User talk:RFBailey/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Ebu Valley talk
I apologize for removing comments that may have been valuable. However, I am part of a campaign against a vandal who has used dozens of accounts and hundreds of IsP, mostly in the8 6... range, to commit subtle vandalism on articles and talk pages. Though some of these users make good or at least harmless edits, they are sock-puppets of banned ueser User:Elspeth Monro, and I am reverting all of their edits. I don't really think that most of those comments are useful, but I will not revert the Ebu Valley talk page in order to avoid a conflict. Academic Challenger 03:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Worcester
Could you please stop editing the word city in regards to the City of Worcester? To use the word city as to describe a place, you would do so as you have done with the c not capitalised.
“I visited a city this weekend but I don’t remember its name.”
However, when writing about a city, when the word city is part of the title, you would write:
“I visited the City of Worcester this weekend.”
This applies to all UK towns and places; like Droitwich for example:
Droitwich is a small spa town but the full name/title is Droitwich Spa.
I hope this clears thing up. Kind regards, Simon.
Major UK Stations
I've left a response on the talk page. Hammersfan 07/05/07, 21.30 BST
Re: Image
- Hmm. The image is there, if you click on all the links. I remember this happening before, but I don't remember the reason. I suspect it will be ok again by tomorrow, or something like that. JPD (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...
for the heads-up re the station stubs discussion. DrFrench 14:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Task force
I checked your edits to the Salem Witch Trials. From seeing that, I infer you might want to join a new taskforce I just started, the Salem Witch Trials task force.
Thank you.
Psdubow 23:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: Re: Task Force
Okay, I understand. Anyway, thanks for taking your time to look it over, I appreciate it!
Psdubow 23:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've fished the discussion on categorising the disused stations out of the archive, as it's still a live issue - at the moment England's split by county while Scotland & Wales aren't, so I'd like to see a consensus one way or the other before I either split Scotland or re-merge England; hope that's OK.
Further to the above - the conversation is awfully long and most of it's unnecessary fluff - I don't feel confortable deleting other people's comments, but feel free to trim mine down — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- No worries - I agree it was getting ridiculously long. Might it be an idea to set up Werdnabot to auto-archive ever conversation that hasn't had any new posts for a couple of weeks? — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I know Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography is Werdnabot-archived, so there is a precedent for it — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
BJ in House!
Was for the TV show Cory in the House, which is how I knew the name was wrong ;) Thanks for helping that vote go through fast! -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Central Image
I apologise about the image. I can now understand how it is copyrighted. What do you suggest that I do about it now, to get the "replacable" one? Surely a drawn image would simply look the same and still be a "copy." I hope you understand how useful a route map is to the page, and that the page's quality will be reduced once the map has gone. Sorry again, Dewarw 09:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Churchill
That's not true. It is as much of a POV as the rest of the stuff that's put in there. His views on India, which are available publicly clearly prove that he was imperialists among other things. I too can state that your views about him being a statesman, orator and strategist are POVs. So I suggest instead of treating the man like Jesus Christ, you treat him like a human being. DemolitionMan 14:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- User:RFBailey - User:DemolitionMan is a guy with a history of tendentious editing, who was banned for a day not too long back (first offense so, ... I guess) for running sockpuppets. FYI in case you haven't noticed that already. srs 02:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
London Midland Sub-brands
Pages have been created for the LM Sub-brands (express and City). Your help in getting these pages up to scratch would be appreciated. Thanks, Dewarw 17:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think that you are mistaken. I have not recreated the London Midland sub brand pages. I now realise that they are not worth it. As well as this, I have already made the "East Midlands Mainline" and "East Midlands Connect" pages into redirects to "East Midlands Trains," so I am not trying to recreate these sub-brands pages.
Sub-brands' logos
In response to these images, they were the nearest thing I could find to the logos. Technically, they are the logos of the sub-brands (look at the top right corners) and so I thought that it was acceptable to put them in the articles (instead of taking screen-shots of the small bits of logo). I also put that tag as they are promotional pictures. Do you think the maps should be included (if they are put through the Graphics Lab and re drawn so they do not break copyright laws)? You can see other images that I put through the Lab:
- The Central Citylink map
- The Beeching II report map (Image:Beeching2.svg)
Thanks to the work of the lab, these images make the pages they are on (7 in the case of the latter) much better!
As well as the two small "logo" maps, do you think I should put the main map (found on the LM website) through? The conclusion would be that we would have maps aplenty for the LM page Like other TOCs).
Many thanks for your offer to rewrite the "Future" section of the LM page. It was my plan to do that eventually.
