.org? Seems to show the Halt lying to the north of the A4. An alternative source, the London Railway Atlas (2009 edition, Ian Allan), shows the Halt as lying alongside the goods yard lying north of the A4. The latter can be seen in a 1932 map at Old Maps. And also this 1948 map from NPEMAP.org clearly shows Colnbrook station, as well as Poyle Halt to the south. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Disused-Stations map is indeed undated; it looks too "clean" to be a scan: I suspect it's drawn as a graphic file, thus is liable to error. I have a "London Railway Atlas", by Joe Brown; first published 2006, this impression 2007: it shows Colnbrook adjacent to a goods yard, but we're discussing Colnbrook Estate Halt (the next station north of Colnbrook); it is not drawn adjacent to anything. None of the other maps which you give links for are contemporaneous with the period that Colnbrook Estate Halt was open (1961-5, and less than four years). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but the 2009 edition of Joe Brown is a lot more detailed! It shows the location of the halt as being next to a "logistics" yard built 2002, shown clearly north of the A4 in Google Earth. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't take anything disused-stations.org.uk says as reliable. They're a user-generated fansite, and are frequently wrong. Even the far more accurate SubBrit doesn't qualify as a RS by Wikipedia's standards. @Sunil, are you certain that halt you're looking at on the map above isn't the temporary halt built at Colnbrook during the construction of T5, rather than the actual Colnbrook Estate Halt station? – iridescent 14:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Temporary Halt? Not heard of that one! No, the one I'm talking about is clearly marked "Colnbrook Estate Halt (1961-1965)". And a further source - "London's Local Railways" by Alan Jackson (Capital Transport, 1999) clearly states that the Halt was built "about half a mile north of Colnbrook station". This would surely place it north of the A4, not south, for that would make it too close to Colnbrook station? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The clincher must be the massive atlas produced by Colonel Cobb - "The Railways of Great Britain. A Historical Atlas". This shows every line built in the UK (up until c. 10 years ago), superimposed on 1971 OS mapping. Although the scale is quite small, this shows Colnbrook Estate Halt as being north of the A4, backing up all other sources presented here. An expensive tome, if you can obtain it, but very much worth it IMV. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit "(avoid that "(1st Edition ed.)" nonsense)"

Ref you recent recent edit. Please be aware that far from being nonsense, this is a legacy issue following a revision to Cite book. The word ed. suffix did not used to be present in the template and when the editor concerned made the change to the template, (s)he was not probably aware that what is probably a good idea had such an effect. Prior to that editors added the word edition (or other appropriate abbreviation) to clarify what an otherwise random digit in the citation meant. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, "(1st Edition ed.)" still looks poor, so I stand by my edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I did not mean it to be a criticism or your edit, more an observation on your actions, and an indication that there are probably many others instances of this elsewhere following the change to the template. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 15:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It was only the second of the railway book templates that I'd amended in this fashion; the first was here, which produced this reaction. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oops - it was me last time as well. I have no idea how many templates are similarly affected. No doubt we will find more in time. --Stewart ^{(talk | edits)} 16:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Enemy Of The World - Doctor Who

You queried a contribution made to this page by an unsigned editor, adding the note that their contribution was only "largely true". I am curious as to what part of their edit is untrue. Could you clarify?

They wrote:

"The four key production roles for this story were all taken by men heavily involved in the development of Doctor Who." This is true.

"Author David Whitaker had been the show's first Script Editor;" This is true.

"Director Barry Letts later became the show's Producer (for the majority of the Jon Pertwee era), Executive Producer and occasional script writer;" This is true.

"Script Editor Peter Bryant became the show's producer from the next story;" This is true.

"Innes Lloyd was the show's current producer, this marking his final contribution to the series." This is true.

What part is untrue? I followed all the links the editor included and easily verified the text. Surely it is not necessary to class something as original work when by following the links provided it is substantiated? The information is also available on the page itself. For example, if you click on the next story link, you will immediately see that the roles of Bryant & Lloyd changed from the next production.

I think you are being unnecessarily pedantic and harsh with this editor.

TVArchivistUK (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The IP editor added all of the paragraph, except for most of the Barry Letts info, which was already there although differently worded. As you say, each separate fact is true. But that works best when the second to fifth items are taken in isolation. Putting them together to produce the first is WP:SYN - particularly since at the time, Letts was something of a newcomer to the programme. If a source can be found that specifically calls attention to this four-way coincidence, then fine; but I don't know of one. All this is quite apart from the issue that no citation has been given for any of these facts.

