User talk:TrackConnect

Re:UN/LOCODE

Sorry for the delay in running the bot. I do have it on my to-do list. I am getting some other things done before this. I will let you know as soon I complete. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Template:Rail gauge

Hi, could I ask you to stop making changes to rail gauge articles, especially Template:Rail gauge? You have introduced some inappropriate articles, such as Ideal gauge and this article should definitely not be added to the rail gauge template. The purpose of that template is to navigate between the major articles on the categories of rail gauge, not to link to every article on a specific gauge - there could be literally hundreds of those which would make the template unusable. If you wish to make this kind of change, please propose the change at the appropriate discussion page and reach consensus with other interested editors first. Thanks, Gwernol 16:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the rail gauge template should be made into an infobox, but this is something that could be discussed. Again, please open up a discussion on the appropriate talk page. Where did you copy and paste the ideal gauge article from? Thanks, Gwernol 16:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, they are important in your opinion. As I noted above, its much better to reach a consensus with other editors in a case like this, where you are making significant changes to an existing template. I would suggest you join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains which is where editors interested in railway articles on Wikipedia work together. The projects' discussion page is the best place to propose these changes and see what the consensus of the community is. Thanks, Gwernol 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, please stop making these changes. Adding links to articles that do not exist to a template is a very bad idea. Please propose your changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains and do not make them again until you have a consensus there. Thanks, Gwernol 16:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

please see: Template talk:Rail gauge. I addressed 90% of your concerns, but I am not a magician to do all at the same time. TrackConnect (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I am quite insulted by your comment on Template talk:Rail gauge suggesting that no-one had raised any concerns. I had clearly raised concerns both when I reverted your changes and in multiple comments on your talk page above. Please don't pretend otherwise. I have laid out a very clear set of reasons why I think your changes are a bad idea on the talk page. Please address these concerns. Thanks, Gwernol 22:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry, but the concerns you brought in, I addressed, I thought. Now the template is without the new links anyway, I deleted them. One user made a very constructive suggestion that I followed. TrackConnect (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you certainly did not address my concerns. I am also disappointed that you are continue to make significantly changes to major articles without any discussion beforehand. You are also introducing huge sections of original research into articles, including some information that is simply incorrect - for example cape gauge is not named after Carl Pihl. Please can you try to find sources for your additions, and please consider following Wikipedia's rules about reaching consensus with other editors. I realise you are trying to be helpful, but a lot of your edits are introducing quite severe problems that you need to help us resolve. Gwernol 12:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your general attack does not help. Where did I made original research? What specific changes do you not like? Please go to the specific pages and not here to my page. Thank you, it is easier to work in real space. E.g. the whole content of Ideal gauge was NOT created by me, that original research was done by others. Same for Cape gauge, I only rearranged. It seems that these arrangement were good, because now it comes to surface what false stuff existed in wP. To say "No, you certainly did not address my concerns." is pure insult. Thank you. Please see, how I made changes, lot of changes, after every request you made. TrackConnect (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections still required

• Template:RailGauge
• Iberian gauge, Broad gauge#History & Rail gauge#Iberian gauge
• 1672 is really (5 ft 55⁄6 in
• 1668 is really (5 ft 52⁄3 in
• 1664 is really (5 ft 5½ in

Peter Horn 21:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Peter Horn 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Panama Railway

Hello UN, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have reverted to your recent change to the Panama Railway article. The line as originally was 5ft; because of the influence of the pre-conversion southern United States railway companies. This is not Russian gauge; Russian gauge is 1520mm (formerly 1524mm). It was rebuilt to metric standards (of course), so 1435mm (note primary units). I have further updated the Russian gauge article to give it a high-level contextual introduction and to correct the width given for the gauge. Once again, thank you for getting involved. —Sladen (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

follow up at Talk:Russian gauge TrackConnect (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Cape gauge vs CAP gauge

Before I move anything further, I just want to be clear about what you are asking. You want the article that is currently at CAP gauge to be moved back to Cape Gauge, correct? Gwernol 15:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, I agree Cape gauge is the more widespread term. I can find many more examples of its use than I can for CAP gauge. Gwernol 16:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also move Meter gauge->Metre gauge per the talk page consensus. Gwernol 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Public Suffix List

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Public Suffix List, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.publicroot.org/news-2008-06-09-publicsuffix.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Public Suffix List

A tag has been placed on Public Suffix List requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mayalld (talk) 10:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Guntur division

A tag has been placed on Guntur division requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

there is nothing like guntur division, there are two articles Guntur revenue and railway division, but cannot redirect to anyone page, and also it may not require disambiguation for a user created page

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Vin09 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Track gauge in Afghanistan

The article Track gauge in Afghanistan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Previously, this article was mainly conjectural, underpinned by a diagram (Dual Gauge Afghanistan.png) which hypothesised how rails could be placed to provide for 5 railway gauges, 2 of which are irrelevant to Afghanistan (3 is the maximum for multi-gauge track on any mainline). Most of the text addressed what might be the decision on the railway gauge on which Afghanistan might standardise (being almost bereft of railways at the turn of the century and bordered by countries with 3 different gauges). In fact, that decision was made in 2010, as mentioned in what was the last sentence, now paragraph 2 sentence 1, and a major new railway line to that gauge was opened in 2020. I updated the text and found the same text was already in the article Rail transport in Afghanistan, which seems to me to be a suitable position. The subject is not sufficiently notable to be a separate subject.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SCHolar44 (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)