Update
I see that you have beaten me to it! I have added the map of the whole route, as well, to the Lab. Dewarw 16:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Canterberry & others
As one of the more active UK railway-related editors, just wanted to make you aware of this discussion at WP:AN. Canterberry has been indefblocked for abusive sockpuppetry (personally, I think possibly a little harsh, given that the worse-offending Lucy-marie was only blocked for 72 hours), so there may be fallout on assorted railway-related pages & templates. — iridescent 00:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, great. I'll look forward to it..... --RFBailey 01:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've so far had my talk page and/or user page replaced with assorted abuse four times this evening. I knew that "protect" button would come in handy one day... (User:SouthernElectric seems to have borne the brunt of it so far). — iridescent 01:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Question
Sorry, what do you mean, "I crossed posted"? Dewarw 20:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- It means that we both made an edit more-or-less simultaneously, without the other noticing until afterwards. In this instance, I saw the original message you'd left for me, which at that stage didn't have a signature, so I added the "unsigned" template. However, at the same time, you made a further post below that, which contained a signature. But I didn't see change this until after I made mine. --RFBailey 15:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, no worries! Dewarw 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
RE:Map
Done > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Halifax
Thank god for you, sir. It has been a long three years. :) WayeMason 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Lincoln Central
Hi!
I know lots of people at the station, and we all share our 'Industry Insides'. Anyway, this week, we were talking about the EMT Lincoln - London service. I was told that it IS confirmed, and WILL be running from next november.
Cheers, ACBestDog and Bone 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The NXEC Lincoln - London isnt confirmed...
See also
Sorry, many other pages have them. I was just following suit. I can see that they are rather redundant, but they can be quite useful: eg. stimulating interest, getting people on other pages after they have read an article etc. But if they are not needed- they are not needed- so delete them! -- Dewarw (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Reading to Kensington Olympia
Trains get from Reading to Olympia via the following route: they leave the GWML at Acton, go onto the North London Line, cross what appear to be freight yards near Willesden Junction and then join the West London Line, before crossing the GWML again. This takes absolutely ages, as the train dawdles from the second it leaves the GWML, taking about an hour to reach Olympia from Reading. But that's how they do it! ---- RFBailey (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Crikey - I was aware of this route, but given the speed restrictions, etc however as BR discounted it as a replacement when North Pole junction was closed for the Eurostar depot, I am not surprised of how long it takes. I suppose if they get lost they could end up at Euston or St Pancras ;-)) --Stewart (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
A Proposition...
Hello RFBailey...
I've noticed that you are quite active amongst Rail Transport here at WP, and wondered if you'd be interested in coming and helping us out at Train Spotting World (http://train.spottingworld.com). Cheers,
Bluegoblin7 01:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Arriva Voyager image
I have emailed Arriva asking their permission to utilise the Voyager image. If they give the thumbs up, how shoould I show it? Dewarw (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Still a flat earth!
Could I be rude for a moment and intrude with Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ceremonial_county_of_Durham (sorry!)? I believe this type of thing has cropped up before. It's the result of an edit war which could (albeit unlikely) have implications of spliting every county of England into four sections without any source material. Hope you get chance to input! Sorry again for the intrusion. -- Jza84 · (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
London Overground
I look at TfL press release about London Overground and find no mention of 'Network Rail' having any connection with the new service offerings. The infoboxes are, surely, about *services* as offered to use - the editing and WP-reading public - and not about any esoteric possible issues of ownership of a piece of hardware (which, from the link, TfL would dispute anyway). --AlisonW (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with you in part, and completely agree in another! If we are permitting the existence of 'London Underground' route boxes then 'London Overground' is an entirely accurate and logical extension of that practice; we *are* depicting services/routes in both cases. Where I agree with you is that splitting all the clearly national (ie not a part of TfL or similar body - eg. Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow underground, etc Metro services) to their constituent operating organisations is not necessarily the best way to go, though the use of the s-rail tamplate system provides for a far easier maintenance and less 'code' within each page having a route box. We're here to provide information to the general reader imho. --AlisonW (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- FYI,after looking at WT:RAIL and noting that the content there makes clear that London Overground is a different case to the rest of the country, ie is a part of the London mass transit system, I've now added an explicit discussion about s-line as there wasn't one there already. --AlisonW (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- My apols for sailing close to the wind on the reverting, but at least there is now discussion taking place, so hopefully we now all move on with that. On reflection, whilst I can see and understand the intent behind the Luton Parkway and other Thameslink service changes I'm probably agreeing with you that, whilst useful, it could also be misleading as, as indeed has just happened, the TOC concerned with a route/service may change. This isn't something that will apply to TfL's services though (Underground or Overground) which, I think, makes it easier to consider separately. The additional information in that revision though does have merit ... --AlisonW (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Arriva
Hi! There seems to have been a few misunderstandings/I am confused.