Doctor Who-related pages attract more than their fair share of unsourced info, trivia and original research, and there is already far too much of this - WP:NOTFANSITE. When I notice an IP editor adding unrefd claims to DW articles - such as his assertion that Derek Francis played The Abbot in The Abominable Snowmen - then I go through their recent edits and check them more carefully. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this editor made invalid contributions, particularly regarding Derek Francis, so I reversed them. But I believe you are being overly pedantic and harsh regarding their contribution to the Enemy of the World page. As I pointed out above, I believe it is not necessary to reference something when links are provided that validate the contribution. I believe this is an interesting addition to the page and not fancruft. By linking all of the pages regarding the subjects, I am assured that the statements are true and verified. TVArchivistUK (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Brunswick hatnote

Your edit summary [2], "repair hatnote", suggests that the hatnote was broken. It wasn't--it linked to the disambiguation page I had created as I thought the previous hatnote needed simplifying. (I had come across the article while adding categories, saw the hatnote, and decided it was rather clumsy and a disambiguation page would do a better job.) --RFBailey (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

 Undone see here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lancashire 1

Please could you stop taking my edits about Bolton being in Lancashire off,because Bolton is in Lancashire and always has been,i am not saying you are always taking my edits off,but Wikipedia needs to realise that Towns such as Bolton and Bury are still in Lancashire user: Lancashirelad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.212.45 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2011

Bolton has not been in Lancashire since 1974. I ought to know: I used to live there. Wikipedia uses current geographical boundaries, not historic boundaries. Whilst irritating to a historian like you or I, that's what's been agreed on. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Lancashire 2

Why can i not edit,the Bolton page now,bolton is historically part of lancashire,i have done as wikipedia says about historical counties and still you take my edits off as i live in bolton i know where i live why has wikipedia got such biased views about historical counties bolton and bury are in the historical county boundaries of lancashire not until 1974 they still are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.126.161.105 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(i) The stated reason for protection of Metropolitan Borough of Bolton is "Persistent vandalism: over the past onth or so IPs have been ignoring consensus at WP:UCC"; (ii) I refer you to the reply that I gave on 6 February 2011; (iii) When starting new threads, please post them at the bottom of talk pages (see WP:TPG) - the "New section" tab is a good way of doing this; (iv) please sign your posts on talk pages (see WP:SIGN). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your tone

Your tone in this comment was completely uncalled for. The IP was completely correct in his/her reply, they had done nothing wrong whatsoever and even pointed out that there is not RS yet. But who am I talking to. You established Wikipedians are immune to any criticism anyway. --87.78.131.12 (talk) 04:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

These was absolutely nothing wrong with Redrose"s post. The post did not attack any editor - which cannot be said for this IP's post here. Redrose simply linked to the relevant Wikipedia's policies in an attempt to explain why the posts made on NC's page to that point could not be allowed to stay. Redrose you should feel free to remove this entire section because the accusations in it are entirely baseless. MarnetteD | Talk 04:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Children, children... RedRose64 was right, just forgot to say thank you, that's all. I was once a newbie too :-)) --Skol fir (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Grace Mugabe

Hi Redrose64, just to let you know: passages like the one you wikified there should be removed, not promoted to lead position. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Great North Eastern Railway

Hello again, The problem with citing the Ian McMillan poem is that the page referred to hasn't disappeared. The page still exists, but the relevant poem is not included in the current version of it. Might it not confuse readers to give them a non-dead URL which does not contain the required text? -- Alarics (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't actually check whether the original URL was still valid or not: I assumed that you'd noticed it was invalid, and were adding the archive parameters, and in doing so fouled up the {{cite web}} template. I decided that because you removed the crucial characters url= (leaving {{cite web |http:) so that there was no link at all - {{cite web}} uses only named parameters, no positional parameters. So, I fixed it up, according to what I believed was the correct form. Going by Gadget850 (talk · contribs)'s reply at 16:48, 4 March 2011 here, it's a good idea to retain the original URL "If an archive site ever goes dead, we still have the original URL to work with." --Redrose64 (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Very sorry, I hadn't noticed that I mucked up the template. Thanks for fixing it. On the substantive point, "still having the URL to work with" doesn't seem particularly useful when the text in question has disappeared even though the web page is still there. But, there we are. -- Alarics (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unknown question

just separating it from my comment Geotek (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

how do a delete messages on wikipedia when im not logged in and i didn't make any edits on a page and it says i did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.62.118 (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

According to your contributions, you have made edits to nine different pages, this one included. The ones that I am concerned about are not deletions, but those where you have added unsourced information to Brooke Vincent and to Daniel Rowe (footballer) about their personal lives. Without sources, we have no way of knowing if this information is true or not, hence both you and I must follow the policy on living persons, which states (among other things):

• Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.
• any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
• Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.