- When I uploaded the Arriva image, I did not realise it had been uploaded before (why was it deleted in the first place?), had I known, I might have been more cautious.
- I removed that template because it was not needed- this is normally allowed. However, as people kept re-adding it, I decided to stop. I have a policy of no edit wars (and so does Wiki!). I am still convinced that the templates should not be there. However, soon, someone will get the image of that voyager, and upload it! All this arguing will be over! Hooray!
- I have emailed Arriva, over the image, if they gives the thumbs up (which they should really- it a picture of a train!- then this will all be over. I take it they will have to issue a licence.
- I, also, am not sure about that "Supervoyager" image myself. It looks to me that it is actually a different picture, slightly different angle etc. Looking closely, it does seem to have been flipped as the CrossCountry logo is the wrong way around. However, this might be a varient livery- again we should wait for the replacement, then the mystery can be forgotten. Remember, there are some 4 car Supervoyagers.
I am sorry if you feel that my behaviour has been somewhat erratic with this, I seem to be on a different wavelength to other people when it comes to images of trains. Maybe, I should stick to concentrating on the TOC templates/Central Citylink/ London Midland/East Midlands Trains and their maps. The graphics lab are being very slow with the Superlink map and the London Midland pdf!Dewarw (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note
I missed it on that one. I was doing some RC patrol, and simply didn't look deeply enough into the edit. At first glance, it looked like a cut-and-dried case of an anon IP doing some mischief-making, and I simply reverted. I should have looked closer. I candidly admit that I look a bit more askance at the edits of both anons and redlink usernames, but I also fully understand that not all anons/new users are vandals. As for that reversion, I have no problem admitting that I made a mistake, and I appreciate your pointing it out. One question, though: what was it about the edit summary "rv anon redirect" that concerned you. I was careful not to identify it as vandalism, because it didn't look like blatant vandalism, but more like a test of some sort, or something similar. I try not to use "rvv" unless I'm sure it's vandalism. Mr Which??? 02:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- When I think an edit is vandalism, I put "rvv" or something with the actual word "vandalism" in my edit summary. What I thought (erroneously, I admit) was that this IP was doing some kind of "test" or something. Thus, I reverted. As for templating, I never use the vandalism templates. I find a short note (no more than one line), customized to the situation, is more to my tastes. The only templates I use with any regularity are the speedy delete ones. Mr Which??? 06:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have admitted that I thought the redirect was wrong, in that I thought the IP was just testing. I was incorrect. I have admitted as much. As for the "v word" as you call it, there's nothing wrong with calling an edit vandalism, if it is actually vandalism. When in doubt, I don't use the word, which explains why -- when I thought this IP was simply testing the redirect feature -- I didn't label it vandalism. Just so you know, if you review my contribs (as you did this IP's), you'll see I don't make many of these kind of mistakes. When I make a reversion, I rarely am mistaken. This time I was. I should have looked deeper. What more can I say? Mr Which??? 06:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Arriva image
That is fine! I will be glad to see the back of that picture! Dewarw (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Rgsao
I do not know anything about User Rgsao except that they have finally solved the Arriva image crisis! At last! Dewarw (talk) 18:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am not going to suggest who the User: Rgsao is, as I cannot know for sure- that's the thing with Wiki! It is likely that they attend the school although, that can't be proved either. Dewarw (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
imagevio template
Just letting you know about the imagevio template. I see you have recently found some images which appear to be blatant image copyright violations. This template can be used in such cases. --Yamla (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Station info boxes
it doesnt make the box any bigger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
SSP
Please submit a checkuser request at WP:RFCU for this User:Dewarw SSP case. I think that is needed to settle this. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Trolling!
Sorry for the delay in replying. You're quite right about the "trolling" - I was in two minds about how to put it to the user. I certainly wanted him/her to be aware of the link, but wanted to put it in a candid way - I clearly failed, but my intentions were noble in this instance. Anyway, I'm just glad the articles were all deleted. Thanks for the feedback though, I did, and always will, welcome it at any time! -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've found a new Cross Country image
I am determined not to upload another illegal image.
I have found some pretty good snapshots of the new voyager, using amateur videos from "youtube."
Is it okay to use screen-shots of images from youtube?- I take it that by publishing on the site, they are effectively publishing it for anyone to use.
Just though I'd check. I would like to apologise for any problems I have recently caused, I stand by the fact that... No, I won't repen that can of worms!
Regards, Dewarw (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Railway station succession boxes
It seems, if the use of s-rail templates on c2c and First Capital Connect (GN) stations is anything to go by, that using succession boxes merely as markers of which stations are either side and which operators use the station has fallen by the wayside. If you weren't already aware of this, I thought I'd pass it on. I'm tired of fighting what seems to be an increasingly futile battle for use of the {{rail line}} template; reasoned argument doesn't work, blind reverting doesn't work, so let them get on with it is going to be my motto on this, and if it goes wrong, then so be it. Hammersfan, 08/12/07, 16.04 GMT
I have 3 problems with the "2008" section (copied from Virgin Trains's talk page)
- It is totally unsourced- it all be tosh!
- How will Virgin have enough rolling stock to do this timetable. It seems like frequencies have been vastly increased.
- I wish that they would get electric units for the New Street to Glasgow route- a bit of a waste of the electric power lines to me (time and money spent in the 60s)!
Thanks, Dewarw (talk) 21:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- In response to your three points: (1) try this, for instance, or this; (2) not clear, but presumably reduced journey times will help increase frequencies; (3) true, but that's not a problem with the article, is it? --RFBailey (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ok: In response- (1) Thanks for finding the sources. I will now include them in the article!!!! (2) In the pdf. source you provided me, it seems that some of the services to/from Lancaster/Birmingham will be operated by Voyagers instead of Pendalinos. As well as this, there will be no "Thunderbird" hauled train on the North Wales Coast- all will be by Voyagers. Services to North Wales will be double Voyagers as far as Crewe, where they'll split, one unit going up the WCML. Therefore, Virgin will overcome stock problems by using Voyagers on electrified routes! (3) True it is not a problem, but I thought that someone might have a source showing that Virgin were thinking of ordering more EMUs- obviously they are not.
Thanks again for finding the sources, Dewarw (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
BA038
Yes, AAIB is part of DoT, but News 24 was explicit that there were going to be two investigations. 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- No second source as yet, won't add it back until I can confirm. Can you help with the problem highlighted on the talk page - external ref turned into interwiki link that does not ref?? 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs)
Balham
Not a big deal, remove the pics if you wish. "I D M"... it don't matter. LanceBarber (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It's probably about time this was resolved one way or the other, but I think I'd better stay out of it. Do you want to have a go? --77.99.149.3 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Signing
Will try harder to remember in future! Mjroots (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like you won the discussion, as User:SouthernElectric other person decided to leave WP after being blocked. Your skills at winning arguments are impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olana North (talk • contribs) 12:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Those ******** London Midland images!!!!!!!!!
The images are back again!!!!! I really can't be bothered to revert/give user a warning etc. PS The user that has put the images back is a new user. i reckon they are the anon user who has used several IPs to put the images back in. Please revert if you wish- I don't think it is that important (why an image on one page can't be used in the same context on another page I do not know)! Regards, Btline (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Right- update. I've reverted and warned (not officially- with a made up one by me). Sorry for the subject heading! Btline (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree because the user just deleted my (unofficial) warning!!!!!! Thanks for your help. Could you tell me why the image can't be used on the LM page? Surly it is in the same context (showing the image of a train in a proposed section)? Btline (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the biting. I am very annoyed about this user though! Does (s)he think we were born yesterday? Btline (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Wrexham
Very sorry! No source was given, so instead of researching, I assumed it was a mistake.
Oh dear- that's going to ruin W&S plans- very mean of Virgin (in my opinion) as they have already forced the company to not stop openly at Wolverhampton- they are going to loose lots of cash. Opps- not a forum- must stop ranting! Btline (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good work
Hi there RFBailey. Just a quick hello to say thanks for your efforts in dealing with the user I blocked yesterday and keeping watch over what goes on with the National Express articles. Cheers.
Incidentally, I'm editing from my laptop sat on a NXEC service to Leeds using the free wireless internet. Regards. Adambro (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi RFBailey. Thanks for reminding me to complete the SPS report. I'll also close the WP:AN report as resolved - at least for now. I have a number of UK railway articles watchlisted, but not all of them. If you should see another sockpuppet account, don't hesitate to let me know. I hope that 19andy91 decides to take me up on the offer of help. We shall see. Thanks for all your help in this unfortunate case. By the way, I'm afraid "Bore da" is just about the only Welsh I know. I'm actually English, though I have a particular affection for Welsh railways, especially those of a narrow gauge. Best, Gwernol 02:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)