It is therefore imperative that you provide reliable sources for the information which you wish to add to these pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification on date formats

Hi, in Pixie Geldof you recently used the justification of MOS:TIES to systematically change dates to dmy format from mdy format including accessdate. TIES does not over-rule the guideline of WP:DATERET as it is intended to apply to the language used rather than date formats and accessdate in particular is frequently a source of contention as there is no consensus to change these to one format over another. Do you have an alternative rationale or existing consensus to point to? I am not looking for a reversion on this occasion as this is a fine point of style rather than disruptive if, as is likely, no other article contributors object. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant WP:STRONGNAT. I also note that WP:DATERET twice states "... unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic", or near equivalent. I consider British birth of one British and one Irish parent to be "strong national ties". --Redrose64 (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, though I believe that there is no consensus that this applies to the accessdate parameter on citations. Fæ (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

MOS:DATEUNIFY --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a great shortcut to quote and nicely supports your changes. Fæ (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) STRONGNAT and TIES basically reiterate each other. WP:ENGVAR is another one that many US editors ignore. --Kudpung (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

94.0.216.221

Hi. You didn't appear to pick up on this. There's no point in starting again from L1 or L2 warnings when I've already issued a final warning only 24 hours ago. Just let me know when he does it again and I will block, because I will get a CU done for his sockmaster at the same time. --Kudpung (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Because his last vandalism edit was over 24 hours earlier, I didn't want to issue another level 4; but wasn't sure whether to pick 2 or 3 so played safe (I knew not to go back to level 1 though). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Station categories

Your marking closed stations with the Dft category. --WatcherZero (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I know I am; I'm also marking proposed stations. This is deliberate, and is because the information is verifiable, see this document. When a newer edition of that doc becomes available, we can make amendments as necessary.

BTW the general talk page for this is Talk:United Kingdom railway station categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So your ignoring two years in between because at the time that document was produced the station was open? Its like saying that when you last looked there were apples on the tree but 4 months later they must still be there because you havent looked at the tree to see otherwise even though you know the apples will have fallen with the change of the seasons. WatcherZero (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:V states "verifiability, not truth". If a more recent DfT doc can be found which omits Oldham Werneth, fine. Failing that, the most recent doc which we do have places it in category F1. The same doc categorises Armadale as F2, a station which reopened on 4 March 2011 having closed in 1956. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Britannia Class: recent edit

Hello,

I recently edited this page, adding a corrective to what I thought was a rather strong statement that the class had been unsuccessful on the western region 'primarily due to a preference for GWR classes amongst local railwaymen'.

The corrective I added, without reference, was to point out that GWR locomotive and signalling practise was right-hand drive whereas the Britannia class (like all the standards) were left-hand drive. It is also noteworthy that an accident occured in the western region in which difficulty in sighting signals was blamed. As a result, the class had the smoke-deflector handrails removed to improve visibility.

I obtained this information from an Ian Allen video entitled 'Decades of Steam: 1950s', where I feel a more appropriate balance was found between the argument that local western region railwayman had a preference for GWR classes and the issue of left/right drive.

I was unhappy about this as a reference source though: ideally, a written source would be preferable.

I hope this clarifies matters.

86.165.178.77 (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Robin Vann, Warwickshire

Thanks - but as you can see from my edit, I left most of your edit intact: the only bit that I actually removed was the words "It should be borne in mind however that", per WP:NOTED. I also provided a reference; I'm sure others can be found (I actually live about two miles (as the crow flies) from the site of the accident). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My edit

I am ridiculously impressed that it only took you 9 minutes to delete my edit. My edit was just a simple joke on a friend of mine and I intended to return the article to its untampered state as soon as the joke had reached its conclusion. In any case, keep on doing what you're doing. Cause you're doing good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Duke of Norway (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Advice

your advice was more of a telling off. I thought the discussion page was the talk Chippenham page. It was replied by the person who told me to go there in the beginning which I'd didn't want as he told me to find something else. Please look at the page carefully --Chip123456 (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Which advice? I have offered advice to you several times.

Talk pages are the same as discussion pages. The discussion page for any article is the article's name prefixed with "Talk:", so the discussion page for Chippenham railway station is Talk:Chippenham railway station. Replies to points raised on talk pages may be offered by anybody (except for those under a topic ban). When replying to anything, it is generally best to post beneath the thread to which you are replying, since it keeps discussion in one place - a fragmented discussion is very difficult to follow.

Which page do you believe I have not read carefully?

The following pages may help you: Help:Introduction to talk pages; Help:Using talk pages; Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The replies on the talk page for Chippenham station. --Chip123456 (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure which of my questions above you refer to. Is it in answer to "Which advice?", or to "Which page do you believe I have not read carefully?"

I have made exactly two posts to Talk:Chippenham railway station. One was well over a year ago, and the other was not intended to be a "telling off", but pointers to two pages where the advice you asked for, i.e. how to add references, may be found; I included pointers to three other pages (the Wikipedia core policies) to help you understand why we do not encourage "anything goes" editing.

Should you require personal assistance from somebody experienced in such matters, you can follow the advice that Thryduulf gave at the very top of your talk page. When I was new to Wikipedia, I used the {{help me}} method several times. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi it was the answer to where it was. As I have said previously in a section the majority of your advice is v useful. The discussion of Chippenham I was referring to is that the person who said no previously said no again, --Chip123456 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)